Below are reviews of fun little finds purchased locally. The typical cost per bottle is $10 or less, and the label probably has a little more pizazz than your traditional Barolo. But don't judge the bottle by the label. These reviews are personal and certainly non-professional evaluations of wines we've tried. Enjoy!
YEAR: 2007Labels: 2 STAR, 2007, France, Georges Duboeuf, Mixed Varietal, Red
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Another overly sweet beverage. That's two vinos in a row I've found to be a little overwhelming. However, the legs are fine. I do not find them to be too thick. And the aroma is pleasing.
I purchased this bottle on a recommendation of the store's staff. I feel like it is the same lady I've been disappointed by before. Perhaps I should take this to heart and realize I am to NOT purchase anything she recommends. Perhaps I should go so far as to ask her for her advice and then purposefully NOT pick the bottle up. Of course I would carry it off in her presence, but only to put it back whence it came after she walks away to dis-enlighten another patron.
Ah, who am I kidding? I'll review anything, and it's getting harder and harder to find wines under ten bones I have yet to review.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Okay, this isn't my favorite Pinot. The hue shifts towards the purple side a bit too far for a Pinot, which to me indicated it was going to be a bit sweet. It is. The nose is also sweet. Quite fruity. The first thing that comes to mind is cherry. Tons of it. The cherry flavor is very, very strong. Surprisingly so, and terribly overwhelming. Too sweet. Hob Nob needs to figure out how to tone this down a bit. Dial down on the fruit in this case I say.
On the plus side, there's no bitter aftertaste. No tannins what-so-ever that I can identify. Not too thick either. The legs are just right. It's really too bad this concoction is so sweet. This could be a good wine. The roots are there. If Hob Nob would just cut back the vines a bit...
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
A plumy and bitter Malbec. Honestly, this is what I traditionally expect from a Malbec. It's just that I've had the pleasure of consuming some really delicious, non-standard Malbecs as of late. And in comparison this one is a bit of a disappointment. But maybe it shouldn't be. If you tend to enjoy Malbecs, then this bottle may be for you. It IS quite earthy. I'm just not digging it.
I type this review in the cafe where the bottle was purchased. A nice place. Very poche, uncrowded, and relaxing. I might as well as give them a little free advertising here. It's called Geneve Cafe & Wine Bar. Stop in for a coffee or sandwich... or bottle of wine.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
A little dusty for my taste. Earthy yet tart. Similar in palate to a Malbec. A little dirty tasting if you will. And the slight dark bitters from the Merlot show as well.
This wine is unsweet and seems not quite ready for harvest. The danglies could've used a bit more time on the vine perhaps. This is the type of wine that does show promise, but as is, it's just not very good.
That said, I am curious about the Carmerene. Let's see what else comes about.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Quite a startling contrast to the vino I just had. While the previous blend from The California Wine Party was smooth and without a hint of acidic bitterness, this is the polar opposite. Very acidic. I feel as if the enamel is being stripped from my teeth as I write this review. The wine makes me want to brush my teeth. I don't know. It's probably not the most bitter beverage I've tried as of late, but it's certainly not inviting me back to purchase it again. I don't like it. It's almost chalky. Ick. No thanks Crucillon.
YEAR: 2007 psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Honestly, this is more of a 1 STAR wine in my opinion. It's mostly flavorless and a little too chewy for my liking. The smoothness kinda makes up for the uber legs. But in general, I just can't describe this vino as "good." Don't get me wrong. It's not terrible either.
So, why do I give the bottle a 2 STAR rating? Because my father has always enjoyed this wine. And, if he likes it, it can't be awful.
YEAR: 2004Labels: 2 STAR, 2004, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Mixed Varietal, Red, Silver Lake, Syrah, USA
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Semi-tart. Not very interesting in general. Vanilla. Perhaps a bit overdone. Smells of bad vino, but I don't think it's corked.
Don't know what else to say. I guess I'd just avoid from purchasing in the future. But don't get me wrong. It's not terrible. I just don't like it.
I'd rather go play with my new iPhone than spend any more time on this wine...
