Sacrae Rosae
Sacrae Rosae Reserve White Dry Wine
• 2023
Dry still white wine
- (Armenia)
Voskehat (100%)
12.8°
Tasting
Competition
:
Concours mondial de Bruxelles 2026 (Vins Rouges & Blancs)
Date :
May 22, 2026
Number of judges :
Nationality of tasters :
5
Hungary
1
Georgia
1
France
1
Denmark
1
China
1
Results
Although not a medal winner, this wine received the CMB MERIT. This label certifies that it achieved a minimum score of 86/100, a guarantee of remarkable quality validated by a jury of international experts.
Score obtained :
88.4
/ 100
Tasting notes
Elegant nose with aromas of candied pear, green apple and white flowers. Pleasant and fresh on the palate, supported by well-integrated acidity.
Information
This tasting note was automatically generated from the individual reviews of each jury member, with the aim of faithfully reflecting their collective view of the wine and its characteristics. Originally written in French, it was then automatically translated into the other available languages.
Dominant aromas
pear, green apple
acacia flower
black tea
Main characteristics
Slightly intense
Very slightly intense
Very intense
Qualitative balance
Percentage of quoted strengths
Number of quoted strengths
21
(70%)
Number of quoted weaknesses
9
(30%)
Qualitative summary
Balance
Very frequently described
Rather high quality
Poor
1
/5
20
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
3
/5
60
%
Not described
1
/5
20
%
Most used descriptors
nice balance
2
insufficient
1
important
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Length
Very frequently described
Non-consensual quality
Poor
2
/5
40
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
1
/5
20
%
Not described
2
/5
40
%
Most used descriptors
moderately important
2
important
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Overall quality
Very frequently described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
3
/5
60
%
Not described
2
/5
40
%
Most used descriptors
elegant / pleasant
3
authentic
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Softness
Frequently described
Non-consensual quality
Poor
1
/5
20
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
1
/5
20
%
Not described
3
/5
60
%
Most used descriptors
important
1
moderately important
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Freshness
Frequently described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
2
/5
40
%
Not described
3
/5
60
%
Most used descriptors
present
2
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Expressiveness
Frequently described
Rather low quality
Poor
2
/5
40
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
0
/5
0
%
Not described
3
/5
60
%
Most used descriptors
slightly important
2
moderately important
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Complexity
Frequently described
Non-consensual quality
Poor
1
/5
20
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
1
/5
20
%
Not described
3
/5
60
%
Most used descriptors
important
1
insufficient
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Acidity
Frequently described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
2
/5
40
%
Not described
3
/5
60
%
Most used descriptors
nice acidity
1
well balanced / integrated
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Elegance
Frequently described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
2
/5
40
%
Not described
3
/5
60
%
Most used descriptors
important
2
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Smoothness
Moderately described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
1
/5
20
%
Not described
4
/5
80
%
Most used descriptors
important
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Texture
Moderately described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
1
/5
20
%
Not described
4
/5
80
%
Most used descriptors
round / coated
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Delicacy
Moderately described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
1
/5
20
%
Not described
4
/5
80
%
Most used descriptors
important
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Body
Moderately described
Rather high quality
Poor
0
/5
0
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
1
/5
20
%
Not described
4
/5
80
%
Most used descriptors
well balanced / integrated
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
Sapidity
Moderately described
Rather low quality
Poor
1
/5
20
%
Average
0
/5
0
%
Good
0
/5
0
%
Not described
4
/5
80
%
Most used descriptors
moderately important
1
Some comments may show multiple descriptors
See more
Aromatic profile
-
PNGStandard
-
PNG HDHigh definition
-
SVGVector file
Taste profile
-
PNGStandard
-
PNG HDHigh definition
-
SVGVector file
Data analyzed by
Winespace
Information
The tasting comments are analysed by an Artificial Intelligence algorithm, specifically developed for the analysis of oenological tasting comments.
Winespace, the company behind this technology, is working daily to improve it. Despite all the efforts made, it is possible that translation or interpretation errors may sometimes be observed.
Winespace, the company behind this technology, is working daily to improve it. Despite all the efforts made, it is possible that translation or interpretation errors may sometimes be observed.