Ardente 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon

Atlas Peak, Napa, CA; 14% ABV
$10 at the Berkeley, CA, store on 12 Dec

Ardente_2002_CabSThis is the second Ardente Cabernet I’ve reviewed out of the vertical that Grocery Outlets received recently: 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005.  The Berkeley store manager told me that the buyers seemed to think this vintage was the best of the lot.  While I agree I liked this better than the 1999, I think the 2005 I tasted only briefly, with a few more years in the bottle, might develop to rival this 2002.

The wine has a lovely dark nose of blackberry / cassis, Bing (purplish red) cherry, cedar, and subtle hints of coffee and licorice.  It’s pretty tasty from the start, but I thought it needed about two hours in a decanter to open.  Then, its fruits started on the redder side, becoming quite dark and only a little jammy over the next half hour, with a nice fruit / acid balance.  This is really an excellent value for the price.

I saved half of this in a 375ml bottle stoppered with very little air.  A day or two later, it was redder, but smoother with a better-integrated aged complexity of earth / leather / dried orange peel.  IMO, this could hold on for a year or two more in good storage, but it’s probably best drunk up now.

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “Ardente 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon

  1. pasowino

    dam fine (unrefined) wine trying several vintages soon. If you like this you will like the Grandfather Clock 2013 Merlot and Zin at $4.99

    Reply
  2. seedboy

    Opened another bottle of this last night at Bar Tartine in SF. It is absolutely lovely. I wish I’d bought more of it. Only 5 bottles left.

    Reply
    1. inthewinecountry

      I am hanging on to what I have left too. Sorry I took so long but I finally went to Sac after not being there for two weeks and all the Ardente was gone at the GO over there so not able to have picked up any for you. Was somewhat disappointed I didn’t get to try the 96. Did dig in the cellar and pulled out a 2006 Alderbrook Zin. we had with our Valentine dinner and it was perfect at its peak.

      Reply
  3. Seedboy

    The last glass, in a two days open kept at room temp with just a cork in it bottle, was delicious. Fruit was muted a bit but otherwise fine. This wine has years ahead of it.

    Reply
  4. Seedboy

    I’m drinking right now a 2005 that I opened last night. Damn this is good. Tannins are not resolved but it has good fruit and acidity. I feel like buying another case of this.

    Reply
    1. Darrell

      SB, you’d better buy another case or your younger son is going to be mighty pissed with you drinking his wine.

      Reply
  5. Seedboy

    Last night I opened a bottle of the 1996 and served it with chicken rotisseried over charcoal and grape vine cuttings. Absolutely delicious. Made me wish I’d bought more of it.

    Reply
    1. inthewinecountry

      Seedboy, I would offer to pickup some more for you but I don’t know if its still there. I was over in the valley last weekend for a garden club plant exchange but didn’t have the time to stop in and see if they still had some. I found one last bottle of the Carmen Grand Reserve Merlot at another GO I picked up

      Reply
            1. inthewinecountry

              Darrell, I just posted a response to Seedboy, The way the weather has been I have been busy trying to work in the garden. I tried to seak out but my wife told me not to go to Grass Valley as we were going for Valentine weekend. I did stop by the Roseville GO this weekend on the way up but they had sold all the Ardente.
              Wonder if the Rohnert Park or Petaluma stores have any as the Santa Rosa store is also sold out.

            2. Darrell

              ITWC, the Petaluma store had some 1998 and another two thousand something (can’t remember which vintage) 3-4 weeks ago so there might be some left. Personally, I like the ’98 better than the ’96 because of the complexity of the nose.

            3. Darrell

              When the multiple vintages of Ardente CS came out, I stocked up on the vintages from the 90’s and passed on the 2000’s except for the 2000. I think I preferred the earlier winemaker’s style. I try the three vintages, 1996, 1998 and 1999 every now and then without disappointment. Anyway, last night a 1998 was popped and this was the first disappointing bottle from the Ardente’s bought. The aromatics I remember were oxidized and I hope it was just this bottle. The remainder of this bottle will make a decent Marchand de Vin sauce.

            4. inthewinecountry

              Sorry to hear that Darrell, I have two bottles of the 2005 left. I had the 2005 about 6 months ago and it was still young as it kept improving in the glass. If I can resist the temptation I will try another one in 6 months.

