One hour decant.

Extremely dark purple. Noticable heat and oak which blew off after a bit. This wine is full-bore red! Huge nose of raspberries, blueberries and vanilla. No slouch on the palate, either. Vibrant flavors of blueberries and strawberries coat the tongue along with big tannins. Long, almost overwhelming finish. A very nicely-made wine that needs time in the bottle to integrate.

40+5+5+17+18+8=93

Danny,

I've heard this wine described as the Mollydooker of Spain. Is that a fair assessment?

Based on the '04, I'd say yes... But the Mollydookers are better balanced and easier drinking.

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
Danny,

I've heard this wine described as the Mollydooker of Spain. Is that a fair assessment?

MUCH less heat than Mollydooker wines. I cannot seem to get around the 'artificial vodka' flavors present in the Mollydookers (mainly the Boxer and Two Left Feet). This is not a major issue with the Clio; although it is overextracted and full-bore.

quote:

Originally posted by Lentini:
Based on the '04, I'd say yes... But the Mollydookers are better balanced and easier drinking.

Ouch!

quote:

Originally posted by Markiemark:

quote:

Originally posted by Lentini:
Based on the '04, I'd say yes... But the Mollydookers are better balanced and easier drinking.

Ouch!

Yeah...not so sure I agree with that assessment

Based on the 2003 and 2004 Clio, I find them better balanced and more complaex than the Mollydookers. Also based on the 2003 aqnd 2004, I have a case of the 2005 on order. I also agree with danny that these wines show better with a little time.

This isn't Oz Dorothy, but she could be forgiven for thinking so. I would love to see this wine slipped into a blind tasting of Australian shiraz. I'm positive it would blend in easily because there is no sense of place as far as I'm concerned. My TN from last night in 2 words: Blueberry milkshake. That said, it's really easy to drink. 92 points.

Finally had some of this last weekend at the Grand Tour. It was indeed huge, but going with a Mollydooker comparison is not really accurate. Nobody does cough syrup quite like 'Dooker!

At that tasting, it was hard for me to decide which I liked more, this, or the '05 Don Melchor. Ultimately decided on the DM.

quote:

Originally posted by steve8:
This isn't Oz Dorothy, but she could be forgiven for thinking so. I would love to see this wine slipped into a blind tasting of Australian shiraz. I'm positive it would blend in easily because there is no sense of place as far as I'm concerned. My TN from last night in 2 words: Blueberry milkshake. That said, it's really easy to drink. 92 points.

Steve, you should do a blind tasting. One of our local tasting groups did one in December. It will stand out like a sore thumb. The finish on the wine has nothing in common with Shiraz from Oz, and the viscosity of the wine is also very different.

If anything, try it in a blind grenache tasting.

Glad you enjoyed the wine.

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
Finally had some of this last weekend at the Grand Tour. It was indeed huge, but going with a Mollydooker comparison is not really accurate. Nobody does cough syrup quite like 'Dooker!

At that tasting, it was hard for me to decide which I liked more, this, or the '05 Don Melchor. Ultimately decided on the DM.

Indy, I agree that comparing Clio to Mollydooker is not appropriate, but I don't think comparing it to Melchor is right either. Love it or hate, one taste of Melchor and you know where it's from. That eucalyptus note is a distinctive part of the Chilean profile.

W+A, we did do a Spanish blind tasting last year and the 04 Clio was part of it. You're right about it sticking out like a sore thumb. I picked it out even though I had never tried one before. All the notes I had read described it pretty well.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad wine. I rated that 04 a 92, just like this 05, but it's not a style of wine that I'm likely to ever rave about.

quote:

Originally posted by steve8:

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
Finally had some of this last weekend at the Grand Tour. It was indeed huge, but going with a Mollydooker comparison is not really accurate. Nobody does cough syrup quite like 'Dooker!

At that tasting, it was hard for me to decide which I liked more, this, or the '05 Don Melchor. Ultimately decided on the DM.

Indy, I agree that comparing Clio to Mollydooker is not appropriate, but I don't think comparing it to Melchor is right either. Love it or hate, one taste of Melchor and you know where it's from. That eucalyptus note is a distinctive part of the Chilean profile.

Perhaps I should try this wine. I have always preferred the Casa Lapostolle Clos Apalta in general to Don Melchor. Now that said, I have not spent much time with these wines.

