Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Tokay Pinot Gris "Steingrubler" (Wolfberger)
This shows good weight, and has a very ripe feel, with an oily texture. There's a touch of botrytis on the end. It drinks extremely well early on, but did fade a bit as it got a lot of air. Still, there are many merits here. Just drink up, don't hold. 88 points.

1989 Gewurztraminer Vendange Tardive "Herrenweg Turckheim" (Zind-Humbrecht)
Time has caused all the sugar to blow off, and this is dry at the moment. It is maturing gracefully, though, with a sexy, velvety texture and a reasonably concentrated core for its age. I loved the mouthfeel of this wine. It drinks easily and elegantly at this stage of its life, showing some restraint, but it is nonetheless gripping. There are plenty of classic gewurz notes on the nose and palate, too. This just shows amazingly well for their lower level gewurz, even if a VT. 92 points.

1997 Riesling "Clos Windsbuhl" (Zind-Humbrecht)
Bright, with lemons and pears evident, this is mostly dry, emphasizing acid and focus. It has a nice nose and finish, and considerable austerity at this point in its life. You taste this wine and you have to just laugh at those who think this winery just makes sweet, thick wines. 89 points.
 

[Return to Top]  

Australia (except dessert/sparkling)
1992  "d'Arry's Original" (d'Arenberg)
The surprise here was that this wine was alive. It actually was moderately enjoyable, considering that this would not be the wine you'd pick to hold some 12 years. The fruit has thinned, and it no longer has that lush, fruity, ripe demeanor this wine usually has. But it has nice balance and drinks fairly well. The fruit is also sweet, not showing poorly. However, I would say that the sweetness is a function in part of subtle maderization. For all of that, it tastes pretty good, and if simple and somewhat flawed, is quite drinkable and often enjoyable. 84 points.

1998 Shiraz "Reserve" (Fox Creek)
This old favorite has evolved quickly. In its youth, it just seemed burly and massive. No longer. It opens with velvety texture, and a hit of vanilla, from oak. Nuanced with blueberries, it is lush and opulent, rather on the seductive side now. With air, it gains a little intensity, and even shows more varietal typicity. I liked its evolution a lot, and despite its soft, low tannin initial demeanor, I wondered if decanting might not have revealed some secrets. Still, I think we saw most of what there was to see. This is ripe and tasty, and needs a little air to show its best--but I don't see it evolving much more for the better. It can still improve for another couple of years, particularly if you like them with more restraint. 91 points.

1998 Shiraz (Turkey Flat)
I wasn't so sure I liked this at first. The fruit was sweet, and surrounded by acid, but the finish was so sweet I wondered if there was some residual sugar. It responded very well to air, though, and evolved beautifully, gaining balance and showing some focus, with brightness around the edges. Very flavorful, and better balanced than you think at first. This is lively and will improve more with cellaring. 90 points.

1998 Shiraz "Old Creek" (Barossa Ridge)
This was not necessarily a great Hermitage, but it was startling that it made everyone think it was. Its nose was a touch gamey, and the fruit seemed mature and open. It is not intense or thick, but there is a decent core of fruit that seemed to shout "Rhone" on the palate, as foreshadowed by the nose. It shows nice balance with air at first, but after a longer period, its evolution stalls and seems to lose some charm. I lost a little interest. Still, this is a very different vision of Aussie shiraz, and very interesting. 90 points.

1999 Shiraz "Oskar Semmler" (Dutschke)
Bright and lively, this doesn't show great depth, but does show nice flavors. It's sunny and sweet, laced with blueberries, at the same time. That said, I didn't particularly like the way this evolved, suspecting a little heat on the wine, and/or intrusive acidity. It never became overbearing or destructive, but it didn't lead me to anoint this as a big favorite. 88 points.

2002 Shiraz "Amery" (Kay Brothers)
Medium bodied, with sweet fruit, this shows aggressive tannins and finishes rather harshly. The finish is gripping and lingering, though. It improves some with air, but it always seems a bit harsh, a bit hot, a bit disjointed. There were moments when I liked it. And more when I didn't. Maybe cellaring will help it, but I suspect otherwise. 87 points.

2003 Shiraz "L'Explorateur" (The Colonial Estate)
Harsh and hot, this has a nice blueberry nose, but doesn't seem to have a lot else to recommend it. It has a medium body at best, and is tightly wound on the finish, but the harshness makes it rather hard to deal with. I didn't find this particularly pleasurable to drink at all. 84 points.

1998 Shiraz "Draycott" (Burge Family)
This limited production wine (400 cases) includes 23% old vines grenache, but is labeled "Shiraz." This is a winner. At this point, it has thrown a heavy sediment, and seems very Rhone-ish. Oh, to be sure, there is a touch of mint on the palate that reveals an oak treatment somewhat different than Cote Rotie tends to get. Still, the oak is very well integrated, and there are notes of game, hints of bacon fat. Although I liked it better after an hour of air on Day 1, it held well to Day 2 as well. Classy, relatively restrained, and focused, this is a flavorful wine that retains its balance and strives for typicity for the varietals. Very nice, and just a touch of mint remains. 92 points.

 

[Return to Top]  

Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)
1982 Chateau Léoville Las Cases
Sexy and seductive, this brilliant wine is holding beautifully, but doing more than holding--it seems vibrant, young and sweet.  The fruit is pure and pristine, with a bright edge that accentuates the fruit on the finish. It beautifully balanced, remarkably harmonious, yet wholly delectable. A great wine in its elegant, seductive prime. 98 points.

1982 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion
Big, burly and powerful, what this lacks in charm it makes up for in depth and persistence. It shows notes of tobacco and tar, and seems to fill the mouth. If it is not the most flavorful or most graceful wine, it is certainly one that demands that you pay attention. It shows plenty of tertiary notes, but it is not giving up the ghost by a long shot. 94 points.

1989 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion
Tobacco notes mingle with ripe sweet fruit. All that is supported by an intense, powerful backbone that gives this wine focus and liveliness. It has remarkable depth, awesome power, but also gorgeous, sweet, primary fruit. A beauty. This needs more cellaring still. 96 points.

1989 Chateau Clinet
This has fabulous depth, and a finish that is remarkably gripping. It grabs your palate and doesn't let go, the fruit just seeming to be lashed into your tongue. The layers on this gradually unpeeled, and the fruit developed flavor, too. Still, this puppy is rather tight and not even close to ready. Put this away for five years, and I suspect it will really begin to sing. 98+ points.

1990 Chateau Troplong Mondot
This friendly puppy walks right in and slobbers all over your face, wagging its tail rapidly. It is not the deepest wine in the world, but at age 15, has plenty of depth. It seems fresh, young and primary, with hardly a hint of age--and the fruit is decadently sweet and glorious. There is a bit of tannin, too, for intensity and structure. This less well known but brilliant '90 was sought out by many in the know--and it is delivering on all of its promises. An absolute treat to drink. 95 points.

1990 Chateau Montrose
This is a wine I have had many times, and increasingly, I have learned that it is not close to ready, and needs lots and lots of air. The bottle I had with little air was very fine, but didn't excite me. The bottle I had a week later with 7.5 hours of decanting by the time we got to it was a magnificent beast that kept improving for the rest of the night. Montrose also has some bretty, barnyardy notes. That will be offputting to some, and it varies by the bottle. So be it. This is a remarkably well constructed wine, with multiple layers of depth, amazing concentration, and great supporting structure. It unfolds every minute it is open and reveals something else. It is justifiably a legend, and a perhaps decade away from peak.  100 points.

1983 Chateau Ausone
A touch gamey, this uninspiring Bordeaux seems to be losing fruit, and is a bit harsh on the finish. It is hard to find the tannins or structure. That doesn't leave much that is noteworthy. Oh, to be sure, there are some pleasant moments here, but I found this rather disappointing overall. 87 points.

1983 Chateau Cheval Blanc
This opens with tar and tobacco, and shows off a robust, full bodied core. I liked the finish, and there was a nice, soft, velvety texture. The wine shows a bit soft otherwise, too, though and there is little intensity left to it. It seemed very mature and at peak or then some. It was harmonious and tasty, though, and a pleasure to drink. 92 points.

1983 Chateau Palmer
Palmer has gone through many changes in the bottles I have seen, but here is one that is seems lush, seductive, young and fruity. It seems richer than the last bottles I had of it, and the fruit was remarkably, amazingly sweet and fresh. So ripe, yet so sexy and elegant, with a beautiful nose, this was just irresistible. Give it extra credit just on bouquet.  97 points.

1983 Chateau Margaux
Compared to its commune mate, Palmer, above, the Margaux is burlier, deeper and less open. The flavor does pop out with air, but it remains intense and gripping, and there is a very bright finish--and very long. This well stored bottle needed a lot of time, and didn't necessarily get it, but it was very impressive. 97 points.

1983 Chateau Rausan Segla
Though served next to Margaux and Palmer, this didn't get humiliated. It didn't win the flight either, but it drank well. It is sprightly, with solid depth, intensity, and a firm backbone. The tannins are a bit aggressive on the end, but there is plenty of solid mid-palate fruit here. Very nice. 92 points.

1971 Chateau Petrus
This is a monster, despite its age, full bodied, opulent, with supple, ripe tannins for a little intensity on the finish. The depth of the wine was remarkable and impressive, but so was its harmony and grace. It is a seductive mouthful, well textured, capable of improving in the glass, round and full. Delicious. If I had a quibble, it is that the wine is almost too round, too harmonious, a little ponderous. Depending on your preferences, you may find that as it should be. I like a little more verve. This is all relative, of course. It is a super bottle. 95 points.

1990 Chateau Beauséjour-Duffau
Big and powerful, this has supple but persistent tannins, and fine depth. It is fleshy and ripe, deep, and long. It is well structured, too. The fruit emerges with some chocolate notes on the finish, and it gets sexier and more seductive in the glass after starting a bit hard. This wine has closed a bit since I last had it, but it started opening again. It has everything--fruit, structure, depth, finish. There isn't much missing, except a fully open wine. Cellar for five more and see what happens. 96+ points.

1953 Chateau Gruaud Larose
Re-released from the Chateau in the early '90s, and perfectly stored since, this wine has actually gotten better and better every time I have opened it. This incarnation was beautiful. The wine has thinned a bit in the mid-palate--how could it not after 51 years?---but it is not hollow. The fruit seems young and fresh, in fact, and full of flavor, its sweetness lingering on the palate. You might argue that this is a touch of gentle oxidation, and perhaps it was, but it shows perfectly. The wine is pristine and elegant, and those who can appreciate something besides pure power will love this. It held perfectly for as long as there was any left, too. 94 points.

