Skip to main content

SLC Napa Cabernet Blind Tasting

All wines were tasted blind, with steaks, potatoes, and in a social environment. All participants chose their top three wines. Wines were awarded 5 points for first place votes, 4 pts for second, and 3 points for third. There were seven wines, none were corked.

Results

How to read the table; example given for Wine 1: it got 1 first place vote (henceforth called 1pv), 2 second place vote (2pv), and 1 third place vote(3pv). So it gets 5 pts + 8pts + 3 pts giving it a total of 16 points.

1pv, 2pv, 3pv. Total Points
Wine 1: 1, 2, 1. 16
Wine 2: 1, 1, 0. 9
Wine 3: 0, 0, 3. 9
Wine 4: 4, 3, 1. 35
Wine 5: 0, 0, 1. 3
Wine 6: 1, 1, 2. 15
Wine 7: 1, 1, 0. 9



Wine 1: 2001 Francis Coppola / Niebaum-Coppola Cabernet Sauvignon Estate Cask Rutherford.

Wine 2: 2002 Flora Springs Rutherford Hillside Reserve Napa Cabernet Sauvignon

Wine 3: 2002 Lewis Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon

Wine 4: 2002 Neal Family Vineyards One Lane Bridge Napa Cabernet Sauvignon Mount Veeder AVA

Wine 5: 2002 Flora Springs Wild Boar Vineyard Napa Cabernet Sauvignon

Wine 6: 2002 Blankiet Estate Paradise Hills Vineyard Napa Cabernet Sauvignon

Wine 7: 2005 Grgich Hills Estate Napa Cabernet Sauvignon

The Neal was by for the most enjoyed wine, placing in everyone list for top three. None of the wines were off, though I thought the Flora Springs Wild Boar was over the hill. If you look at the list, you will see there were two non2002 year wines, one from 2001 and another from 2005. I noticed that the color of the 2005 was very dark, but tasting blind it did not stand out as being too young, tannic, or closed. The 2001 placed 2nd overall in points. I wonder did this wine place well because of its merits, or did it place well because it stood out as being different from the others. Overall, the wines all tasted good, and the true range from top to bottom was much narrower than the points would suggest.

Wine 1. Notes from tasters records. chocolate, tobacco, vanilla, gripping tannis. +++, warm fruity,

Wine 2. Tastes a little old, over the hill and oxidized. spice, muddy, but in a good way, others noted inky color, weak, One taster said "likey...Dry". Another noted "bright, cholcolate"

Wine 3. aromatics a little more subdued than others, mocha, hazelnut, medium mouth feel, medium flavors, silken tannins. Another stated : "like +/- thin", another noted + dry and puckerish-tannins. One person thought it had Too much vanilla.

Wine 4: Cranberry, cedar, lots of aromatics, open, open aromatics. One tasted notes said "likey-er". Finally one person stated "a little heat initially, tannins"

Wine 5: Ruby color, secondary aromatics, cassis, licorice, cedar, bright fruit, med full body, velvety tannins, strong acidity. One note simply read "smooth" while another stated "ike". I think that means they didn't quite like it, so the "l" was dropped, simply leaving "ike". I'm not sure though.

Wine 6: Dark purple. Kinda sage-E-weed, fruity cassis, really interesting, firm tannins, tequila in the finish, very nice, no noticeable flaws. Another taster wrote "higher acidity, bright, grains, old world, citrus, tannins. ++ I think their citrus, was my tequila. Another taster wrote "lik", this time leaving off the letter "e". I'm not sure how to interpret this, is "ike" better, worse, or equivalent to "lik"?

Wine 7: Very dark Purple, licorice, spicy, a little heat. One noted "A little heat initially, firm tannins" and this one received a full "like"

Overall, the night was a success, we had a lot of fun, but the next morning was a little rough. Maybe, I will spit next time...like that's gonna happen.
Last edited {1}
Original Post
×
×
×
×