I have several vintages of the El Nido & its little brother, Clio. While both are excellent wines, the Clio is the better value IMHO, and by far. I had the 2002 El Nido recently and thought it wasn't worth the difference in price.

Also, the WA suggests a drinking window for the 2005 El Nido & Clio of 2014/2025. I think the 2005 Clio will be approachable before 2014, and I would hold it (for best results) till at least 2010. But, on the other hand, I try many wines early just to judge the level of development. Ususally, I have at least one case of the wine where I'll open a bottle early.

I tried this for the first time a couple of months ago (thanks, dannyk) and was impressed. I'm not opening my bottle until at least 2012, however. I found the tannins to be a bit rough, and the oak to be overwhelming...I'm hoping age helps on both fronts.

The 2005 was brought to a celebration last weekend and opened. Steve8 refered to it as a 'blueberry milkshake'. I do agree, that blueberry smell AND taste was surprisinly forward at this particular stage of its' development. I've not experienced this in past vintages thus far. It was very interesting to try this so early. If you have several, it's certainly an unique experience opening one now.

And regarding the 'Shiraz like' comparison. Last year I drank an '04 side-by-side with an RSW. While they both shared some shiraz-like similarities, they were indeed miles apart on the finish. Good call, W+A.

Not exactly the Mollydooker, but in that league, at least IMO.

Super ripe, slightly sweet even, and enough oak that you really need to worry about termites getting into the bottle. I'm not sure what they were trying to do when crafting this, except to get high rating points, which they did, but the first time I had it was a blind tasting and I thought someone put an overdone Australian ringer in. Close enough. Subsequent tastings left the same impression.

I'm usually really tolerant of what other people consider overdone oak, ripe forward fruit, etc., but this wine was just too much.

Latour67 - As far as the WA drinking window - those seem to be entirely arbitrary. I don't know how this wine ages and I don't really think it will improve vastly, but the WA windows for Spain are way too long in some cases, not long enough in others. He's apparently equating size with longevity and that hasn't been my experience with many of the "newer" Spanish wines.

Goes to show you, what is one thing to one taster, is radically different to another. My oak tolerance is LOW, and I did not find this to be in the red zone at all with the wood. (heh, heh, I said wood).

While several posters I respect writing here, I'm just at a loss here.

"Shiraz like?" What in the hell am I missing?

The finish and viscosity are bipolar to Shiraz, AND the wine is Mourvedre and Cabernet... WITH ALL DUE RESPECT!

quote:

Originally posted by wine+art:
While several posters I respect writing here, I'm just at a loss here.

"Shiraz like?" What in the hell am I missing?

The finish and viscosity are bipolar to Shiraz, AND the wine is Mourvedre and Cabernet... WITH ALL DUE RESPECT!

I do not find the Clio shiraz-like at all. I don't think you are missing anything. I think some people are not overly familiar with spanish wines of this style. But I would also have to ask if they are truly familiar with shiraz as I am with you, they are two totally different types of wines in the bouquet and palate.

Pretty soon someone like Torb is going to rip me for stereo-typing Australian shiraz.

To me the Clio is a big, extracted and overly-sweet wine. It seems manipulated and it strikes me as a wine that is made by an Aussie/Barossa winemaker who was parachuted into Spain to make wine some local grapes.

Brashley, rough tannins??? For a blueberry milkshake maybe. You sir are a tannin wimp.

quote:

Originally posted by steve8:

You sir are a tannin wimp.

... but we must work on your palate.

quote:

Originally posted by steve8:
Pretty soon someone like Torb is going to rip me for stereo-typing Australian shiraz.

To me the Clio is a big, extracted and overly-sweet wine. It seems manipulated and it strikes me as a wine that is made by an Aussie/Barossa winemaker who was parachuted into Spain to make wine some local grapes.

Brashley, rough tannins??? For a blueberry milkshake maybe. You sir are a tannin wimp.

The consulting winemaker at El Nido is Chris Ringland, so maybe its his style you are associating the Clio with an Aussie shiraz, but nothing elso says shiraz about it.

quote:

Originally posted by inky:
The consulting winemaker at El Nido is Chris Ringland, so maybe its his style you are associating the Clio with an Aussie shiraz, but nothing elso says shiraz about it.

Agreed.