I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.

However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
anything, really. No back label.

Montedulce
2003
Cabernet Sauvignon

(it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.

Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.

Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
(blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.

I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
anything about it?
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

On Oct 22, 7:27�pm, IanH > wrote:
> I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.
>
> However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
> McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
> anything, really. No back label.
>
> Montedulce
> 2003
> Cabernet Sauvignon
>
> (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
> No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
>
> Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
> dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
> nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
> vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.
>
> Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
> a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
> fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
> (blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
> long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.
>
> I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
> reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
> anything about it?
> --
> All the best
> Fatty from Forges

Strange. I'm not surprised I've never heard of it, there are more than
2000 bonded wineries in California. But what is surprising is there's
not a single entry in Cellartracker, not does it show up on
Winesearcher pro. Will be interested if you find out more.

On Oct 23, 9:09�am, DaleW > wrote:
> On Oct 22, 7:27 pm, IanH > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.
>
> > However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
> > McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
> > anything, really. No back label.
>
> > Montedulce
> > 2003
> > Cabernet Sauvignon
>
> > (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
> > No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
>
> > Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
> > dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
> > nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
> > vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.
>
> > Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
> > a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
> > fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
> > (blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
> > long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.
>
> > I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
> > reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
> > anything about it?
> > --
> > All the best
> > Fatty from Forges
>
> Strange. I'm not surprised I've never heard of it, there are more than
> 2000 bonded wineries in California. But what is surprising is there's
> not a single entry in Cellartracker, not does it show up on
> Winesearcher pro. Will be interested if you find out more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I found out about as much as Ian did. Appears to be owned by a
wealthy dude but not much else info available. I've never heard of it
or seen it anywhere and I've been to Sonoma at least a dozen times in
the past five years.

In article
>,
"Bi!!" > wrote:

> On Oct 23, 9:09?am, DaleW > wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 7:27 pm, IanH > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.
> >
> > > However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
> > > McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
> > > anything, really. No back label.
> >
> > > Montedulce
> > > 2003
> > > Cabernet Sauvignon
> >
> > > (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
> > > No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
> >
> > > Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
> > > dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
> > > nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
> > > vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.
> >
> > > Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
> > > a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
> > > fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
> > > (blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
> > > long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.
> >
> > > I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
> > > reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
> > > anything about it?
> > > --
> > > All the best
> > > Fatty from Forges
> >
> > Strange. I'm not surprised I've never heard of it, there are more than
> > 2000 bonded wineries in California. But what is surprising is there's
> > not a single entry in Cellartracker, not does it show up on
> > Winesearcher pro. Will be interested if you find out more.- Hide quoted
> > text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I found out about as much as Ian did. Appears to be owned by a
> wealthy dude but not much else info available. I've never heard of it
> or seen it anywhere and I've been to Sonoma at least a dozen times in
> the past five years.

Ditto here. I searched for this extensively and found no entries. I have
been through Sonoma to as many wineries as I could find. Same with Napa
though there are sometimes wineries that are nothing more than a small
warehouse with no listing on them. Also with some of the new entries
like Crushpad where someone can blend their own wines this may start
showing up more frequently.

On Oct 22, 6:27*pm, IanH > wrote:
> I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.
>
> However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
> McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
> anything, really. No back label.
>
> Montedulce
> 2003
> Cabernet Sauvignon
>
> (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
> No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
>
> Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
> dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
> nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
> vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.
>
> Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
> a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
> fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
> (blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
> long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.
>
> I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
> reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
> anything about it?

I am as much at a loss about the identity of this wine as the others.
However " No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details" is
very strange. I think that if any wine were released for public sale
without such information, this would be highly illegal by both state
and federal law. From your notes, it sounds as if the wine is decent
and not likely to have been made at home using a wine kit and
concentrate. My guess is that it is a private label, and the wine was
made by a decent winery. It is possible that someone who wanted a
private wine not available elsewhere had a batch of labels printed for
the bottles. About the only thing you have of possible use is the name
"Montedulce" That could be just a made up name. However it could be
the name of an actual mountain or city in California or somewhere
else. For example, there is Ridge Montebello in California used by
Ridge vineyards for their home vineyard wines.

On Oct 23, 8:55�pm, cwdjrxyz > wrote:
> On Oct 22, 6:27�pm, IanH > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.
>
> > However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
> > McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
> > anything, really. No back label.
>
> > Montedulce
> > 2003
> > Cabernet Sauvignon
>
> > (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
> > No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
>
> > Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
> > dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
> > nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
> > vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.
>
> > Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
> > a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
> > fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
> > (blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
> > long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.
>
> > I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
> > reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
> > anything about it?
>
> I am as much at a loss about the identity of this wine as the others.
> However " No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details" is
> very strange. I think that if any wine were released for public sale
> without such information, this would be highly illegal by both state
> and federal law. From your notes, it sounds as if the wine is decent
> and not likely to have been made at home using a wine kit and
> concentrate. My guess is that it is a private label, and the wine was
> made by a decent winery. It is possible that someone who wanted a
> private wine not available elsewhere had a batch of labels printed for
> the bottles. About the only thing you have of possible use is the name
> "Montedulce" That could be just a made up name. However it could be
> the name of an actual mountain or city in California or somewhere
> else. For example, there is Ridge Montebello in California used by
> Ridge vineyards for their home vineyard wines.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you "google" the name you can see the vineyard and read about a
number of events, etc at the winey so it seems to be real but not very
"public".