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Somehow, this is the first Malbec I've reviewed here. Yet I know I've consumed several over the past many months. Perhaps they were above what I considered an acceptable price-point for this blog. Or, I just didn't take time to review them. Malbec is not among my favorite varietals, and truth be told, you folks only see reviews for about half the wines I purchase. I just don't have time to review them all.
Anyway, here goes... This is an okay wine. It's typical of a Malbec: Dark in color. Slightly leggy. Strong scent of earth. There's also the standard bitter aftertaste.
And then there is a quality I just don't quite have the words for, but it seems to be present in most, if not all Malbecs. Here's my best shot: There's this scene in The Christmas Story where one kid triple dog dares the other to stick his tongue to a frozen pole on the playground. Well, it is my belief this is the flavor Malbecs exude. Let's label it as cold steel. If you've ever licked a cold metal rod of any sort, you might know what I'm talking about.
There. Done.
YEAR: 2006Labels: 2 STAR, 2006, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chile, Red, Veo Grande
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Not terribly exciting. Not offensive, but there is a little too much Earth in my glass. I feel like Mother Earth just wasn't quite done preparing these grapes. It's either that or the dirt was just never sifted from the concoction properly. The flavor isn't bad, but the aroma was a bit on the sour side. In general, this just isn't a very good wine. I'm going to move on...
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
A decent wine, but just too sweet for my taste. For $6 it's a bargain though. It's currently on sale for such here and there. Not hard to find.
The nose is good, and the palate not bad. A strong taste of black current followed by an overwhelming sweetness.
Perhaps it just didn't go well with the stir fry I made this evening...
YEAR: 2005Labels: 2 STAR, 2005, Arrow Creek, Cabernet Sauvignon, Red, USA
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Don't see myself drinking this again anytime soon. Aroma was pleasant and the legs were nice. But once I splashed a little on my tongue, I was very disappointed. Thick and syrupy like molasses with too much tannins. Unpleasant really, but not awful. I'm giving the bottle two stars today mostly because I'm in a good mood. A one star may well have been in order.
I'll pass.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
I didn't particularly enjoy this Montepulciano. The palate was a bit more dirty than your standard bottle. I could almost feel the grit between my teeth, though there was no physical manifestation of such.
The color was clear. The nose was heavy, heavy with something I can't quite place. Not unpleasant. Yet, not pleasing. It's an organic scent and not chemical. I just can't get a fix on it at the moment.
Let's move on. There's better wines to spend time reviewing.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Not too bad. Not too great. This wine was okay. I just wouldn't buy it again. Therefore, the 2 STAR rating.
There isn't much going on here. Not much flavor, but, yet, somehow not super smooth like most bottles lacking such. Just blandness.
There's a dark flavor here and certainly some earth. Let's call it a currant taste. But that's about it.
YEAR: 2006Labels: 2 STAR, 2006, Cabernet Sauvignon, Red, Walnut Creek
psydr said...
3 OUT OF 5 STARS
Folks, I was really going to tear into this wine. It's NOT great. Then I realized it's $5. How bad could it be? Answer: Not too bad. I guess on the reality scale of 0 to 5 it's a fairly average wine. Therefore the Three rating.
It's not great, nor terrible. Therefore average. Not a bad thing to be in this HIGHLY competitive industry of "cheap" wines. To be cheap and NOT suck is the key... And this wine doesn't suck...
Earthy. Cherry. Light Tannins. That's what I taste...
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Sorry folks. This is a slight re-evaluation of this wine: I just don't dig it. It's not very good.
Originally, I held back from giving it a lower score based on its price. But, really, even the low cost doesn't make it a better wine. I'm going to go back to my gut instinct and give this bottle a 2 STAR. It's just not very good. Certainly below average...
There's a hint of tar and a scent of "just don't drink too much of me, or you're going to regret it." Does that make sense?
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Another mediocre wine. Not terrible. But not even remotely average. This wine was cheap for a reason. Fairly sweet with a strong hint of berry...
Let's move along.
said...
I gave this one a 4 of 5 - above average. A lighter style cab, w/ soft tannins, dark fruit & choc on the palate and a nice black currant nose. Seemed well put-together to me. Maybe my sweet-tooth doesn't pick up the sweetness that you found, but I found this to be a pretty good deal @ $7.99 (btw, the bottle I bought was from Mattawa, WA, from WA grapes).
