Tasting Notes
September/October, 1997

Back to MainTasting Notes Summary Page
(or use your Browser's BACK button
or click on "Tasting Notes" in the Contents frame!)

Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1989 Riesling "Schlossberg" (A. Mann)
  This is a dry wine with character that still shows some length on the finish, but it seems to be thinning out nonetheless. A little bitter on the mid-palate. I wouldn't be surprised to see this wine hold stubbornly for several more years, but while it is moderately appealing now, for me it will continue to lose interest as it ages. 86 points.
• 1994 Gewurztraminer "Hengst" Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)
  This wine and the one below offer a study in contrasts between new and old styles, young and old. This 1994 is incredibly concentrated, almost sweet and rich enough to be a dessert wine. Beneath the sugar, there is still some pepper and spice, and you can tell this is gewurz. Its density and unctuous flamboyance are remarkable in every respect, and yet for all of that, the wine does not seem unbalanced or odd. Just incredibly rich and ripe. As ripe as they get, actually, without being a TBA. 96 points.
• 1983 Gewurztraminer "Hengst" Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)
  This wine, by contrast, is a classical gewurz that has aged beautifully. On opening, it still shows some lychee fat, and a hint of sweetness, although that blows off fast. What's left is a wine of pepper and spice that keeps bubbling up as it warms up, plus considerable finesse and elegance. It tastes fresh and pristine, hardly like a 15 year old white wine. In its own way, this is a tour de force, too. 91 points.
• 1995 Riesling "Clos Windsbuhl" (Zind-Humbrecht)
  Disappointing. With Gewurz, Clos Windsbuhl is as good as any vineyard in France. The Rieslings have been less consistent, though we are not exactly talking about bad wine here. This wine seems light and airy, has a hint of sweetness on the back end of the palate. It finishes very long, a good sign, but on the mid-palate seems to lack depth and the luscious qualities this Domaine is famed for producing. One problem is that the wine seems a bit disjointed. There's an excellent chance it will come together, put on weight and impress more as it ages. In fact, it is not unusual for wines a bit on the sweet side to show thin and elegant in their youth, and then put on weight as they age and oxidize a little. So, my recommendation would be to cellar this for three years and try it again. At the moment, 84+ points, but with considerable hope for improvement.

  Australia (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1986 Cabernet "Bin 707" (Penfolds)
  Drenched in new American oak, this wine opens showing nothing else. Eventually the fruit blossoms, and it becomes a rich, velvety cab that, however, reminds one more of Aussie shiraz, both because of the oak and the sweet, soft fruit behind it. The tendency to drench these wines in this sort of American oak is a bad one, as the very distinctive flavors of this sort of oak obliterate any semblance of the grape. Still, tastes great, and is a crowd pleaser. You can like it a lot if you forget that it's supposed to be a cab. Scoring is largely irrelevant on this wine since its style requires you to make a personal threshhold choice, but let's say.....90 points.
• 1982 Grange Hermitage (Penfolds)
  One of the great Granges. Awesomely well preserved wine that launches a bold attack on your palate and your nose. The oak is obvious, but the fruit is still youthful and dense. Rich, powerful, starting to drink well, this is a monumental wine. Essence of shiraz. 96 points.

  Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1989 Chateau Beychevelle
  This is a tasty Bordeaux that I feel is somehow underrated and underappreciated. It's drinking great now. It still has the sweet, luscious, velvety fruit. It's not a big wine, but rather retains some elegance for all of its lush fruit. It holds beautifully in the glass all night long. No, it does not have the depth and concentration of truly great wine, but, tastes great, less filling. 90 points.
• 1994 Chateau Siran
  This Margaux property produced a mediocre wine, that finishes a little bitter, and is on the lighter side. If it were a $10 cru bourgeois, this would be a steal. At more like $25, well, for that price try some 1994 Lafon Rochet and see the difference. 83 points.
• 1983 Mouton Rothschild
  Pristine bottle. Opens with a heady cassis and tobacco nose of concentrated fruit, and delivers lush, ripe, deep fruit on the palate as well. It seemed young. That sweetness and lushness faded fairly fast though, and the wine began to show more like what one would expect at this point, gaining some character, showing some maturity. The early youthful presentation was just a tease, but this is a fine wine anyway, and very underrated. 90 points.
• 1975 Mouton Rothschild
  Just below the neck level. But this wine is indestructible. Around the edges, on the nose and on the finish, there were some oxidized notes, no doubt related to its level. But this huge wine still showed thick fruit, perhaps helped by the slight oxidation into a gentle, charming, tasty state. This wine was probably not in perfect condition, but it probably was more ready to drink as a result. It even opened and blossomed in the glass. A lot better than I would have expected from looking at the ullage. 88 points.
• 1948 Calon Segur
  A wine that exceeds expectations in most respects. Yes, on opening there is an annoying bouquet of damp leaves, but on the palate that kicks in only at the end of the finish. Lead and tobacco notes predominate as the wine proves it still has fruit left. Its first presentation is as a soft and gentle wine, but it actually develops, and tannins and fruit bubble up for awhile. I didn't expect much from this, and to be sure, it is past prime. But for the vintage, at this point, it is a considerable success. 85 points.