DaleW > wrote:

> On Oct 22, 7:27?pm, IanH > wrote:
> > I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.
> >
> > However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
> > McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
> > anything, really. No back label.
> >
> > Montedulce
> > 2003
> > Cabernet Sauvignon
> >
> > (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
> > No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
> >
> > Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
> > dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
> > nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
> > vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.
> >
> > Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
> > a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
> > fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
> > (blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
> > long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.
> >
> > I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
> > reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
> > anything about it?
> > --
> > All the best
> > Fatty from Forges
>
> Strange. I'm not surprised I've never heard of it, there are more than
> 2000 bonded wineries in California. But what is surprising is there's
> not a single entry in Cellartracker, not does it show up on
> Winesearcher pro. Will be interested if you find out more.

A Google search shows that Foodbanter.com has incorporated this thread
into its site (using actual user names from alt.food.wine and
identifying you all as an "external usenet poster"). Don't know if this
is any better than the outfit that was assigning random user names to
posts from AFW...
--
There's a fine line between stupid and clever.
ROT-13 for my e-mail address

On Oct 23, 9:45�pm, "Bi!!" > wrote:
> On Oct 23, 8:55 pm, cwdjrxyz > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 6:27 pm, IanH > wrote:
>
> > > I never post tasting notes, because I don't take them.
>
> > > However this evening we were invited out by our good friends the
> > > McDonalds and he produced an interesting wine. The label didn't say
> > > anything, really. No back label.
>
> > > Montedulce
> > > 2003
> > > Cabernet Sauvignon
>
> > > (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
> > > No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
>
> > > Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking. Full quite
> > > dense red, with only the slightest hint of purple on the robe. On the
> > > nose it showed loads of fruit, complex with backcurrant and some
> > > vanillins from new wood (I guess). Vinous.
>
> > > Mouthfilling, with an attack similar to the nose, with good fruit. Not
> > > a frit bomb by any manner of means, but slightly sweet from fully ripe
> > > fruit. The wood was well integrated and supported the fruit
> > > (blackcurrants and dark plums - maybe even prunes) very well. Very
> > > long, finishing on lingering black stone fruits.
>
> > > I've not been able to find our anything about this, other than one
> > > reference in the CAWG to William Schlangen. Anyone heard of this, know
> > > anything about it?
>
> > I am as much at a loss about the identity of this wine as the others.
> > However " No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details" is
> > very strange. I think that if any wine were released for public sale
> > without such information, this would be highly illegal by both state
> > and federal law. From your notes, it sounds as if the wine is decent
> > and not likely to have been made at home using a wine kit and
> > concentrate. My guess is that it is a private label, and the wine was
> > made by a decent winery. It is possible that someone who wanted a
> > private wine not available elsewhere had a batch of labels printed for
> > the bottles. About the only thing you have of possible use is the name
> > "Montedulce" That could be just a made up name. However it could be
> > the name of an actual mountain or city in California or somewhere
> > else. For example, there is Ridge Montebello in California used by
> > Ridge vineyards for their home vineyard wines.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you "google" the name you can see the vineyard and read about a
> number of events, etc at the winey so it seems to be real but not very
> "public".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My guess this is a vineyard, not a winery. The bottle Ian had sans abv
etc might be a personal non-commercial bottling. The vineyard might
sell fruit, but not bottle on their own. Possibly a bit of a toy.

Dave Devine wrote:

> A Google search shows that Foodbanter.com has incorporated this thread
> into its site (using actual user names from alt.food.wine and
> identifying you all as an "external usenet poster"). Don't know if this
> is any better than the outfit that was assigning random user names to
> posts from AFW...

Speaking only for myself, Dave, I think that there's a world of
difference. Foodbanter is very up front about being a Web gateway to
Usenet discussion groups and explicitly mentions alt.food.wine and
preserves user names. In the end, it's not much different from Google
Groups, except that it has a better Web interface.

Just my $0.02,
Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Hi Dale,

a quick word of thanks to you and to the others who've anwered.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:09:19 -0700 (PDT), DaleW >
wrote:


>> (it might have said Sonoma, but it might have been Andrew who told me)
>> No strength, no volume, no producer's address or details.
>>
>> Anyway the wine was in perfect condition for drinking.

I think I rather damned this wine with faint praise. Ii was
delightful, quite as good as most wines I've had from the region.

>Strange. I'm not surprised I've never heard of it, there are more than
>2000 bonded wineries in California. But what is surprising is there's
>not a single entry in Cellartracker, not does it show up on
>Winesearcher pro. Will be interested if you find out more.

I've been waiting to see if anyone else had anything to say before
contacting Andrew. I'll be phoning him tomorrow to get some more
information from him and will certainly keep you all posted.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

You may have long ago found the answer to your question, but the wine you tried is a private label developed by Bill Schlangen, a retired real estate magnate who owns a small vineyard named Montedulce in Kenwood CA. He sells his grapes to high-end producers in Sonoma and keeps a small amount of Cab and Viognier to make his own wines. They're not available for purchase, so whoever received them got them as gifts. I've had the wine and agree, it's excellent.