            5. Cougar

              After the recent disappointing 1998, I popped open the 1999 and 1996 Ardente CS and both were fine and as I expected. The !999 is still young with great glass staining color and M+ intensity bouquet and aroma. Will try to hold off drinking another bottle any time soon. Maybe the SF store didn’t charge enough markup at the time of its sale. The 1996 is great for drinking right now with its bottle bouquet and smoothness. There is some CS fruit plus wood aromas. Decent intensity in the nose.

    1. inthewinecountry

      Darrell,
      I found 1 last bottle of the 99 at the GO in Grass Valley a week ago and wow! it was great. I was shocked at how good it was for a 15-16yr old wine. I saw some 96 at another GO store but I hesitate to buy it because of the age. I wonder if anyone has found out who their winemaker was during this time? Any opinions on the 98? if its close to the 99 I would really like to try it.

      Reply
      1. seedboy

        That 1996 is a strong wine that is fully ready to drink, from a good vinetage. the 1996 was made by a good winemaker, cannot remember the name, it was posted on this blog but in another thread.
        The 1998 is a lighter wine from a cool vintage. It is well balanced and tasty if you like aged California wines. but if you are looking for much fruit look elsewhere.

        Reply
        1. inthewinecountry

          Thanks seedboy, I suppose I can take it back if I don’t like it. I guess my personal preference on a older wine is a balanced wine where the tannins have dropped out but the fruit is still showing nicely without a prune like taste from oxidation. On the younger wines that I am not worried about how they will age I prefer a more fruit forward style but the acid and tannis can still be there. With CS I like a heavier body not the claret style. So you have me sitting on the fence. If you only could choose one which would you get?

          Reply
          1. seedboy

            Well, I don’t remember such a pruney/oxidative thing but it could be in the older ones. Friends call me the kevorkian of wines because of my preference for older wines. However I really do not think of any of these as heavy, except for the 1998 they are full bodied but rather light on their feet, except for the 2003 which was still rather angular/chunky. These wines are all balanced.

            Reply
            1. seedboy

              I should make clear, the 1998 is lighter in body, as is expected of the vintage.
              I really liked the 2002 most for current drinking, followed by the 1999, and the 2005 for cellaring.

            2. inthewinecountry

              Well maybe I phrased it wrong. I am with you on using the term “fuller bodied” which now makes my decision easier, I guess I will give the 96 a try. I did like the 2002 until I tried that 99 for just enjoying a sit by the fire wine. I see you agree the 2005 is a keeper for several more years. As for the prune comment I was not applying it to these cabs but pointing what I sometimes find in older CS’s that are over the hill and these are not, from what I have tasted so far. But I thought the 2003 was awkward and not as balanced as the other vintages.

            3. Darrell

              SB and ITWC, I agree with you about the 2003. I thought it was just my bottle and it was my most disliked Ardente.

          2. Darrell

            If I may interject, ITWC. If you mean by one just one bottle, I would buy the 1998, but if you mean one case, then buy both. Neither have that pruniness of oxidation. I don’t know if anybody has mentioned this on this forum, but some of the GO wines have been aged ideally on somebody else’s capital and I do take this into consideration when looking at value. Here we have a near 19 year old wine in the 1996 Ardente for $9 by the cases discount.

            Reply
      2. Darrell

        ITWC, I am really happy that you got to taste the 1999 and also surprised how far the Ardente and you are ranging. Grass Valley? Funny, don’t think of a 15-16 yr. wine as old. You would really, really be surprised how long CA cabs can last when there are decent corks and good cellaring. The ’96 was made by Phillipe Melka, I believe, and Ardente had another winemaker later. SB and I agree in evaluation of the ’96 and ’98 and I have commented somewhere on them, but not under the ’99 and ’02 posts. The ’96 is not like the others as it doesn’t have the coconut toasty aromas like most of the others; it’s weedy instead. The color looks aged with more orange than others and has less tannins than others. The nose has oodles of bottle bouquet and at a stage where the fruit and wood begin to blur for me, a melding or integrated state. The cork has more wine penetration than the ’98 and others and might be a different cork or grade and has a lead capsule for those who might age this and the cork leaks ( lead salts). As SB says, “fully ready to drink” though I wouldn’t worry about drinking up. Will drink the ’96 while waiting for the other Ardentes though I am drinking the ’98. The ’98 is lighter than later vintages, but gads is it tannic. I like the nose quite a bit due to age and am forced to drink it because of it. The nose is like a weaker ’99 and I enjoy just smelling it. Just eat something to counter the tannins. I like it third most after the 1999 and 2000.

