sloan 2003 and question for sloan veterans

i traded for this in what in hindsight was a trade right up there with the orioles getting glenn davis in exchange for giving up steve finley, pete harnisch and curt schilling. my glenn davis was the 03 sloan, and my other three guys that i gave up were 3 different versions of the 04 schrader. [swearing.gif]

anyhow, i got on the sloan list for this current release so i thought before i lay that kind of $ down i ought to at least check out the one i had.

drank last night (popped and poured) i didn’t take detailed notes but i think ‘hot,oaky alcoholic mess’ pretty well sums it up.

so, for you who have had subsequent vintages (i know that 03 was relatively weak) did i just try a bad vintage or is the wine just really not worth the tariff? did i drink it too early or fail to decant sufficiently? or is that just the style? your thoughts? thanks in advance…

I have some Sloan and you definitely need to age it for a good 5 - 7 years. It is built to last.

Most likely you drank the 03 too early or didn’t decant long enough. A 4 hour decant should help things along. Personally I would let them sleep for 7-10 years and then open em up.

thanks alan, sounds like they’re is hope if i had treated her correctly…

I think Sloan is a very controversial wine. I personally don’t believe your notes sound off in any way. I am also not so sure the wine will come around with time. The search function gives me some support.

2003 Napa Cab Boardwide Virtual Tasting REDUX- Post them here! - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers" onclick=";return false;

I didn’t especially love either taste I had of 2001 or 2002:

  • 2002 Sloan - USA, California, Napa Valley (6/19/2006)
    Old Bordeaux and young Cults with Jeff Leve (Los Angeles, CA): Huge. Syrup. Remarkable wood spice. Very intense. Just too much for me.
  • 2001 Sloan - USA, California, Napa Valley (5/21/2005)
    The Mother of All Cult-Cab Tastings 2001 (TMOACCT) (Seattle, WA): This was a strange and difficult wine to judge. At first the nose smelled almost dirty with some sharp elements I couldn’t describe (others called it reduced). With air it improved significantly becoming slightly roasted, almost stewy, with tar, olive, and growing notes of black currant. The palate is sweet, loaded with cassis, lots of alcohol showing, almost searingly hot. This finishes out impressively long. This wine clearly improved a ton in the glass, and I would have liked it a lot more had it not been for the pronounced heat on the mid-palate. (90 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

I have had 03 Sloan three times. The first two were corked, the third was a messy, oaky, alcoholic mess. Count me as one that doesn’t get/appreciate the style.

thanks guys for the feedback - i know that the 03 was not generally well thought of but was wondering if it was just an off-vintage for this wine…sounds like maybe not

Well that makes me really excited since I have 4 or 5 bottles of the '03. Oh Yippee ! Maybe I’ll use it in some pasta sauce and fagettabout it.

2003 was a rough vintage for Cabernet. Araujo Eisele is a winner and if I were going to spend the coin for a “cult” wine from that vintage it would be Araujo and Schrader. I think the 03 Schraders are very good.

That being said, the Harlan wines are so variable that I would never pay the coin for them. And SLoan is Bob’s wife Martha and I gotta believe there isn’t much difference

Tony, to that point, I haven’t been disappointed with any of the '03 Bonds…but then I like them vs. Harlan and I have not had a Sloan. True, the '03 vintage produced some overripe and hot wines.

Bill - good point. It is amazing how different the “Harlan” wines can be…

I thought the 2000 was one of the best wines I tried from that Napa vintage.

I have not yet tried the 01’s or 02’s.

The 2003 was one of the worst wines I tried from that vintage – a wine I think should have never been released under that label and at that price.

That’s when I stopped buying.

This is great, fascinating information. I don’t know many people with a Sloan history, so thank you for the perspective. The 03 Sloan’s I’ve had were disasters and the only vintage I’ve had the opportunity to try.

I need to check out one of my Sloan 01 and 02 but I honestly don’t know when to serve a >$200 wine that I don’t have confidence in. Next offline??

When and where? Although might a suggest a back up? neener

sounds like a good idea to start planning one

I’ve been bullied into this ring once already this year – I’m going to sidestep this one! Ole!

Although I am unemployed (again) and prone to getting on here after a glass or two, so lord only knows what I might get myself into

anyone have an impression of the 04 or 05?

Craig, I did a wine dinner with Stuart Sloan in 2008. They served the 01,02,03 & 04 blind. The 03 was horrible, I asked for other pours and probably didn’t finish the glass. The 02 was incredible, one of the best wines I’ve had. The 01 & 04 were very good, although I wouldn’t pay the tarriff for them. Cheers. Doug

I dislike '03 Sloan. Agree with Randy that '00 was one of the better wines of that difficult vintage.

‘02 performed quite well at the X-Pensive Winos’ blind cab dinner a couple of months ago:

XPensive Winos Drink Cult-ish Cabs and Eat Steaks at Comme Ca - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers" onclick=";return false;