My feelings about this wine have fluctuated wildly. I had it when it was released and I loved it - so much that I went out and bought two six-bottle cases. The next time I tried it, maybe a year or so ago, I was very disappointed - I scored it an 86. Not a bad wine, by any means, but not what you want for $35. We opened another bottle last week, and my first impression was good. Right now we’re sitting here drinking the second half of the bottle, and it’s delicious. It reminds me of one of my favourite styles of Italian wine. It’s a bit reserved on the nose, though with a distinct menthol note. The mouthfeel is great - soft but with good underlying structure. The fruit doesn’t jump out at me - it’s more along the lines of dark fruit, smoke and leather. I think of it as the bass end of the spectrum.
John Schreiner gave the 2003 an 88 when he tasted it in late ‘05 “with potential to move to 90+ with a few years of bottle age.” I think he was right and it has improved.
The ‘05 is available now. The blend has changed slightly with 2005 - a bit less Merlot, a bit more Cab and Malbec. Schreiner liked the ‘05 a bit better than the ‘03, but on the other hand the price has gone up. I’d love to hear from anyone who has tried the ‘05.
At the current price of $45 I don’t think I can give it more than 3/5 for value; which is to say that I think $45 is a fair price to pay for a wine of this quality, but not a steal.
Retail Price: $35 (2003 vintage); $44.99 (currently available 2005)
Score: 90
Value: 3/5
Region: Canada, Okanagan
Grape: (2003) Merlot (75%), Cabernet Sauvignon (11%), Malbec (6%), Petit Verdot (5%), Cabernet Franc (3%)
Tasted: Feb 2009
UPC: 871610001554
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting review. I have a bottle of 2004 at home. Schreiner rates this higher at 92 (two years on in '06) but doesn't mention much about longevity. Has anyone tried this or have any thoughts on how this compares to the other years?
ReplyDeleteI still have a 2002 and 2003 in the Cellar, not sure about when to drink them. Interesting enough, when Alain Brumont was at Brewbakers a couple of years ago a bottle of the Larose 2003 was opened for him as an example of Canadian wines, he thought it was ok, except he stated that all the oak and coconut flavours were too much and he felt the wine maker was trying to hide or cover-up something
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally, my original notes say that this reminds me of the Bouscassé.
ReplyDeleteA couple of months ago in Québec I had a bottle I think was older than 2003. I found it much smoother and less tannic than the 2003, although I must admit that I wasn't in excellent tasting form then. The group consensus was that it was very good; there was a lot of "can you believe this is a Canadian wine?"
Had the 2005 the other night. Big, bold and a smacker on the lips. For those who have the 2005, you might want to wait a little to give it time to mellow out. If you like them bold, open and enjoy.
ReplyDelete