• 1986 Sociando Mallet
  Cru bourgeois doesn't get any better. This dense, rich wine is just starting to drink. It still shows tannins and the fruit is heavy, but it is approachable. For all of its size, it is perfectly balanced--honest!--and seems like quintessential Bordeaux. If you served this blind and called identified it as one of the big name wines, you would be wrong, but you would not be embarrassed. Terrific stuff, and for the first time in a long while, you can actually taste this wine, which had closed down tight as a drum. 92 points.

  Burgundy (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1996 Beaujolais Julienas (Michel Tete)
  This is about as good as Beaujolais gets. I'm still not enamored of it. Gamay put through carbonic maceration just leaves me cold. This has enough stuffing so that the cherry bubblegum aspects that often seem so typical are muted, but they are still there. It's enough to make me pass on Beaujolais. But if you like it that way, this is terrific Beaujolais with gobs of flavor and fruit. 91 points. Remember that my scores are relative.
• 1994 Vosne Romanée (Cacheux)
  So-so village wine in a so-so vintage. This wine does everything correctly, but seems to me to be short on flavor and intensity. In years gone by, it might have been a decent drink for $15; for more like $25 or so, it just seems to me there are better ways to spend your bucks. 82 points.
• 1995 Monthelie (J. Garaudet)
  Somewhat limp flavors, rather open and seeming ready now. Too thin and restrained for my tastes. Again, pricing rears its head. This would go at close to $20, yet its quality level seems more like $11.99. Unfortunately, this is the world and wine market in which we live these days.... 80 points.
• 1995 Pommard "Noizons" (J. Garaudet)
  Here is a bargain, relatively speaking. This wine, around $30 or so, is simply charming. The flavors are broad, the strawberry fruit is delicious, and the wine seems gentle and just about ready to drink. It's not a huge, go for broke Pommard. It lacks the depth and intensity to be called a great wine. But as a probable early maturing Burgundy it is hard to dislike and delivers a lot. 89 points.
• 1994 Nuits St. Georges "Les St. Georges" (Henri Gouges)
  This wine is a success for the vintage, but probably a poor value. Its pronounced cherry flavors show up on the finish. The tannins are there, but reasonably ripe. It needs a year or two of cellaring. It comes up a little short in the flavor and intensity department. 86 points.
• 1994 Echezeaux "Vielles Vignes" (Mongeard-Mugneret)
  Another disappointing 1994 red Burg. This wine does everything well, seems to be drinking fairly well now, too, and has its good points. It lacks intensity and depth, the flavors are muted. Grand cru quality? I think not. The good news is that it is reasonably priced for its status, at around $35 or $40 or so, depending on who your retailer is. 85 points.
• 1995 Puligny-Montrachet "Champs Canet" (Carillon)
  This white Burg is not big and fleshy, but rather beautifully structured and balanced. I frankly found it great to drink now, but it will be better in a year, and will age gracefully for several thereafter. There's a hit of tannin on the mid palate, and the oak is restrained, albeit not 100% integrated yet. Elegant wine. 89+ points.
• 1994 Macon La Roche Vineuse "Les Cras" (Domaine du Vieux Sorlin-Merlin)
  More lemony than a big white Burg, with less obvious oak, this wine nonetheless shows rich and tangy, with some tannin on the finish. I'm usually not a Macon fan. But this is not your average Macon. This needs cellaring, by the way. Like I said, not your average Macon. 90 points.
• 1988 Bonnes Mares (Comtes de Vogue)
  This wine opens up tight, yet surprisingly graceful, with a pretty raspberry nose that follows through on the palate to deliver pronounced raspberry flavors. The underlying tannins are significant on opening, but blow off fairly quickly with air. With air, too, the wine loses some intensity and rounds its rough edges off. Good color. This is by no means a great Burg, but it does a lot of things very right. Plenty of life left if you want to cellar it. 89 points.
• 1983 Chambertin Clos de Beze (Clair-Dau)
  On opening, I was pleasantly surprised. The fruit seemed relatively broad and graceful, but hidden behind some mouth puckering tannins. What I didn't taste was any damage. But as the wine continued to breathe, this changed. The wine is a bit unbalanced, and the tannins will clearly outlive the fruit. Also, with air, off notes and odors came to the forefront and began to dominate the fruit. Good weight, good concentration, but a lot of things went awry in the making of this wine. At this stage of its development, it is not of great interest. 79 points.
• 1989 Clos St. Denis (Dujac)
  Perfumed nose, velvety texture, soft but sweet core of fruit, with structure and backbone to boot. This wine is perhaps just a bit closed still, and I think another year or two of cellaring will allow more development of the fruit flavors. It's drinking pretty well now, though. The Clos St. Denis is always one of Dujac's most elegant wines, and this is a fine one. The wine does not give the impression of heavy concentration, but there's usually more depth there than you might suspect. 91 points.
