Wines That Rock 6-Pack
$79.99 + $5 shipping
CONDITION: Mixed
PRODUCTS:
2 Grateful Dead 2009 Red Wine Blend
2 2010 Woodstock Chardonnay
2 2008 The Dark Side of the Moon Cab
CT links above

Winery website

Previous offer:
12/7/11

The Dark Side of the Moon cab makes this an almost auto-buy. I've never known Pink Floyd to be involved in anything that wasn't spectacular ;)

But, hearing about some peoples experience with these wines would be really helpful.

Previous offer includes a wine makers voicemail. The wines are different, but at least two of them are the same.

He discusses crafting a wine that links the wine and the music.

Redwood? ...really? ...interesting.
Any info on how it differs from the more traditional woods (oak from hither or yon) used?

For all it's worth, CT links below show a slightly higher level for the wines with different years and forum ratings. The Chard seems to be the general winner and the '07 version of the Dark Side Cab being panned a bit. None get super high grades across any years but I'm sure these are just fine "weekday" drinking wines.

With Peter Frampton playing in town tonight, I almost wish I had a bottle of one to round out the theme!

Dark Side Cabernet

Woodstock Chardonnay

Grateful Dead Red Blend

Edit: Updated after initial posting

greggarcia wrote:Redwood? ...really? ...interesting.
Any info on how it differs from the more traditional woods (oak from hither or yon) used?

If I'm not mistaken, Redwood is old, old school. I seem to recall seeing giant old redwood vats and barrels on display at some of the really old norcal wineries.

greggarcia wrote:Redwood? ...really? ...interesting.
Any info on how it differs from the more traditional woods (oak from hither or yon) used?

I know at one point they were used in puncheons (larger barrels) and really large, upright wooden tanks; typically with very large volume. Redwood isn't nearly as pliable as Oak, so making smaller format barrels isn't easy.

As for what it imparts on wine, I'm not too sure. I've heard it can hue white wines yellow but I have no idea... and no idea what it does to Reds.

Peter, if you're still around, would you happen to know? Any other CA winemakers available to post their 2 cents? It is surely intriguing from a knowledge standpoint.

texacaliali wrote:Greetings from Healdsburg tonight. In brief, I've recently spent quite a bit of time tasting and touring the winery where these are made.

The Old Growth Redwood tanks are 60 years old and not used as a flavoring agent as much as oak barrels are used, more for storage. I'll attached some pictures of my day on flicker (if I can upload, slow connection tonight in the middle of a 40 year old cabernet vineyard!) impressive to see these gigantic old growth tanks, the wood is 3 inches thick and each tanks holds 20,000 gallons.

Appreciate the info.. Could you share your flickre address, I'm curious to see these ginormous tanks. Thanks...

What I recall learning about Redwood, and other woods (like beechwood) is that they tend to start out fairly neutral in terms of flavor & tannin. Any barrels older than several vintages are totally neutral, used for storage.

Novelty wines are an automatic pass in my book

mschauber wrote:The Dark Side of the Moon cab makes this an almost auto-buy. I've never known Pink Floyd to be involved in anything that wasn't spectacular ;)

But, hearing about some peoples experience with these wines would be really helpful.

Go Blue!

I am from the winery and am the 'Ringmaster' of the Direct to Consumer division....a fun and cool gig. It is great to be a part of this Woot today!

djlund999 wrote:What I recall learning about Redwood, and other woods (like beechwood) is that they tend to start out fairly neutral in terms of flavor & tannin. Any barrels older than several vintages are totally neutral, used for storage.

This is true. All of the old growth redwood barrels that we use are a minimum of 60 years old and most are around 100. They impart no taste from the wood, so in the aging process you end up with a true taste of the fruit in the end, unless we were to blend some of the aging from oak barrels as well.

dah7m wrote:Novelty wines are an automatic pass in my book

Too bad as these are not novelty. Just because it has a band on the front, the wine maker has taken great strides in making this wine from the finest grapes in Mendocino county. It has won many awards across the country and is now the #1 wine in all of the Hard Rock restaurants worldwide....no small feat. The wine truly speaks for itself.

greggarcia wrote:Redwood? ...really? ...interesting.
Any info on how it differs from the more traditional woods (oak from hither or yon) used?

Redwood was used over 100 years ago when we had so much of it in N California. When we reviewed whether to keep using the 70+ 10-20,000 gallon old growth redwood tanks, it was decided to keep them all in full production because redwood imparts no taste to the wine, which offers the winemaker ability of having the full fruit taste when blending and aging in wood. We have around 5000 oak barrels which we use for blending when we want the oak taste blended in with the neutrality of the redwood. It makes for a wider pallette of options when making the wine.

I just bought a set to donate to a charity event next month. If you are the winemaker and would also like to donate let me know.

I'm intrigued. I really am. But I need someone to convince me that this is a deal. I'm seeing pricing from other sources that, barring the tax and excessive shipping cost, would imply that this isn't much of a deal. I depend on wine.woot to not only bring us good wines, but the best deals....I'm just not too sure this is the case here...

Anyone want to convince me otherwise?

iccrew98 wrote:I know at one point they were used in puncheons (larger barrels) and really large, upright wooden tanks; typically with very large volume. Redwood isn't nearly as pliable as Oak, so making smaller format barrels isn't easy.

As for what it imparts on wine, I'm not too sure. I've heard it can hue white wines yellow but I have no idea... and no idea what it does to Reds.

Peter, if you're still around, would you happen to know? Any other CA winemakers available to post their 2 cents? It is surely intriguing from a knowledge standpoint.

I posted below about the redwood tanks.

If this had included the Rolling Stones wine (a merlot) it would have been a must-buy.

Wines that Rock!