1995 Chateau Tayac "Cuvée Prestige"
I was underwhelmed by this Cotes de Bourg when young, because it was so tough, tight and tannic. But there is very good news in this taste---it has evolved beautifully. It takes about half an hour to open up. Then, still showing muscle, it displays a core of concentrated fruit. There is a certain austerity to the wine rather than lushness. But the concentration and focus of the wine create a different means for getting your attention. As the fruit evolves, there are classic Bordeaux notes popping up. Refreshing, young and still evolving, this was actually a little better the next day (after spending time in the fridge with vacu-vin). It's always been a dense, structured wine. The only question is whether the fruit would open and show some flavor. Here we are.... 91 points.

2000 Chateau Clinet
Served blind, this showed grapey and rather simple on the palate, although the nose was fragrant and exuberant. It seemed very ripe and sweet, not particularly deep or long. It evolved decently, showing more typicity with air, and picking up some weight. This shows a lot of promise, but needs time to calm down, and integrate its components. I think it will be very nice--but not ever great. 90+ points.

1993 Chateau Latour
With every passing year, this declines. In its youth, it seemed like classic Pauillac on the nose and in taste. As it has aged, bottle variations have been more prominent. In particular, those bottles that are a little further along show very green, and vegetal. The fruit seems unripe. Similarly, if you decant or air it out for awhile, the classic notes fade, and the wine seems greener and greener as it sits. Additionally, while pleasant enough initially, it is a bit short and lacking in depth. This is an all too typical bottle at this point. It opens a bit thin, but attractive, and rather tasty. The longer it aired out, the greener it got, until "vegetal" was the descriptor of the day. This wine needs drinking. There is still something here to enjoy--but it's not going to become more pleasant with time. 84 points.

[Return to Top]  

Burgundy (except dessert/sparkling)
2002 Meursault "Charrons" (Jean-Marc Boillot)
This is not a profound wine, but it tastes good, and is rather sexy, i.e., hard to keep your hands off of. Drink this earlier rather than later. It is nutty, a bit oaky, oily and rich.  Fun and delectable, it is very round for a young white Burg. Interesting and tasty nonetheless, even if the occasional purist might yearn for something else. 88-90 points.

2002 Puligny-Montrachet (Louis Carillon)
Aggressive in terms of acid, this has a lot of potential and persistence, but needs some cellaring to integrate its components. The acid propels the finish, but it does make you wonder if there is quite enough fruit here to support it. I think there is, and those who prefer the wines clean and bright will like this a lot. 89-91 points.

2002 Puligny-Montrachet (Jean-Marc Boillot)
Buttery and full bodied, this has a touch of cream, great nutty flavors and supporting acid. Its ripe, opulent style will make this a wine even those who don't normally care for white Burgundy will gravitate to. Bursting with flavor.  90-92 points.

2002 Puligny-Montrachet (Sauzet)
Classic Puligny, this is restrained at times in terms of depth and intensity, but the balance is impeccable and the fruit delicious. It seems surprisingly open in many respects, and drinking well now. 87-89 points.

2002 Puligny-Montrachet "Champ Canet"(Sauzet)
Aggressive and powerful, this doesn't always seem deep, but its fine finish and bright demeanor make it stand out. It projects elegance without effort, and while it never seems thick, it never seems hollow, either. A couple of years of cellaring may turn this into a serious butterfly. 91-93 points. 

2002 Volnay (Jean-Marc Boillot)
Cherry and a touch of rhubarb open this wine up, but it quickly tightens, and finishes a bit closed. The texture is velvety and projects elegance. This is clearly an immature wine that will drink better in another 3 to 5 years, but it seems to have all the components together to drink very well.  88-90 points.

2002 Nuits St. Georges "Chenes Cartaux" (Henri Gouges)
The nose here projects earth rather than red fruit, and the mid palate seems a bit short and simple. You can only hope this wine is closed down hard, but at the moment it is giving no clues that there is much of distinction here. I see some hints of promise, but can't say more than this now. 87-89 points.

2001 Nuits St. Georges "Pruliers" (Henri Gouges)
Big and powerful, this full bodied Burg preens and displays depth and tannin. The only question here is whether the tannins are a bit much, as the finish is unusually astringent. This could become a big winner with cellaring--but might also appear a bit unbalanced.  This wine has been very well received in many quarters, but count me on the fence. I could see it becoming a big winner--and not achieving its promise. 89-92 points.

2001 Nuits St. Georges "Les Vaucrains" (Dominique Laurent)
A gamey nose precedes a soft, rather seductive palate. This wine shows modest depth and intensity, but lots of flavor on the finish. This seems a bit simple, pleasurable to drink, but not much more. Pleasing, but not distinguished. 88-89 points.

2001 Pommard "Clos des Epeneaux" (Comte Armand)
The texture is sensual and seductive on this wine, and the fruit caresses the palate with a velvety, silky touch. There are plenty of other structural components, too, as the intense, tannic finish grabs your tongue. In the mid-palate, though, it seems rather average and soft and you wonder if there is quite enough depth here to hang onto the structural components. There were lots of things here to like, though. 88-90 points.

2001 Volnay "Clos du Chateau des Ducs" (Lafarge)
Silky and elegant, this wine lacks much in terms of the mid-palate, but has a nice grip on the end and certain lively feel to it. I worry that it is a bit too light in the mid-palate, though, and suspect it will always drink well, but not be distinguished. It just seems to light and short in the mid-palate. 87-89 points.

1990 Volnay "Clos des Chenes" (Lafarge)
I got to this only after it had been open a good while. It showed earthy but very powerful, a bit gamey, and with a gripping finish. This is still a wine, despite its age, that seems to display some power and depth. 91-93 points.

1990 Mazis-Chambertin (Faiveley)
Although open awhile, this wine seemed purely tertiary, showing strawberries and earthy notes. It was on the lighter side, at this point, and with aeration, showing a certain delicacy and oxidation. Pleasant and moderately enjoyable, this exceled at nothing. 87-89 points.

[Return to Top]  

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Chardonnay "Marcassin Vineyard" (Marcassin)
Beautifully balanced, this shows nice focus, a sexy vanillin nose, and fine fruit. It smooths out beautifully with air, showing good depth, but supporting brightness to firm up a round mid-palate. There's a respectable finish, too. Very nice. 92 points.

2000 Chardonnay "Marcassin Vineyard" (Marcassin)
Buttery and lush, this is nonetheless pierced by shards of acid--and on occasion, I think, some alcohol, as it finishes harshly. There is a long finish otherwise, and there is some good fruit here, but it seems rather awkward at times and disjointed. Ultimately, I didn't find this all that much fun to drink, but it has some good points. 87 points.

1996 Cabernet "Herb Lamb Vineyard" (Colgin)
Some of the older Colgins from Herb Lamb seem to develop this rather awful vegetal note. The '94 was a recent example. Here is another. This is filled with broccoli and asparagus notes, and has a hideous vegetative nose. The body is decent, but it was so hard to deal with this wine, offensive on the nose and palate, that not much else mattered. Served to a large group of eager enthusiasts, this wine made just about everyone say "pass!" quickly. There were some who liked it a bit more, but the majority view seemed to be "undrinkable."  78 points.

1997 Cabernet "Herb Lamb Vineyard" (Colgin)
In contrast with the rather awful '96 above, this is a terrific wine. There was just a hint of olive--and I wondered if it might one day turn into what the 1996 is--but after that it was all golden. The wine is robust and powerful, beautifully structured, and shows great, sweet fruit. The finish is long and satisfying. Unlike many '97s, this has delineation and a firm backbone. Superb. 96 points.

2001 Cariad (Colgin)
This new proprietary blend is very promising. It tannic, but the tannins are ripe, not astringent. It shows nice elegance, and mid-palate depth. I liked the grip on the finish, too. The power is nicely offset by sweet fruit in the middle. It is very tight and hard, but if this resolves nicely, it is potentially a big winner. I am betting it will work out just fine. 92+ points.

2002 "IX" Syrah (Colgin)
The "IX" is "Nine" in Roman numerals, not "ix." So, get it right, because you're going to want to sound like you know this remarkable syrah, which is an amazing debut effort from Colgin that already puts Colgin among the top ranks of American syrah producers. This opens with vanilla and blueberries, but that blows off fast, because, while there is plenty of deep, mid-palate fruit here, this wine is really more about structure. It has a fine, supporting backbone, showing firmness on the attack and grip on the fine finish. Plus, as it aired out a bit, I began to smell some game notes and I was thinking that with air or cellaring, this will acquire Northern Rhone characteristics, a little of that bacon fat. I think this is a terrific wine, but I'll be conservative with a new wine that I did not have a chance to spend much time with. 94+ points.

1997 "Maya" (Dalla Valle)
There's a touch of licorice up front, but that quickly disappears into this powerful, full bodied wine. Although there is plenty of depth, if anything, I was a little concerned that there was too much power here, as the tannins were a bit astringent and dusty.  This is a wine that you have no choice but to cellar. I am guessing that it turns out well, but I'll confess to having some concerns about its balance. 92+ points.

1997 Cabernet "Madrona Ranch" (Abreu)
This opened a bit dull and boring, frankly, but I was pleased to see it pick up weight and sweetness with air.  It expanded nicely, and became a charming, flavorful wine. Very enjoyable, and a wine of some distinction, although not quite spectacular. 92 points.

1999 Cabernet (Bryant Family)
There are notes of oak, but just a little. There are lots of cassis notes, as the wine shows beautiful flavors. It generally seems charming and well balanced, with ripe fruit, but not too pronounced in any respect. I usually expect more weight, less charm from Bryant, but this is what it is. Lovely. 92 points.

1992 Estate (Harlan)
Big and ripe, this shows lots of tertiary notes at this stage of its life. It is also a pretty good Bordeaux ringer that would be fun to insert into a blind Bordeaux tasting. The tannins are mostly resolved, but the wine is lively enough to gain weight and sweetness as it airs out. It remains elegant and interesting througout. This is a good time to be drinking this, and if this bottle is typical, I wouldn't necessarily hold it a long time more. Classy, flavorful and complex. 93 points.

1994 Estate (Harlan)
The '94 seems like a big brother to the '92, above. It is younger, by more than its two years, and is a bigger mouthful with greater depth.  But it has those same "Bordeaux-ringer" qualities, and complexity. This '94 also evolves and changes constantly in the glass, showing a few extra layers that the '92 does not have. As young as this wine seems in some respects, there are certainly tertiary notes on it, signs of maturity.  Its balance is impeccable, and it is still lively. A super wine. 97 points.

1999 "Claret" (Foley)
This has evolved nicely from the slightly dumb stage it was in during my first taste of it. It is robust and full bodied, restrained in oak (surprisingly), and filled with beautiful fruit flavors. In fact, I think the sweet fruit here is glorious and in its prime of life. The finish has some welcome brightness that makes the beautiful flavors linger. Better than I anticipated, this is a beauty, flavorful, elegant, charming. 94 points.