        Reply
  6. inthewinecountry

    BW, I just had the 2002 last night and it was in perfect balance!. I enjoyed it very much and without having had the chance and probably never will to taste the 99 and 98 I must say its my favorite so far for drinking now. I wish I had a bigger allowance so I could buy some more if I found it to drink over the next several months. But I decided to invest in a couple more bottles of the 2005. My instinct is this is going to be better in the next year or two or so I hope!

    Reply
    1. BargainWhine Post author

      Hi ITWC. I’m glad to hear you enjoyed it. I’d bet everyone reading this site wishes they had a bigger wine allowance. 🙂 Happy New Year!

      Reply
  7. inthewinecountry

    Couple things I want to point out for people who might be reading these posts and are wine neophytes and feel overwhelmed is just basically you should take away from these conversations the fact you are getting a great deal on a good Napa Cab. for 10.00, being offered the opportunity to taste a vertical of one winery’s efforts and able to taste what a older cab can be like after it has been properly cellared. Also being exposed to a winery’s efforts that are consistent year after year and you enjoy what variations happen from year to year due to the climate that year. Also you get to see how different people who love wine might have a preference for a certain taste or style of this wine and you can feel confident in following their suggestions.

    Reply
    1. BargainWhine Post author

      ’98? ’96?? Holy cr*p! I opened a ’96 from a well-known Napa Valley floor producer tonight and, well, it was tasty but no masterpiece. I have trouble imagining a ’96 Ardente would show much. Thanks for your impressions on the ’98, though. Would you recommend it for, I assume, $10?

      Reply
    2. lim13

      While I’m pretty sure we’ll never see any of these Ardente wines here in WA, I did follow your link, SB. And after reading that blogger’s review, two things came to mind…PW’s post about Wine Tasting Notes…Intimidating Or Comforting and…for me…TMI. My comment is in no way meant to reflect on the quality (or lack thereof, for some) of the wine.

      Reply
    3. inthewinecountry

      Seedboy, I checked out and ran through it as discussed before, some wine reviews get overly descriptive. But I agree with that writer over all my experience has been the Atlas Peak wines in general are more astringent and less balanced then their valley counterparts. But beyond that observation I like these Ardente Cab’s very much.

      Reply
  8. inthewinecountry

    Darrell,
    Thanks very much for your comments. I do indeed like my Ca. CS and I agree with you on your descriptions of these Atlas Peak wines. So far the two I have tried are very similar in style but do vary in relation to what the wine maker had to work with for that vintage. This is what I look for in a wine. consistency from vintage to vintage. I still remember Joseph Swan wines when I first tasted a flight from 74 to 82 were remarkable in the consistency. When his son-in-law took over he experimented too much and I lost interest in supporting those wines. I was visiting my mother in Cupertino and made a point of coming back 19th to hit the SF GO as on my first visit I gained a respect for the owners palate. Will be going to my Daughter’s for New Years and I might be tempted to stop in the Berkeley GO. If you like NZ SB, they have the 2011 Monkey Bay in Santa Rosa both 750 and 1.5L

    Reply
    1. Darrell

      ITWC, I’m guessing you had a vertical of Swan PN. Nice. I quite agree with you about the similarity in style and the winemaker making do with what Mother Nature dealt him. I am beginning to think the commonality of the vintages is the same barrels used for all the wines, the same tonnellerie, the same toast. I have noticed the amount of toast they have in their barrels give off a coconut-like component. I have tried all the vintages that have come through GO though not all at once. I must say the winery puts out a very good package, extremely high quality corks, heavy bottles and the wine is produce and bottled by. Going back to the GC archives of Nov. 9, 2011, I was reminded by a Dave Lubertozzi that we tried both the 2000 and 2005 and I favored the 2000 and didn’t purchase the 2005 and I think he liked the 2000 too. More recently, under the 1999 Ardente evaluation, I tried the 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2004. The 1999,2000 and 2004 were side by side. Yesterday I bought a 2003 to try and had it side by side with the 1999 and 2000 and it did not fare well. Could be the bottle, but it was browner than all the rest and had a sharp, disagreeable component in the nose. They all had that coconut in the nose, but can’t say that for the 2005 since I had it 3 years ago. I still favor the 1999 because of the complexity of the nose of the wine, the sweeter aftertaste at the back of the tongue (extract) and the deeper tone of the color as well as the hue having less browning than the others. I started noticing the deeper tone of the pigmentation when pouring made bubbles and they were just darker than the others bubbles. Glad to hear the 2004 Blackford is holding up well.

