TN: 2014 MacDonald Cabernet Sauvignon

First glass had a very shy/muted nose. It wasn’t giving up much - mainly some plums, roasted hatch chiles, pencil shavings, and earthiness. The palate was also restrained, yet still balanced and elegant. Tart cherries and red fruit, peppery spice, and minerality.

The wine began to open up with more time in glass, picking more weight and fruit. The red fruits remained, but were complimented by some blue fruits and really started to show its power and potential. All green/vegetal notes dissipated while mineral notes remained throughout, reflecting the pebbly soils. Kept improving all night.

Very good wine, but still just behind the 2013 tasted a few years ago during a visit to the property we were fortunate enough to experience. Look forward to revisiting this wine in a few years. (95 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

Thanks for your note - awesome to see. I think that some would jump to the conclusion that the wine may have slight TCA based on a ‘muted nose’ - but of course, I’m sure it didn’t. Also, it’s always wonderful to follow a wine for awhile to see how it opens up.

This is the exact thing that kills me about most ‘professional’ reviews - they sit with a wine for seconds and make a ‘conclusion’ rather than having patience . . .

Can’t wait to hear more as the wine continues to open - did you save any for day 2?

Cheers

Ok, so the wine is just “very good”. But gets 95 points. Talk about narrowing the window!
And did I miss that this was a pro review? Or just a random comment from Larry?

Random, my friend . . .

Larry, never thought of TCA, just “I should have opened this earlier”. I honestly thought it may be the stems or my lack of experience with them. I don’t often use the Zaltos. It was still very enjoyable, just not showing as expressive as it was at the end of the bottle. Trying to emphasize how much it improved What I struggle to describe is the texture. Amazing silky…

Bob, sorry I did not use the correct or enthusiastic enough of an adjective to match the score I gave it. It was the best wine I have had this year. I do not often write notes, and having this be the second response may be a factor as to why… Guess I should have thrown in a “Black Forest Cake” descriptor for you? Sheesh.

Nick, I appreciate the notes. Ignore the haters. :wink:

Nick, no worries, my apologies. I’m old. I belong to a generation when an 86-87 point Parker meant a rocking good wine… Cheers!

Great note. I think they advise 9 hour decant… curious if that was not possible? or why 6.5 hours?

Great to see these being consumed tho!

Yeah, poor planning on my part. Should have opened it before running some errands, not after. The total time coincided with dinner time.

Thanks for your note. I opened one of my 2014’s for a special occasion and followed over 12 hours… and in my humble opinion, it needed every bit of those 12 hours to really show to potential. The hallmark minerality and black olive notes I pick up in every vintage of this wine is what makes it truly distinctive in my opinion. Still letting all of my 2013’s sleep as well as what I have left of the 2012’s.

It’s the reason why I can’t fathom people putting any stock in professional reviews except for investment purposes. Once you understand the methodology, including hand-picked samples provided to the reviewers, how can you place any value in the review? I’ve always suggested CellarTracker to my customers if they are looking for valuable data points on a wine over a period of years.

As I said in another thread, I thought the Wine Advocate had a tremendous value when Parker’s methodology was to buy wines at retail and review them. Once he abandoned that methodology, not so much.

And the 9 hour decant recommended for this wine makes me feel a lot better about my recent 6-8 hour recommendation for my 2011 Napa cab. [cheers.gif]

Steve,

Interesting comments. At what point did RMP stop purchasing the majority of his samples at retail? Curious . . .

I personally have no issues with reviewers getting complimentary samples in which to review. I also, in general, have no problem with reviewers reviewing Wines in the region in which they cover.

The real challenge is understanding the context in which the reviews are done, and the potential relationships that exist between reviewers and wineries or Winery owners. In some cases, for instance, I can tell you where wine makers stay and who they done with when they come to my area, and it may or may not be a coincidence that certain wines seem to be always covered favorably.

This does not happen across the board, so I would be hesitant to make to General a statement about reviewers doing things like this. For instance, William Kelley has been very straightforward in his approach to the area. And if there are wines if he was not able to review, he has them sent to his residence to spend more time with them than most reviewers normally do. And I know that Matt Kettman, who reviews for the Wine Enthusuast, does not normally take part in Cattle call tastings.

Cheers.

Bob, thanks. I’m sorry for taking your comments too harshly. I know my tasting notes need a lot of work, so this was a “Dang, I knew I messed this up somehow” moment.

I’m not sure when Parker changed his methodology, but he claimed to be a “consumer” advocate and if you aren’t tasting a consumer product but a hand-picked pre-bottling sample, it’s not a consumer product.

If reviewers give a detailed and fully transparent explanation of their methodology, that is a step forward. But I still firmly believe CellarTracker notes are infinitely more valuable.

And I also believe Parker’s original methodology was the best.

CellarTracker is always the first place I go whenever I am purchasing a wine at retail, or when I am looking over a wine list at a restaurant. I do pay attention to what the “experts” say, but I put more stock into what people say on CellarTracker and also on this Board…

It’s why I don’t post notes. Sucks, Doesn’t Suck is my range of scores! [snort.gif]

Bob, that’s something I can get behind. Revision - this wine does not suck. neener [cheers.gif]

Steve & Larry, I definitely put far more weight in CT and this board than professional reviews. However, I do not subscribe to any magazines or websites, so I really only see a pro score listed here or on a shelf talker.