• 1953 Corton-Bressandes (Collomb)
  This Burgundy is past prime, yet it shows no oxidation, develops with air, and still has some gentle flavor left. Good, medium body still. Cloudy, heavy sediment. You could do far worse than to find a 44 year old Corton in condition this good. It lasted long enough to be enjoyable while we were on red Burgundy. That's all we asked. It had something to offer besides curiosity value. That said, it probably hit peak in 1967, not 1997. 84 points.
• 1994 Puligny-Montrachet "Les Folatières" (Sauzet)
  Surprisingly modest Puligny. I wonder if this bottle is typical. The wine seemed a bit thin, and lacked grip and bite. It was certainly pleasant--but I expected more. 85 points.
• 1990 Pommard "Vignots" (Leroy)
  This wine always seems on the verge of making a flavor breakthrough, but never quite does. Flat and broad, with tannins that pop through with extended air, this wine never seems to develop much flavor, although it certainly seems concentrated. I suppose an argument can be made that this was closed. Perhaps, however, the wine achieved density in place of flavor intensity. 88 points.
• 1992 Batard-Montrachet (Jadot)
  Round, smooth and velvety, this pleasing wine is a little too dominated by oak, and lacks real distinction. Good body and weight, but no focus. As grand crus go, this is not a good deal. Still, it has plenty to offer. Its main problem is its label. I wanted more and didn't get it. 88 points.
• 1989 Chassagne-Montrachet "Morgeots" (Ramonet)
  Crisp on the finish, creamy and toasty on the mid-palate, one never quite gets a handle on this wine. It developed well in the glass, had a bit of tannic bite and vanilla overlay. Very pleasing in all respects, it is a bit short in the "wow" category. Very good, not great. 89 points.
• 1990 Santenay "Clos Tavannes" (Pousse d'Or)
  Big, chunky Santenay in prime form! This wine opens silky and elegant, but it doesn't take long for that sophisticated veneer to blow off. Thick, fruit with subtle cherry flavors takes over fairly quickly. Some mouth drying tannins on the finish after it is open awhile, along with a touch of oxidation. A seven year old Santenay this big and dense? Aging has not been all kind, though. It is true that the intensity of the flavor has moderated. The wine is big and chunky, a very unusual Santenay, but it delivers relatively little pure flavor for all that fruit. Still, a remarkable Santenay that has held remarkably well. 89 points.

  California/ West Coast RED (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1986 Cabernet (Chateau Montelena)
  I have not had this wine in some years, but based on what I had then, I expected a bit more now. Whether this is typical or just the bottle, I can't say. The wine opened ready, with supple tannins, and a lot of elegance, not necessarily Montelena's normal characteristics. It held well for an hour or so, but faded fairly fast, and oxidized notes began to pop out all too quickly. I tend to think this is not a typical performance. From this bottle, 84 points.
• 1995 Petite Sirah (Behrens & Hitchcock)
  Black, inky color. Spectacularly flavorful fruit with lots of nuances of framboise up front and blueberry with air. This is not a heavy wine despite its 15% alcohol level, and its tannins are so soft and supple that it was tasting pretty good now. How it cellars will be interesting, but right now it is simply irresistible. 90-91 points.
• 1993 Merlot "Santa Cruz" Merlot (Ridge)
  This Merlot has escalated wildly in price. At its old price point of $20 or so, it was a fair buy. At closer to double that, it is no longer recommended. The fruit seems to be cherry chocolate, and provides flavor and pleasure. The wine has good weight and some depth. It is also a one dimensional wine that does not evolve much with air and has relatively little character. Solid stuff, but if you are going to buy this at $40 or so, my advice would be to save your money and get some St. Emilion. Or buy Ridge's cheaper Bradford Mountain bottling, which is pretty close in quality. 88 points.
• 1995 Pinot Noir "Carneros" (Kent Rasmussen)
  I've always liked the Rasmussen pinots, granting that they won't satisfy any urges you get for Burgundy. The good points are that the wine delivers lot of fruit flavors, and the supple tannins deliver a drink that's soft, elegant and charming. Depth? Ageworthy? Probably not. Decent value, and fun, though. 87 points.
• 1995 Pinot Noir "Walla Walla" (Woodward Canyon)
  Burgundian is the last thing you could call this wine. But it has some structure, and really sweet, berry fruit. Woodward Canyon is a pinot pioneer in Washington, and this is an effort worth supporting even though it seems a little odd at times for pinot. It loses points for typicity but tastes good! 87 points.
• 1995 Pinot Noir (Logan/ Talbott) and 1994 Pinot Noir "Sleepy Hollow" (Case/Talbott)
  Here's another producer that is not exactly known for Pinot Noir but is making a great effort. Logan and Case are the names of the sons of Talbott's owners, and constitute a second label. The Logan is the more forward of the two, a bit candied, sweet and tasty. I wouldn't let this age at all, but it goes down well. Its structure is nominal, but it tastes good enough in the short run that you may not care. Probably available under $20. 87 points. The Case "Sleepy Hollow" seems a bit more serious and is pricier, too. It is more structured, and can be cellared a few years, not that it is a long term wine by any means. Not as sweet as the Logan, but very elegant. Supple, ripe tannins. 88+ points.