      Reply
      1. inthewinecountry

        Darrell, actually it was Swan’s Chards that this tasting was for and why I remember it after all these years. I missed tasting the wines of the 70s for the most part but I gather from reading that a lot of wineries were trying at that time to emulate the french style of high acids not fruit forward and meant to be aged. Like Lim13 and I said before, we both really enjoyed this style and just as I was beginning to get into it in the mid 80s the wineries changed to these big fruity forward, flabby, malolactic and heavily overly oaked Chards.

        Reply
        1. Seedboy

          I love those older Swan pinots. You should check out the current wines, the estate pinot is great every year. Indeed, the 1990 is as good as any wine Joe made.

          Reply
        2. Darrell

          Bought Swan early on when there seemed to be more discretionary income, and then the kids, and a big gap in my keeping up with CA wine and purchasing. Some 1982 and ’83 Chard’s didn’t get drunk and still have them. Over the hill, yes, but golden and not brown so I would say these and other buried and temporarily lost Chard’s are drinkable with certain dishes. The PN on the other hand, just as you say, SB, are another matter. I may have mentioned somewhere here that I recently purchased somebody’s passively cellared Swan PN from the 70’s that were ullaged and leaky. They were rejected from the auction due to appearance, but after tasting them, they were just fine. Lucky me.

          Reply
          1. Darrell

            SB, I forgot to mention that I picked up an order from Joe at his house once. I think he was a Burgundian at heart because I spied an empty bottle of BV and it wasn’t a Private Reserve. Up on the mantle was a Burgundy shaped bottle, a bulky one, and I betcha it was a 1946 Beaumont though I couldn’t read the vintage.

            Reply
  9. seedboy

    I think that theconnasewer is in the minority on this one. I’ve enjoyed every vintage of these that were recently released, and have bought two cases to cellar. I am not a fan of the tutti fruity high alcohol wines. I’ve shared these with other wine lovers and the response has been uniformly positive.

    Reply
  10. inthewinecountry

    BW, I agree with you about the 2005! I had it last night and it just kept getting better and better in the glass and will certainly last till the holidays next year just like the 2004 Blackford I had at Christmas. I had the 2003 Ardente and 2003 vintage for Napa was supposed to be a good year, same as 2001 and 2005 but as with most of the higher elevation cabs from Napa it was highly extracted and I felt the tannins were out of balance with the fruit. This was not true of the 2005.
    The manager of the GO in San Francisco recommended the 2002 as being the best to drink now and after your review I am looking forward to trying it.

    Reply
    1. theconnasewer

      For $10 the entire series of Ardente cabs are not worth it. High alcohol, boring fruit, cotton candy, and no complexity. There are numerous bottles of mixed blends offering delightful fruit in the same or lower price range. In addition, beware of any old wines being sold through G.O. be they red or while. There is a reason they show up at G.O.!!!

      Reply
      1. Darrell

        Connasewer, it sounds like you have tried the whole gamut of the recent Ardente CS releases and found them very similar from vintage to vintage. I hope you have tried some side by side to see if there is a nuance of a difference. I agree these wines are on the high side in alcohol and they are highly extracted plus tannic, but these are the characteristics in the mouth. In the nose, I can’t find the cotton candy and as far as the fruit, I don’t find much straight forward fruit or estery fruitiness, but rather a predominance of oak and a resulting spiciness. I do find some bottles that do combine and integrate some of the varietal character of CS with the oak and for me this is a complexity I have invested in and I can overlook those characteristics in the mouth that both of us have found. The Bordelais and other French, when judging our CA CS, have always tended to take points off our Cabs due to what both of us have noted, but I am Californian and can enjoy a big CA Cab. Maybe your tastes lean towards Bordeaux.