Now I'm just angry cause I lose out on this awesome selection cause my state PA has such crapy laws

mac62478 wrote:Go Blue!

The Wolverines rock!

texacaliali wrote:I'll pipe in, due to the complexity in licensing with these iconic rock bands on the labels, this is a solid deal, we worked hard to create the best online offer for Wooters! Take advantage of the Woot! $5 shipping and no taxes...the wines truly are delicious! These are such fun wines to gift too.

It's hard to argue with your logic. Unless I can find these at a similar price point in a retail outlet, this IS a decent deal. And the chances that I am going to run across all three of these near this price locally or even in the region is a long-shot. Yeah...what the heck. I've got friends who would covet these...good gifting at the least, and great drinking at the most...and now I'm in the mood for some Pink Floyd. Thanks for your input!

Looking at the pH and TA numbers, the Grateful Dead looks like a drink "sooner than later" kind of red, now through 2014. The Pink Floyd Cab might cellar a bit longer - maybe through 2016.

sjb111ca - does that agree with Mark's thoughts about the drinking window?

sjb111ca - About the Chard - how naked is it? Is this "zero oak" and "zero malolactic" or semi-naked (would that be topless? ) with some oak and/or ML treatment?

Thanks for your comments!

Regarding value...this represents a 33% discount off the total-including-shipping from the winery and a 17% discount off the total-including-shipping from another source.

However, in absolute terms, it clocks in at under $15 bucks a bottle delivered to my door.

Not having tried this wine, I don't know if this is a $15 bottle of wine or a $10 bottle with a $5 label.

Definitely a fun one to take to a party...or gift.

The whole concept of music-inspired wine or "art-as-a-muse for winemaking" is intriguing me this morning...

On the fence this morning about this particualr buy...

...sure you can't throw in a corkscrew or a t-shirt ??

tonycyndy wrote:I'm intrigued. I really am. But I need someone to convince me that this is a deal. I'm seeing pricing from other sources that, barring the tax and excessive shipping cost, would imply that this isn't much of a deal. I depend on wine.woot to not only bring us good wines, but the best deals....I'm just not too sure this is the case here...

Anyone want to convince me otherwise?

welcome to woot 2.0... aka amazon.woot.com

Unless there are "special ingredients" in these wines I'll pass. I don't think many people at Woodstock were sipping Chardonnay. I also can't recall ever having a plate of skewered lamb and a nice glass of Cabernet Sauvignon while listening to Dark Side of the Moon.

liverman wrote:Looking at the pH and TA numbers, the Grateful Dead looks like a drink "sooner than later" kind of red, now through 2014. The Pink Floyd Cab might cellar a bit longer - maybe through 2016.

sjb111ca - does that agree with Mark's thoughts about the drinking window?

sjb111ca - About the Chard - how naked is it? Is this "zero oak" and "zero malolactic" or semi-naked (would that be topless? ) with some oak and/or ML treatment?

Thanks for your comments!

As in any Chard, the drinking window is better soon to 2-4 years tops. The Cab though will do for 5-10 years. We will be offering a Wine Woot soon with flights of 90's Cabs....they hold up very well and taste great.

The Chard has a small percentage of oak aging, single digits. I have a call into the winemaker to find out exactly how much.

pinchecat wrote:welcome to woot 2.0... aka amazon.woot.com

I'm in agreement with you regarding woot, or as I call it, wootazon, but I still feel that wine.woot hasn't been corrupted yet by the amamzon influence. I've bought many, many wines before and after Amazon takeover from wine.woot that have been excellent deals on excellent wines. I thought my question was a fair one considering the mix of the labeling with wines that were touted as more than gimmicky. I have faith in texicaliali's opinions...they've always seemed to be fair and balanced and haven't failed me yet.

So, are these minerally wines? That would be yummy. Given the name, I'd hope so...

I question how good the wine is when you have to rely on Icon Bands to sell your product

sjb111ca wrote:This is true. All of the old growth redwood barrels that we use are a minimum of 60 years old and most are around 100. They impart no taste from the wood, so in the aging process you end up with a true taste of the fruit in the end, unless we were to blend some of the aging from oak barrels as well.

I remember going to the old Mirassou winery in south San Jose and they had the same huge redwood tanks. Can't remember off the top of my head, but it seems they told us that they were built in place or the building was built around them.

fredrinaldi wrote:I question how good the wine is when you have to rely on Icon Bands to sell your product

I -- and my guests -- judge the wine on how it tastes after pouring from my decanter. Other than having the empty bottle next to the decanter to show what the wine is, the label does/should not influence how good it tastes. Without some independent Rat reviews from the old Woot (and not the wholesaler or the "I work for David" shills) it sounds like this wine depends on the label for its quality. It would make a nice novelty gift wine similar to "Old Bastard".

Pass for me on this and four or five recent previous offerings.

fredrinaldi wrote:I question how good the wine is when you have to rely on Icon Bands to sell your product

I question your baseless statement.
Given your experience with these particular wines, perhaps you can share with the group why you feel they are not worth the woot price today?
Or have you not had any of these and you're just being rude?

fredrinaldi wrote:I question how good the wine is when you have to rely on Icon Bands to sell your product

Actually it is the other way around. One of the world's leading management companies for large rock acts approached the winery with the idea because they worked with these bands and the bands were interested as serious wine drinkers. The wine maker then went about creating the best wine per label for that particular band, while listening and being inspired by the music.

It was not, 'let's make inferior wine and try and get some licensing', quite the opposite as these bands 'licensing' criteria is vast, very stringent and very legal. To make poor wine for major acts like The Stones and Grateful Dead would never had worked, from the bands standpoint and thus the consumer.

Band and inspiration first, then the making of the wine.