2000 "Rien ne va plus" (Sine Qua Non)
Some wines you call rich and buttery--with this one you half expected that someone would suggest using it to drip over lobster. It is rich and thick, even a bit cloying at times, and many thought it was over the top. Other than a little heat on the finish, I thought it was pretty nice--but definitely a bit unusual and not likely to be to everyone's taste. 88 points.

2002 "Whispering "E"" (Sine Qua Non)
A Rhoney blend, with 19% chardonnay tossed in. Most of the fruit is from Alban vineyard. There's a bit of lemon, and a bit of charcoal on the finish. The body is robust but shows good focus. This presents itself well, and throws off lots of flavor. It's a wine that would benefit from another year or two of cellaring, I think, to harmonize and calm down a bit. 91 points.

1998 Grenache "Antagonist" (Sine Qua Non)
This, unfortunately, reminded me, and others I think, of boiled rhubarb. There are some supporting tannins, but some reductive notes as well, and while the wine ultimately improves a bit with air, it has a certain vegetal note that was offputting. Every now and then sweet strawberries poked up, something more pleasing. On the whole though, this was admirable mostly for its structure. The fruit flavors were often off. 84 points.

2000 Syrah "Head Over Heels" (Sine Qua Non)
Big and powerful, with a heavy hit of new oak, this shows great structure and power, but you wonder where the fruit is at times. It certainly isn't keeping up with the rest of the wine, which shows some heat and mid-palate thinness. Mediocre, at best, and a long way off the great things this winery does. 85 points.

2003 Syrah "Lauterbach" (Pax)
Smooth and charming, this young wine seems already well integrated. Its fruit throws off some sweet blueberry notes. It is nicely focused, with good attack and a lively presentation. Very pleasing, and not yet at peak. 89 points.

2002 Syrah "Timbervine" (Radio Coteau)
Pleasant and easy, this shows some focus, and it evolves very quickly in the glass. It does little wrong, but not much is distinctive or interesting either. It is a nice every day wine, without much pretension. I liked its mellow feel. 87 points.

2002 Syrah (Chumeia)
This opened, as befits its youth, as a very grapey, primary wine. There was even some heavy grapey sediment in the neck. It  was smooth and pungent on the mid-palate, with a pleasing blueberry nose laced with a little vanilla from new oak. The wine is medium bodied with reasonable depth. There was a certain sumptuous feel here, but it was really marred by the harsh finish. The alcohol listed on the label seemed reasonable (13.7) but the wine seemed harsh and to me a little hot. Maybe it was acid instead, or a combination thereof.  I let this sit in the fridge overnight and tried it again the next day. The fruit was a little sweeter and the wine a little better integrated, but there was still a certain harsh, lurid quality to the finish at times.  On the whole, there were parts I liked, but the sum of the parts wasn't quite as pleasing as some of the individual components. It is only $20--not a bad value in that context. 87 points.

2002 Syrah "James Berry Vineyard--Bone Rock" (Saxum)
Black and intense, this very alcoholic wine was pretty much disliked by everyone who tasted it in a group I was with. After the promising color, it just seemed mostly hot and disjointed, giving not a moment's pleasure. I suppose one might argue that it is young and might come around a bit, but in reality it seems flawed and unbalanced, and not likely to recover sufficiently to become interesting.  The finish is searingly hot and extremely unpleasant.  Bottle variations have been reported on the wine in some places. 78 points.

1970 Cabernet (Mayacamas)
Weedy and over the hill, this old wine seemed mostly to be cracking up from this bottle. It showed forest leaves, many notes of decay, and smelled of death. It did have still a fairly substantial mid-palate, but in the final analysis, no one wanted to drink it. 78 points.

1997 Chardonnay "Marcassin Vineyard" (Marcassin)
Fresh and youthful, this chardonnay has plenty of buttery notes, but also occasionally piercing acidity, which made it seem lively.  The nose is vanilla and oak, but the palate is much better balanced. The finish is subtle, but long. It persisted on the palate for a good long while. Aging gracefully, very nice. 92 points.

2001 Cabernet "Ink Grade" (Behrens & Hitchcock)
This winery is not know for "shy," and so, too, here. Sweet and voluptuous, this is packed but rather flamboyant. It sure won't be to everyone's taste, and some will hate it. Still, I thought there was a lot of good material here, and if cellaring civilizes it, it has the potential to be a serious winner. 92 points.

2003 Chardonnay "Estate" (Melville)
This 4-clone blend gets partial malo fermentation. It has a creamy texture, and a nice nose, but just an adequate finish. The cream is not overwhelming, and the wine actually seems rather well balanced. It is quite tasty, and pretty much ready to drink now--don't keep it too long. This runs around $22.  88 points.

2003 Pinot Noir "Estate" (Melville)
This sees 30% new oak, and uses an amazing 11 different clones of pinot noir. I ran into this a lot in Santa Barbara--the folks down there seem to think the more clones, the better. Well, whatever. This is very sweet from a bottle opened a day, and has a certain tomato-y mid-palate with cherry and strawberry notes. There is no structure to speak of left, and it seems candied on the finish. A second newly opened bottle showed livelier, with fresher fruit, and no candied finish, so chalk up the first bottle to slight maderization. This is elegant, a bit shy on acid, but tasty, if simple and will do best being drunk in the short run. This runs around $26.  88 points.

2002 Syrah "Estate" (Melville)
A 7 clone combination, this is soft, with a nice finish that sneaks up on you. It is pleasant and easy, very elegant, very neutral--and a bit simple. This drinks well now--don't hold it. It is enjoyable as it stands, but there is not a lot here. Around $20.  87 points.

1998 Chardonnay "Clos Pepe" (Brewer-Clifton)
This is a very intense wine, with focus and power, but the key note here was the odd, medicinal finish. For me, it spoiled the wine, and made it unpleasant and uninteresting to drink. I think most felt the same. It also seemed to be going over the hill, perhaps a related issue.  79 points.

2002 Pinot Noir "Ten" (Sea Smoke)7
The "Ten" refers to the number of Pinot Noir clones. These Santa Barbara folks love clones. Perhaps somewhere in the area, maybe under "Welcome to the Santa Rita Hills" we could add "Clones "r" Us." :)  The proof is in the final pudding, of course. This has a lovely black cherry nose (and black cherry tends to be the descriptor that I find most pertinent in the region), with soft, smooth texture and a touch of tannin and heat on the back. There's not much intensity, and a touch of tomato. For such a young wine, it is pretty easy. There are some nice things here, but the finish is harsh and the wine a bit on the simple side. 86 points. 

2003 Pinot Noir "Rancho Ontiveros" (Loring Wine Company)
Lively, with tasty fruit, this wine drinks pretty nicely now, especially with a little air. The fruit is sweet, and acquires some pinot noir typicity with air. There's a bit of tomato nuance in the wine, and it is not the deepest or longest issued by LWC. Still, very enjoyable for short term drinking. 87 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Estate Barrel Fermented" (Clos Pepe) QPR Winner
This $15 wine is a terrific buy. It has come along nicely in the cellar, showing impeccable balance and grace.  There is nice focus, a touch of butter, but intensity in the mid-palate to lace its cream with a sh <>arp edge. There's a lovely finish for a wine of this price range. Honestly, if it were another $10, it would still be fairly priced. There's a touch of almond on the finish, too. Graceful and ready, this is in prime time. It gets less than 90 points only because it is not a long ager. 89 points.

2003 Chardonnay "Estate Homage to Chablis" (Clos Pepe)
They only made 150 cases of this, which gets 100% malo fermentation in stainless steel. Unlike the Barrel fermented, above, this gets no oak. The model is supposed to be Chablis. Thus, the "homage." Despite its scarcity, don't assume this is any better than the Estate Barrel fermented, because it's not necessarily. It's a matter of style and preference. There's not a lot of body here, although the wine has an excellent finish, with some tartness around the edges. They expect this one to age longer, and the parts to integrate--and I think they will, too. It is stirred sur lie, and has some smokey, leesy notes. It needs another year or two to hit peak. The winery predicts 2007-09. While this is a very different style, and will hold better, I rather liked the Barrel fermented better. Let it age well, develop complexity, and prove me wrong. Pick 'em. 88 points.

2003 Pinot Noir Estate (Clos Pepe) QPR Winner
This was harvested at one ton per acre, and sells for around $35, or even as low as $30 in their futures program, which makes it a nice deal in pinot noir. One third is raised in new oak, a reasonable proportion. I had this after it was decanted for four-and-a-half hours. 375 cases made. There was an explosive, black cherry nose, good weight, but not much tannin evident at that point. It showed easy, but bright and lively. I'm a little concerned about the apparent lack of tannin, as I wonder how it will hold in the cellar, yet for sure, with decanting, it drinks beautifully now, was spectacularly flavorful, and just delicious. The winery predicts that this will hold well for a decade. If that's really the case, I might revise the score upward, but for the moment, call this a delectable 90 points.

2002 Pinot Noir Estate (Clos Pepe)
This was open 24 hours, although on nitrogen, when I got to it, so take that into account.  With that much air, it showed beautiful balance, but more restrained flavor and bouquet than the 03, above. It had a nice, if subtle finish, and I though maybe there was a bit of heat on it, although not much. Although this is the way the winemaker chose to show it, I'm not sure that was really the best idea for it. Although the winery describes this as much richer than the '03, you'd never know it from this showing, so I tend to think the decanting adversely affected this. Still, it's impressive that a $30 pinot can be open for 24 hours and show reasonably well. As it stands here, though, I can't give this more than 87 points.
 

2004 Pinot Grigio (Babcock)
At $16, this is a nice little wine. It has good texture, some roundness, yet with supporting bursts of acid, and a nice finish. It is simple, but pleasing and tasty. Ready now. 86 points.

2003 Pinot Noir "Tri Counties Cuvée, Santa Rita Hills" (Babcock)
This, at $18, is Babcock's "lesser" Pinot Noir.  There are good pinot notes and nuances at the outset, but the wine finishes with rhubarb. Its nose is its best feature, as its palate has a certain stewed tomato nuance. This has some good points, but is ultimately a little off, and simple. 84 points.

2001 "La Moda Toscana" (Babcock)
This Super Tuscan imitator is 70% Sangiovese, the rest cab sauvignon. It is very ripe, with smooth texture, and supple supporting tannins. It has a respectable finish for its price range ($25), and a medium body. Super Tuscan is not a California strength, but I rather enjoyed this. It's a bit one dimensional and drinks fine now, at just age four, but in its price range it comports itself well. 88 points.

2001 Merlot "Troc" (Babcock)
This is their second label, and is meant to be a value wine label. This runs around $12 on sale, but it surely isn't worth that. They posture it as a downscaled "Fathom" (See below), and often used as a house wine in restaurants. It seemed to have charred notes, and thin, very old fruit. At age four, it seems over the hill. I questioned the soundness of the bottle, but the tasting room made no move to open another, so I guess this was ok and representative. Uninspiring in every respect. 77 points.

