I don't have a lot of experience with Chave's wines, but I've never been all that impressed. Notes of creme de cassis, tobacco, mineral, dry earth, and a moderate finish. This seemed to lack in the fruit department. No impeding tannin, and for me, ready to drink. Decent wine, but not worth the bread. 90 pts.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
I don't have a lot of experience with Chave's wines, but I've never been all that impressed. Notes of creme de cassis, tobacco, mineral, dry earth, and a moderate finish. This seemed to lack in the fruit department. No impeding tannin, and for me, ready to drink. Decent wine, but not worth the bread. 90 pts.

That damn baby just wont stop screaming...drab, Chave's wines need A LOT of time. You just committed infanticide.

I had this against the '00 Chapoutier Le Pavillon. The Le Pavillon is by far the better wine. Both can be found for nearly the same price. And, if I were to buy one...my money would go with the Chapoutier hands down. Of course....I wouldn't have known this had I not tried. And, for those invested in the '00 Chave "hoping" and not having "tried"...You may want to consider the fact that you may have the 90 pt. Wine Spectator wine and not the 96 pt. Parker version. IMHO...the potential fools are the ones who don't commit infanticide and cellar in blind faith. If you haven't tried it, and want to bark "infanticide", you don't have a lot of ground to stand on.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
I had this against the '00 Chapoutier Le Pavillon. The Le Pavillon is by far the better wine. Both can be found for nearly the same price. And, if I were to buy one...my money would go with the Chapoutier hands down. Of course....I wouldn't have known this had I not tried. And, for those invested in the '00 Chave "hoping" and not having "tried"...You may want to consider the fact that you may have the 90 pt. Wine Spectator wine and not the 96 pt. Parker version. IMHO...the potential fools are the ones who don't commit infanticide and cellar in blind faith. If you haven't tried it, and want to bark "infanticide", you don't have a lot of ground to stand on.

I have had many of Chave's Hermitage, so I do know what I am saying. Trying a wine early is one thing, but from this wine you will not get an accurate representation of what the wine will ultimately be.

If you are buying high end Hermitage for early consumption, I can;t help you. But these are not wines to buy to test. Most who buy them, and who are willing to drop the cash on them, know what they are buying.

I believe in things like dumb phases, and the concept of "closed" for certain cases. But for the most part, good wine is good from the get-go. Either it has the raw material or it doesn't. And, IMHO...this doesn't. Or at least this bottle doesn't. And neither did the two winemakers I tried it with. You may think it's got all the makings of a great Chave Hermitage. And, you may be right. But, I don't believe in, and never have seen an unimpressive marginal high end wine go from uninspiring to magical with 20 years on it's tail. And, I personally am not willing take that risk on a wine like this which shows a lack of fruit, lack of sufficient structure for aging, or anything truly inspiring on the palate or finish.

Here's a question for you....

Who's closer to the right answer?

Winespectator's 90 pts., and drink now through 2010.

or

Parker's 96 pts., and drink 2007-2035

Answer...try it and decide for yourself. Either the substance is there to back up the review or it isn't. I found my experience to be perfectly in line with WS's commentary. I had hoped to see the same things Parker saw when tasting on release. And, maybe there is bottle variation representative of both of these accounts? But, I'm not going to pay to find out.

quote:

Originally posted by inky:
I have had many of Chave's Hermitage, so I do know what I am saying. Trying a wine early is one thing, but from this wine you will not get an accurate representation of what the wine will ultimately be.

If you are buying high end Hermitage for early consumption, I can;t help you. But these are not wines to buy to test. Most who buy them, and who are willing to drop the cash on them, know what they are buying.

Many of us know that, inky. This is a 20+ year wine and little or nothing will be learned about it by drinking it now.

For what it worth, my favorite Rhone critic John Livingstone-Learmonth tasted that wine recently and gave it a 12.5-14 i.e. somewhere around 85 pts...
He said to drink it by 2022-24 while the optimum should be around 2011-14.

quote:

i.e. somewhere around 85 pts

Well, clearly he just doesn't realize that a mediocre high end wine really just needs more time to become the 96 pt'er it's label promises it should be. I mean afterall, this is a $200 bottle of Chave...how could it be mediocre? Right now it's flavored water in hiding. By 2012 it will transform into superior wine!

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
Right now it's flavored water in hiding.

Wait... Wine's not flavored water?!??!?

quote:

this is a $200 bottle of Chave

Good lord!!!! $200 for a bottle of wine!!!!!!!!! Did it come with a free designer alligator skin tote or something like that?

spo...yes...that is what the going rate is for Chave.