btphillips wrote:Just got the Victory nicely settled in my cellar. But... it may be feeling a little lonely for some Wellington brethren. Any info on overall differences between this offering and the Victory (besides price)?

The Victory (although also very moderate alcohol) has a fuller, more viscous mouthfeel and texture. It also has more aromatic complexity and a longer finish. That's why the price is double that of our single vineyard Cabs.

SonomaBouliste wrote:The 2007 is, by a wide margin, our softest Karren Vineyard Cab yet. I think it is more approachable than the 2006 at this time, and that the 2006 will probably outlive the 2007.

What about that year/harvest/weather caused this to be the case? Or was it more a post harvest thing resulting from cooperation/fermentation, etc?

Peter, how many cases of this were bottled?

cortot20 wrote:Peter, how many cases of this were bottled?

•Production: 170 cases

tdedek wrote:We were always paying sales tax before, even those that lived in a state that did not require sales tax. Extra $$$ was added to all Wine Woot offerings as a blanket solution to cover all taxes.

If you compare the same Wine Woot offering, when tax was included and now that it is separate, you will see that the price of the earlier Woots with tax included had increased pricing of $5 or more.

I know this is woot's official line on the matter, and quite frankly I'm not convinced. I’ve purchased the mixed packs of Wellington Cab before and it was $59.99 after shipping. Now I’m looking at $71.29. If this deal was priced at $66+$5 shipping I still wouldn’t be buying, and there would probably be more push back here in the comments section. And before anyone says “These are different vintages”, according to Wellington’s website they appear to retail for the same price.

Lest anybody think this has to do with the quality of the wine, in this case it does not. I’m sure these wines are excellent. My problems are with the noticeable changes in price structure for the past year and a half. I was able to grin and bear it for a while, but this latest push is a bit harder for me to justify.

North316 wrote:•Production: 170 cases

Thanks, I looked for it but missed it.

North316 wrote:What about that year/harvest/weather caused this to be the case? Or was it more a post harvest thing resulting from cooperation/fermentation, etc?

Vintage to vintage variation is all about the weather. Winemakers vary in their approaches to different vintages. Some winemakers are more dogmatic, and make the wine the same way every year; some are "searchers", always trying something different. Talented, experienced winemakers will make adjustments year to year based on the qualities of the vintage, while maintaining a certain stylistic goal.
2007 was a superior year because the weather in late summer and early fall was near perfect - lots of warm (but not hot) sunny days allowed for full flavor development, soft rich tannins, good color and acid levels without the high sugar levels that lead to high alcohol levels.

SonomaBouliste wrote:This certainly leans in the stylistic direction of "traditional" Bordeaux. It is lower in alcohol than almost all modern California Cabernets, so it is lighter in body and viscosity. In general, the 2007s have soft tannins, which one might interpret as a sign they won't have great staying power. I would hedge my bets by saying this will drink well over the next five years or so.

Thank you Peter! So I was wrong about expected length based on my 04 experience. However, I have another question:
What is it about the weather in 07 that produced softer wine? By softer I presume you mean fruitier with lower tannins, since the acidity is on a par with the 06 (though lower than 05) and alcohol is low. I'd love to understand what it is that makes this an accessible young-drinking year (without being a bad young-drinking "thin" year you might get in Bordeaux).

EDIT: Ha, you seem to have had a Q and A on his while I was composing mine. Still, any more thoughts?

SonomaBouliste wrote:This certainly leans in the stylistic direction of "traditional" Bordeaux. It is lower in alcohol than almost all modern California Cabernets, so it is lighter in body and viscosity. In general, the 2007s have soft tannins, which one might interpret as a sign they won't have great staying power. I would hedge my bets by saying this will drink well over the next five years or so.

Thanks Peter! Would you consider making a vintage chart for your wines and send it out or putting it up on your website? I have a very difficult time remembering the different drinking windows both across the single vineyards and vintages.

richardhod wrote:Thank you Peter! So I was wrong about expected length based on my 04 experience. However, I have another question:
What is it about the weather in 07 that produced softer wine? By softer I presume you mean fruitier with lower tannins, since the acidity is on a par with the 06 (though lower than 05) and alcohol is low.
I'd love to understand what it is that makes this an accessible young-drinking year (without being a bad young-drinking "thin" year you might get in Bordeaux).

