|
100 Point Rating Guide | ||
|---|---|---|
| 96-100 | Extraordinary | A wine of finesse, complexity, and expression. True to variety and region. Perfect balance of flavors with a long finish. |
| 90-95 | Excellent | True to variety and region, with terrific complexity and balance. While not a wine for the ages, a superior example. |
| 85-89 | Good | Meets your expectations, with sound flavors and balance. Might have limited complexity or be short on the palate. A sound wine. |
| 80-84 | Average | Drinkable, might not have as much varietal character. Simple flavors, no flaws, but nothing special. |
| 75-79 | Below Average | Might contain one flaw, simple straight-forward flavors, off-balance, unpleasant. |
| 60-74 | Undrinkable, Flawed | Contains significant flaws. Unpleasant, not commercially acceptable. |
| Need some help? | ||
You're not logged in! ... so we can't track this review for you.
Login or create a free account and we'll bring you right back. (or continue anonymously)
5 User Reviews
Aug 17, 2007
I have tasted this wine from two sources. One was purchased on release a couple years back, through a specialty merchant and has been kept in temperature controlled storage at my home. The other was recently purchased at Trader Joes for about 1/3 of original price.
Cellar Sample: 90 Points. Deep saturated ruby in color with distinctly fresh aromas of cherries, plums, hints leather, and baking spices. Juicy, ripe, and vinnous, with good structure, likely capable of several more years improvement. Tasted twice with consistent notes.
Trader Joes Sample: 84 Points. Ruby, garnet at the edge. Faint plum and cherry fruit subsumed in leather and spice. Somewhat drying, with dried herb and leather notes in the forefront. Tasted 3 times, one bottle actually showed closer to the my cellar sample, with fresher fruit, but still showed considerable degradation. Still a very good buy for the money, but not representative of the winemaking, nor a good choice for valuable cellar space. I suspect heat damage and/or long vertical storage under flourescent lights. You get what you pay for.
Aug 17, 2007
I have tasted this wine from two sources. One was purchased on release a couple years back, through a specialty merchant and has been kept in temperature controlled storage at my home. The other was recently purchased at Trader Joes for about 1/3 of original price.
Cellar Sample: 90 Points. Deep saturated ruby in color with distinctly fresh aromas of cherries, plums, hints leather, and baking spices. Juicy, ripe, and vinous, with good structure, likely capable of several more years improvement. Tasted twice with consistent notes.
Trader Joes Sample: 84 Points. Ruby, garnet at the edge. Faint plum and cherry fruit subsumed in leather and spice. Somewhat drying, with dried herb and leather notes in the forefront. Tasted 3 times, one bottle actually showed closer to the my cellar sample, but still showed some degradation. Still a very good buy for the money, but not representative of the winemaking, nor a good choice for valuable cellar space. I suspect heat damage and/or long vertical storage under flourescent lights. You get what you pay for.
Mar 16, 2007
Fruity Vanilla on the nose. Starts with a sweet note then hits. Comes through with Lots of spice and berry. Its drinkable with the right pairing.
Mar 16, 2007
Bold and spicy as hell. This says merlot, but it tastes like 75% zin + 25% syrah. On the negative side, a bit sweet, just like some zins.
This was rec'd by our local Trader Joes guy ... he is a champion ... unlike most Trader Joes wine guys, this one knows something.
Mar 16, 2007
Cherried out, the sweetness lasts longer than you'd want it to. Solid mouthfeel, it really "sticks" around. But it's relatively easy to drink, with no obvious flaws ... average.