2001 Syrah "Black Label" (Babcock)
Sweet and rich, and softly textured, this is very pleasurable going down, but finishes short. I think this is a wine you can enjoy a lot for basic drinking, as long as you don't expect it to show any complexity, or develop in the cellar, for which it loses points. I'd call this a bit pricey for what it is (although this purports to be their upper level syrah bottling) at $30, but it is rather tasty and enjoyable. It is drinking well now. 87 points.

2001 "Fathom" (Babcock)
This is a Bordeaux blend, running around $35, and dominated by 53% Merlot. Like the syrah above, it drinks nicely, shows some richness, sweet fruit, and supple tannins, but seems a bit simple and straightforward, already nearing peak. The finish here, however, is better than the syrah's. It is certainly pleasing, and I guess the way Northern California pricing runs, $35 for a Bordeaux blend is fair enough.  In the grand scheme of things, I'd love to see wines at this price point and up show more potential for development and improvement in the cellar. Nice enough for what it is. Drink in the near term.  88 points.

2004 Pinot Noir Barrel Samples (Loring Wine Company)
I'm reluctant to score out of barrel so many wines I haven't previously tasted from barrel, and some of these were indicated not to be the final blends, but a brief report is in order. My favorites and best bets: The Keefer Pinot Noir is a big, powerful mouthful.  Burly, with some smokey notes, it shows lotsa tannin and power. If it shows true to this form, it might wind up being the most powerfully structured wine this winery has produced.  The Naylor Dry Hole was lovely, with supple tannins, excellent depth and one of the tastiest of the group. I just plain loved its flavor persistence. The Rosella's looks like a big winner. It is very aggressive, with ripe, cherry fruit, and a bright, powerful, lingering finish. Very little tannin noticeable at this point. The Cargassachi is a big, big mouthful, chock full of ripe fruit, and looks beautiful, with fine depth.   Less obvious to me at this stage were the Garys' Vineyard,  chock full of plums and sour cherries, showing good depth, but very soft, and a little tart at this stage. I'd like to see some more integration of components. The Brosseau has more of that great black cherry fruit, a little spice, and tingly, supple tannins--quite a lot of them, though. I think this will integrate well, however. The Clos Pepe at this stage was taking the tannin thing a bit too far---it is shut tight, and there is a haze of tannin that obscures the fruit. It is hard to tell what is going on with this at all as a result. On the whole, a promising lineup, with some exciting prospects.

2002 Syrah "Encatado" (Point Concepcion)
This is the "hard to believe it's syrah" Syrah. There is some cab, 15%,  mixed in, I'm told. But the nose is all pinot noir. The wine on its own terms is delectable, with tasty fruit, ripe and succulent, with a nice finish and a good, lively supporting structure. It drinks easily and refreshingly. But there is some question in everyone's mind if there was a mistake here--it's hard to believe this is all or mostly syrah. Smell it for yourself. Whatever it is, very nice, and very sexy, with a powerful, pungent nose to kill for. If this develops so that the palate matches the promise of its nose, it could be a big winner. 88-90 points.

2003 Zinfandel (Three Thieves)
You could do a lot worse, considering that you can get this for around $7.50 or so. Famed, or infamous, for its jug wine counter-marketing, this winery provides a supple, fruity wine, a bit on the sweet side. It is pleasant and easy, reasonably tasty, and an excellent grad school party wine. Truthfully, if you are plowing the vineyards of France or Italy, you can find things in this price range that wipe this off of the table, but those local bargains don't get imported here, or if they do, they are a little pricier. This is without distinction and simple, and doesn't have a whole lot of typicity on display, but it tastes nice and does well what it intends to do. 80 points.

2003 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Siduri)
This latest offering from this vineyard, which tends to produce a lot of robust, deep pinots, seems very fine. It's big and intense, with penetrating fruit and a fine finish. The full bodied wine is chock full of flavor, and throwing off waves of fresh fruit along the way. Delicious. 91-93 points.

2001 Merlot "Columbia Valley" (Woodward Canyon)
Soft and fruity, this has a lovely, velvety texture, and a lot of charm. For a relatively young good vintage wine, it is a bit too soft, easy and ready, but it is very tasty for early consumption. Priced in the upper 20s. 88 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "Artist Series" (Woodward Canyon) QPR Winner

This adds more class and intensity to the Merlot, above, while retaining some of the softnes and charm. There's more focus and power here, and this may be of more interest in a year or two. Very nice. Around $30. 89-91 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "Columbia-Old Vines" (Woodward Canyon)
This is a lot like the Artist Series cab, above, but it seems more refined, providing impeccable balance, while displaying fine structure and fruit, but even better focus.  The theme here is elegance, not pure power, but the wine is not shy. It's a step up, but I'm not convinced it is a big step up. The price jumps from around $30 to over $50, though.  90-92 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "Diamond Mountain District" (Von Strasser)
This to me is a bit too soft for young cab in this price range, anticipated to be a bit over $40, but it sure is delectable and fun. Easy and pleasing, with lovely cherry fruit flavor, it caresses your palate and goes down easy. While not expensive by Northern Cal Cab standards, it is in a price range where I look for a little more intensity and distinction, though. 88-90 points.

2001 "Sori Bricco Vineyard" (Von Strasser)
This Bordeaux blend is shut down a bit, but does more of what I wanted to see from the Diamond Mountain, above. It shows some grip and intensity, and has a respectable finish. It does seem a bit muted in flavor at the moment, but I think that is because it is shut down. This should evolve nicely with a couple of years in the cellar. Pricing will likely be close to or around $50.  89-91 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "Estate Vineyard" (Von Strasser)

This wine puts it all together. Powerful and gripping, there's a big finish here, and the wine is packed with flavor.  The especially good news here is that this runs about the same price as the Sori Bricco, and allowing (again) for the fact that the Sori Bricco is shut down a bit, this seems like a much more inviting wine that has exceptional potential for becoming something more with a few years of cellaring. 92-94 points.

2001 "Reserve" (Von Strasser)
This is Von Strasser's offbeat "Reserve" bottling, basically a Bordeaux blend, but with the varietal percentages in a quantity that is rarely seen. The biggest chunk of it is Petit Verdot, 44%.  It has beautiful black cherry notes, and some earthy overtones. It is different, fairly big, and distinctive. Which doesn't mean you'll necessarily like its distinctive qualities, of course. To each his own. The downside is that this does run $100 a bottle, and it is not in my view much if any better than the "Estate" at half the price--just different. It is certainly a fine bottle, though. 92-94 points.

2002 Zinfandel "Howell Mountain" (Outpost)
Big and opulent, this powerful, full bodied zin has great texture, a touch of ultra-ripe caramel sweetness on the end, and surprisingly good balance despite its size and ripeness.  In many respects, I tasted this and found myself thinking that it was the best wine this relatively new winery has yet produced. You'll love the depth and flavor. 93-95 points.

2003 Zinfandel "Howell Mountain" (Outpost)
This is a barrel sample, planned for October 2003 release. It is big and fat, very similar to the 2002 in most respects, but perhaps showing not quite as impeccably in terms of balance. That's not surprising considering that it is a barrel sample, as yet unreleased. We'll see how it develops. But this shows wonderful fruit, and is delicious. A very promising wine. 92-94 points.

2002 Petite Sirah "The Other" (Outpost)

Tannic and focused, this is soft around the edges, and powerful on the finish. It shows good balance, but the components need to integrate. It has none of the intensely flavorful characteristics of the zins, above, but has nice texture and persistence. This is not a winery that has dabbled much in Petite Sirah, but it looks like they are getting it right. 89-91 points.

2002 Zinfandel "Hayne Vineyard" (Chase)
The much derided '99 from this winery has actually come along rather well---showing a lot of charm, if not much intensity. This wine is a promising step forward, and announces Chase's arrival as a top tier Zin maker. Their style has a touch of restraint, but this succulent zin adds some power and intensity that was missing in the debut releases. It's very tasty and better structured, while rather elegantly composed. Very nice. 90-92 points.

2002 Cabernet Sauvignon "Howell Mountain" (O'Shaughnessy)

This seems to be a beautiful wine, with significant potential for improvement in the cellar. It is full bodied, supple, and nicely textured. The nose is classic Cal cab. I loved the depth, but particularly the flavor. This young winery is putting it all together. 91-93 points.

Cabernet Sauvignon "Hillside Select" (Shafer): Vintages 1985, 1986, 1991-2001
We had a chance recently to sample most of the Shafer Hillsides, and a very fine collection it was, in the '90s and up. The four vintages between 1994 and 1997 were about as compelling a string of vintages as any Cal cab producer has ever put together. So, let's take these all together. The 1986  had a stinky nose. More than stinky, it was rather hideous and offputting. The palate was not nearly as bad, and showed decent depth, actually. But no one could get past the awful nose. 77 points. We got some 1985 a short while later.  The nose was just a little stinky, but the palate was thin and the fruit seemed to be cracking up. There was little to recommend this wine either. 78 points.  Then, things began to change.  The 1991 Hillside was underwhelming in the context of the vintage, but a fine wine. Shafer clearly was not all the way there yet. Many California wineries did their best work in 1991, but considering how Shafer sprang to the top of the heap just a few years later, this was good, not great. It seems mature and fully ready. It is lovely and bright, with a lingering, charming finish. It seemed robust and lively on opening, but gradually declined rather than improved. It is medium bodied and elegant, but not per se striking in any respect. This is a great time to drink this. 92 points. The 1992 seems lovely and mature, fully open, with some tertiary notes and classic cab flavors. It shows an excellent and gripping finish, but is not quite as lively as the 1991, at least in its first appearance. Very nice, but still a bit short of the peak this winery produces. 93 points. The 1993 is gripping, with darker fruit than the preceding two vintages, more plums than cassis, and nice texture. It evolved nicely for awhile, but seemed to fade just a bit. Still, a very nice wine that had lots of charm and a lively, refreshing demeanor with air. 91 points.  Nota Bene: I had a second bottle of this about 6 months later that showed better, suave and more flavorful. Whether a better bottle or less competition is hard to say, but that one I would've rated 94 points. The 1994 started a new era, one of the great Shafers, and beginning a quadrilogy of vintages as good as you can get.  These are wines of impeccable balance, class and breeding. This winery just gets it. Big and gorgeous, its lush fruit was surrounded by a crushed velvet texture. The wine also showed focus and precision,  intensity and breeding, while never failing to deliver flavor. Superb, opulent, yet impeccably balanced. This seems to me to be a nice synthesis of the '96 and '97 to come. Through it all, it projects remarkable elegance and a remarkable sense of balance.  99 points. The 1995 is a different styled wine, showing less lush fruit, but more brightness. Its brightness made the cherry nuances seem rather succulent, and they lingered on the finish. Charming, lively, and developing well, this sunny wine makes friends. 97 points. The 1996 is another creature of its vintage. It is brooding and deep, more austere than the '94, not as bright and lively as the '95.  Despite being double decanted some ten hours earlier, it shows power and a certain, austere, brooding quality. It gradually opened with air. The focus here is very precise and the wine is full bodied and deep. And superb.  99 points. The 1997 is yet another testament to Shafer's ability to make a wine that brings out the best in its vintage. The style here is all its vintage. This is by far the lushest, richest and most opulent of the Shafers. There's even a touch of chocolate on the finish. The finish, by the way, is remarkable for its length and ability to deliver rich flavor.  This is the polar opposite of the '95 in many respects, but ignoring the style differences, the quality level is very similar. Pick what you like best. This is still improving and might merit a higher score. 97 points. Leaving that remarkable quadrilogy of wines wasn't easy, but soldier on, right? The 1998 was my least favorite in the '90s. With some decanting, it showed disjointed and overly tannic. It was tight and powerful, but the fruit didn't seem to me to be keeping up with the tannins and structure. It was hard, and a little on the charmless side, an unusual comment for the '90s Hillside Selects. It still had considerable virtues and depth, though. It was not by any means bad wine. It just paled in comparison to the others. 90 points. The 1999 has been rated here before--search back. It is a wine of the vintage candidate. The 2000 is a super wine for the vintage, another wine of the vintage candidate. It is a bit flashy by Shafer standards, showing lots of surprisingly opulent, ripe fruit, and touches of chocolate. It finished a bit harsh, but showed excellent depth for the vintage. I'm not sure how well it will hold up with extended aging, but it was a pleasant surprise, if very differently styled than the early '90s candidates. It is really not that far behind, if at all, some early efforts from better vintages.  92 points. The 2001, as yet unreleased, looks like another huge winner. It seems to me closest in style to the 1997. Is it my imagination or is Shafer's style shifting a little, emphasizing riper, richer fruit? This has always been a winery that has underscored elegance. So, let's hope the trend, if trend there is, stops at a reasonable place. This '01 is rich and opulent, and preening as it displays its power and depth. The tannins are sweet and supple, but there is a lot of power lurking underneath here. The sweet fruit is delectable. 95-97 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon (La Sirena)