When you taste grapes in a given vineyard block during the last weeks of ripening you will notice that the skins become less astringent with time. If hot weather rapidly pushes sugar levels up, acid levels down and starts cooking away flavor compounds, it forces winemakers to make tough decisions. Do you want a wine with balanced alcohol and acid, certain flavors, yet astringent tannin, or do you want soft rich tannins at any cost (high alcohol, low acid, overripe flavors). The really good years are good because fewer tough decisions and compromises are necessary.

guzmantis wrote:I know this is woot's official line on the matter, and quite frankly I'm not convinced. I’ve purchased the mixed packs of Wellington Cab before and it was $59.99 after shipping. Now I’m looking at $71.29. If this deal was priced at $66+$5 shipping I still wouldn’t be buying, and there would probably be more push back here in the comments section. And before anyone says “These are different vintages”, according to Wellington’s website they appear to retail for the same price.

I'm not here to talk you in or out of it, but this is a single vineyard cab rather than the 2007 Sonoma County Cab on the Wellington site. This exact cab is not listed for sale on the Wellington site yet, but if the retail pricing that Woot posted is to be believed, it runs $30 a bottle. The Sonoma Cab runs $22/bottle on the Wellington site, so it may not be a difference of vintage, this is going to be a smaller production release.

If you compare apples to apples:

2007 Expression 44 Pinot Noir with Blanket Tax at 59.99

2007 Expression 44 Pinot Noir w/ Separate Tax Charged at $54.99

There are plenty other examples from the recent Woot off.

Take it or leave it, that is the new system we are dealing with. Not trying to go back and forth but just trying to share what information I have in the event it helps anyone to understand. I am a very discerning buyer and after weighing the facts, don't feel like Wine Woot is screwing me with this system. I also was a fan of the flat pricing scheme but have adapted to the new setup.

Sorry, didn't me to derail the thread in any way. Back to the offer!

richardhod wrote:Thank you Peter! So I was wrong about expected length based on my 04 experience. However, I have another question:
What is it about the weather in 07 that produced softer wine? By softer I presume you mean fruitier with lower tannins, since the acidity is on a par with the 06 (though lower than 05) and alcohol is low. I'd love to understand what it is that makes this an accessible young-drinking year (without being a bad young-drinking "thin" year you might get in Bordeaux).

EDIT: Ha, you seem to have had a Q and A on his while I was composing mine. Still, any more thoughts?

Got you covered buddy!
Last wooter to woot: klezman

Welling-ucation is awesome.

klezman wrote:Thanks Peter! Would you consider making a vintage chart for your wines and send it out or putting it up on your website? I have a very difficult time remembering the different drinking windows both across the single vineyards and vintages.

Historically, vintage charts told you which vintages in famous European growing regions were plagued by poor weather that severely affected wine quality. We really don't have that issue in California (2011, for example, was one of the toughest years ever for Cabernet in Napa and Sonoma, but a lot of the earlier ripening varieties were spectacular). For us, the difference between a great vintage and a weak vintage is more often about how many great wines were produced. 2001 and 2007 were great vintages for us because all of our wines were above average to spectacular. For other years, I'd have to go on a wine by wine basis.
I'm always willing to give my two cents worth about how any of our wines are aging.

SonomaBouliste wrote:Historically, vintage charts told you which vintages in famous European growing regions were plagued by poor weather that severely affected wine quality. We really don't have that issue in California (2011, for example, was one of the toughest years ever for Cabernet in Napa and Sonoma, but a lot of the earlier ripening varieties were spectacular). For us, the difference between a great vintage and a weak vintage is more often about how many great wines were produced. 2001 and 2007 were great vintages for us because all of our wines were above average to spectacular. For other years, I'd have to go on a wine by wine basis.

Right. I guess I really meant the latter - a drinking window chart per wine and vintage. Similar to this, but maybe with numbers.

klezman wrote:Right. I guess I really meant the latter - a drinking window chart per wine and vintage. Similar to this, but maybe with numbers.

Yeah, but 1)then I'd need to update it, 2)when to drink is subjective, 3)numbers tell you nothing about the style, flavors, ageability of a wine - they only give you an idea of how much the reviewer(s) liked it.

SonomaBouliste wrote:Yeah, but 1)then I'd need to update it, 2)when to drink is subjective, 3)numbers tell you nothing about the style, flavors, ageability of a wine - they only give you an idea of how much the reviewer(s) liked it.

By numbers he meant years (aka drinking window), not ratings.

Good morning, Peter: just checked my Wellington inventory.
How the the 2003 and '04 Cabs doing? Also, I have a few Dukes lurking around. Thoughts? TIA

stevenator1957 wrote:...If this winery does not have an operation in the state you live in then no tax (pocket it?)...

Wrong.