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Tastes a bit like carbonated grape juice. Not quite to that extent, but something is surely wrong here. At the same time I didn't find it awful. At first I was tempted to rate this wine a 1 STAR but ended up enjoying it enough to give it 2. Hmmm... Maybe this has something to do with the amount of the wine I drank. We'll never know.
Either way, there's no real need to purchase this wine. Why not spend $6 bucks on something that tastes much better.
YEAR: 2005Labels: 2 STAR, 2005, Blackstone, Pinot Noir, Red, USA
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Another really sweet wine. Tons of berries present. Again, toooooo much. Not smooth. Why can't we chill on the additives and just produce a good, palatable wine?
This is a conundrum for me. Personally, I love Pinot Noirs. This just isn't one of them.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
A little too earthy for me. Tastes a lot like wood and not necessarily the oak variety. Not sure what's going on here. I just don't particularly like it.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Just not very good. Not smooth. No real taste to mention... and not in a good way. Sometimes lack of flavor is okay. In this case, NO. There's just something icky about this wine.
That said, I don't think it will offend most. Therefore the 2 STAR rating. It's just not very tasty.
And, given it was a $17 bottle on sale for $10, I really can't recommend it. I've sampled better bottles here on this blog for less than $5. So, given that information, you make the decision to buy it or not.
YEAR: 2004 psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Not so good. Not terrible. A strong flavor of wood but not necessarily oaky. What else could it be? I don't know. Regardless, there's no real reason to even try this wine. It's just not worth the effort.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Found this wine in a small grocery mart on the way to work this morning. Honestly, it's not too hot. Bitter for a Shiraz. Not my fav.
However, you do get a liter-o-wine for your 10 bucks. That's like 33% more!
Still, I'll pass... Too bad. I liked the label quite a bit. Black & white. Simple.
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Honestly, this wine just isn't very good. I found it very bland with a hint of icky in the background. Don't get me wrong. It wasn't terrible. And considering it's $4/bottle cost it's probably some sort of bargain...
There are better $3 bottles out there, so why buy this one?
YEAR: 2004 psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Wow! A very strong taste of berry, which I like. However, the legs on this bad boy are a little too leggy for me. The stuff is almost a syrup. So, flavor = good, but texture = icky. I think I'm going to pass on this one in the future.
Maybe the first word in my review shouldn't have been "wow." Seems misleading...
YEAR: 2005Labels: 2 STAR, 2005, 3 Blind Moose, Cabernet Sauvignon, Red, USA
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Well, first I have to say I had heard terrible things about this wine. And, therefore, I did not go into this tasting completely unbiased. I was surprised I didn't spew it forth immediately. It isn't a horrible wine... just rather bland. That's enough for me to spend my money elsewhere if given the opportunity. But if you happen to be at your corner convenience store and it's all they have, you could do worse.
YEAR: 2004Labels: 2 STAR, 2004, Cabernet Sauvignon, Rainier Ridge, Red, USA
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
A little tart and bitter. Not my favorite. Don't get me wrong. It's not awful. There's just better out there for your $7...
said...
I disagree. I purchased this for $4.00 a bottle. I enjoy the cab, but not the merlot. This is a great everyday "couple" of glasses of wine a day. I tend to drink the whole bottle....by myself.
YEAR: 2004Labels: 2 STAR, 2004, Cabernet Sauvignon, Red, Salmon Harbor, USA
psydr said...
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Very dark in color and light on smell for a cabernet. There is a general lack of flavor. The label mentioned something regarding hints of cherry and plumb. I taste neither.
A very neutral wine. There's no real need to avoid picking up a bottle. But, then again, there's no real need to spend your money on one either.
I do enjoy the simplicity of the label.
1 Reviews:
2 OUT OF 5 STARS
Thin. Sweet. Light body. But the nose is obnoxious. Terrible really. I can't quite describe it. Annis maybe. Some sort of awful cherry concoction.
I do like the thin, crispness of the vino, and the flavor isn't bad. I just can't stand the smell. I'm pretty sure I've never been so offended by a wine's nose. If you can get past that, then this is a passable wine.
Post a Comment