• 1994 Cabernet "Les Pavots" (Peter Michael)
  This winery has made great strides with its red wine, and this Les Pavots is a delicious Bordeaux style blend of wines that finishes a little herbal, but has velvety texture, rich, soft, dense fruit and reasonable depth. The question on this is cost. It may hit the marketplace in the thirties if you can find it at all, and then again may escalate quickly from the thirties since it is so rare. I like this a lot, but I'll start biting my tongue if it passes $50. 92 points.
• 1994 Cabernet "Eisele" (Araujo)
  Like a lot of 1994s, this beautifully structured cab seems to be drinking well now. A lot of the 94s seem to be marked by lush, velvety fruit, and they seem to be accessible from the get go. Will they close? Will they age well? Come back in ten years and we'll find out. This beautifully structured and balanced wine will. I'd like to sit with it for an evening some time, so I'm hedging my rating. 90-91 points.
• 1995 Syrah "Durell" and Mourvedre "L'enfant terrible" and 1995 "Les Cotes Sauvages" (Edmunds St. John)
  Who in California has a lineup of better Rhone clones than Edmunds St. John? This is not a trick question. The answer is.....nobody. The Durrell, not too long ago available for $20, has started creeping up in price, closer to $30. That's fair, frankly. The word is out that this is a wine everyone likes. The Francophiles adore its balance and elegance. The big fruit freaks like its subtle intensity, and flavorful, lush fruit. It ages well, and develops well in the glass. That said, so far at least, I liked the way the 92 showed at a similar stage better than this, and I might rank it a notch below the 94, too, although that's not as clear. It is still a gorgeous, blueberry scented wine that is soft, accessible and hard to keep your hands off, even though it will age and develop. Another success for the Durell. 90 points. The Mourvedre is one of best buys in California. It's a $10 or so wine that makes you think you picked up a Bandol, except it usually is a lot more velvety than any Bandol you get for this price. Earthy, and a little too tart now, this will calm down and smooth out. Great quality/price ratio. 87 points. It's a little short on depth by great wine standards, and that's about all you can say. The Cotes Sauvages is also escalating in price, and is now out of my "Best Buy" page parameters. But it's an overdue recognition of this wine's recent quality. It shows actually bolder than the Durell at the moment, although not as sweet, and this seems, quite simply to be the best Cotes Sauvages ever made. It may challenge the Durell in this vintage for pride of place. In fact, it was my favorite of the three. I'm curious to see how it develops. 91+ points, depending on development. I was inclined to give it more, but I'll wait and see instead.
• 1995 Zinfandel "Old vines--Rossi Ranch" (Topolos)
  A zin that reminds me of a Rhone. I liked this a lot. Earthy finish, but deliciously lush, ripe fruit with unusual velvet for a zin, and plenty of depth and character. Some zins lack this much distinction and character, content to be fruit bombs. A nice change. 91 points.
• 1987 Cabernet "Howell Mountain" (Dunn)
  A wine that showed rather accessible, with decanting, but kept changing and developing for hours anyway. The first fifteen minutes were tough, with a big burst of sharp tannins, and an astringent finish. The fruit seemed ripe, intense and deep beneath the tannins. Yet this wine went through several surprising evolutionary changes. The tannins blew off faster than I would have thought. The wine then seemed thin. But the fruit came back and expanded, developing nuances of tobacco and tar, and seeming more like a Bordeaux with every passing second. The wine had less stuffing than I anticipated, but more complexity than I anticipated. Depending on your tastes, this may or may not be a good thing. 88 points.
• 1995 Pinot Noir (Beaux Freres)
  Opens with a haze of carbon dioxide or something of the sort that obscures the wine's flavors for a few seconds. It blows off with five minutes of breathing. Thereupon, the wine develops beautifully, with delicious, broadly open berry flavors. This is by far the most accessible Beaux Freres I've had (and I've had them all but for the 91). It seems pretty much ready to go---let it breathe for 10 minutes---even now, although I think it will improve with a year or two of cellaring. That is, it is in no danger of falling apart, nor has it hit peak. If the wine is lighter than usual, in accordance with the vintage, let it also be noted that it still delivers the winery's trademark: pure, beautiful fruit flavors. If it is not quite as intense as the gorgeous '92 or the monumental '94, or even the elegant '93, it still delivers. Considering the overall picture, aging potential, etc., I can't see giving this much more than 88 points or so, but that does not adequately describe how much you may like this in the short term. If I'm wrong and it ages and develops well over, say, five years, expect bigger numbers. 88 points.
• 1990 Zinfandel "Dickerson" (Ravenswood)
  This wine has held remarkably well over the years, and shows no sign of cracking up. It opened a bit disturbingly thin, but then put on weight and developed that licorice, minty core of fruit that Dickerson has as its trademark. Age has given this some elegance, and the fruit has thinned a bit, although we're not exactly talking Pinot Noir here. It won't improve more, and caution would recommend drinking it up. 88 points.
