This wine rewards careful attention. Initially one notices what is NOT there, more than what IS there. On the nose: No oak. The fruit is in the background, hardly perceptible at first. In fact, at first sniff about the only thing one notices is the clean-soapy-after-a-bath-smell. On the palate: Initially, only minerality, and a salinity that borders on downright saltiness, with precious little fruit. But spend a little time with this wine and then, on the nose, you will begin to detect lovely honey-and-orange blossoms, and on the palate, peach, melon, sour crabapple--all distinct and precise, but also all very subtle. This is wine worth paying attention to, but if you don't pay attention, you might miss it entirely. (Note: I am drinking and reviewing this wine in early 2013 when it is five years old, so it is almost certainly not the same "exhuberant" wine described in Wine Advocate. With age, it has become more restrained and subtle, more interesting.)

Sign in to rate

Passable, but non-descript. Almost indistinguishable from other (cheaper) Columbia Valley merlot-based reds. Decent acid and minerality, but this was obviously meant to be a "fruit-forward" style of wine. Unfortunately, the fruit is already fading, and this bottle went downhill very noticeably on day two, although it was vino-vacced and stored in fridge, which does not bode well for cellaring much longer. Perhaps this wine was already dying an early death before it ever reached my house, because you cannot be be sure whether a wine released several vintages ago was well-stored before you bought it. I should be more cautious about purchasing non-recent vintages of unknown provenance. Drinkable, but disappointing for the price.

Sign in to rate

First two bottles of this GruVee were not all that impressive. The last bottle was better, so I'm giving it another star (to make 3, which is a decent score on a 5 star scale). Sorry, no details, but it's been a while, and I didn't keep notes.

Sign in to rate