This wine does some things beautifully. Its cab flavors are pure, typical and precise. It has focus and great elegance, a lovely soft texture. This is a wine that will be hard for anyone to dislike. It will be something everyone will enjoy. That said, it does come with a scary price tag, well over $100 a bottle. For that, you expect not only something good, but something special, a benchmark wine that you can't forget. That extra dimension, whether in depth, ageworthy qualities, finish or whatever, seems lacking here. I would like to see it again with some decanting, but my sense is that it will be at the lower end of this range. 90-92 points.

2003 Zinfandel "Juvenile" (Turley)
This wine, as always, lacks the depth of some of the other offerings, but its openness, its exuberant fruit flavor and its easy charm usually make it a winner and a bargain at the roughly $20 price. This is delicious, elegant and flavorful. 88-89 points.

2003 Zinfandel "Old Vines" (Turley)
The "Old Vines," which used to be Turley's entry level wine before being supplanted as such by the young vines Juvenile, above, is often the best deal in the portfolio. While not usually as big as some of the other offerings, it usually has an intensity level that the Juvenile does not, and some prefer its charm to the size of some of the other wines. This is a lovely OV, showing some power on the finish, which lingers nicely, while retaining its elegance. 90-91 points.

2003 Zinfandel "Dusi" (Turley)
All of the virtues of the Old Vines, above, notwithstanding, there are some extra layers of depth here that many will appreciate. This is rich and ripe, and rather opulent, with just enough tannin for support. Some may find it too ripe, but I don't think it goes overboard at all. It is very approachable now, and rather succulent, but may drink best around 2006--2008. 91-93 points.

2003 Zinfandel "Rattlesnake Ridge" (Turley)
This is round, with nice texture, but seems muted compared to the exuberant, flavorful Dusi, above. It has a nice core and focus, but seems a bit simple. You have to hope this is in a bit of a dumb phase and will wake up a bit, but it is not showing much at the moment, seeming a bit ordinary. 88-89 points.

2003 Pinot Noir "Moulin Rouge" (Peter Michael)
Soft and fragrant, with lovely red berry notes, the beautiful aromatics of this wine are a big selling point. At just age two, it seems rather easy and it is hard to find supporting tannin and structure, but it is in a very primary stage, and should come around nicely. This is not particularly powerful or deep--elegance is the byword here. Its aromatics and seductive texture make it very appealing. 91-93 points.

2002 Cabernet Sauvignon "Les Pavots" (Peter Michael)

Like its pinot cousin, above, this Pavots has a seductive texture, is very supple, and very primary. It, too, is not showing a lot of power, grip or structure at the moment, as opposed to grapey young fruit. A couple of hours of decanting for this would have been helpful, but this sure seems to have most of the pieces in place to be very fine, elegant and sexy. The only question is whether it is even better than that. 91-93 points.

2002 Esprit de Beaucastel Rouge (Tablas Creek)
Running in the mid-$30s, this wine is getting pretty good, although obviously not cheap. In the Beaucastel fashion, there is a fascination with mourvedre, and that is 57% of the blend, the rest being mostly syrah and grenache, with counoise tossed in. It is a nice mouthful, with fine flavors, silky texture and good depth. I think as it ages it will be a real Rhone ringer, showing typicity for the region. Very tasty, if you like Rhone varietals. 90-92 points.

2003 "Jericho Canyon" Proprietary Red (Ramey Cellars)
This Bordeaux-blend barrel sample looks very promising. Cab-dominated, it is rich and ripe, and utterly delicious. It has lots of size, but seems well put together and well balanced, too. It was hard to find much structure at this point, given its very ripe and grapey, youthful demeanor, but I began to see an occasional tannin or two pop up. Looks interesting... 91-93 points.

1997 Cabernet Sauvignon (Jones Family)
Bright around the edges, this showed delectable fruit tinged with chocolate in the middle, and good depth. It opens big and rich, but air brings out some tannins and acid, and the wine loses some charm along the way. It would have been interesting to decant this just to see what happened. As it was, it showed enough opulence to impress, but not to truly excel. 91 points.

2001 Cabernet Franc "Los Carneros de Napa" (Sinskey)
Light in body, this wine is dominated by extremely aggressive tannins. The nose was a bit funky, but that blew off as time wore on. The fruit, when you could find it, had nice bright cherry notes. There are some good points to this wine, but the fruit just doesn't balance well with the astringent, rustic tannins. 84 points.

1992 Cabernet Sauvignon (Dalla Valle)
Big and powerful, this wine sports a lot of structure. It opens up a bit bright, with lots of ripe tannins immediately apparent, too. There is a lot of nice, red berry fruit that follows, but the wine then throws off waves of aggressive tannins. Unlike the Sinskey, above, though, the fruit fights back here. While it is not thick, it is persistent. Some liked this a lot more than I did at this juncture, but it did seem a bit disjointed at times to me. 92 points.

1992 "Monte Bello" (Ridge)
Compact and tight, this shows a core of mouthcoating fruit, despite its obvious power. It is beautiful and gripping at the same time, in stark contrast to the Dalla Valle, above. There are certainly tannins on the end here, but the cherries and cassis are wrapped in a deep, velvety core.  As it airs, there is a touch of strawberry, but the wine remains very precise and tightly wound. Impeccably balanced, and downright brilliant. 97 points.

1992 Cabernet Sauvignon (Chateau Montelena)
The nose is of leather and lead, and the palate follows onto something that is a touch austere, more old world than new. It is powerful and gripping on the finish, yet at times elegant, at times restrained. It evolves nicely with air, showing more openness as time goes on. 93 points.

1992 Cabernet Sauvignon "Eisele Vineyard" (Araujo)
A big disappointment, this opened a bit dumb, evolved a little, but didn't really go anywhere impressive. It started lively but flavorless, and then the fruit emerged.  Despite being served from magnum, it seemed enjoyable, tinged with a bit of rhubarb, but never particularly impressive in any respect, lacking both lushness, and intensity. Not that this was bad....it was quite nice. But I expected a bit more. 90 points.

1995 "Monte Bello" (Ridge)
Sweet, with ripe cherry fruit, this was both delicious and charming. The color is very dark. The fruit became tinged with strawberry as it aired. There isn't as much pure power here, as on the '92 above, but there is structure, and the wine is immensely charming, bright and sunny, as so many '95s are. 94 points.

1997 Syrah (Ojai)
It was surprising how well this showed. Lined up as a ringer against a bunch of better known Aussie shiraz, this basic offering from Ojai almost clocked the field. Beautifully balanced, this showed good focus, and a tightly wound core, even now at age 8. It is maturing, but kept evolving in the glass, showing layers and persistence on the finish. It has touches of power to go with its inherent balance--shy it is not. The oak treatment is restrained and appropriate. Very nice. 90 points.

2000 Cabernet Sauvignon "Paradise Hills Vineyard" (Blankiet)
Primary and bright, this is flavorful and delicious, but like a lot of 2000s, is lacking a bit in depth and finish. With air, you get some evidence of structure and the tannins actually become a bit gripping. The fruit remains sweet and tasty, and the wine puts on a little weight. In the context of the vintage, this is a very fine 2000, but the cult aura is not satisfied. 91 points.

2001 Claret (Foley)
This has that toasty, somewhat caramel note that modern Foley wines all seem to project, and that frankly, I'm a little weary of. That said, the rest of the wine is superbly crafted, suave, with very ripe tannins, sweet fruit, and persistent flavor on the finish. The wine is deep, but not heavy or overbearing. Only the oak seems to be a bit overbearing. If the oak can integrate better, and sometimes it does, this is a great wine. If not, it's a good one, or you'll have to like the flavors coming from this oak treatment a lot. 92+ points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Cuvée Catherine" (Kistler)

I don't always agree with those--in fact, I usually disagree--who think Kistler's pinots are over the top, but I had to admit that this was not exactly a Burgundy lover's version of pinot noir. Huge, highly extracted, very tannic, very oaky, very dense, very ripe---very everything---this wine makes an indelible impression for better or worse. I had to give it plaudits on many grounds. For instance, while the fruit will be too thick for some pinot lovers, it is also amazingly sweet and luscious. It seems almost like reduced essence of pinot noir. While this style won't appeal to everyone, it has some virtues and many will love it. I'm on the fence. Perhaps if the wine didn't say "pinot noir," I'd be happier. I loved the cherry flavors and the persistence of the finish. I thought the oak treatment was overdone and at the moment the wine has little grace. Sometimes, wines with so much going on will come around nicely in the cellar, acquire some grace as the fruit thins and ages, and come into some semblance of balance, i.e., be more than a showy monster. This needs to develop in that manner to merit a really high score, more than this compromise, for at the moment it is more suitable to stick in a lineup of Cal Cabs than pinot noirs. 92+ points.

