Posted from CellarTracker
Had the last of my 5 2004 Pietros last night and it is really in a good spot now–the best of the five. Ton of sweet rich dark fruit, no heat and a long satisfying smooth as velvet finish. Perhaps just a tad of RS, but sufficiently small amount that it didnt bother me (reminded me a lot of the 2004 Feeney). Throughout last night I kept on thinking to myself that I could drink that wine every night.
I’ve enoyed the '04 more than the '05 myself. I have 2 more '04s left, this was my last '05.
Based on various tastings of Carlisle (we do a dinner every year with Mike and span a number of verticals and I drink about 4-5 cases of Carlisle a year), I think that the 2005 vintage really demanded more time. The 2004 Carlisle vintage was a trollop–flashy, in your face, more than a little slutty but oh so sexy and alluring. The 2005 Carlisle vintage was more ice queen–demure and reserved, hair in a proper bun, but with the right amount of time and coaxing, she will let her hair down and become a wild beast.
Love that analogy!
And the '06?
we had the 2006 Pietros (along with the 2006 Montafi) with Mike in May. Will have to check my notes (at work) on the Pietros, but I am officially on the record as not being a fan of the 2006 montafi because of the RS in it. That said, this is a minority position (although I am not sure that Mike necessarily disagrees with me) due to my hypersensitivity to RS in red wines (no ability to detect TCA except in the most egregious situations, but can always can find RS–who’d thunk it), but any 2006 Montafi should be consumed in the near term.
here is the note from this May’s dinner with Mike with all of the Pietro’s zins:
The next flight included the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Pietro’s zins and the 2005 and 2006 Bacchi zins. I really enjoyed all of the Pietro’s. The 2004 was super spicy on the nose—it in essence reached out and grabbed you to the wine. It also had tons of fruit. Being a 2004 Carlisle ‘ho, I loved it. The 2005 Pietro’s was more tannic, more structured and seemed cooler. It had an expressive nose, but in comparison to the 2004, it was shy. The 2004 is for great drinking now; 2005 will likely flesh out and open up and being delightful several years from now. The 2006 was a bit of an oddball, but big surprise, I liked it. It was not particularly zin-like, with tons of ripe, very dark berry fruit—Mike indicated that this vintage contained a large amount of mixed blacks. The nose was somewhat closed; the wine was very thick on the palate. The Bacchi’s were a bit more of a mixed bag. The 2005 exhibited cooler restrained fruit that I have come to associate with Mike’s 2005s, with medium mouth density; however, this one exhibited some heat on the finish and there was a hint of alcohol on the nose. The 2006 Bacchi was an improvement IMO, with sweet fruit (although no discernable RS) and a mouth coating mouthfeel. There was a little bit of tartness on the finish that detracted slightly. WOTF—the 2004 Pietro’s although the 2005 Pietro’s has great potential.