Staying true to our title on this one. Double Dog Dare. Most of you who know me know I won’t snub my nose at a cheap bottle of wine. If I come across one and I haven’t tried it, well you guessed it, I buy it. I bought this wine around January of this year and it sat in the rack collecting dust underneath a few bottles of similar color. With a day off and nothing better to do, I popped this bugger open. There was no vintage on this bottle so I can’t compare to and known Californian vintages. I don’t know exactly how to describe the color other then appealing. The nose is of berry, cherry and vanilla, but of the cheap perfume version. It has just a touch of artificial to it. It’s light on flavor, with a medium body. The flavor has no real direction. Lightly oaked. It doses however have the flavors of chocolate covered cherry crossed with a box of California raisins. It’s not bad but with nothing truly noteworthy. It is moderately unbalanced and lacks a quality finish. I would be describing it better as an aftertaste. Although not very complex I would say it would be a good wine for brand new wine drinkers. Not expensive at all and with a few characteristics that is easily identified. One must also take price vs. drinkability into play, which sends this wine into competition with some other lower priced but equally drinkable wines. I will give this wine a iffy 70 points. Give it a try, and if you can figure out the vintage, let me know.Archive for September, 2009
Double Dog Dare
Staying true to our title on this one. Double Dog Dare. Most of you who know me know I won’t snub my nose at a cheap bottle of wine. If I come across one and I haven’t tried it, well you guessed it, I buy it. I bought this wine around January of this year and it sat in the rack collecting dust underneath a few bottles of similar color. With a day off and nothing better to do, I popped this bugger open. There was no vintage on this bottle so I can’t compare to and known Californian vintages. I don’t know exactly how to describe the color other then appealing. The nose is of berry, cherry and vanilla, but of the cheap perfume version. It has just a touch of artificial to it. It’s light on flavor, with a medium body. The flavor has no real direction. Lightly oaked. It doses however have the flavors of chocolate covered cherry crossed with a box of California raisins. It’s not bad but with nothing truly noteworthy. It is moderately unbalanced and lacks a quality finish. I would be describing it better as an aftertaste. Although not very complex I would say it would be a good wine for brand new wine drinkers. Not expensive at all and with a few characteristics that is easily identified. One must also take price vs. drinkability into play, which sends this wine into competition with some other lower priced but equally drinkable wines. I will give this wine a iffy 70 points. Give it a try, and if you can figure out the vintage, let me know.Robert Mondavi
Cabernet Sauvignon

2006
Napa, California
8.99
This bugger started with a wine tasting at Olive Garden. The only one out of the bunch that was any good in my opinion. The best I could tell from the thimble full of wine they gave me. I bought a bottle from a local grocer and it sat in the rack for about a year. Pleasant aroma and appealing color. Nose was rich with blackberry and plum fruits, Medium, bordering full bodied. Flavor didn’t have the backbone to back up the aroma. Seamed bland with no real distinction. It finishes with a mild but unbalanced finish. Great in a thimble not so much by the glass. Sorry Robert
2up
Hugl Weine
George Duboeuf
Dry Creek Vineyard
Chinin Blanc
2007
Dry Creek (Sonoma Valley) California
Barton & Guestier
George Duboeuf Pouilly-Fuissé
The particulars:
Begins to open up after 2 to 3 years, will age 10 to 12 years




























