Very dissapointing. The finish is green and acidic. There is some fruit but it's shallow(lacking depth). I suppose the rain at harvest took it's toll. This was only the first Argyle wine I've tasted that was sub-par. I've had a number of their other bottlings and they've all been quite nice. I think it's just the vintage and not the winery. Pinot Noir and rain at harvest just don't mix.
cheers,
PA3
I have to agree to some extent, a notable lack of acidity, depth of flavor, and even dulled aromatics. My girlfriend's analysis was, "this tastes watery..."
Still enjoyed it with some aged Alsatian muenster, would be good with wild mushroom risotto. Pinot is difficult to grow/produce, and this was not too bad for the $15 I paid at Cost-Plus.
forgot to add: how the hell could this get a 90 from Wine Spectator? Really! Read the review below (but don't believe it ;)
Tasting note: Light in texture, but the flavors pile up nicely, growing from delicate berry to rich plum and spice as they fill the mouth on the finish. Drink now through 2005. Score - 90. (Harvey Steiman, www.winespectator.com, May 31, 2003)
Maybe they cheated? WS unfortunately obtains a fairly large percentage of the wines they taste direct from the wineries... how often do they get snookered, I wonder?
The story I've heard from several people in the industry is that the folks at Wine Spectator are very heavily influenced by the advertising dollars they receive from wineries. I have heard one story repeated to me by several people of an Italian vintner who once said something negative regarding Wine Spectator and the scoring system, and his wines went from receiving excellent reviews to getting very low marks. Other critics were still marking his wines quite favourably. I myself have strongly disagreed with Wine Spectator on many bottlings, and sometimes I do notice that wineries that have a lot of advertising space in the magazine tend to get better than they deserve. On the whole though, I don�t think it�s as bad as some people say.
Wine Spectator's credibility has certainly diminished in my view. Beyond the issues raised with regard to their being influenced by advertising dollars (which I believe), I too, have heard stories about wineries prime cuvee's or select barrel samples going straight to bottle and straight to the Wine Spectator's tasting glasses. It is a real turn off, and an additional reason why I do not subscribe to their magazine or their reviews.
We would really like to hear what you have to say
You are currently logged on as a Guest User. In order for you to
make comments on harvey you need to have your own account. Please
Signup for an Account now.
