• Tim Heaton wrote: flawed

    August 31, 2012 - The only seriously flawed wine among 40 or so other bottles that had been opened as part of a cellar diminishment party. Heavy diesel exhaust and industrial petroleum/grease odors. The bottle had been stored at 55F since release, so it was not a matter of storage, just off.

    Comment
  • simpsonr wrote: 92 points

    August 8, 2008 - This wine is in a great place right now. It's shed the big primary fruit layer and is now all about breadth of flavors and complexity. As it opens, it seems to get more peppery. The tannins and acid are integrated. The only thing keeping this wine down is the somewhat simple finish. The attack and middle seem promising without a fireworks finish. Great stuff though.

    Comment
  • RogerG wrote:

    January 4, 2008 - Still a great chewy mouthful

    Comment
  • simpsonr wrote: 93 points

    September 23, 2007 - This vintage seems to get a lot of bad press but my experience is that these 2000's are just great. Rich, structured mouthfeel with lots of character. Youthful fruit is giving way to earthy, peppery, asian spice notes. IMO, this has a few years left of upside and it beats the 2001's that I purchased hands down.

    Comment
  • WST wrote: 81 points

    April 20, 2006 - This was much better in its youth. With fading fruit, its become brash and disjointed.

    Comment
  • GlenD wrote: 85 points

    January 15, 2005 - Drink up and watch the sediment.

    Comment
  • CO CHRIS wrote:

    January 11, 2005 - 14% alc...starts out seemingly woodier/earthier than I remember previous bottles being, those aspects fade to the back and dark red fruits take over in a big way...generous palate, still has gorgoues texture and mouthfeel, some structure, still a overzealous wine that shows plenty of darker, black and red fruit. My last bottle, but this wine still shows beautifully for a $13 middle of the week type quaffer.

    Comment
  • blanquito wrote:

    February 14, 2004 - Opened without ceremony. Had hopes for this wine given Parker's review and my first tasting of it 2 years ago. The wine has a nice floral, purple-fruit nose that is really present. I get oak and alcohol elements with some zesty citrus notes. On the palate, the wine is far less pleasing. It has a decent attack of sweetness but then falls apart immediately thereafter. The wine tastes sour and alcoholic. It does have a long, tannic (soft variety) finish. This wine appears to evolved rapidly. I have had better bottles in the last 6 months, but this isn't too far off what I've noticed: the wine is losing its fruit quickly. Drink up!

    Comment
  • OneLastSyrah wrote:

    July 3, 2003 - ($12) Touch of tawny in the wine's hue in the glass. Big nose of sweet American oak, vanilla, and a bit of whisky barrel and brown sugar. Medium to full bodied with loads of sweet red fruit. Nice little wine that I would think needs to be consumed soon. Certainly international in style, which might not appeal to purists.

    Comment
  • RogerG wrote:

    December 29, 2002 - (65 monastrell, 35 cabernet blend) Aged oak 10 months. Deep color, grapy flavors aplus violets; delightfully fruity and gulpable.

    Comment