- Ships Thu, Jul 31Ships Thu, Jul 31
This is NOT an "Estate" wine. Wine dot com should not title this as an "Estate QbA." An "estate" wine is a wine made with grapes grown on the producer's property or from a specific grower's property. This wine was made with purchased grapes from various different growers. On its website, Loosen specifically writes that the "Dr. L" line of wines are "not estate wines." Loosen makes some very fine estate wines, but Dr. L is not an estate wine. Perhaps someday wine dot com will correct this error, but I doubt it. Anyone with more than a passing fancy of wine knows that such distinctions are important. Unfortunately, wine dot com frequently mis-describes wines on its webstie, uses reviews that were for a different wine, or photos that are for a different wine. On several occasions wine dot com has shipped me a wine different from the wine described or pictured on its website because its people (either the ones writing the website copy or the one assembling the orders at the warehouse) did not know which wine was which. To its credit, wine dot come has always corrected such shipping errors. However, even after it corrects the shipping errors, the web page listings are not corrected. Oh well. As to this wine itself, it ain't half bad for the price: Actual riesling character for around ten bucks--perfect for take out Asian food on Wednesday night.
The wine dot com reference to a 90 point Parker score for this wine is mistaken. My one star review is not for the wine, but for wine dot com's incorrectly indicating that Parker scored this wine a 90. The 90 point Parker review wine dot com quotes is actually for Scarbolo's Sauvignon Blanc (which is a white wine), NOT for this wine, which is 70/30 blend of Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon. It's obvious the Parker review is for a white wine: "spring blossom and verbena running through flavors of kumquat, white peach," etc. I have purchased this wine, and if wine dot com corrects the information it provides about this wine, I will give the wine an actual score.
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.)
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.
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.
Beautiful wine, but made in a subtle and restrained old world style that won't appeal to most modern tastes. Predominately cherry and stemmy nose. On the palate, cherry, graphite, and anise. High acid. Clean, clear, and bright all the way around. Fine tannins extend the finish. This will seem thin and acidic to undiscerning modern palates. Definitely a food wine.
When I ordered this on February 14th, winedotcom sent me the wrong bottle. Instead of Isoceles, they sent me the 2010 Cabernet, which is an entirely different bottle of wine. Winedotcom is supposed to be sending me the correct bottle to arrive on the 21st. So I will report back at that time. However, if they do send me the correct bottle, it will be a while before I can write a review of it, because I won't be opening it for several years. But if it is true to form, it will be delicious. BTW: The 2010 vintage might be the last one produced under the direction of Justin Baldwin since he sold the winery in April 2011.UPDATE: Wine dot com refunded my purchase price because (as I suspected) they did not actually have the 2010 Justin Isosceles in stock.