• 1990 Zinfandel "Old Hill" (Ravenswood)
  The Old Hill opens more tannic and more concentrated than the Dickerson, but ultimately, and somewhat surprisingly, did not develop as well, eventually becoming thinner and more acidic. Still worth drinking, but drink up fast. It doesn't seem to have much longer to go. Too tart, and the astringent finish is outliving the fruit. 83 points.
• 1995 Pinot Noir "Garnet" (Saintsbury)
  Seductively delicious when very young, this wine had one big flaw, namely that it clearly possessed little structure. If you taste it now from very cold storage, or if you tasted it several months back when very young, the level of fun it provided might have made you grin and bear the rest, as did I. Today, the wine has already lost some flamboyance from this bottle (which may not have been perfectly stored, and wasn't quite bought on release, but wasn't seriously damaged either). It's now more modest, less able to provide stunning pleasure that exceeds its price category. Still, the wine actually needs fifteen minutes of breathing to develop. It has a touch more character than it had as a youthful fruit bomb, at least after it airs out a bit. But it also has some green flavors beneath the initial sweet fruit. I'd tend to say it will go downhill fast. At the moment, it is still a wine providing a lot of bang for the buck, but its life will be short. How can I say that about a 1995? The 1996 is already in the marketplace; these are not big wines. See below. 85 points.
• 1996 Pinot Noir "Garnet" (Saintsbury)
  This wine at this stage is less flamboyant, more focused than the 1995. It is a considerable bargain. Soft and gentle, yet with some impact and weight that belies its price classification. More structure than the fruity 1995, less up front flavor. Very pleasing, well balanced pinot, for around $12. It doesn't get any better at this price level. For immediate consumption. 86 points.
• 1986 Cabernet Reserve (Simi)
  Lovely, well balanced Cab that reminds one of Bordeaux. It is showing just a touch of mature oxidation, but that touch is overwhelmed by elegant fruit flavors. Unobtrusive oak that you have to think about to find. Overtones of lead and tobacco. A good wine to stick in a blind Bordeaux tasting to see if you can fool people. Only issues of pure depth and concentration keep it from being a real superstar. 90 points.

  California/ West Coast White (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1994 Chardonnay "Diamond T" (Talbott)
  This Diamond T seems a bit tarter and leaner than in the past. It is usually one of my favorite chards in California. A bit disjointed and in need of an extra year of cellaring? I think you have to guess that way at the moment, but I would have expected a bit of a better showing. 88+ points.
• 1995 Chardonnay "Mon Plaisir" (Peter Michael)
  Of all the wines Peter Michael makes, this one is my least favorite year in, year out. It always seems too lemony, sometimes a bit tart. The acidity levels seem too high, or the fruit is insufficiently fat. This, of course, is Peter Michael's easiest to find wine; the Point Rouge and Indigene are hard to latch onto. Yet the wine is pretty pricey for a winery's middle of the road chard, and thus it always seems to be a relatively poor value, too. Oh, the wine probably doesn't deserve the whipping I am giving it, but I remain unimpressed. 85 points.
• 1995 Chardonay "Cuvée Indigene" (Peter Michael)
  If the Mon Plaisir is my least favorite PM, this is my most favorite. The oak on this wine usually gives it a bit of a tannic bite, and the wine seems focused and tight in its youth, just the way I like it. This one seems a bit aberrant in that respect, as the vanillin oak has softened the wine more than usual at this stage. Tannins are still there, and the wine has plenty of structure. This is sweeter and rounder than Indigene normally shows, and a bit less focused, but it is rather good this way, too. 89+ points, still developing.
• 1992 Chardonnay "Kistler Vineyard" (Kistler)
  California chardonnay can't age? Well, OK, most of them can't. But now, step into the Twilight Zone. This baby is five years old, and if not quite still an infant, shows no signs whatsoever of losing anything. If you told me it was a 1994, I would not be surprised. Intense leesy flavors, some oaky notes, but sharply delineated fruit, and a long finish. Drinking well now, but, as I say, shows no signs of needing to be drunk up anytime soon. If you got this well stored in the first place, and kept it well stored ever since, I see no reason this can't last another three to five years, although I'd say it may not improve much further. 93 points.
• 1995 Chardonnay (Schweiger)
  This relatively unheard of wine is made in small quantities, around 200 cases, at least in 1995. It's a great find. It has rich fruit, surrounded by a reasonable amount of oak that should integrate well with a year or two in the cellar. It's tangy and spicy, and I'll be curious to see how it develops. Unlike the Kistler, the fruit is broad and ripe, and the wine shows less backbone and structure. 89-90 points, depending on development.
