I picked up a case thanks to BO's rec. I was quite thankful based on the one that I have had. Another one will be cracked this weekend at a big seafood dinner.

Thanks, Board-O!!!

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it. (relieved too!)

Ramey rocks. And that's coming from a terroir-geek...

Couldn't wait for the weekend, so I started the Valentine's Day dinner off with this. It didn't measure up to the first bottle I had. The first bottle was fantastic, while this one was "just" very good. There was more oak in this bottle, and it didn't have the crispness of the first one I had.

I plan on opening another Saturday night. We shall see where that one is.

I've found a bit of bottle variation in the ones I've had, but the very worst was still truly outstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

The nose was powerful and complex with many different fruit aromas. On the palate, the wine was truly stunning. Parker's description of great minerality and lemon oil were perfect. I believe this is the best Chardonnay I've ever had other than a few Grand Cru Burgundies. It may be better in another year or so, but my 5 remaining bottles will not likely last that long. Parker gave it a 94. I give it a 97. If you can find this, grab it.

Had a btl tonight and I agree this is an outstanding CA Chardonnay. It comes a little close to showing more oak than I prefer but mostly does a great job of walking that fine line between added complexity and richness vs splinters and sawdust in the mouth. Personally, I still prefer the RRV which is more minerally and focused with great acidity without sacrificing power. If you want more butter, richness, and tropical fruit overtones the Hyde is the pick. I think this Hyde is great and merits a 93 score but I like the RRV better for around $32/btl retail. Either way, Ramey is one of the best Chardonnnay winemakers anywhere and provides great value. I still think Kistler's Vinehill is the single best CA Chard but it runs $10/btl more too. M61

At this point it's just piling on, but:

95 points: Outstanding. Vibrant gold color with great nose of melon, citrus and a little vanilla/butter. The single thing that stands out is - nothing. Everything is in balance; the buttery flavor is there but balanced with minerality and acid (it's still unmistakably American). The fruit is there, but so is the structure. I call this good qpr, even at $50.

You guys are making me smile!

I still have 8 of these and as I can not drink a Burgundy Grand Cru on regular basis these are a nice substitute---thanks B-O

I'm just starting to see this in the Twin Cities. Have to pick up a few. M61, I think you liked the 01 RRV, I saw some of these on the shelves at Henn-Lake today.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I give it a 97. If you can find this, grab it.

Just today I saw a few bottles at about $45 each. I guess you think I should grab them? The best Chard I have had recently is the 2002 Paul Hobbs Russian River Valley. Have you tried this 2002 Hobbs? If so, I wonder how you compare it to the Ramey.

Thanks

Bavinck, I think you should stock up on it. I can't answer your question about Hobbs. I've never had any wine from Hobbs.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
Bavinck, I think you should stock up on it..

Board-O:
I just noticed that the Connoisseurs' Guide to California Wine rated the Hyde Vineyard Ramey 2003 at 95. It frustrates me that Wine Spectator hasn't rated many Chards recently, including this one. However, since you, Parker and CG highly recommending it, I guess I am going to pick some up.

Thanks again

Save the thanks til you taste it.

2003 Ramey Hyde Vineyard Chardonnay - Carneros, Napa Valley, California
Vivid nose of lemon, pear and minerals. Bright, crisp, almost spritzy lemon oil acidity on the attack and deftly balanced with pear, green apples, and lychee flavors that turn viscous on the mid-palate. Oak spice increasing on the back of the palate with a touch of sweet butter leading to a long, expansive finish. S93 4/11/2006

2003 Ramey Chardonnay Hyde Vineyard - USA, California, Napa Valley, Carneros (4/24/2006)

Allred brought this to dinner at a small Vietnamese/Tex-Mex fusion restaurant on Friday with his girlfriend, Scubarex, my wife and I. We matched it with our appetizers of duck flautas with a peanut sauce, chicken pot stickers, soft shell crab and lobster ceviche. I brought a bottle of 2001 Karl Erbes Ürziger Würzgarten Riesling Spätlese which was also opened with the appetizers. I thought the Erbes was not only a better match with these foods but was a superior wine overall in my opinion but that is just my personal preference.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the Ramey. No heat or overly oaky notes although some oak was present. It was actually one of the better California Chardonnays I have had in recent years. Full bodied with notes of lemon, pear, spiced white fruits and some clove. I just don't find these types of wines very appealing. I do not think they are very food friendly and are more about the winemaker than the grapes or soil. Nonetheless, a very nice wine and not too bad a QPR in comparison to all the other overpriced Cal Chards out there (of course I would never buy it). 89-90 points.

Thank you very much for opening this Allred. I was excited about his wine when you offered it. This is something I would never try unless another board member opened it. Glad I was able to see what all the hype was about.

VM

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Vino Me,

We had this wine again last night with results similar to previous bottles, though a bit below the very best 2 or 3 we had. About a 94-95.

We had this wine again tonight with steamed lobsters. It was coinsistent with previous notes, but just a notch below the best bottles, maybe a 94.

For god’s sake man, enough is enough. Please, just go start a blog somewhere else for this wine.

Hey, Drac, go eat some underbrush, drink some drawn blood, and obsess about Serge a little more and don't back up your accusations. (ie. stauts quo)

quote:

Originally posted by Dracula:
And if I want wine content, it’s any forum but this one.

Then why are you here, Drac? No wine content, right? Why are you here? This isn't a poetry site, though you seem to believe it is. Why are you here, Drac?

So tell me, how is this “consistent with previous notes” when you’ve scored this all the way from a 94 to a 97 and have also admitted bottle variation?

Please describe the differences, if you can. How exactly did it taste different?

Flavor descriptors were the same, Drac, just a little less intense. It's probably difficult for you to understand without your esoterical fabrications.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
esoterical [sic] fabrications

When you attempt to “cast aspersions”, you should avoid your own fabrications.

But thanks for making an attempt to answer the question.