        Reply
      2. EHL

        Tried a bottle of the 2006 Ardente CS that a friend opened up…not very impressed…too acidic, too tannic, not enough dark fruit essence brought to the table, nose muted and little bouquet…ultimately, unbalanced and unremarkable.

        Bottom line…not worth $10 GO dollars and especially retail $50+…subject to the caveat that it may have improved with time. The four of us drank it up without letting it breathe too long…hence, definitely drinkable, just not very memorable.

        Wish I didn’t pick up a bottle of the ’06 during the last sale and am sorry that I was out of state when the good Ardente vintages were available earlier…

        Reply
        1. Darrell

          I realize with the Healdsburg Ranch RRV PN and the environment you are sipping this 2006 is making up for this wine. Yes, this wine is languishing at the GO stores. Of the spate of vintages that were available while you were gone, the 2003 was the least likable for me and the 2006 was noticeably less likable than the 2003.

          Reply
          1. EHL

            Well put, Darrell…and yes, Mayweather definitely won that fight and deserves all the accolades he receives as champion.

            However, what a bittersweet, ironic and just moment when he turned to the US crowd expecting adulation after his dominating victory, only to be given the cold shoulder and lukewarm response. I guess, like the rest of us, Mayweather learned you are judged and held accountable for all you do in life, not just in your chosen ring of competition…

            Reply
          2. delmartian1

            Oceanside brought in a ton of the 2006 for the wine sale last month and still has a few bottles left. I agree that one bottle was enough for me and so glad I cleaned out the 2000 when it was there.

            Reply
            1. seedboy

              The Berkeley store had a mess of this, and it is selling steadily. I, too, thought it was the weakest of the Ardente cabs and have not bought any to keep.

    2. Darrell

      Even though your daughter is in the East Bay, you still visit the SF GO. I think I know which vintage the SF manager put away for aging and it isn’t the 2002.

      Reply
          1. BargainWhine Post author

            Maybe because of our positive comments about it, eh? Or because there’s less of it? The SF store has a history of raising prices on in-demand wines…

            Reply
            1. 5-Star Bar

              While it’s true that one may find prices marked up slightly at the San Francisco store (as little as $1 more in most cases) one ought to consider the following:

              1. SF currently has one of the highest minimum wages in the country as well as in California. Currently at $11.05/hr (Up from $10.74 as of Jan 1st 2015) this will rise by May 2015 to $12.25/hr (at parity with Oakland whose minimum wage will rise to that level in March 2015). This obviously means that the GO-SFO will face significantly increased labor costs.

              2. San Francisco workers are covered by a City Health Program known as Healthy SF To subsidize care for uninsured San Francisco residents and was instituted by then Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2007. While I have been a beneficiary of and greatly admire this program, this also adds to labor related expenses for San Francisco businesses including Grocery Outlet.

              The way I look at it paying a dollar or even “for a few dollars more” (the title of one of Clint Eastwood’s classic “‘Spaghetti Westerns”) should be chalked up to the extra expense of life in the big city. A cup of coffee costs more in Manhattan than it does in Podunk but nobody seems to take exception to that. So I find it just a bit petty when people bemoan the extra buck or a few that is only occasionally charged on the most highly prized wines at the San Francisco store to subsidize such modern metropolitan amenities that make many of our lives as SF residents a little bit better and more secure.

              3. You can pick up the various vintages of Ardente’s Library Selection Stag’s Leap Cabernets at the SF store. You won’t find those in Podunk (or at most other Bay Area Grocery Outlets for that matter)!

              Just my 2¢

              “…having rendered the light and high flavored wines a necessary of life for me”

              Thomas Jefferson on Montepulciano
              January 14, 1816

            2. Darrell

              I don’t find anybody bemoaning or being petty here, but rather, it’s ” Just the facts, Ma’am.” That’s what this site is about as far as shopping GO wine. The tastings, well that’s another matter. Your disclosure of being a beneficiary of SF’s social programs is to be admired in your advocacy of paying more for these fine bottles found in SF. Since Oakland has similar laws for wages, I think the Oakland GO should follow SF’s pricing for these same bottles, charge what the local market will bear. In fact, as Bay Area cities go, I think Richmond has more needs than any other in the Bay Area city, hence I would be willing to pay more there, too. So, 5-Star Bar, did you buy or were you willing to purchase the 1999 Ardente CS at $13 a bottle instead of $10? Like I said I was willing to pay more in SF and paid the going rate for the 1999 and bought a few bottles, but then I hopped into the car, drove to the East Bay and purchased more at $9 per bottle with the cases discount. Sometimes charity begins at home.

