Woodenhead 2012 Zinfandel “Mendonoma”

50% Mendocino County, 50% Sonoma County, California; 15.0% ABV
$7 at the Richmond, CA, store on 24 Oct

Woodenhead_2012_ZinfandelI had been wary of this wine because of the lighter red color through the bottle, but Seedboy and the Richmond store manager, himself a wine enthusiast, made positive comments about it.  So I got a bottle, but I was quite disappointed.

Although label says “Unfined & Unfiltered,” I did not see any sediment.  The fruit, showing flavors of red raspberry, red and black cherries, and a little black raspberry, had a rather candied character and a good amount of the stewed rhubarb (or whatever it is) that I dislike and that I think is associated with American Oak.  I would guess, since there’s not much else it could be besides a Zin, and it is ripely sweet and jammy, that many people will like it.  However, for me, it was barely Drinkable.  I preferred it blended into the Abrazo del Toro 2009 Garnacha – Tempranillo.

The next day, the second half (stoppered in a 375ml bottle with very little air) of the wine was unfortunately pretty much the same.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Woodenhead 2012 Zinfandel “Mendonoma”

  1. inthewinecountry

    LOL, Darrell I just got through responding to Permiesworld’s post on wine tasting notes. I think you are a rockhound like me so the Rhodolite reference to color I understand but Flocculant and Chambord is a little high brow for me with GO wines. I agree about the SF store, but then I believe the owner knows his wine so If I was closer I would be willing to pay a little more for the choices he stocks also knowing its high rent in SF. Unfortunately my daughter who used to live in the neighborhood and gave me an excuse to visit this store now lives in Pleasanton. Guess I will now have to find the GO’s over in that area!

    Reply
    1. Darrell

      ITWC, glad somebody enjoys gems and understands the hue. High brow terms? I could be using terms such as torrefaction.

      Reply
  2. Darrell

    I didn’t notice the different vintage from the above wine.
    2010 Woodenhead Zinfandel $8.99, SF, more $ than above 2012. An SF GO extra buck or two? 1 /3/4″ whole cork
    Color: Hue- Rhodolite to Almandine Tone- med., slight haze and no flocculant sediment, gassiness noticed in the rebottled half bottle.
    Aroma and bouquet: Initial impression is the berry aromas, Chambord raspberry rather than fresh raspberries followed by oak, not too much oak. There is a med+ nose where burying nose into the glass is not required nor deep sniffs.
    Flavor: Decent amount of tart acids noticeable on back of tongue. Med- body, med. tannin, med. finish and no alcoholic burn. Mostly fruit and brambly berries and just slight wood flavors.

    Being a zinfandel, this purchase was on the expensive side for me, but other commenters had me intrigued though I don’t remember which vintages they were. Nice balance between wood and varietal fruit. It’s quite drinkable now and this coming from somebody who likes to age reds.

    Reply
  3. Darrell

    It seems there’s a range of opinions on this wine and picked up a bottle in SF where there is a _ _ _tload of it so the buyer definitely likes the wine. Will give my $.02 worth later. Btw, _ _ _ = boa or whatever your mind filled it with.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s