2000 Proprietary Red (Pahlmeyer)
About what you'd expect from a good effort in this vintage. This wine is thin, a bit light, a bit short. But it IS drinking beautifully now, showing great elegance, and most of all, delectable, open cherry fruit. It was very easy and pleasing to drink, and rather bright, too. I wouldn't think of cellaring this much, but for immediate consumption is quite nice. 89 points.

2002 Grenache "The Spainneach--Rozet Vineyard" (Garretson)

"The Spainneach" is a Gaelic word meaning Spain, and is meant to give a nod to Spain's gift to the Rhone Valley, according to the label---Grenache or Garnacha. Well, the Rhone Valley has never seen anything quite like this over the top wine. Made in a small lot of just 200 cases from Paso Robles, you have to assume scarcity is a major selling point, but many will find this out of whack in a lot of ways. The label indicates 16.3% alcohol, a stunningly high level, but I'm pleased to say at first taste, on opening, the wine handles the alcohol well and doesn't seem hot. That's because the fruit is so thick, so sweet, and the oak so prominent. The wine tastes like a chocolate-vanilla milk shake tinged with puréed strawberries. If a milkshake is your idea of Grenache, this is for you. It bears no resemblance to anything the Rhone Valley produces. I saved some for the next day, and found that a lot of components had calmed down. That didn't make the wine shy or restrained, of course, but it was nice to see the fruit come into some balance, even if still tinged with many odd nuances and heavy oak overlays. The bad news from holding it until the next day was that the fruit had thinned sufficiently so the alcohol poked through and the wine seemed a bit too hot at times, no longer handling its huge alcohol levels. Now, some will like the sweet fruit and over the top aspects and flavors on this wine. It does have some merit in those areas. From reading the label, you might expect something a bit more typical and normal though. It's too much for me. Your mileage may differ. 85 points.

1992 "Pleiades Old Vines" (Sean Thackrey)
I don't know if anyone expected this $20 (on release) wine to hold beautifully for over a decade, but it has, and it is very fine. It is also now a dead ringer for a Rhone, having acquired typicity through long cellaring. The wine is elegant, but has plenty of fruit left in the mid-palate. All its parts are harmonious, and there is a nose of game and strawberries. It is not intense, but not flabby either. It holds beautifully through dinner, and the next day it drinks just fine--although after being open for awhile, at last you can smell hints of coming oxidation. This is a great time to drink this. 91 points.

1998 Pinot Noir Reserve (LaVelle)
This is drinking nicely at the moment. It opens sweet and bright. The mid-palate, of medium depth and concentration, has nice strawberry fruit. The finish is a bit too sweet, even a touch candied. However, the wine has nice acidity that aids both the length and flavor of the finish. A little on the exotic side at times, it is nonetheless flavorful and saved from a cloying demeanor by the bursts of acidity. 88 points.

2000 Cabernet Reserve (Sequoia Grove)
Sweet and flavorful, this does what a lot of nice '00s do--provide some flavor, but finish short. It lacks much depth in the mid-palate, and seems a bit simple. There might be a bit of heat, too.  There were moments when I liked the fruit flavor of this a lot, but it is a little too short. 87 points.

2001 Merlot (Paloma)
A big bruiser, as always. Very ripe and opulent, very sweet, a bit candied on the finish, this wine is fairly said to be a bit over-the-top. As it calms down with aeration, it shows some power to go with the exuberance and flamboyance. It is laced with caramel nuances and there is indeed some acid as well. The mid-palate is lush. It's hard to dislike this, even though it won't always remind you of merlot. It manages to be friendly and likeable for all of its flamboyance, going over-the-top, but not becoming overbearing. It won't be to everyone's taste, to be sure. 92 points.

1996 Merlot (Pahlmeyer)
This opened ripe, sweet and intense, but rather thin.  I think I liked it more than most, but the degree to which the fruit had thinned here was a little disturbing. I still thought the fruit was very nice and rather tasty. There just wasn't enough of it left. I tried it a while later; no improvement noted.  87 points.

2002 Cabernet (Paul Hobbs)

Sweet, with substantial tannins on the finish, this burly youngster seems like a winner that will show better around 2007-2010. The power is balanced with some brightness and delectably flavorful. It put on some weight in the glass after awhile. This is just too young at the moment...it needs some cellaring to allow its components to integrate and the fruit to mature. It should be very nice. 92 points. 

2003 "Sticks and Stones" (Linne Calodo)
Ultra ripe, and very rich, this is another in a line of REALLY BIG wines that I am seeing coming from the Paso Robles/Santa Barbara areas recently. To be sure there are others that don't attempt this style, see, my notes on Clos Pepe, for instance, but there do seem to be some who are competing for Big, Biggest,  Bigger Still and Grotesque. This doesn't approach grotesque, to be sure, and has many good points--I'm by no means trashing it--but it is very flamboyant, and a bit over-the-top. Some people will appreciate its exuberant style. Others will find it clumsy and overdone. 87-89 points.

2002 "Angeli" (Stolpman)
This wine is mostly syrah, with petit verdot and malbec tossed in. It has beautiful focus, a lovely, lingering finish, and touches of complexity at its young age. This is suave, and concentrated, never seems overbearing.  At roughly $40 a bottle, this is not cheap, but it has a certain finesse to go with its flavor that I  appreciated. 90-92 points.

2003 Syrah (Novy) QPR Winner 
Big and rich, this has plenty of ripeness and OOMPH. The flavor and depth will wow many, but I also liked seeing those nice little tingles around the edges--supple tannins and hints of brightness at times for support. Tasty and supple. 88-90 points.

2002 "Blend 352" (Core) QPR Winner 
An interesting new small production winery down in Santa Barbara, it produces a few mostly Rhone-ish wines. This is a mourvedre/syrah/grenache bland. It's a fine deal priced in the mid-$20s. This has lovely sweet fruit, ripe and rich. It has fine depth and nice, velvety texture. I liked the '01 Blend 352---this is another winner. 89-91 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "Oakville" (Groth)
Simple, and easy, this nonetheless has classic flavors and bouquet. It lacks distinction and definition, but I did like the flavors of the red berry fruit. At around $50 a bottle, this is not a very good deal, but taken on its own, the wine offers a lot of pleasure. 87-89 points.

1990 Cabernet Sauvignon (Seavey)
This in one sense is holding exceptionally well. It shows some tertiary notes, to be sure, but it is full and alive, if round and soft. However, it shows a flaw that I've seen in a lot of cabs over the years--it's very green, to the point of vegetal. This characteristic seems to get worse as time goes on, too. For me, this was not terribly pleasant to drink. The winery itself suggested that the green notes were due to canopy management, and that has since changed at many California wineries. In any event--too green, too often. 84 points.

2002 Merlot (Paloma)
Never shy, this wine from this winery is big and rich, very ripe, and rather flamboyant. It's got a fine, flavorful finish, with a touch of rhubarb. I appreciated that it showed some brightness and supple tannins around the edges for structure. While this is always a big and flamboyant wine, it  is a very good practitioner of the style--going close to the edge, but not quite crossing it. It may not be to everyone's liking, and is hardly traditional Merlot, but it is a lot of fun, and packs a lot of delectable fruit. I think this might actually have a chance to be marginally better than the '01. 92-94 points.

2002 Cabernet Sauvignon "Wight Vineyard" (Lewelling Vineyards)
This has a beautiful, classic cab nose and delectable black cherry fruit. The texture is soft and caressing. Although this saw 100% new oak, I am told, it seems well integrated. If I had a criticism of this sensual wine, it just seems a bit too soft, too easy for a young wine selling for around $50. A little intensity, a little more evident structure would be nice. That said, perhaps cellaring will allow the structure to become evident. Sometimes, with very young, very primary wines, the structure is obscured, and a big tasting is not the best means of evaluation. At the moment, there is not much structure in sight. This is certainly a pleasure to drink, but I want to see it become more distinguished and serious. 90-92 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "Estate" (Snowden Vineyards)
Here's another cab that provides a classic bouquet and superb flavor. There is lovely, tasty fruit in a medium body and fine texture. The fruit flavor is persistent and delicious. On the finish, the tannins begin to assert themselves and the wine proves it has a little more than fruit. Very nice, although not cheap and not exactly a steal at over $50 a bottle. If the Lewelling, above, develops nicely in the cellar, I think it will surpass this. If not, this would be the pick of the two, since both are (roughly)similarly priced, although it's not really a competition. 90-92 points.

2002 Divino Red (Bacio Divino)
This proprietary red along the lines of a Super Tuscan has never justified the price for me, this around $80 a bottle. They've all been nice. Nothing has made me feel like spending $80 a bottle. Here's another example. This is fruity and nice, with supporting tannins on the back end. It is tasty and well balanced, a nice wine in all respects, but it also seems a bit simple. If I didn't know the price, I'd be more enthused. What I don't quite see--in a fine vintage like '02-- is the distinction that would make me want to spend $80 a bottle for it, and I'd be guessing this would fall towards the lower end of my range. 89-92 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "J. Daniel Cuvée" (Lail Vineyards)
Very promising--although at around $75 a bottle or so, as I'm projecting, it ain't cheap.  It has lush, plummy, dark fruit, and a certain openness on the attack. It finishes tight, though, displaying some tannin and structure.  It seems to be closing down a bit in some respects, but I think this will start drinking very well in about 2008.  If it doesn't evolve well, it's fooled me, and I'm hoping it ends up at the upper end of this range. 92-94 points.

2002 "Pepperbridge" (L'Ecole No. 41)
This blend of cabernet and merlot, with 4% cabernet franc tossed in, is full, open and pure, as compared to the somewhat gamey Seven Hills, below. It has fine structure wrapped around a nice core of fruit and should develop well. This Washington State wine is very nice, and a somewhat leaner alternative to warm Napa fruit. 90-92 points.

2002 "Perigee--Seven Hills Vineyard" (L'Ecole No. 41)
The fruit is bright cherry, but there is an earthy, almost gamey note here as well that some will love and find complex, and others will just find gamey. I rather liked it. The wine is intense and focused and rather distinctive. I found myself liking this Bordeaux blend a lot. It will likely sell in the low $40s, a pretty good deal for classy cabs/Bordeaux-blends these days. 91-93 points.

2002 Cabernet Sauvignon (Hourglass Estate)
Rich and opulent, this is a blockbuster wine--for better or worse. It is very sweet on the finish and almost seems to have some residual sugar. It tastes great, but as a cabernet, it is certainly eccentric, flamboyant and atypical. I can't honestly say this style is to my taste; or maybe I'd like it better if it wasn't supposed to be Napa cab. Still, you can't deny the fine fruit, the depth and the flavor. Many will love it. 88-90 points.