• 1992 Chardonnay (Chateau Montelena)
  Chardonnay can be such a boring grape. My humble two cents worth. If you don't give it lots of additives, whether lees flavors or oak, you're left with the fruit. Some may think this is a good thing, and it can be if the fruit delivers lots of flavor and is intense and rich. But from this fabled estate, we get a limp Chard that does everything correctly, but lacks depth and intensity of flavor. It's just there. At this point in its life, this is simply a clean, correct, laid back, rather boring Chard that seems to be aging poorly and does not justify its lineage or price. 83 points.
• 1995 Chardonnay "Gauer Ranch" (Mueller)
  Lots of good chardonnay coming from this vineyard these days, right? Right. This limited production wine is a bit too young right at the moment, but not that far away. It has honeyed flavors and some bite from wood which does not unduly impinge on the wine at the moment. The fruit is not quite big enough for the style, though, and I think this won't be a keeper, and won't develop terribly well. It tastes real good at the moment, though. 87 points.
• 1994 Chardonnay "Gauer" (Marcassin)
  Since I last had this, the fruit has opened and blossomed. NOW, I'm impressed. Rich, round and ripe, this wine deals with concentration levels that few chards reach. The oak is a tad too much, if I actually had to choose, but relatively well integrated. I suspect this will develop more with another year in the cellar. 92 points.
• 1994 Chardonnay "Cuvee Cathleen" (Kistler)
  Very accessible chardonnay from Kistler. Tightly focused on the mid-palate with a good finish, beautiful, sweet fruit that screams "drink me." There's just a bit of a tannic bite at the end. Good balance, not quite as big as Durell in 1994. Another super chard from Kistler. This is drinking better than the bigger Marcassin at the moment, although the latter may not be at peak, whereas I think this is. 92 points.
• 1994 Chardonnay (Pahlmeyer)
  One of my favorite chards, and developing brilliantly. When I had this shortly after release, I almost dismissed it too quickly. It seemed hard, and lacked flavor. Almost by accident, it sat in my glass for awhile, and I came back to find that a small explosion of fruit had occurred. Few California chards develop so well. Now, with a couple of years of age, this is drinking very well indeed. The flavor now is up front and intense, the oak well integrated into the wine. There's a bit of tannic bite on the end. Although this is now drinking very well, this wine is not done developing yet. It still had the capacity to change and improve in the glass. 93 points.

  Germany (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1996 Riesling Kabinett #42 (Selbach-Oster)
  Pleasing, under $15 Kabinett in a drier style. Crisp, a little steely. Those who like them sharp and refreshing will like this a lot. 85 points.
• 1995 Schlossbockelheimer Felsenberg Riesling Kabinett (Hehner-Klitz)
  Amazingly fleshy, concentrated and sweet for a Kabinett. Full bodied and delicious, this wine leaves little room for improvement, and is also under $15. A Best Buy. Fine stuff. 89 points.
• 1994 Haardter Burgergarten Muskateller Kabinett (Muller-Catoir)
  Gorgeous, nicely balanced, long, long finish, and very sweet for a Kabinett. If I thought the Hehner-Klitz was intense, this redoubles that level. The finish lingers in your mouth for ages. This will, however, run almost double the price of the Hehner-Klitz, so it's up to you to decide whether the extra intensity and body is worth the bucks. Personally, I wanted some of each, but was diverted by the Riesling immediately below. 92 points.
• 1996 Durkheimer Michelsberg Riesling Spatlese (Darting)
  Just slightly more expensive than the Hehner-Klitz Kabinett, this beautiful wine is amazingly sweet for its classification--we are not, I hasten to add, talking about dessert wine---and has a fabulous quality/price ratio. Rich and fleshy, soft and charming. Perhaps not as intense as the Muller-Catoir, but perhaps also more charming. Around $15 per bottle. A best buy and a great buy. 93 points.
• 1994 Riesling Kabinett Ungsteiner Herrenberg (Darting)
  Another great buy from Kurt Darting. This Kabinett is aging gracefully, and at 9% alcohol goes down easily. Nice finish, apricot/peach bouquet, and slightly off dry on the palate. Very pleasing all around. I didn't get around to it this summer--and it's a perfect summer wine!-- but since it's been in the 80s this week in October, it went down just as well. 88 points.

  Rhone/Southern French (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1994 Bandol Rouge (Pibarnon)
  This is an estate I've traditionally liked a lot in Bandol, and this doesn't disappoint. Velvety fruit with a hint of game and leather on the finish provides a lot of character, a lot of flavor and a velvety texture. Not the most concentrated wine in the world, and approachable now. 89 points.
• 1995 Coteaux du Languedoc (Chateau de la Sauvageonne)
  I've learned that this wine, made from old vines, can be very deceptive early on, but I've never seen it quite so open and accessible so young. It still has some grip and depth, and I wouldn't be shocked if this closed up a bit. It was tasted at an event where it might have been open for awhile. As it showed here, it was a silky, ripe, wine with pure flavors, but not as big on either fruit or tannin as I've seen previously More evaluations will be needed. 87-89 points.
