At present, these tasting notes are mostly disorganized. They're roughly in reverse chronological order (most recent at the top, least recent at the bottom), but I haven't yet had the time to make them sortable by region or by winemaker. Hopefully someday I'll have the time, copious volumes of tasting notes, and php skills necessary to make a truly astounding system for displaying the notes. Until then, however, you're likely stuck with a big list.
Enjoy, and may you find these notes both fun and useful!
This wine was immediately notable for its very balanced nature. True to every malbec I've encountered, the wine is light-bodied, but not without presence. Flavors of light red fruits, perhaps some subdued cranberry, make for the body, backed up with nice light-to-medium tannins. It tastes as though there's a hint of oak mixed in to mellow things out, but again, all is well balanced. The wine went pretty well with some grilled pork loin chops and a lighter pasta dish. When drinking this wine, take the time to note its long clean finish. It's not super powerful, but it does have longevity. The wine is perhaps slightly less jammy than other malbecs I've had. Perhaps its intermediate between them and a right-bank Bordeaux. Best as a lighter standalone apertif or with lighter foods. This'd make an excellent lunch wine.
Whoa. Apparently this is a WS 92 pointer with the price tag to match. The other reviews on the web suggest that this wine is more full-bodied than I've observed. Their descriptors of raspberry or boysenberry are apt, though I'd probably differ on the description of the tannins as being milk to dark chocolate. Perhaps my taste in dark chocolate runs darker than theirs, but I've not noted that sort of power and bitterness here. Other web reviews also remark on its elegance and lengthy finish; I'd have to call it elegantly dainty, but the finish is nice and long. The key word is balance. I'll look again at this wine in this new light and see if my opinion changes-- my guess is that it won't.
I picked this wine up at Safeway while on a hunt for new cheap Washington wines. I've always been intrigued by the Firefly Ridge label, but have always eschewed it because it's Californian. I tend to be less interested in the clear fruit/varietal nature that I find in Californian wines than the complexities I can find in wines from other regions. Nevertheless, the label, and the description on the back, got the better of me. The wine is correctly made and nicely balanced. It's sweet all the way through the palate, with nearly nonexistent tannins in the finish and a pleasant lighter acidity. The fruits are perhaps more blueberry than other darker fruits, but there's a sense of the beginnings of cherry and currant as well, as well as a touch of blackberry. There's a sense of oak, but it's reserved and doesn't overbear anything else. After two days in the fridge, the wine is mostly unchanged and perhaps improved, though it definitely needed to warm before showing its best. I'd recommend this wine with lighter flavored foods: chicken, pork, lighter tomato-based pastas, etc. It's an easy-drinking wine that offers some of the flavors of the cabernets to those who are put off by their usually powerful nature. The back of the bottle's suggestions of grilled and roasted meats are reasonable, but only if you'd like the meat to take center stage. There's not enough acidity here to cut through much grease. This wine isn't really my cup of tea, but it's well made, and aging reasonably well in the fridge so far. It's pleasant and easy drinking, but it won't get you thinking terribly hard... At this price, I'd prefer some of the Borsao of a few years ago...
I didn't write up notes for this wine either, but I found it better than the last few years worth of Los Vascos, but not as good as the best one I've had ('01?).
I didn't write up notes for this wine, but I was happy enough with it to save the bottle as a reminder to write it up. I recall it being on par with the 02 Hogue cab/merlot.
Blackberry, hints of strawberry, a light cherry aftertaste. Relatively light, but slightly bitter tannins. This particular bottle might have waited a year or two more to reach its prime. Beginning to become a little tired on the fourth day. Tasty. If it were ~$20, it'd be a great deal. Somewhat complex, with a bit of a layered structure. Far more elegant, and better in general, than the 2000 Chateau Les Bertrands.
Opened with some expectation (it's the most expensive wine I've bought in a while), it delivered, though not as much as I'd have liked. I'd worried that opening this wine in 2005 would be infanticide, I think that was partially the case. It wasn't very tasty (saltyish tannins and limited development on the palate) early on, but after *two weeks!* in the fridge under vacu-vin with a glass left in the bottle, it's reasonably tasty. After the limited aging process, the flavor's reminiscent of black raspberry and blackberry with a hint of the cedar that I like in the nose. Reasonably balanced tannins. I think you can find better for $20.
