The Little Wooden Guy is just not sure of this one. It really might be good in a few years, so he is reserving his opinion.
When first opened this was very tannic and tight.
Two or three hours later I tried it again. The nose was harsher than you would expect from 13% alcohol. Fruit, sour cherries and raspberry, could be smelled through the alcohol. There was also a strong floral aspect, lavender I would say.
On the palate all the fruit came across as stewed. There was some tobacco and flowers, but still harsh. Tannins are still overpowering and drying. The finish is short.
It will be interesting to see if this changes over night.
On the second night the alcohol is far milder, no longer overwhelming the nose. Cherries and raspberries again, but not as tart this time. Add some black fruit to the nose as well, all very ripe, even over-ripe, and sweet. There is also sweet vanilla and oak.
On the palate, tannins are still strong and drying. Red fruit predominates, secondary flavors of tobacco and cedar join along for the ride. A bit of anise slowly grows into a background shine at the end. The wine is even-bodied, the finish moderate in length.
Based upon this two day tasting, I would say this could be very good in a few years, but really deserves time in the cellar.
Have you ever noticed how a really mediocre bottle can be much better the second night? Sometimes a wine that is "closed" opens up from exposure to air. This is a great hint that the wine is really not as bad as you thought. It just needs more time in the cellar. Alternatively, something great falls completely flat in just a day - drink all you've got, because there's not much time left. Wine starts changing rapidly the moment you open it. So here, at "Two Days per Bottle Wine Tasting," I am going to follow wine from the moment I open it through a second night. Call it an experiment. Join me to see if it really tells us anything useful at all.
My wine review policy
There has been much ado in the blogosphere lately about "the ethics of wine blogging," particularly in the area of wine reviews. Should bloggers review every wine they are sent? Should they do so under a time limit? Some suggest we hew perfectly to the code of journalistic ethics, which forbid both promises. In my personal opinion, that is putting form before substance. Putting the form of the rule- don't promise reviews, ahead of the substance- do what is ethically best, creates a real perversion of the problem. First, and I am being completely honest here, I get a little thrill whenever somebody sends me wine. Why not? Heck, I love the stuff. So what if I (a) like getting free wine, and (b) don't promise reviews. That is easy. I only review the ones I like, out of fear of scaring people off. "Hey," I might say, "this sucks, but if I write that, nobody will send me wine any more." In other words, sticking to the journalists' "code of ethics" actually creates a LARGER ethical dilemma than reviewing everything. On the other hand, promising to review at a time certain takes editorial content away, so that is a promise I refuse to make.
Do you want me to review your wine? I would love to do so. But first, know what you are asking. Take a trip around the blog. See what The Little Wooden Guy, The Big Wooden Guy, and I have to say. We are not always generous or kind. And we WILL review your wine. Honestly. Every time.
If you are still interested, send it here:
David Honig 1 American Square, Suite 2000 Indianapolis, IN 46282