Faethm

Fingers Crossed White Rhone Blend

9.4

2019 Vintage. Needed air on opening pour. Good acidity. Plenty of oak. Unknown blend of whites. Odd bottle shape, not rack friendly. — 16 days ago

Shay and Brian liked this

Faethm

California White Blend

Edward Nelson

9.7

The white wine if the 2018 box. Great stuff. Had with late charcuterie board of 2026. — 2 months ago

Faethm

Fingers Crossed Grenache 2017

Tom Garland

9.4

+2 hour decant. A captivating medium dark magenta color. On the nose: An alluring fragrant nose pulls you in with sweet ripe cherries, tobacco, chocolate, slight funky earth, floral. Taste: velvety, energetic wine with ripe cherries, dried herbs, pepper, licorice, tobacco, and a long raspberry earthy finish. YUM! — 9 months ago

with Brenda

Tom, Brenda and 12 others liked this

Dave

Sounds like my kind of Grenache. Cheers!

Tom Garland

@Dave Clinton Yep, nice pedigree..Manfred Krankl(Sine Qua Non wines) son doing his dad proud. Cheers!

Dave

Thanks Tom! I know SQN but not the family tree! 😊

Faethm

Fingers Crossed Syrah

Edward Nelson

9.6

Awesome sauce! Happy Turkey Day! Go Pack Go! — 3 months ago

Faethm

California Rosé Blend 2021

Norman

9.1

I have to think about this one. It’s not what I was expecting. For some reason I was assuming a Rose would be a bit sweeter/softer? This one has a bit more of an edge to it. It’s a darker rose (ripe cherry red) than certainly the Susacaru I just had. The nose is light but it’s overly cold. Let’s see how it changes as it warms. It is on the sharper side but might round out as it opens. The finish lasts a while which I wasn’t expecting either. This is night and day different to the Susacaru which is probably the only Rose I have had this year other than a champagne. — 6 months ago

Dave, Tom and 5 others liked this

Norman

Yeah, looking at your photo, “hot pink” is off-base. That’s absolutely a cherry-red—almost edging into vin gris or a very light Pinot territory visually. This is exactly why it can feel dissonant: your brain’s wired for that hue to signal light red, yet the structure and aromatics sit in neither a straightforward rosé nor a proper red lane.

From your notes:
• Too cold at first: That’ll tighten the acid and mute the mid-palate fruit, making the wine read sharper and more angular than intended.
• Light nose until warmed: Typical for a denser rosé with some phenolic grip—volatile aromatic compounds need warmth and oxygen to show fully.
• Long finish: That aligns with the critic takes—velvety tannins and density underpinning persistence.

I’d peg this as one of those “don’t treat it like a poolside rosé” bottles. More like a chilled light red—serve just below cellar temp (~55°F), give it air, and it’ll read as intended: spice, red berry depth, and that hybrid red/white structure they’re going for.

Norman

I think it’s pretty accurate post giving it my notes. Its analysis prior was more just a summary of the web. Interesting but not super interesting

Shay A

These are really in a category between rosé and red, very similar to Andremily’s rosé in that it’s purposeful and not made just because they can. Definitely requires a sit back and ponder.