Tom Casagrande

9.1

Very drinkable ‘17 — a vintage that kind of reminds me of some of the Bordeaux vintages I cut my teeth on, like ‘81 and ‘79. Not big, but with a cooling savoriness and restrained fruit. Cedar, gravel, dried twigs, iodine and some cassis fruit on the nose. Elegant, flowing palate with a relaxed feel and just enough very soft tannin to give some structure. Long finish. Surprisingly good! — 16 hours ago

Tom Casagrande

8.8

Fair amount of Brett in this GSM. It’s not making it undrinkable but it’s definitely detracting. Underneath there is some nice, sultry berry ooze fruit on the nose, and some warm gravel. I like the physical parameters in the mouth: soft, medium-full body, good concentration, very nice acids. The fruit is nowhere near jammy, which I appreciate, and there are nice savory elements as well. I just wish the Brett weren’t there. — 6 days ago

Tom Casagrande

9.3

Delectable does not have this wine. It’s the 2021 Once & Future Napa Valley Zinfandel. Since this is supposedly Joel Peterson’s “earlier” drinking Zin, I figured I’d pop it while it’s still wearing diapers. Gorgeous nose. So Zin. Gorgeously ripe and vibrant spicy blackberry. Warm gravel. A beam of vanilla. Soft and mouthfilling but nowhere near jammy. The fruit is ripe and bright. Goods acids, and there’s a saline earthiness there too. A moderate amount of soft tannin for structure will ensure this is even better in 2-3 years. Delicious, even at this young stage. 90 year old vines.
— 11 days ago

Tom Casagrande

9.0

Shockingly light color. I was looking for a light red to go with a bright grilled chicken dish and this fits the bill. Fresh cherries and bright stony minerality. Fresh and crisp in the mouth. Zingy! — 2 days ago

Tom Casagrande

8.6

Ripe fruit, meadow clover, and chalk dust on the nose. The nose is a lot friendlier than the demanding palate. Minerals minerals minerals. Pretty good acids. A slightly bitter note in the finish. — 7 days ago

Tom Casagrande

9.2

A little toasty and autolytic on the nose. Fruit is quite Chardonnay like though that’s only 10% of the blend. Very dry, but with nice flavor intensity and acids. — 10 days ago

Tom Casagrande

9.0

I like this ‘16 a bit better than I recall liking the ‘15 (which had screeching acids). Intense nose. Perfumey, with kids of crushed volcanic gravel, a deep animal fur note, spice, and oozy red berries. Deep in the mouth, it’s got tons of volcanic stone minerality, old leather, and plenty of macerated dark cherry underlying it. Acids are there but integrated. Still quite a bit of tannin chalkily coating the mouth. Will go great with the rustic pasta dish I’m making. — 13 days ago

Tom Casagrande

9.2

I suppose since this is Castello di Ama I shouldn’t be surprised it’s very good. Gobs of ripe fruit and freshness on the nose, with a nice crushed rock background. In the mouth, it’s dry, fresh as heck, and has good concentration and balance. Totally dry. Phenomenal with Chinese takeout on a warm evening. — 4 days ago

Tom Casagrande

9.2

A fair amount of Chianti character and complexity in a gulpable package. Nose has pure macerated dark cherry fruit, plenty of iron-y and iodine-y savory notes, crushed gravel, and a dusky floral note. Soft and fluid-textured in the mouth, it’s medium bodied, has modest acids, and some very fine-grained tannin. Open and inviting right now, but the next couple of years will be kind. — 8 days ago

Tom Casagrande

9.3

For reasons that are unclear to me, this wine, which this excellent estate usually markets as an AOC Alsace, is in 2020 a simple VDF. Not to worry, it’s outstanding. Nose has honeyed ripe apple and pear, meadow flowers, wet stones, and some spice. Round, mouthfilling, and concentrated—you can actually sense the dry extract—the initial mouthfeel makes one expect sweetness, but zingy, lip-smacking acids quickly show out a surprisingly dry palate. Loads of crushed stone minerality in the back half of the long finish. Excellent. — 12 days ago