Aging, but not yet gone. Reddish tawny to the rim. This one's probably got another year or two left before it's really not worth drinking. If you own it, drink it now. The nose is of an older wine, with raspberry, blueberry and blackberry notes. There's a hint of a darker flavor, perhaps a dash of cappuccino. Minimal oaking makes itself known; french if anything. On the palate, the wine's backbone stems from acidity more than tannins, but is not wildly out of balance. Tasty with my usual pasta dinner, but nothing to write home about. I don't anticipate appreciable fridging, but I've clearly been surprised in the past. This wine clearly had more character a few years ago than my usual $6 Bordeaux clone, the Hogue, but I'd prefer the Hogue to this particular example. I look with interest toward other bottles of Yakima. Pinot Noir fans may find this wine to their liking.Certainly not worth $14 to me in this older state.
When it's on sale, it's a great deal. It's the best cabernet I've had in months. There's a red fruit base, with great holding power and complexity. The wine's medium-bodied, but it makes the best of what it has. Well balanced, taking its backbone first from mellow, yet present, tannins followed by acidity that will match well with any food. Good as an apertif, great with food. I'd happily pay $20/bottle for it. Fridged better than any wine I've ever seen. Only minimal degradation over six days' time.
Honeyed melon on the nose... nice citrus as well. Dry, as expected, but far better balanced than the Ste. Michelle. Against a little bit of food, it'll be tasty. There's definitely some malic acid flavors, Some pineapple and mango, and tasty all around. I don't think this one will make it more than ~3 days at or near its peak, but it'll be tasty for a while. T'was indeed tasty with food, and I look forward trying it with some good German pork tomorrow. It's comparable in residual sugar to a dry kabinett, but lacks in the mineral components so vital to really good riesling in a German style.
Sweet on the nose, light red and cranberries, mostly, with a tiny toasty note. Slightly orange at the rim, but otherwise a dark, but slightly dull, red. On the palate, there's slightly too much acidity, something that will make it mesh well with fattier foods. The flavors are of light cherry, some cranberry, and a darker, brooding oak. There's a little bit of bitter greenish stemmy flavor, but not so much as to be a great problem. Tannins are pretty light for a Cabernet. It's not much to recommend, but it's not bad either. Definitely better than I remember the 2001's non-reserve variation, but not a whole lot. I look forward to the 2002 reserve, when I feel like revisiting the Rothschild's Chilean property again.
On a retaste, I've bumped up the rating a little. Some of the bitter can be attributed to hints of coffee or truly bitter chocolate. It'll be interesting to see how this one does in the fridge. I suspect it'll fridge about four days, but reach its peak sometime around two and a half, as the acidity drops away but before the flavors are really comprimised.
On subsequent retastings, this wine proved to be something of a surprise. It likely peaked at its third day, as the flavor matched the acidity in strength. The wine continued to hold up nicely through the fifth day, when the wine got polished off. I'm raising my rating from an 8.47 to an 8.52, as it got notably better with time. Apparently, this wine's got some aging potential! If you own this wine now, hold it for a year or two before trying it. The rim barely showed a hint of oxidation on the fifth day, so it's got somewhere to go! At the bottom of the bottle, I found some of the notes I associate with better bordeaux: the slightest hint of cedar, and more mature red fruit, along with a more tempered oak and tannin.
Tasty for the dollar. The wine better suits my Bordeaux-inclined tastes than Hogue's single varietal Genesis. It's an even balance between Hogue's merlot and Cabernet Sauvingnon flavors. It's clearly not made from the same quality grapes as the Genesis, but it seems well made. The nose is exactly of merlot and cabernet, a hint of ham and toasty flavor amid red fruits and some weak floral notes. On the palate, the tannins come through as sweet at first, complimenting the currant and red-black fruits, before becoming a little bitter. It's like 2002 Borsao without the Spanish edge. It'll go well with lots of foods without overpowering anything. If you want a cheap mild Bordeaux clone to drink daily, this ones' not a bad choice. Hogue recommends it for everything from pizza to salmon, and this wine will indeed go with both (I had it with a tomato pasta with tuna, and it worked just fine.).