            3. BargainWhine Post author

              Hi 5-Star Bar. First, the factors you cite should lower the SF GO’s labor costs by making workers more productive:
              http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/01/13/how-higher-wages-can-be-boon-rather-than-cost-to-business/
              Second, if the SF GO does have higher labor costs, IMO it would make more sense for the prices to be higher uniformly, not just opportunistically tacked on to a few high-demand wines.
              But if you’re happy going there, that’s great. I’m glad for your participation here.

            4. seedboy

              The Oakland store is union and pays a good wage. that is a good job. If the SF store is corporate owned it is union also.

            5. 5-Star Bar

              My apologies to Darrell and any of the regular contributors to this blog if they perceived my comments about slightly higher prices for the scarcest and most valuable wines in San Francisco as being directed at them. That was certainly not my intention. I understand the current discussion about the “Library Selection” vintages of the Ardente Cabs falls into the Joe Friday/Dragnet school of “just the facts” and I appreciate that approach. It was not this discussion in particular that I was referring to, although I can easily understand how my remarks may have been misconstrued as such given the timing of my post.

              What I meant to address, and have wanted to for some time now, were the asides that I have heard and read from others who griped about the minor markups that one may see at certain high-volume GO wine departments when they know that “what they have” is a real winner and still an exceptional bargain even at the slightly elevated price.

              I was only able to score a single bottle of the highly prized 1999 Ardente which I would gladly paid the few extra dollars for given the small quantity available as well as its extraordinary pedigree. In all I picked up 1 1999, 6 of the 2002, and 3 of the 2005 to add to my collection and I bought every one of them from the San Francisco store. I don’t fault anyone for driving across the Bay to save a few bucks if they think it worthwhile, but as far as I’m concerned I shop almost exclusively at the San Francisco store. I’ve been to the South San Francisco store only 3 or 4 times, and to the Berkeley store but once ( and that was 15 years ago or so. The SF store has great owners, great staff, a great selection, and they’re always open when I have time to shop.They’re also nearby (Think Globally, Shop Locally).

              Those of you out there who may remember what a huge vacuum was left when the old Grocery Outlet store off of Division and Potrero closed a decade and a half or two ago will understand how overjoyed I was when I stumbled across the new location on Geary and 27th just before Christmas last year. I felt like a kid in a candy store! As someone who routinely took public transit until just a few years ago, traveling out to Oaktown or the suburbs and then schlepping my purchases back (wine boxes are kinda’ heavy after all) wasn’t really a viable option for me so when I discovered GO had a new footprint in SF about a month after opening and scored a couple of bottles of the delicious Helfrich Alsatian Pinot Gris for, like, $2.99 I felt like Santa had come early that year.

              As far as opportunistic pricing is concerned I personally wouldn’t define what the SF store does as opportunism. I would simply refer to it as good business sense. Other industries such as airlines and hotels regularly rely on yield management strategies to peg the price of their services to marketplace demand and I see nothing wrong with SF, Oakland, or any similar GO stores following suit. They aren’t price gouging, merely assessing a higher valuation upon wines that are available only at the highest volume stores in the region, which are judged to be of the highest quality and desireability, and which are consequently likely to be the most sought after.

        1. inthewinecountry

          Permies, I am putting away the 2005, I think it has a couple years to go and might come into being more like the 2002, at least that’s my hope!

          Reply
          1. permiesworld

            2005 was an interesting vintage in Napa. It reminds me a lot of 2010, where it was cool for part of the summer and then they got the heat late…weren’t sure it was going to warm up and then it did and they ended up picking fast. I haven’t had a 2005 Peak cab. A couple of valley cabs though and they are aging well. I’m completely envious of this wine, not gonna lie! 🙂 Enjoy it!

            Reply
          2. 5-Star Bar

            Agreed ITWC. Both vintages are eminently drinkable but the 2002 is the more evolved wine right now. Drink or Hold? I suggest you drink now or hold for up to a year. The 2005 is also drinking nicely now but will age well for several years more.

            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