2017 Tusk Estates Cabernet Sauvignon

Community Tasting Notes (3) Avg Score: 95 points

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View sirpat00's profile
  • Report Issue

  8/4/2022 - sirpat00 wrote: 95 Points

  Small Tusk tasting with the proprietor (Napa Grill (Zurich)): Small Tusk tasting with co-founder Tim Martin. As Tim explained, they kept this vintage about 3 months longer in barrel than usual to add structure and used reserve wine. That really worked out well in my view.
  
  Tasting note:
  A cooler fruit profile, with a more earthy aroma profile, adding leather and a bit of tobacco to the otherwise minty (spearmint) and herbal layers. The fruit was more red in nature and you’ll also find some sweet spices and vanilla. In view of the vintage, there was surprising depth and structure. Not as layered or complex as the 2012, but no doubt one of the best 2017s from Napa to date for me.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View WineBurrowingWombat's profile
  • Report Issue

  5/29/2021 - WineBurrowingWombat wrote:

  Nose: [58°-64°] Black fruits, deep damp black earth or wet mulch, crushed dark rocks, softly spiced dry tree bark, new oak/something like tobacco leaves (but seems to fade as it comes to a higher temp) and a pleasant bitterness of embers.
  
  Palate: [58°-60°] Slightly high toned oak and red fruits, a bit of leafiness, some twigs and a bit of tobacco leaves. [62°-64°] Fruits turn a bit darker with deep earth followed by steeped black tea, spiced oak, and this pleasant strike of dark minerals that builds on the midpalate and gets drawn all the way to the finish (as if with a 6B+ pencil). Finishes with all flavors intact of earth, dark minerals, firm spice, almost rotted damp oak (in good way) and just a touch of the dark fruits.
  
  Attributes: Dark ruby. Dry with medium-plus amounts of fine, grainy tannin. Medium-plus body with well integrated medium to medium-plus acidity. Good finish of at least 20-22 seconds.
  
  Thoughts: I do not know how to go about this.. this is one of those things where it makes you go, "damn.. what happened??" Young, sure. Maybe the vintage? I don't get smoke or anything so I am not sure there. But comparing to the '16, this almost seems out of place. There's so little similarity to its older bottling. This is a bit brighter but tends to tone it down with a higher temp, whereas the '16 held its flavors strong throughout the entire tasting. Decanting didn't seem to do have major difference from the first glass to the last and the flavors only kinda remind me of the older bottling. Not gonna lie, felt like I got robbed here. There's no rush to open this, give it at least 3-4 years before trying.
  
  Other notes: Bordeaux glass. Poured one glass, empty rest of bottle into a decanter at cellar temp ~55° for the duration of consumption of approximately 6 hours. Preferred serving temp ~64°+ (flavors were deeper and less bright).

  2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comments (7)

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Cristal2000's profile
  • Report Issue

  3/28/2021 - Cristal2000 Likes this wine: 93 Points

  Just arrived, but wanted to see what I'm working with here in this difficult vintage. Decanted 5 hours before consumption. Must say, this is the least interesting Tusk I've had. It's young, so hopefully it'll come around.
  
  Starts with a lot of alcohol on the nose, but also shows nice floral, blackberry and earthy aromas. The palate is pretty indicative of the vintage - higher toned red berry, with above average acidity and not nearly the depth or well rounded flavor profile of recent vintages. The texture is excellent and there's no hint of smoke taint or other issues that plagued the vintage, but generally it is just unremarkable for the price point. Gets pretty sharp on a medium length finish.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comments (8)

Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.