• 1995 Montpeyroux "fut en chêne" (Domaine l'Aiguelière)
  This is a big, thick, dense wine, with bacon fat overtones on the finish and mouth drying tannins right behind. The oak has rounded off some of the edges and the wine seems multi-layered and concentrated. It is surprisingly accessible, and the tannins just need a year or two to round off the remaining sharp edges and become better integrated. At around $15 a bottle or so, this is certainly a steal, but some will not be as impressed with the distinctive, earthy character of this wine. Still, you can't deny the fruit here. Not my personal favorite in terms of taste, but in fairness, 90 points. Be warned, prices are rising on this shooting star property.
• 1993 Coteaux du Languedoc "Clos Syrah Leone" (Peyre Rose)
  Another Languedoc star. Purer, sweeter fruit than the Domaine l'Aiguelière, silkier than the Sauvageonne above, this wine has supple, tingly tannins, and an elegant demeanor for a Languedoc. Seems not as big as either of the previous two wines, but then this also has some age on it now, and has knitted together beautifully. Cheap now, but the price, it is a-risin'. 89 points.
• 1996 Les Terrasses de Guilhem Rouge (Mas de Daumas Gassac)
  A second label from Mas de Daumas Gassac, one of the first "off region" French superstars. First, let me say that this wine is dirt cheap, probably under $8, maybe less in a very competitive place. As such, it's a deal. Those who like this style will go away starry eyed. There is plenty of taste and flavor and in its price range you can't complain too much about the thinness, the fact that it is ready to drink now and won't hold well, or the lack of concentration. The key personal preference issue to me is that it tastes as if it had some whole or partial whole berry fermentation (i.e, carbonic maceration), and it develops what I like to call that cherry bubblegum flavor you find in Beaujolais, especially the cheaper ones, and a taste I've never much cared for. Still, good value for the bucks. 80 points.
• 1994 Coteaux du Languedoc "La Clape" (Pech-Celeyran)
  Ripe, tingly tannins make this light, fruity wine accessible, and the price under $10 makes it a fine deal. Not much depth, just drink up. If you're wondering, for the extra dollar or two this is likely to run, I'd rather have this than the Terrasses, above. 81 points.
• 1995 Cotes du Rhones "Cuvee Ancienne" (Sabon)
  Leathery, flavorful premium Cotes du Rhone with character and good fruit, in a medium to light bodied wine. Red berry notes. Grenache flavors seem to dominate, although I don't know how it was blended. Under $10 and very well done for their price point. This is from the producer of Mont-Olivet Chateauneuf. 84 points.
• 1992, 1988 and 1986 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Beaucastel)
  A mixed bag of Beaus, from the average 86, to the sub-par 92, to the wonderful 1988. Taking the best news first, the 1988 is just brimming with flavorful fruit that attacks you up front, on the finish, and sideways for that matter. A delicious, full bodied wine that lacks nothing and seems to be drinking pretty well now. 92 points. The '86 is a slightly earthier, gamier, more scaled back version of the 88. The Beaucastel characteristics are there, but the wine lacks the comparable intensity and robust flavors. Pretty good, not great. 88 points for the 1986. With the 1992 we lose touch with this level of quality. Clean, light and friendly, the wine lacks the depth and concentration of the others, and is a little unbalanced, too, with some mouth drying tannins on the finish and not quite enough fruit to compensate for them. This is a decent wine, and the marketplace is pricing it lower to sell, but it's not up to Beaucastel's normal standards. It's worth buying if the price is low enough, but I suspect it will come in around $35, and at that level, I'd recommend avoiding it. 84 points.
• 1983 Hermitage Blanc (Chave)
  This wine has lost its fat, but the flavors are intense, even if subtle. The finish is long, and the wine shows no trace of its age other than its thinner, elegant demeanor. A beautiful wine for those who like them soft, gentle and mature. 93 points.
• 1988 Chateauneuf du Pape (Clos du Mont Olivet)
  Flamboyant, amazingly flavorful Chateauneuf, redolent of red berry fruit, velvety and medium bodied. This wine is perhaps not the most concentrated you can find, but it sure does taste great. Drinking well now. 91 points.
• 1994 Tavel Rosé (Guigal)
  Spectacularly well preserved rosé (it was kept cold though!) from Guigal. Pale orange color,and flavorful, elegant fruit, creates a wine that has something for everyone. Bone dry, despite good fruit. 90 points.
• 1980 Cote Rotie "La Landonne" (Guigal)
  I was probably in the minority, but I was distinctly unimpressed with this wine, at least from this bottle. Medium bodied, showing rather soft and gentle, the wine had prominent notes of maderization on the back of the palate. It made the wine a little sweeter, when you could focus just on the sweetness, but there were some stewed prunes aspects, too, that I found displeasing. I frankly didn't find this to be of much interest. 82 points.

  Spain/Portugal/Italy (except dessert/sparkling)

• 1989 Vina Ardanza Riserva (La Rioja Alta)
  Sweet, lively wine, ready to drink, soft and distinctive, with character to spare. This reminded me a bit of a Rhone, although it is slightly sweeter. I liked it a lot, but price inflation, which may push this to or over $25 a bottle takes its toll, since I don't think it's that level of wine. Of course, the way things are going these days, maybe that's a meaningless statement. 86 points.