2002 Cabernet Sauvignon "Peterson Family Vineyard" (Switchback Ridge)
Along the lines of the Hourglass, above, comes this Switchback. Yet, although this is big, ripe and full, after the flamboyant Hourglass, next to which this was tasted, the Switchback seems almost restrained. Switchback isn't shy, and the wines are big and opulent, not exactly shooting for elegance or typicity. Yet, for all that, here's a winery that does "big and opulent" very well. You may not always love their style, but they execute their vision so well that it is hard to begrudge them kudos. They manage to get near the top--but still retain dignity. 91-93 points.

2002 Claret (Foley)
I'm not always so thrilled with the Foley style of oak treatment, but in all other respects they are extremely well made wines. This is rich, but structured, with plenty of tannins on the finish. It has a nice solid core of fruit. This is not a shy wine by any means, but it certainly seemed straightforward after being tasted third in a lineup of Hourglass and Switchback, above. :)  This has excellent depth--the core is packed and solid. 92-94 points.

2002 Cabernet Sauvignon (Pride Mountain)
This has a lot of similarities to the Claret, above, not surprisingly. Let's see. How would I distinguish them? This seems to have a brighter demeanor, and is sweeter on the finish. Like the Claret, it is full bodied, and shows good supporting tannins. I'd give the edge to the Claret, but it's pretty close. 91-93 points.

[Return to Top]  

Chile (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Almaviva (Rothschild/Concha y Toro)
Served blind, this wine made most guess Bordeaux, although I thought it was more likely a restrained Napa meritage. It is very impressive. A Bordeaux blend, it is the result of a collaboration between the Rothschilds and Concha y Toro in Chile. It opens with a leathery but bright nose. While it is ripe, plump and succulent, it has structure and focus, too. There is no point rewriting the story after the bag comes off--this impressed everyone and is probably the best Bordeaux/cab blend I have had from South America. 93 points.
 

[Return to Top]  

Dessert/Sparkling
1976 Sauternes (Chateau Climens)
Relatively fresh and youthful, this is light on its feet, and utterly charming. There are heavy notes of botrytis surrounding the fresh fruit, and the finish is persistent and reasonably long. This is not the deepest Sauternes you'll encounter, but it is spry and friendly. 90 points.

1976 Sauternes (Chateau Rieussec)
Oxidized on the nose, this wine shows lots of problems, although it still has great weight and depth. The fruit seems to be drying out, though, and the notes of alcohol poke through instead.  From this bottle, this seems past peak, and while still enjoyable, showing a fair number of flaws. 85 points.

1988 Chateau Yquem
Stunning and luscious, this opulent Yquem shows none of the oaky, linear notes one can get with unevolved Sauternes. It is rich and powerful, mouthcoating and fabulous. The fruit makes your mouth water, wanting more. This big, succulent wine is never overbearing, despite its size and finish. It is merely delectable all the time. It's as much as you could want, more or less, from Sauternes. What could make this less than perfect? Does it need just a little more intensity? I probably quibble, but perfect is a tough standard. 99 points.

NV Brut Blanc de Blancs (Pierre Gimonnet)
Bright, and bit tart, this is light and easy, a pleasant, if not particularly inspiring sparkler. Very good as an aperitif, but not much depth or finish. Pleasant, if a little tart, and a bit simple. 87 points.

1996 Riesling "Cluster Select Late Harvest" (Navarro)
This seems a bit older a bit sooner than Navarro ususally gets. The color is already a browning a bit, which with Navarro just means it is going to take on that rich apricot and caramel nuance that very sweet, botrytisized wines get. This is bright and succulent, dripping with sweet apricots. Very tasty. 92 points.

1976 Riesling Beerenauslese "Wehlener Sonnenuhr" Gold Kap (Studert-Prum)
Time has not been overly kind on this wine. It is relatively sturdy, but restrained, a bit dull and flat. There are some oxidative notes present, and little sweetness or voluptuousness. It drinks well enough as a basic Riesling, but there is little left that says "BA Gold Kap" about it. 84 points.

1989 Champagne "Grande Année" (Bollinger)
I was more pleased than some, but I thought this was superbly maturing Champagne. The acid and the toast make this mouthcoating in the way it attacks your palate and lingers. For all of that, it is a bit earthy and smokey, distinctive and interesting. To be sure, not everyone liked those distinctive features--each to his own. It is only medium bodied at this point, but the grip is unforgettable. 94 points.

1992 Riesling Beerenauslese "Graacher Domprobst" (W. Schaefer)
Ripe and rich, this shows fine acidity, and a dried apricot nuance. But the beauty of this wine is, despite its age, a tightly wound core that is intense and focused, not mention rather succulent. All the parts hang together here extremely well. The finish lingers. 94 points.

1983 Port (Taylor Fladgate)
This was double decanted about five hours before we got to it, and of that five hours, about two were spent open, but not poured into a decanter, on the table. The wine showed good concentration and sweet fruit, but seemed a bit hot and overly tannic. Watching all the elements fight with each other, the conclusion was that this would have been better with no semblance of decanting, or a LOT more. I think there is a log going on here, but the disjointed appearance did give me pause. A good wine to re-taste with different decanting regimens.  92 points.

[Return to Top]  

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)

2003 Riesling Auslese "Niersteiner Pettenthal (Franz Karl Schmitt)
The nose here is not quite laced with as many mineral notes as in their somewhat less ripe Spatlese, but the nuances are still present. This is on the drier side for young Auslese, and seems fairly fat, with only moderate intensity. Like a lot of wines in this vintage, you focus on the fruit, and acidity is not apparent. In many ways, I liked their spatlese style better (not reviewed here) for its complexity and mineral notes. If not quite as ripe and round, it was distinctive and interesting. 88-90 points.

2003 Riesling Auslese "Nierstainer Hipping" (Georg Albrecht Schneider)
Sweet and lush, this is very ripe and rather delicious. Full of flavor, its opulence seems charming at this stage. Again, you wish for more of a hit of acidity to be present and apparent, but this is round, easy and appealing. 88-90 points.
 

2004 Riesling Kabinett "Niersteiner Oelberg" (Seebrich)
Sprightly and lively, with tingly notes of acidity, this barrel sample seems like an elegant Kabinett in the making. The sunny charm of this wine will make it very enjoyable. I'd like to see this barrel sample put its parts together and show its stuff--I think it will.  86-88 points.
 

2003 Riesling Auslese "Kreuznacher Kroetenpfuhl (Paul Anheuser)
This turns sweet on the finish, but otherwise shows a lot of restraint in sugar. Given how many '03s seem fat, this one seems very modest in depth, and doesn't substitute the crisp acidity of other vintages either. There are some mineral notes on the finish. I was underwhelmed by this. It just seemed mediocre across the board. 85-87 points.
 

2003 Gewurztraminer Spatlese (Fitz-Ritter)
German gewurz is usually a different animal than those of Alsace, lacking the intensity and the pungent bouquets. This wine is very nice, although a hard core gewurz fan from Alsace will not be thrilled. There is a lovely, rose petal bouquet, easy rather than aggressive. The wine is medium bodied, a little sweet, but not a lot, and very elegant. I liked this wine's charm. It is a bit of a simple wine, but a very enjoyable wine for short term consumption. It is drinking well now. I did not get a price on this, but it is usually inexpensive, $10-$12, and a very good deal in that price range. The score is relatively low considering that this is a wine that is mostly ready to go and has a certain simple quality to it, but don't let that fool you. It is a lot of fun at the moment. 86-88 points.

2003 Riesling Kabinett "Hattenheimer Nussbrunen" (von Simmern)

Dry and aggressive, this has just a touch of sugar apparent, although the winemaker says that is because of the high acidity in the wine. It seems halbtrocken on the palate as it stands. The fruit is rather deep and concentrated, providing a core of support for the acid, too---the level of acid may be high enough to obscure the sugar content, but the other components balance the wine out. It does not seem tart, or lemony. If you like this somewhat austere style, this is a superb Kabinett that may open up a bit with a year or so of time and flourish. 88-90 points.
 

2004 Riesling Kabinett "Erbacher Marcobrunn" (von Schoenborn)

This barrel sample is distinctive in taste, a bit oily in texture, and rather powerful. It is very exotic, finishing with a touch of mango, perhaps, maybe a hint of peppermint. The winery called the finish "herbal." I rather liked this, even if it was a touch eccentric. Its distinctiveness is appealing, and the flavors interesting. It will be interesting to see how this develops and shows when it is finally released. 88-90 points.
 

2003 Riesling Erstes Gewach "Marcobrunn" (von Schoenborn)
This first growth is nicely balanced between fruit and acid, dry but not tart or shrill.  It shows commendable depth, and while bright, the acid is well integrated in the wine. This is admittedly not my favorite style of wine, but the components here seem to integrate well and show excellent potential. For all of that, it is somewhat underwhelming and did not, to me, show anything of real distinction for its classification. 88-90 points.

2003 Riesling Kabinett "Piesporter Goldtropfchen" (Bollig-Lehnert)
This estate flies under the radar, but makes pretty good stuff. I loved this Kabinett. The nose is floral and expressive, but a bit eccentric. It seemed to me to have almost a touch of a scheurebe nose--just a touch, though. It made the wine seem a bit racy and complex, perhaps more so than it actually is. The palate was more typical, and also rather packed and fat, and there was a very nice finish, too. 88-90 points.

2003 Riesling Auslese "Piesporter Goldtropfchen" (Bollig-Lehnert)

Full bodied and fat, this is a wine of its vintage. It just seems thick.  It is hard to find the acid at the moment, but this Auslese is on the sweet side, and finishes with beautiful, pure, delectable flavors. It would be nice to see this develop a bit in the cellar, acquire some balance and complexity, but this is very appealing at the moment, a somewhat decadent pleasure. This needs to develop well to merit the upper end score, though. 88-91 points.

2003 Riesling Spatlese "Rudesheimer Magdalenenkreuz (Leitz)
Plump and lazy, this wine gives the impression of fatness, more than anything else. It is sweet and opulent, quite delicious, with pure, lovely flavors. It is hard to find that big hit of acid in the middle that Leitz has given me before, though, and if that's your preferred style this may not be your preferred vintage or wine. Still, this is pretty succulent and tasty. I wonder what will happen to it with a decade in the cellar...  88-90 points.

1975 Riesling Auslese "Bernkasteler Doktor (H. Thaprich)

Fresh and youthful, this shows bright acid, well integrated into the body, and respectable depth of fruit. There's little sweetness left here, but the wine still has a very ripe, fruity quality to it, finishing with a touch of mango that seems perhaps a touch eccentric, but also rather delectable. It has a touch of that maturing, burnished quality older Rieslings get--but it mostly seems vibrant and lively, hardly showing its age. Very fine. 93 points.

1983 Riesling Auslese "Josephshofer" (Reichsgraf Von Kesselstatt)
Fully mature, this shows little evidence of decay, but also little evidence of vibrancy. There is not much point holding this further--I would only expect it to decline, and it may in fact be a little past peak already. At the moment, it drinks beautifully, easy and charming, with an elegant and refined air. There's a nice finish, too. 89 points.

