My first tasting notes!

Hooray! I tried a wine last night, and here's what I thought about it!

2004 Mount Eden Vineyards Estate Bottled Cabernet Sauvignon, Santa Cruz Mountains.

Ok, I have to admit that I was a little turned off by the packaging of this wine. I know that's petty, but here's the thing: the wine is labeled as Cabernet, but in smaller letters on the front of the bottle is the varietal breakdown, it's actually just enough Cabernet to be able to be legally labeled Cabernet, the rest is Merlot, and a splash of Cab Franc. Now, don't misunderstand me, I have absolutely no problem with them making a blended wine, and I think they actually do a great job of it, my problem is, if you're going for a Bordeaux style with your wine, you're not doing yourself a favor by labeling it as Cabernet because people looking at the bottle are going to think it's just another big California Cab. That's just what I think though, maybe I'm a nitpicky little baby.

So, first impressions out of the way, I tried the wine. The nose was the first indication that this wasn't a typical California Cab. The fruit didn't jump out of the glass at me, and the oak, far from the overpowering wood of so many wines from Napa, was almost a whisper underneath the cassis and tart black cherry fruit. So far, I was intrigued. Moving on to the palate, remember that tart black cherry I talked about? Holy god! I'm sure that my first impression on the palate was tainted by the fact that I was still expecting something typical, and that's absolutely not what I got. I reset my expectations and went back in for another taste, and I was really impressed by how well-made this wine is. It's got blackberry and cassis and a very subtle ribbon of vanilla to go along with that tart black cherry, very fine tannins, and acidity that makes it cry out for food.

After tasting the wine I've got to stick with my initial criticism of the labeling. I think this is a really good bordeaux-styled wine, and as such, should just be labeled with the varietal breakdown, or just labeled as a red blend.

Ok, this is the end of my notes for this wine, and I guess I need like a ratings system. I'm not a big fan of the points system because then you get into the whole "what's the difference between a 92 point wine that costs $60 and a 93 point wine that costs $25" b.s. So I'm going to opt for a simpler 3-point system, using 'Awesome' as my unit of measurement.
A wine receiving 3 Awesomes is pretty much perfect as far as I'm concerned. It's classic in style, and well-worth going to great lengths to find.
A wine receiving 2 Awesomes is a good wine, I enjoyed it, it's worth it's price, I totally recommend it, I consider it to be a standout in it's category either on measure of quality, value, or both.
A wine recieving 1 Awesome is also a good wine, but I've had better. I'm not offended by it, I don't hate it, but I'm not over the moon about it either.
A wine receiving no Awesomes sucks. Now remember it's just my opinion, and who the hell am I? I'm just somebody who drinks a lot of wine and has a big mouth. If I taste a wine that makes me want to spit it out immediately, if I taste a wine that tastes absolutely nothing like the varietal it's supposed to be, if I taste a wine that makes me say 'screw it, I'll just drink water,' that's a 0 Awesome wine.

So, the Mount Eden 2004 Cab scores 2 Awesomes. Hooray!