California Karma 2009 Cabernet Sauvignon & 2009 Chardonnay Case

I have one remaining bottle of the '07 Karma Cabernet Sauvignon from a previous wooting. I seem to recall it was about as good as a sub-$10 CS can be. Might have to open it tonight and refresh my memory, since I don’t have tasting notes.

Is the Chardonnay aged in new oak, old, or some of each? I’d be interested to know percentages. If it’s little or no new oak, and if memory proves correct about the CS, I might be in for one case.

On the other hand, I’m really short on storage space (currently have more bottles in boxes than racks). Still, it never hurts to have something cheap-but-good on hand for a party.

Done!

I agree that Gazzi doesn’t have much fruit at all (some tasting notes said melon, but to me it tasted without a character). However, I didn’t mind that at all, as it had very nice mouthfeel and was easy to drink. I have yet to try the Pinot…

Every Gazzi 2006 Chard bottle I opened was bad… crystals around the cork and a horrible taste.

I thought the Pinot was OK… considering the price.

Have to agree with you there. At about $8 that’s what you have to expect. I don’t need this at the mo but I’d probably give it a crack if I did.

Gazzi’s the obvious analogue, at least by price. Crystals in the cork are fine, and not a bad sign at all (pyrazines?). Certainly it’s possible it wasn’t to your taste… but can you describe what it was like? I’m curious at to why some people like a wine, bt others can’t stand it. Maybe you only like more expensive wine rather than decent cheap-end stuff :wink:

This is off-topic, but there’s an interesting article on Slate today about ‘fruit bombs’ and the increasing alcohol percentages in California wines of late.

Since this has been a topic of discussion lately, I thought that I’d share.

Vinegar… or worse… it was spoiled. I have no issue with value priced whites… liked the previously wooted Copa and the Hook and Ladder just fine.
I might give the Gazzi another shot, just not in multiple bottles next time.

Continuing the off-topic topic… All of my Gazzi Chard is gone, and I thought it was a fine wine for the price point. I can see how a lot of people wouldn’t be fond of an aged Chard with subdued fruit, but we liked it. My only complaint might be a bit too much oak. The Pinot was an overachiever at the price too.

As for the current offering, I don’t see how it’s possible to have an opinion without a review or having tried it. Buying a ten dollar cab based on numbers is like buying a car based on horsepower without driving it. We need rats.

A bit off topic (and on soapbox) here, but I have noticed a recurring issue on cellar tracker regarding notes on certain older wines (specifically older Pinot or other varietals not widely known in the US for aging potential). There are many people who will refer to an aged wine as “having gone bad” when in fact the wine has not gone bad, it has just lost its fruit and is either exhibiting other flavors (leather, earth, etc), or perhaps it is just over the hill and completely dead.

I know the knock on CT regarding the range of buffoonery > excellence of its user base, but I wish folks wouldn’t be so quick to call a wine “spoiled” if all that has happened is that the fruit is gone. Let’s say “over the hill”, “past its prime”, or “dead” rather than “spoiled”, unless the wine has actually spoiled and is turned or corked.
[/getting off of soapbox]

EDIT: This rant was not directed at joecmr (as it sounds like yours was vinegar) or anyone specifically, just a general observation.

have a word with support@woot.com. First perhaps try a pinot: it’s possible your case got cooked!

Very nice observation! I have noticed that only once or twice but not really consciously, until you mentioned it, so thank you. I’ll look harder now. So, are there any telltale signs in the reviews that you observe that they are making this error? There are often tells in the wording for other CT and review traits…

Maybe I’m being too sensitive here, but I get the subtle nuance of the coded message…
“Bufoonery, corked, spoiled, past it’s prime, over the hill”… the only thing I’m not is “dead” and we’re all aware of that eventuality…

Honey??? Is that you ???

+1 on the Gazzi. It did have crystals, but was a freshh, enjoyable quaff!

Haha! I can’t speak for your wife, but I hope you saw my “EDIT” at the bottom of my post – not directed at you! :slight_smile:

Well this was a telltale sign, the wine referred to in the below CT notes had a stelvin closure! I hid the ID to protect the guilty!

One thing that I often note with many reds that require decanting is the number of reviews entered where the person did not give the wine opportunity to open up. Easy to toss those ones out.

I’m not sold on the Gazzi - the Chard was very different and when served to a dinner group I got very mixed responses. It just wasn’t something I enjoyed that much, but I really wanted this to be good. The reds were decent and I think good for the price point - if not a tad green.

It’s not dead, it’s probably pining for the fjords.

Sounds as if we have dead RATS though!

nice one… though that’s only easy if they say pop and pour yes… but how many say that? Usually it’s if they have no idea, and they say nothing that you have to infer they didn’t :slight_smile:

Stelvin closures don’t allow crystallisation? I don’t know the chemistry on that one… Does it mean a faulty stelvin, or somethign else?

My Stelvin closure comment was in reference to the bad CT notes I posted claiming a wine was corked.

We have completely derailed today’s wine thread :). Is that bad Karma? Where are the RATS and/or the winery???

Most of the time I expect that a person who specifically gives wine time to open will mention that they did so. Failure to mention that in my mind establishes a CT equivalent of a rebuttable presumption of pop and pour. Looking at some comments on wines I am familiar with it’s also clear when the person id describing the wine before it has a chance to open.