My first Scarecrow

I tasted this past Saturday. I think 2005. Here’s hoping it was also my last Scarecrow.

?? Would this be considered a wine Troll??

lol Thread of the year!

so you didn’t like it? I like what is in the bottle. I’d say this is one of the better representations of Rutherford cab. I don’t like the price and all the silly hype. I don’t buy anymore accordingly, but the wine? I’m not sure why you wouldn’t enjoy it unless modern Napa cab just isn’t your thing in general.

Pretty horrifying, isn’t it. But horrifying in the “Godzilla is destroying Tokyo” way.

Good thing there was a '91 Dunn Howell Moutain in my other glass. Probably would have been even better with a decant as it was too cold to start but it opened up as it warmed up and put on weight in the glass. How many Dunns can I get for one Scarecrow?

Speaking for Paul - it isn’t.

I had the 2005 Scarecrow a few years ago and it was STUPENDOUS, BRILLIANT and AMAZING.

If you normally like this style of wine, perhaps it could be in a dumb phase now.

I have one left of the 2005. I guess I won’t be opening it any time soon…

Ill-tempered radioactive spawn of a nuclear blast?

In contrast, there’s always absurdly overpriced Burgundy. Don’t know many who are gaga for both.

RT

Very funny, someone needs to photoshop this. Or maybe start a poll! I kid.

I recently had a 2002 Harlan Estate The Maiden and a 2005 Blankiet Cabernet, and both left me cold.

So, the 1991 Dunn HM is ready or still on the upslope? I have a couple in the cellar.

I contacted Scarecrow immediately after reading this thread. Of course they were already aware of the situation They stated the wine must have been oxidized or tampered with in some way for someone not to like it.

And then the offending posters were quickly and summarily removed from the mailing list.

[quote=“Pat Martin”}
So, the 1991 Dunn HM is ready or still on the upslope? I have a couple in the cellar.[/quote]

Is a Dunn ever fully ready? The balance was there between fruit, acid and tannins. I think last one I had some years ago was still very tannic. So very nice now but you walk away thinking that it will open up to reveal more depth and complexity down the road. I don’t know if that will happen but it’s what I sense most of the time with Dunn.

Ah, that’s what I suspected/feared. I had the 85 Dunn HM recently and I found it ridiculously tannic still.

Funny Paul! Not my style either but many seem to really like it.

No, this is Paul telling shit like it is.

The 85 Dunn HM was barrel aged for 3 years.

Is a Dunn ever fully ready? The balance was there between fruit, acid and tannins. I think last one I had some years ago was still very tannic. So very nice now but you walk away thinking that it will open up to reveal more depth and complexity down the road. I don’t know if that will happen but it’s what I sense most of the time with Dunn.[/quote]

I think their rep as tannic monsters is a little overblown. I had the '94 Howell Mountain not long ago, and while it had plenty of structure, it was gorgeous and very approachable. Likewise with an '86 Napa bottle. Yes, it’s traditionally a brawny, LLC-style for California, but there are plenty of vintages that belie their reputation.