2001 Spatlese "Haardter Burgergarten" (Muller-Catoir)
Grapey and primary, this young puppy is off dry, sweeter on the finish, and very exuberant. At the moment, it is hard to find the acid, as the fruit is so fresh and succulent, but it does become refreshing as time wears on. There's a nice finish and classic nose, too. 93 points.

1993 Riesling Auslese "Winninger Rottgen" (Freiherr von Heddesdorff)
Lively and compact, this opens with a little burst of acid, and little bit of sweetness on the finish. It flattens a bit, and seems rather angular for a time, and simple. Some air improves it considerably, and it shows some charm and elegance, although it never seems particularly distinguished.  88 points.

[Return to Top]  

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Chianti Classico Riserva (Fattoria di Felsina)
Soft and elegant, this shows nice flavor in a charming demeanor. The texture is velvety and seductive. It isn't all soft and easy though, as there are some ripe tannins, and the finish is rather powerful.  This is subtle at times, but sneaks up on you. 89 points.

2001 "Campaccio" IGT (Terrabianca)
Exuberant, and youthful, this is jam packed with flavor, ripe and deep. I liked the soft texture, and there was plenty of mouthcoating fruit underneath. It is delicious, and drinking rather well now. I'm not sure this will be the longest ager of its type, but it sure is good to drink now. 92 points.

1996 Guado al Tasso (Tenuta Belvedere)
This is powerful and deep, chock full of ripe, seductively textured fruit. There is plenty of structure here, though, and tannins come out with more air.  For all of its power, it has a certain graceful aspect to it, with everything in good balance. Very fine. 94 points.

1989 Barolo Riserva (Fontanafredda)
The first bottle I had of this a few years back was so backward and tannic that it was unbearable. This bottle is a lot better, helped along no doubt by the fact it was double decanted for about three hours before we got to it, and open on the table for a couple of hours as well. Suddenly--there's fruit! And the tannins were greatly moderated, and in balance. This doesn't have the depth or pure power of the Vietti, below, but it has everything nicely in place, with fine balance, and elegance. The fruit is flavorful, entering a mature stage, but still with youthful aspects, open and developing. This had a lot of charm. 90 points.

2000 Barbaresco "Boito" (Rizzi) QPR Winner
This bargain Barbaresco is nicely priced at around $30. It is certainly "new wave" Barbaresco. The fruit is opulent, sweet and ripe, with tinges of Merlot-ish chocolate notes. It is succulent and delectable. The goal here is fruit forward flavor, obviously, not structure, and while there was some, it isn't something you notice much of. This seems to drink fine now, although the fruit is very young and some will want it more developed. With air, this takes on more typicity, but I rather liked its early incarnation. Some will decry this as too modern and a bit simple, but it tastes really, really good. 92 points.

1990 Barolo "Rocche" (Vietti)
Gripping, powerful and often stunning, this is Barolo. The fruit is very deep and concentrated, nicely textured as well. It doesn't take long, though, for air to bring out the powerful tannins. This is attention getting in every respect, and nowhere near ready at the moment without long decanting, which we didn't give it. Some might express concern that the tannins are too aggressive here, but I think things will work out fine. It just needs five to ten more years of cellaring. 95 points.

2001 Barbaresco "Starderi" (La Spinetta)
Full, opulent and rich, this shows gorgeous flavors, with a long finish. The wine is powerfully structured too, and there is plenty of support for the opulent, lush fruit. Superlative. Not cheap, though--likely to be running over $100 a bottle if purchased now. 93-95 points.

2003 Monferato Rosso "Pin" (La Spinetta)
This is 65% nebbiolo, the rest Barbera. This is an elegantly structured wine, with persistence and tannins on the finish. It is by no means soft, but the components will integrate well here with cellaring. There is lots of fresh, ripe fruit flavor and I liked the length on the finish. Very nice. 90-92 points.

2001 Barolo "Campe" (La Spinetta)
Whew. Aggressive and often astringent, this wine takes no prisoners. Potent and gripping, it shows little but pure power at the moment. There is a sense of depth and fruit underneath, but this is the type of wine that is particularly hard to judge in a short while at a trade show. My sense is that its tannin levels are of some potential concern, but that it should work out fine. Call it 91-94 points.

2001 Barbaresco "Bric Balin" (Moccagatta)
Big and powerful, this is deep, full bodied and concentrated. The finish is a bit disturbingly astringent, and the tannins are rather assertive, making this wine a little hard to get a read on at the moment, but it seems to me there is big upside potential here. The worst that happens is that it will be very good instead of exceptional. This will probably run under $40 a bottle. 91-93 points.

2001 Barbaresco "Bric Ronchi" (Rocca)
Ripe and opulent, this opens with refinement and supple fruit. But there's a big kick on the end, and there is plenty of supporting structure here. The fruit is wonderfully succulent. Around $55 a bottle. 92-94 points.

2000 Barolo "Marenca" (Luigi Pira)
Delicious and supple, this wine is chock full of flavor and the fruit is delectable. It sometimes seems like it could use a little more depth or intensity for its price level (around $65 a bottle), but it may hold some surprises for you. In the meanwhile, the fruit is just gorgeous. 91-93 points.

2000 Barolo "Carobric" (Scavino)
Big and opulent, everything about this is outsized. The fruit is deep and concentrated, but there is plenty of power and structure, too. I loved the texture of the fruit as well as its succulence and depth. Current release pricing is just under $80 a bottle. 94-96 points.

1999 Barolo "Via Nuova" (E. Pira--Chiara Boschis)
This wine seems overly dominated by tannins, and a bit shy of fruit to support it. The level of astringency versus the level of depth is a bit of a concern, although it is certainly true that young Barolo can come around well in the cellar and shake off those problems. It is also true that sometimes they don't. I would be cautious in evaluation of the future of this wine. 87-89 points.

2001 "Ateo" (Ciacci Piccolomini)
One of my favorite wine values, this runs around $25 or so a bottle and is worth every penny. They age surprisingly well, too. This is plump, with sweet, accessible fruit that seems very grapey and primary, but there is structure here, too. Plus, I have found that with four or five years of age, these take on great typicity. It is a bit tight at the moment, but bursting with flavor. It is medium bodied and well balanced.  Looks like a superb Ateo. 90-92 points.

1999 Brunello di Montalcino "Pianrosso" (Ciacci Piccolomini)
I think I liked the fragrant, lovely nose best on this. It is surprisingly open, very friendly, and flavorful. There's not a lot of power or depth, but it is charming and elegant. This is an easy wine, that makes friends, and just plain drinks well. 90-92 points.

2003 Dolcetto d'Alba (Scavino)
This is fruity and delicious, with ripe, exuberant fruit. There is still some structure here, though--although the tannins are supple, they lend support and make this more than grape juice. Primary and grapey, as a young Dolcetto usually is, this goes down well.  88-90 points.

1990 "Cepparello" (Isole e Olena)
Open a long while, this did not show the better for it, I think, but there was a lot that remained that was impressive. It is full bodied and powerful, with plenty of depth, but with the long aeration it had, it was starting to show some cracks. Treat this more normally, and it should be superb. 91-93 points.

2002 Cepparello (Isole e Olena)
Simple and short, this seems pleasant and decent, but lacking distinction and depth, well short of the best that this winery can do. This will probably need a year or so to come around and then will drink best on the young side. 86-88 points.

2001 Chianti Classico "Giorgio Primo" (Fattoria La Masasa)
85% Sangiovese, and the rest Merlot, this is ripe, lush and opulently textured. The tannins are soft and ripe in the back, and the fruit's texture makes it rather sensual to drink.  I would like to see it show it a little more intensity, and its components integrate with a little more cellaring, but it drinks well now. 89-91 points.

1998 Ornellaia (Tenuta Dell'Ornellaia--Antinori)
Powerful and gripping, this is a big, surly Ornellaia by all appearances. With some air, you can find lots of fruit, too, which is supported by nice acidity. It opens and evolves nicely and is impeccably balanced, if not quite as flavorful as what I usually get from this wine. Very nice. 93 points.
 

[Return to Top]  

Rhone/South/Southwest France (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Vielles Vignes" (Janasse)
This young, intense and burly Chateauneuf is simply superlative, but way, way too young. Very dark in color, it is filled with sweet fruit, and it is flamboyant and primary.  It is also supported by impeccable--and powerful--structure, and this is a cellar candidate for sure. Try it again around 2009, in my view, for better results after it calms down. But this is a great CdP.  95+ points.

2001 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Reserve" (Pignan/Rayas)
Powerful and tannic, this young wine has some sweet fruit on the edge, but it is so burly that the fruit is pretty well submerged at the moment. It opens a little with air, but remains overly aggressive, and seems to lack the necessary weight in the mid-palate. You'll have to cellar this a good long while, but I think there is some issue as to balance here. At the moment at least, it is fairly impenetrable. 89 points.

1989 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Hommage à Perrin" (Beaucastel)
I think I prefer the 1990 in this remarkable duo of Hommages, but this is no slacker. It seems shut pretty tight at the moment, grim and brooding, powerful and surly, after five hours decanting. Maybe we caught the decanting at an awkward time. It is spectacular, though, and it has plenty of fruit. Waves of flavor pour off of it. It shows great depth, more than you think any CdP could possibly have. There's a powerful attack, and lots of tannins on the end. Put this away for at least five more years. 98+ points.

1990 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Secret de Sabon" (Sabon)
Decanted about four hours, this, I think suffered for the decanting. It is smooth but light, and the flavors are a bit muted. There is still fruit and supporting structure, but it is a little too restrained, and the texture a little on the sharp side. Not bad, but not great, either. 88 points.

1998 Coteaux du Languedoc "Copa Santa" (Clavel) QPR Winner
This reliable, good value wine had a tremendous vintage in 1998, far exceeding even its normal quality benchmarks. At age 7, it is young and grapey, primary and fresh. It hardly seems to have acquired any age at all. With some more air, some tannins come out, a good sign for supporting structure. But the texture is always smooth and velvety, and the fruit flavorful and persistent. I am very impressed with the development of this wine. Yum. 92 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Charvin)
My last taste of this showed an unevolved, but very promising wine. If anything, this is less evolved today, seems grapier, riper, richer, more primary. There are supple tannins, some gamey notes, and brightness that delivers a big hit of flavor onto your tongue. This is coming around now and is very approachable now, although for those who like more developed wines, it is a bit too primary and youthful. Very nice. This should merit its score, but at the moment the score is based on potential. 93 points.

1990 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Chaupin" (Janasse)
This wine screams "classic Chateauneuf" on the nose. On the palate, though, it shows disturbingly light and thin at the outset, and improves only a little. This wine is pleasant enough still, and certainly