Tasty, inexpensive, well made, and for those reasons worth writing home about. It's not a classed growth, but it doesn't want to be. It's just going to make your meal better.
Update: this wine's fridged quite nicely over four to five days. It's beginning to fade, but it's still very drinkable.
I've had a couple more bottles of this that I've enjoyed.
Wow. When they say "Dry", they ain't kidding. This wine is certainly a new way to experience Riesling. It's as dry as many dry Chardonnays, but still packs the acidic punch classically associated with riesling. The nose is fairly similar to the 2004 Ste. Michelle riesling, with more pungency to the sharper notes and a telling lack of honeyed smells. On the palate, it's all there, minus the residual sugar. With 12.5% alcohol, it seems that the yeast was allowed to have at next to all of the sugar. As the label suggests, you'll find green apple flavors, but you'll find many other subtle notes as well. There's a strong grassy contingent, not unlike good sauvingnon blanc, some lemony notes, everything that makes up the usual banana and melon, minus the sugar, and I even detected the flavor of peas and legumes in the finish (in a pleasant way). It's definitely an interesting wine, though I've not yet found a good food pairing for it. It may go well with fairly fatty and spicy, yet not sweet foods. The best match I've found thus far is a ham and cheese with mustard panini-like sandwich, but I plan to continue to search. Definitely a wine to try when you're feeling experimental or have a dish you know goes well with very dry wines. Beyond the curious, but not unpleasant, sugar balance, you'll find a well-made wine. After three days, it's fridging like an animal. The acidity no longer crackles along, but it is beginning to mellow. This wine might age for a while. I'm just not sure.
Very similar to the 1997 Auslese reviewed earlier. Tasted one day after opening and storage under cork. As expected, it's not as sweet. Very tasty, matched well to a semi-Creole-like dish. Good cleansing acidity, orange, banana, some minerals. Not much in the bitter/petrol-like flavor characteristics. Tasty, and recommended. I'd love to try it in another few years, as I think it's got at least three years in it.
Better than the 2003. The same banana/tangerine notes are there, but offset by greater acidity. It's not as balanced as it could be, but the acidity's definitely better. It'd be great with an alfredo. Pleasant, but unremarkable riesling nose. Definitely improved, but not on par with Ste. Michelle's 2003. Perhaps better than their 2004. Best Washington 2004 I've tasted yet? As it warms, I find more minerals and a hint of petrol (not a bad thing).
From Dave's 3 day old bottle. I may buy my own partway through the summer. Dave says it was better before, and I can easily believe it.
Mmm. Quality Riesling. Correct Auslese, sweet, balanced, and utterly drinkable. If not for the price, I could easily guzzle bottles of it like lemonade. The restrained, yet open nose matched the palate of green apple, banana, lychee, and assorted tropical fruit. Lurking behind the sweetness of Auslese was great palate cleansing acidity. In my first attempt at food pairing with Auslese, it went very well with a too-salty ham; an order of magnitude better than the tasty pineapple we also had with it. The salt and fat of the ham served only to heighten the flavors of the wine, whilst the acidity cleansed them from the palate. Refreshing and tasty. Definitely consider the wine on its own, though I might prefer a Spatelese or good old Kabinett for lower residual sugar content (though this wine probably would have been heavenly if allowed to ferment to dry, I'll leave that judgement to Dr. Pru"m). After nearly a week's time in the fridge, it still presented very well, easily matching or better than the 2003 Ste. Michelle Cold Creek reviewed earlier.
Tasty, but I found it less appealing than the 99. Light red fruits on the nose, and they appear in the palate. There's a dun bit in the middle of the time evolution of the palate that mellows out with aeration. The tannic backbone I'd enjoyed very much in the 1999 offering seemed far less apparent here. This wine was more akin to a cabernet heavy right-bank wine, rather than a tannic 2000 offering. The wine's fairly well balanced, but it really didn't strike my fancy. It blends fairly well with moderately strongly flavored food. Its flavor hasn't yet degraded over the last few days in the fridge. If anything, it's improved. I don't think this wine will age more than another three years or so. With further consideration, however, it's pretty tasty, just unimpressive (bumped to 8.63 from 8.6).
2nd bottle May 2005 An agreeable wine, with nothing to make it really special. Hints of cedar and lighter coffee are present in a lighter cabernet nose. Friendly, not at all overpowering oak. Tannins aren't quite integrated, but there's a friendly feeling to them. There's something about the acidity and the balance that doesn't ring well with me. Reasonably correct Bordeaux though. I'd continue to hope for more from a 2000. This wine ought to improve a little with another year or two. Fridged ok. Better than the recently reviewed Hogue blend, but nearly twice the price.
3rd bottle Nov-Dec 2006 This bottle was aged for more than six months in my care. It's been subjected to a less than completely stable environment, as we've moved, and we had one heat wave come through in the summer that I could only mitigate partially. Pretty good. I think that this wine is wandering through its "dumb" stage. At first taste, even in the presence of some pretty spiffy dark chocolate, the wine primarily offered up some pretty stiff acidity and tannin. There was a hint of the cedar-like notes I like so much. I put it under vacu-vin for the night, shook it up pretty well before putting it away, and then tried it the next day. It had improved quite a bit from the aeration, bringing out some plumish and black raspberry-like flavors. That was more than two weeks ago. I'd just not felt the need to drink wine in the interim. I opened it back up with some trepidation today whilst making my usual pasta dish. It tastes as though it's prolly past its peak, in terms of overall flavor when opened at this stage, but it's still quite good. The initial detail has been lost from its flavors, but the tannins are just getting really good. They've lost their hard edge, and are now warm woody slightly sweet goodness. I can only gather that this wine will age for years (~10?) before reaching its true peak. When I taste this wine, I don't necessarily think Bordeaux first, but perhaps a good Washington cab.
Nice fragrant nose. Deep red fruits, slightly meaty. Well balanced, seemingly correct merlot on the palate. To my taste, however, the complete absence of tannin drove me to sell about half of the bottle to my housemate at a loss. I'd guess that the Wine Spectator would give this wine an 88, but I will admittely rate this guy down a little because I simply didn't care for it. Correct merlot, fruit forward, low tannin, but uninspiring. Very easy drinking.
Sweet, as expected. Light tangerine,lychee, spice with minimal acidity. Balanced, with just the right alcohol content to warm the palate. Fully medium bodied, and subtly buttery. Unsurprising, but eminently drinkable and pleasing. Tasty.
At first taste, when a little warm, acidic, honeyed pear. Simple, but not at all unstructured. Nice Riesling acidity, proper flavor characteristics. The first 2004 riesling I've had, and this will likely end up in the top five or so at its price point from Washington. I still prefer the 2003, but this wine far outshines the 2002. I suspect it will do nicely in the fridge, going about five days without appreciable loss. Update: Fridged ok, though nothing to write home about, moving more toward flavors of banana, with a hint of anis. Eminently drinkable, especially at $6.
A wine of Dave's, so I've only had a little taste. Not my favorite wine, though not badly made. Dave describes the nose as peachy. I must agree, at least in part. On the palate, the wine doesn't seem to show great balance. Riesling acidity is there, in a sharp acute way. Alcohol arrives with its clear warmth, followed by the yellowish fruit, but it doesn't seem well integrated. Those that like some of the more angular California wines may like this wine. It strikes me as a toned down version of a very acidic Viongier I once had. I don't see its quality changing much for several days in the fridge. I'm not sure what foods I'd pair with it, because I'd probably find a different Riesling, perhaps good against grilled or roast pork.