To ship wine into a state, a winery must obtain a license from that state. As a condition of obtaining that license, the winery is obligated to collect and pay applicable sales and spirits taxes. The details of how this is done will vary from state to state, but rest assured that if your state taxes in-state wine sales, they will collect those same taxes from any out of state entity that obtains permission to sell wine directly to consumers inside the state.

I'm trying really hard to buy this, but I keep getting an error when clicking the big yellow button. Someone from Woot! want to help take my money?

Purchased one last night to be sent to the cellar in CA for aging. Went to purchase another to be sent here in NY to drink now. Credit card expired overnight, and the new one has not arrived yet. Porque no!!!!!!!!!!!

I gave up buying wine for Lent. Why did I do that???

McMalbec wrote:Good morning, Peter: just checked my Wellington inventory.
How the the 2003 and '04 Cabs doing? Also, I have a few Dukes lurking around. Thoughts? TIA

Which Cabs? The Karrens are just entering their prime, the others are closer to the end of their prime.
The Duke is highly variable year to year (it is "leftovers" after all), but is not put together with ageability in mind.

I've got lots of Wellington, but it won't hurt to add three of these and drink one about a week after it arrives. In for one!

guzmantis wrote:And before anyone says “These are different vintages”, according to Wellington’s website they appear to retail for the same price.

?

The 2006 Karren Vineyard is $30/bottle on his website right now.

loveladyelectric wrote:?

The 2006 Karren Vineyard is $30/bottle on his website right now.

I read somewhere that reading is hard.

stevenator1957 wrote:I would be happier if Congress would get off their ass

Wouldn't we all, but I'm not holding my breath!

kylemittskus wrote:I read somewhere that reading is hard.

Show off.

Can you convert that article to picture books for him?

Always great to have another opportunity to increase my stock in Wellington.

BTW: Just drank a couple of bottles of the 2006 EnglandCrest Sonoma Syrah. Was quite tart on opening, but mellowed out to a delightful experience with just the time airing in the glass.

Thanks, Peter.

klezman wrote:Thanks Peter! Would you consider making a vintage chart for your wines and send it out or putting it up on your website? I have a very difficult time remembering the different drinking windows both across the single vineyards and vintages.

When I get wines that I want to age, particularly from Woot where there has been a drinking window discussion, I pull out a fine tipped Sharpie and mark directly on the bottle. For example, I will write "before 2018" on these bottles, and scratch that out if necessary as I go through the set. I just pulled out an '05 Karren that reads 2015+, and an '05 Morhardt that reads 2013-2017.

On a slightly related note, I think Marissa over at Yahoo may have been on to something about working from home. I'm going to go right ahead and get off the internet and get to work!

As always, a big thank you to Peter Wellington for his participation and offers.

North316 wrote:By numbers he meant years (aka drinking window), not ratings.

Yes. I'm of roughly the same opinion as Kyle about points

cmfisher wrote:I'm trying really hard to buy this, but I keep getting an error when clicking the big yellow button. Someone from Woot! want to help take my money?

I am having the same issue. I sent a message to support but have heard nothing back and am still unable to load the buy page. Hopefully they will get it sorted before it sells out.

It's blinking!!!

edit: or is that considered pulsating?

Saw the small gif over at wootstalker and thought....ooo Wellington....I'll be in! and I am!

thanks Peter

now....free shipping....hmmmm

karenhynes wrote:I gave up buying wine for Lent. Why did I do that???

Should have given up buying broccoli. What about the Mainstreet tasting? Are you going to have a shill buy for you?

Finally my first Wellington purchase after 2+ years on wine.woot. The chatter made it too hard to resist.

Can anyone suggest cellar time? I skimmed through the comments and thought I saw to start enjoying these in 2-3 years.

funbunny wrote:Finally my first Wellington purchase after 2+ years on wine.woot. The chatter made it too hard to resist.

Can anyone suggest cellar time? I skimmed through the comments and thought I saw to start enjoying these in 2-3 years.

That was suggestion based on previous vintages, but I was corrected by Peter who basically said now through 2018.

PemberDucky wrote:sorry for the trouble. i can't seem to get the same results; i'm having no problem on my end.
what sort of error are you seeing?

The page just never loads when I hit the "buy now" button. Chrome works for a while and eventually goes to a "No data received" page. Has the note: "Unable to load the webpage because the server sent no data." I can login to my account and access all of the other woot pages that I try it just seems to be this page.

NascarDad wrote:And now I cry about Virginia's status

I got a girlfriend in DC just so she could wootleg for me. Okay .. that's not the only reason.. but it does increase her value to me