January 7, 2018 - This bottle settled midway between the two prior. A nice enough quaff, but not exceptional. Drink now.
April 29, 2017 - This has vastly improved: a tasty, smooth effort. On the simplistic side, it presented cedar and well composed dusty red fruit. I picked it from the cellar for drinking assuming I'd never had it before and unaware of the price point. After drinking I assumed it was in the $40 range...happily surprised at its evolution and my apparent brilliance in purchasing.
February 18, 2015 - Again, very pleasant, good pinot twang, silky texture, medium-weight body. There's a bit of stern woodiness (toughness, not greenness) in the ground bass that distracts slighly on the finish - not sure if this is an artifact of vine age (young) or vintage, or if it would pass with aditional aging. For the price of about $20, however, only praise, no complaints.
January 15, 2015 - As others have said, a pleasurable Burgundy for the price. Drinking blind, my wife nailed Burgundy but thought this older, as a 2006. I did find this slightly green/under ripe for my tastes, but I do prefer Cali pinots.
Smooth, with slightly high acidity and tannins and good length on the finish. This held up well to a Coq Au Vin.
13.5% ABV.
September 14, 2014 - Showing prettily now right after opening, delicious cool Burgundy pinot twang, mellow mid-palate, good heft, silky texture, and the mildest of acid bites on the finish. I have yet to drink a bad red Santenay (or white). No rush to drink, but definitely okay to try one now.
RIP affordable red Burgundy.
March 10, 2014 - Texturally this wine is in a nice spot; aromatically and flavor-wise, it's very young and fairly dumb. No surprise at age 5 1/2. Hold these for a few more years to get more.
July 29, 2013 - This has softened since we tried the first bottle, giving a pleasing, near-silky texture. As a young red Burgundy from a 'classic' year, it's not giving a lot on the palate, mostly tangy acidity with just a suggestion of red strawberry fruit. Its early stoniness is mostly gone, just a ghost image lingers on the finish. For such a young-vines bottling, this is pretty good - and at about $20, fine value.
April 8, 2012 - Jury's still out on this bottle. The first night it showed poorly: hard, stingy, ungiving in both flavor and aroma. The second night some fruit and flower aromas showed, and some cherry on the palate, albeit with impervious stoniness just under the surface. I may have opened the bottle too soon after taking delivery.
The vines for this wine were barely 10 years old, per Norman's book.
April 4, 2012 - notes taken after 24 hours (vacu-vinned on counter)
nose: sort of a winey, dusty, bruised berry aroma. Reminds me of being underground, like I'm tasting it en cave.
palate: The fruit is potent, but not overripe. Relatively higher alcohol than I expect, though I wouldn't call the palate unseemly. There is a savory aspect to this, sort of olive-briny and a touch herbal. Interesting. Not resolved, however - the tannin is a bit rough and the fruit somewhat jagged. Good value at $20.
December 31, 2011 - This showed like a superstar tonight, such a pleasant surprise after foraging for interesting wines at a South Carolina supermarket, finding this, and judging it the best bet, then noting that most of the bottles on the shelf had curious quality issues visible on the capsules (one seemed to have leaked wine; others banged up). I picked out the best bottle, and it paid off. This did not show hot in the least bit; I'm quite picky in that respect, with a low threshold, and can honestly say this showed like a reasonably ripe '09 with a dab of sweetness but no appreciable heat on the palate or finish. Just lovely Pinot character in a barely slightly heavy extracted package; pushed to the limit for my palate, and just the point I love! If this were CA Pinot, it would be far, far sweeter and more alcoholic.