Nose of lime, sweet melon, and a hint of skunk (not in a bad way). Greenish straw in color, slight hints of gold. Pleasant, well balanced but very mild (for a Riesling) acidity on the palate, notes of lime and tonic water, but with sweet soft tropical overtones mixed with green apple. Appropriate anywhere that Riesling fruit and flavor is desired, but where the acidity of traditional Riesling would overpower the dish. Tangy, somewhat sweet, and very pleasant just to swish in one's mouth. Perhaps sweeter than off-dry. Definitely more winemaking thought and distinctiveness here than the run of the mill Ste. Michelle, but somewhat atypically lacking in the acidity department. The lack of acidity, however, can be as much a strength as a weakness, depending on the setting. Week later update: This wine lasted exceedingly well in the fridge. While it's lost some of its elegance, it's actually become a little better balanced, with pronounced honeydew/canteloupe flavors. Tasty, barely diminished from the first and second days!
A lighter red wine, in an off-dry style. Lighter red fruits, raspberry and a hint of strawberry and almost ham, abound in a restrained style. The wine's backbone comes from its acidity, not its tannin. While it's not necessarily a style I seek out and purchase (I'm continuing my trend of horizon-broadening), it's good in its own way. I'd drink it with lighter dishes. I've had many Spanish dishes this would work very well with (surprise!). The winemaker's hand is evident in the quantity of oak present: not too much, not too little. If you like Rioja or powerful Bordeaux, consider this with lighter foods. If you like wines from the Languedoc or Rhone, or even Beaujolais, the Spanish style will go well when you want a slightly spicier, but not overpowering, wine. Put another way, it's, in approximation, Syrah without the punch (and way more Catalan). Further, though I'm no expert in Tempranillo, this wine is quite likely a correct rendition of the grape on a solo journey across your palate. This wine likely won't age more than another year or so. Drink now, with food; it's tasty. Fridged quite well, to my surprise, only tapering somewhat over four or five days.
I bought this wine on a somewhat long-lived whim. I hadn't had a right-bank Bordeaux in a long time, and I wanted to. Right-bank Bordeaux actually served as my introduction to wine, and I prepared the same dish (simple sauteed veggies, pork, and olive oil over pasta) to go with it. Straight out of the bottle, this wine was everything I was looking for. Correct for the right bank, there's subdued French fruit, medium-to-full body, and, to my surprise, a cabernet-based tannic backbone. Archetypical Bordeaux to go with any food. This wine isn't powerful enough to clobber medium-to-light food, but it didn't shrink from the steak I had it with a couple nights later. If you can find it, it's tasty. As a fridge wine, however, this wine disappoints. It was great the first night, but even a day later, it had faded considerably. It's still good with food, but nothing to write home about. Even as it fades, a delightful floral aromis present. Its lack of longevity, however, has me less interested in purchasing the wine in quantity. Serve this wine slightly warmer than you might serve others. It really benefits from the extra few degrees.
Note (December 2005) I've had this wine a few more times because I liked it a lot, it matches much of what I like in French wine, and it's affordable. I don't know if it's still available at this time, but it's been a good standby for a number (~3) of bottles.
Second bottle May 2005 (Metropolitan Market) $14
Similar review. T'was tasty, lasted longer in the fridge than I'd have guessed (four or five days until all was consumed), fading only somewhat. This bottle had the same surprising cabernet sense to it, with some influence of mellow french oak. Hiding beneath its fairly standard palate was a nice warm plummy sense that pervaded its way all the way through my last glass. Tasty, and it gets my current recommendation for the best value Bordeaux I've seen in supermarkets in Seattle at present (May 2005).
I'd had this wine in a restaurant in October, and I was surprised by how good it was! I'd had the 2002 offering from Ste. Michelle and found it to be a typical budget Washington Riesling (Sweet, moderate acidity, unimpressive but correct palate.). The 2003, however, is everything I could possibly look for in an easy-drinking Riesling. When I first encountered it, I knew by the nose (sharp, slightly yeasty, harboring lime and papaya flavors) that I'd encountered a new contender for my favorite Washington Riesling. The palate reveals little that the nose didn't promise: Nice crisp acidity in a trocken to halb-trocken style, nicely developed but not overbearing fruit in the typical yellow Riesling array, and a pleasant, clean finish. I don't recall much of the mineral characteristics that one classically expects in Riesling, but the wine doesn't suffer in their absence. Great stuff with most any lighter food, many asian dishes, or, as I had partway through my bottle, chicken alfredo. The Ste. Michelle fridged very well, stretching at least five days with minimal (on the scale of things) loss of flavor. If I didn't like to try different wines each week, I'd have already bought a half-case of this wine to enjoy in the future. It's a great value. If you find that you like the 2003, consider trying the Ste. Michelle/Loosen offering Eroica (~$20). It's been highly recommended by the Wine Spectator, and I've been happily impressed with it in past tastings.
