The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

WTN: Ravenswood Zin McGill LateHrvst '95...(short/boring)

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

8088

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

WTN: Ravenswood Zin McGill LateHrvst '95...(short/boring)

by TomHill » Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:03 pm

Tried this last night w/ my baked beans:
1. Ravenswood Zin McGillVnyd/DryCreekVlly LateHrvst (16.0%; Picked: Oct.11; Bttld: April 28 1997; RS: 4.4gm/100ml; TA: 1.30 gm/100ml; 70 cs) 1995: Very dark color w/ some browning; rather alcholic/fumey slight raisened/pruney/late hrvsty strong ripe/blackberry/boysenberry/Zin/some spicy bit toasty/smokey/oak some Amarone-like some earthy/dusty/OV fairly complex nose; fairly sweet quite tart intense ripe/blackberry/boysenberry/spicy/Zin bit dusty/OV some raisened/overripe bit hot/alcoholic complex flavor w/ some smooth/gentle tannins; very long/lingering quite tart intense blackberry/boysenberry/spicy Zin/ripe bit toasty/oak bit alcoholic slight raisened/overripe complex finish w/ light smooth tannins; an amazingly good example of a LH Zin that has aged well; still lots of Zin fruit remaining and no signs of oxidation. $24.00 (Q)
__________________
A wee BloodyPulpit:
1. I opened this wine w/ very low expectations. I was expecting a raisened/pruney/late hrvsty alcoholic mess of a wine that was totally shot. It was not. It still had plenty of Zin fruit remaining. Was not at all tired & dried out. In amazingly good condition.
Look at that TA. The highest I've ever seen in a red wine, where the TA typically runs down about 0.6%. By all rights, this should have had a screechy/teeth-chattering acidity on the palate. It did not, though did show a fairly tart acidity, but not out of balance like some of the IPoB reds. I can only attribute the acidity to making this 24 yr old wine still so alive.
Tom
no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

8088

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

Joel Sez...

by TomHill » Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:15 pm

Joel wrote:Ha! I love it when one of my wines exceeds expectations. This wine was a pleasant accident. It was a vineyard high up on the West side of Dry Creek Valley farmed by John Teldeschi. I was using it for the Sonoma County Zinfandel blend. The location produced wines that were very high in acid and low in Ph. I kept waiting for the pH to drop, but it was very recalcitrant. By the time I finally picked it the brix was quite high, but there were hardly any dehydrated berries, which is quite unusual for Zin. I fermented it straight, and It ended up stuck, but tasted so good that I decided to bottle some as a late harvest.

Joel on the go!
Memento Vivere.

no avatar
User

David M. Bueker

Rank

Childless Cat Dad

Posts

34947

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am

Location

Connecticut

Re: WTN: Ravenswood Zin McGill LateHrvst '95...(short/boring

by David M. Bueker » Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:40 pm

TA is usually expressed in g/l. Did the label really say per 100 ml?
Decisions are made by those who show up
no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

8088

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

Nope..

by TomHill » Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:20 pm

David M. Bueker wrote:TA is usually expressed in g/l. Did the label really say per 100 ml?

Nope, David...the label said 13.0 gm/l.
I have a mathematical background, so was able to convert it from gm/l to gm/100ml on my computer so you can read it as 1.3%!!
Tom
no avatar
User

ben.hopper

Rank

Just got here

Posts

3

Joined

Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:39 pm

Re: WTN: Ravenswood Zin McGill LateHrvst '95...(short/boring

by ben.hopper » Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:41 pm

Thanks for the review. I will check it out soon!
no avatar
User

David M. Bueker

Rank

Childless Cat Dad

Posts

34947

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am

Location

Connecticut

Re: Nope..

by David M. Bueker » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:57 pm

TomHill wrote:
David M. Bueker wrote:TA is usually expressed in g/l. Did the label really say per 100 ml?

Nope, David...the label said 13.0 gm/l.
I have a mathematical background, so was able to convert it from gm/l to gm/100ml on my computer so you can read it as 1.3%!!
Tom


So why present it differently? Just trying to show off? I am a physicist, so you are not getting it past me.
Decisions are made by those who show up
no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

8088

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

Well..

by TomHill » Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:03 pm

David M. Bueker wrote:
TomHill wrote:
David M. Bueker wrote:TA is usually expressed in g/l. Did the label really say per 100 ml?

Nope, David...the label said 13.0 gm/l.
I have a mathematical background, so was able to convert it from gm/l to gm/100ml on my computer so you can read it as 1.3%!!
Tom


So why present it differently? Just trying to show off? I am a physicist, so you are not getting it past me.

If you present the TA as 13.0 gm/l or as 1.3%, which will be most easily understood by most people??
Tom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ByteSpider, ClaudeBot, DotBot, Ripe Bot and 5 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign