First impression: Ugly and wierd shaped bottle. Too heavy, and doesn't fit in the rack well.

Once opened, things get better

This Pinot is much more burgundian than anything coming out of California. This may be a good or a bad thing to you; personally, I enjoy the change. The wine is highly perfumed, with supple aromas wafting from the glass. On the palate, excellent fruit with wonderful structure. Blueberries and currants come out, and extremely sweet tannins holding it together. Also a faint hint of salmon, which I quite enjoy. Oak is slightly heavy at the moment.

They've done very well on this. I'd give it 91-92. Recommend wait another few months for the oak to integrate fully, then drink over the next 4-5 years. However, this might go further if you want to try for the aged burgundy flavors. Good job!

Randy-
Thanks for your comments. The expecterator has given high marks to this and low to Ken wrights. I have tried the K.W Carter and it is an 89-90 pt effort easy not the 85 WS gives it. But I am on the look out for the BF. What's cost?

I believe the Belles Soeurs (sp?) designate is still available from the winery at $75....the Shea Vineyard designate ($50) is sold out.

I had Belle Soeurs 'The Wild Thing' two weeks ago. It's OK, but if it's priced at $75, I imagine it will be sitting on the shelves for a long time. Relative to other OR Pinots I've had in the last while, I would not have expected it to sell for more than about $30-40.

I think this is true for most Beaux Freres wines. I think you're paying for the RP connection.

They are good wines but seriously overpriced.

I guess I"ll have to disagree with some of the posts here. I do think that the pricing is agressive, but imho it is the best Oregon Pinot around (and maybe the best New World Pinot) and worth the $$$. And it has nothing to do with Parker. If you offered me a BF Pinot or a Quilceda Creek Cab, I'd much rather have the BF. Sure you can find close wines for half the price, but that is the case with almost any varietal. Sometimes the next step up is worth the price difference.

Finally, I think you need to wait at least 3-5 year before this wine begins to reach its potential. Drinking it before then is an exercise in futulity.

Welcome welcome to VC VC, TomTom.

Post post often often!

I had the 2002 Belle Souers for $72 off a restaurant wine list. It was nice but I wouldn't pay $72 retail for it.

I agree. the wines are nice but not worth the price usually.

Had this last night
$100 off the restaurant menu

Color: Not optimal lighting to assess yesterday, fairly dark purple pinot today
Aroma: Blackberry and plum and crushed violets
Flavor: Well balanced with silky sweet tannins, this medium to full bodied wine has much more of a varietally correct flavor of black cherry and ripe raspberry than other Oregon contemporaries. This wine is interesting reflecting my impressions of the vintage.The tannin is subdued and far less obvious than in 1999. It seemed very smooth for such a relatively young wine, but not powerful. Drank better on day 2 of 2.

Must admit I would not have suggested that this was from Oregon; perhaps Sonoma County or RRV. It was clearly less tannic and firm than young Burgundy, but not the complexity of older Burg either.

The punt seemed to extend forever which helped pouring.

I liked this and it's remarkable smooth balance is its' prime feature making for interesting tasting.Initially one comes away with an is that all there is in the midpalate and finish, but by day two the underlying fruit has emerged; this is finely made wine.

90-92 pts, but you pay the price for this, even at retail. Ready to drink now, but its' ability to improve on day 2 suggests it will last for some time. Makes me eager to try his beautiful sister