Saturday, March 15, 2008

Post Your Ercavio Notes Here!!!

2005 Mas Que Vinos "Ercavio"

9 comments:

J@VLG said...

I am on the fence with this one. I will certainly say it is great "house" and food wine. It worked for me on that front...when I consider the price. I wasn't crazy about the aromatics when I first opened it. I found the oak bothersome and the fruit way too candied. Later in the evening it still showed the candied quality but had gained complexity and became more interesting. On the palate the wine cried out for food. Good acid and some complexity. Some spice but the sweetness sort of over powers. With time it gained some richness. The tartness is a little much with out the food. I think I would have preferred this a little less ripe. I know this got some big scores from some critics. Nice wine and I felt like I got more than my monies worth. I say 87 points.

Tom Gutting said...

I'm with Jason regarding the sweetness of the fruit. This is a kind of atypical for a tempranillo, if you ask me. I was looking for more soaring aromatics and a crisper, sharper edge to the fruit. This just has a touch of fatness to it, which really shows through on the nose. It never quite opened up the way I had hoped. Solid to drink, for sure, and quite tasty, but there was something almost Zin-like about it. I guess that's what I liked about it but, at the same time, disliked. I was wanting something more tempranillo-like. Still, solid wine. I'd go solid B.

Dr. Dietz said...

Inviting nose of sweet fruit. Black cherry and other dark fruit on the palate. I don't find this particularly sweet, but also not particularly like Tempranillo.

I do like it for what it is. A nice Bistro style wine. It's not over oaky or over tannic. It's also not over complex. Simple, satisfying, and better slightly chilled.

An 89 for me. Meaning I'd buy it again, but it's not one I need to rush out to buy. Having said that, it would be great for a big party of non-winos, for making a reduction sauce for mushrooms and the like.

sandy said...

Sorry so late to the party on this one. It's definitely an okay wine when you consider the price. I know I am not supposed to review others notes ... but I concur with both Jason and Dietz that this could be a "house" wine or one to serve at a non-wino party. This will be one of the most un-profound TNs ever (not that any of my TNs are actually profound), but the wine was sort of "grapey" ... like in a Welch's grape jelly kind of way. I can't compare this to a Tempranillo as I am largely unfamiliar with Spanish wines. Not something I got too excited about, but something I would drink again.

Thanks again, Jason, and sorry so late on this one. You are terrific to organize these and include the Houston folks. Belle Pente? Bring it on!! I want to come to your Oregon PN tasting ... very cool!

WetRock said...

I am in general agreement. I posted a note on CT but overall I felt this wine was very dressed up in oak. Definitely a wine that was decent enough with a profile I would recommend it to non wine geeks but I have found much better bottles in the same price range for my tastes. I would also agree that it is hard to find Tempranillo in there. This was noticeably worse on the 2nd day becoming very flabby.

Upon first taste I would have said it could use a couple years to come together but it does have that artificial cork plus its 2nd day performance made me rethink that theory.

Now the $16 Priorat I'm having tonight on the other hand......mmmmmmm. ;)

J@VLG said...

Thanks Cris! Two questions.
1. I made a comment about the oak as well but don't remember what set me off to it. What were the qualities that made you think of oak instead of fruit juice?

2. What was the Priorat?!

Cris Whetstone said...

1. The sweet vanilla and mocha notes on the nose. The tannins had a woody feel to them to me and the softness in the mid palate.

2. A Garagiste 'treasure': 2005 Meritxell Palleja Priorat Nita

Gerry Frayer said...

O.K. ,guess I'm late to the party as well.
Can't really offer any better notes than what was given ,but for me this was just a bit too simplistic ,and forgetable.
Fruit was a little too sweet and candied.too much oak(or should I say wood chips)and a bit tart as well.
Not really varietal to me ,and perhaps I have a spoiled palate ,but I'd rather spend a few bucks more and get something better.
Definately a good value ,and works as a BBQ wine.
Had this with a friend watching the Laker game ,and after half a bottle decided to drink some great Pale ale instead!
I say pay the upcharge ,and spend $10-15 for a really nice Spanish wine or even an Argentina Malbec.
Cheers.
G.

darrenv said...

Talk about late to the party - I missed it altogether. It's been quite a while since I had the wine and I was suffering from my first bout with this horrendous cold at the time (I'm now on my second round with it).

We had it with a nice spread of carnitas, flour tortillas, Matt's refried beans, arroz, et al.

I remember an abundance of fruit, candied grape (Sandy's welch's comment reminded me) and a hint of candied blueberry (not the fruit itself but a jolly rancher vibe). We didn't get much else from it and it didn't last past our first round of carnitas, but for that sunny afternoon it was a great match for washing down the salty food and enjoying the party.

No real complexity or subtlety. *Recreational. *Fun. *Easily-accessible for nons and newbies alike. *Recommend with food.