Surprisingly good! I'd had Erath several months ago at our wine party (I was admittedly somewhat drunk at the time) and was unimpressed. Whether it's that I haven't had a Pinot Noir in a while, or simply that this was a better bottle, I know not. This wine would like to be consumed with food, but is interesting on its own as well. Its nose is fairly typical pinot noir; a fairly complex mixture of earthy and fruity tones, all swirled into an unassuming mixture. Three things stand out in the flavor profile... The wine has a rounded, but sparkling, acidity to it that would make it perfect against many foods. There's a strong earthy sense to the flavor; a kind of tawny earth, mixed with a little moss. Underlying all is a subtle raspberry and blackberry note. Perhaps the most complex wine that's passed my lips in recent months. A curiosity: the cork's got a #7 recycleable mark on it. That's different. To my Bordeaux-inclined taste, the Erath probably won't age well... I'd drink it in the next year or two, max. The acidity's good for aging, but there's no tannin there for longevity. I estimate that the wine would last three or so days before fizzling out on us. (I know it'll be gone before then here).
One of the best Washington Rieslings I've had. After trying out several (~8) low-budget Rieslings this year, Covey Run stands in the top three. As its name alludes, it's made in a drier style than most Washington rieslings. To my tastes, it's still quite sweet in comparison with either the trocken of Germany or the dry rieslings of New York. The first bottle I tried, in September, was really quite pleasant. A nice acidic edge, with some pear and pineapple appeared first, fading to a pleasant balanced finish. To the few that have had both, it seemed like a weak Hermann Wiemer (one of the top New York winemakers). The second bottle seemed sweeter, with a nose tending to banana, pear, and a hint of mango. Banana, Niagra grape, and orange flavors predominated the balanced finish.
A fairly anticipated bottle. I'd found it at QFC on a big sale, and hung on to it a bit, waiting for the right food. I found the right food in some birthday brownies from my grandmother. Tasty it was. Correct Medoc nose and flavor. Some red and black fruit, nicely balanced against medium tannins. Against brownies and dark chocolate, the fruit jumped out nicely, expressing black cherries, more than anything else. Not a fridge wine, by any stretch. It wouldn't have made it more than three days before losing much of its allure over wines half its price.
A big surprise! I'd bought the bottle based on a similar bottle I'd had in my wines course, and expected something passable, but unremarkable. Apparently the Rothschilds shipped a little bit of Pauillac flavor to Chile. After pulling the cork, I was immediately met with a hint of pencil shavings; a note I've thus far only encountered in classified-growth Bordeaux. Nice beefy tannins, well balanced. Certainly more than I could hope for in $10 wine. It went well with steak and whatever else I'd cooked that week. Highly recommended. The bottle I tried had a label printed in mostly black ink. I've since only seen ones with much more red ink. I don't know if there's a change, but Los Vascos is definitely on my list to try again. It lasted nicely in the fridge.
Kind of a letdown after my memories of the black-labelled 2002 from Los Vascos. On opening, there was a very green/green olive finish to the wine that I found somewhat unpleasant. Admittedly, I tasted it concurrently with food, and was beginning to suffer from a cold. That said, at the peak of the cold, the olive notes were beginning to diminish. By the third day (my sinuses mostly cleared up by the end of homework at 3 am), the wine had greatly improved. While the wine lacked the warm tannic background I'd encountered in the black-label 2002 vintage, many red fruits (cherry/rasberry, mostly) came through strongly on the palate and to an extent on the nose. The wine seemed slightly unbalanced in the acidic direction, so it should go best with a slightly fatty, red-meat like meal. Also present was a hint of milk chocolate mid-way through, and a mild finish of bittersweet chocolate. A good choice if there's a need for a cheap-ish Bordeaux clone, but look elsewhere if you're willing to spend a few dollars more. Kind of a bummer after the black label. As a fridge wine, this wine seems to have reached its peak at day three or so.
