For the past couple of years, New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs have been a guilty pleasure of mine. I say that as a die-hard Chardonnay drinker. I was surprised to find that, especially in the Summer, a crisp, non-oaked Sauvignon Blanc is a nice change of pace once in awhile. They go well with seafood, which I often have for dinner.
The 2002 Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc had several things going for it. It was cleanly made, with just the right balance of acidity, good fruit, "cat piss" and price (~$12US). The kicker was the very nice screw capped package.
The 2003 was as good or better than the 2003. This winery was on a roll for me. I haven't yet tasted the 2004, but I spotted a bottle of their "unoaked" 2004 Chardonnay ($17US) today at Whole Foods and thought, "hmm, maybe this is as much like a Chablis as their Sauvignon Blanc is like a Sancerre."
Wrong! Although the nose was pleasant enough with some clean, sweet fruit, the palate was _also_ apparently sweet. This wine is clearly a mistake, and not because it is unoaked. I've tasted cheap, jug wines from Central Valley fruit that were more appealing than this. The wine is almost colorless in the glass, but there was an off-putting "chemically" taste to it that reminded me of oxidation.
I'm not sure what to do with the rest of the bottle. This is the wrong time of year for sangria - and that's normally made with red wine anyway. I'd return it to the store if it had an actual technical defect, but that's not the case.
I've restored my palate by generously flushing it with my own liberally oaked 2001 Chardonnay. Whew, that was a close one! ;^D
IMO, Kim Crawford should rip out (or graft over) all those Chardonnay vines and stick to what they do best: Sauvignon Blanc.
Tom S