A big disappointment after the 2002 I'd had two weeks before. The big Pauillac-like nose was gone, as was much of the concentration I was so surprised by in the 2002. Buy the 2002.
Correct for Greysac. Bought on sale at QFC (~$9). It's been too long for me to remember exactly. Cabernet notes definitely present, though not all that powerful. If you're looking for easy-drinking, unremarkable Bordeaux, go here. It won't overpower most food. Fridged ok.
Bought on a "must buy cheap Bordeaux" binge. Tasty, mellow, and correct. Too long ago for me to recall exactly, but I recall some currant, and reddish-black fruit. My grandmother's opinion: "It's good, but I don't see the need for such expensive wines." Her wine of choice: Carlo Rossi Burgundy. It's always worth checking the less expensive, large production wines for a favorite. Gallo's Hearty Burgundy, for example, ain't bad. I didn't have it around long enough to gauge its fridge potential.
The most educational wine I've had. Ever. It's the second best wine I've had to date. I'd already bought two bottles of this as gifts for people I appreciated very much. I probably should have bought the 1995 for them.... Our first sense, once we opened the bottle, was that the wine was old, skunked, corked, flawed, etc. You could tell that there was something beautiful underneath, but it was mostly a disappointment, for the price. Powerfully tannic, with a sort of unreachable majesty beneath. Letting it sit for a half hour did nothing... it wasn't bottle nose.
I took it past Northside the following day, to ask a shopkeeper if he felt it was corked. His opinion: "No, it's correct St. Julien; you just opened it ten years too early." It was then that I noted that part of the skunky smell was the cedar chips and pencil shavings of the better Bordeaux that I'd read much about, but never truly encountered in a tannic wine.
After about a day of travel, I forcefully aerated it by holding the vacu-vin on, and shaking the remainder of the bottle, forcing air down into the body of the wine. A few hours later, my girlfriend and I took another taste. Wow.
The Talbot had opened up into a multi-layered experience. The nose was open and loaded with cedar, graphite, and a touch of black fruit. In the mouth, it began as liquid cedar/graphite, but rapidly faded into a fruity chocolate/coffee, and into a balanced fruit/tannin finish. The finish was ~20-25 seconds. Against some pan fried sirloin, it was good. Against some Belgian dark chocolate (~55% cocoa content), it was great. The fruit emerged further, a mixture of currant and black fruits. T'was by far the closest I've ever been to being drunk.
In retrospect, the bottle needed, as the man from Northside stated, many more years in the cellar. My forceful aerating was probably an injustice to the wine, but I needed to try something with an open $45 bottle of wine. Further, when you choose wines as gifts, be sure you get something that's drinkable now, not ten years into the future. One of the gift bottles I gave went to a chardonnay fan. I earnestly hope that she and her husband appreciated it, but I fear that the Talbot may have found its way, unappreciated, into a sink drain.
When the vintage charts tell you a Bordeaux vintage is tannic, believe it. My girlfriend and I like tannic wines. This was far more than we'd seen.
Utterly correct Cabernet. Fruit forward, but not too much so, to my taste. Good as a mellow introduction to Cabernet as a grape. The tannins are structured, but not detailed, as they lend support to this well-balanced wine. Tasty, and a step and a half up from the other Washington Cabernet I've had; Chateau St.Michelle (2001?). Comparison there, however is unfair, as Genesis is a higher price-point brand. Fridged ok, though I fear that the correctly balanced tannins would've faded too much if I'd let it go more than four or five days.
Copyright 2004-2006, Charles Hagedorn. If you'd like to make use of these notes, please let me know; I'm probably happy to let you use them, but I'd like to keep track of where my work is going.