• 1987 Riserva No. 904 (La Rioja Alta)
  Take the Ardanza, add sweet and softening oak, a little more maturity, and somewhat deeper fruit, and this is what you get. This bottling is my traditional favorite from Rioja. Add $10 a bottle, too, and again, I begin to doubt whether this wine supports that type of price level, say, close to $40. I think it doesn't, and I haven't bought any for awhile. Sigh. 89 points.
• 1995 Bairrada "Vina Barossa" (Luis Pato) and 1995 Bairrada "Vina Pan" (Luis Pato)
  Two fine wines from a relatively unknown producer who is attempting to create something special among Portuguese table wines. Both of these are single vineyard, premium bottlings, likely to run over $30 a bottle. As values, they are not particularly good ones, perhaps, but the wines are good. The Barossa seems bigger and thicker, and never quite opens in the time I had to give it (not enough). The Pan is flamboyant and more flavorful, with ripe tannins but seemingly open fruit that reminds me of grenache. Both should age decently, and both are good stuff. Neither is a bell ringer, especially at their price level. One thing though....these will go well with rich, hearty foods. Of course, do you normally open $30 wines with pizza? Perhaps these days you do. Barossa: 87 points. Pan: 88 points.
• 1985 Vega Scilia (Unico)
  I know VS, and I've liked a lot of them. This was curiously unimpressive. Oh, not that it was bad. But given the breathtaking price tag, it was a definite underachievement, that left me a bit cold and wondering why I would want to pay all that money for a medium bodied, pleasant wine that just didn't seem to deliver a lot of distinction for the money. N.b: There was no breathing, or extended evaluation time available for this. With that caveat, 86 points.
• 1983 Pesquera
  Served blind, it was shockingly good, and mistaken for everything but Pesquera. The wine has developed elegance, a soft but flavorful mid palate, and velvety texture. It's a startling surprise. Depth and concentration are just moderate, but you can live with that. It's great. 89 points.
• 1988 Barbaresco "Santo Stefano" (Giacosa)
  Maybe it was the bottle, maybe it was just open for awhile, but I've never had this wine from this producer show so open and gentle. Yeah, on the finish there were some astringent tannins, and I was reminded that I was indeed drinking a major Barbaresco. In between, this had surprising elegance and friendly aspects. A pleasing wine, that stopped short of stunning. 89 points.

  Dessert/Fortified/Sparkling

• Moscatel Superior Sherry "Emilin" (Emilio Lustau)
  Beautifully balanced, very sweet, honeyed, nutty sherry that seemed to be something I'd want to drink all night long. Only if I had help getting home, though. Delicious, and at under $20, a great buy. Some may prefer it to the take-no-prisoners PX below due to the latter's incredible richness. 93 points.
• NV Pedro Ximenez Sherry "San Emilio" (Emilio Lustau)
  With this wine, Lustau throws all restraint out the window. This wine is SO honeyed, SO thick, SO syrupy, you could take ten Yquem vintages and add them together, and still not get anything that tastes this thick and sweet. It may be TOO much for some, but again, at under $20 (actually, $15.29 in Pennsylvania!), this has to be one of the great wine buys ever. So underrated, so unappreciated. What a steal! 98 points.
• 1988 Coutet Sauternes
  This sleeper of the vintage opens hard and caramelized, and then keeps expanding in the glass with air and as it warms up, finally becoming sweet, unctuous and honeyed. An immensely charming Sauternes that can improve with several more years in the cellar. 92 points.
• 1983 Doisy-Daene Sauternes
  A best buy wine at the time, this has held beautifully and is at peak now. The honeyed flavors have rounded off, and become darker and nutty. It is not as big as the Coutet, but it drinking perfectly now, and is, or at least was, dirt cheap. 88 points.
• 1988 Sauternes (Raymond-Lafon)
  Well balanced Sauternes showing some caramel overtones that I normally find develop with age. Some unctuous sweetness, but the wine is not overly syrupy. This is still fairly thick and intense, and is hardly completely mature. 90 points.
• 1994 Riesling "Preston Ranch Late Harvest" (Arrowwood)
  Pleasing, moderately unctuous late harvest wine that delivers nothing spectacular and could use a little more pizazz and intensity. Good, but just OK. 87 points.
• 1993 Semillon "Noble One" (De Bortoli)
  Australia's answer to Yquem turns in a good, not fabulous performance. The wine seems fully ready to drink from this bottle, with an underlying thick, honeyed body that never seems cloying or obvious on the first taste. On the first impression and the finish, it seems fully mature. Pure and sweet, well done all around, there just isn't much excitement. 89 points.
• 1990 Chateau Filhot
  A best buy. Beautiful, fully open Sauternes, and inexpensive at that. Not a trace of hardness on this wine, but rather the fruit is pure and sweet, far more so than you'd expect from a supposedly minor Sauternes at this stage of its life. A deal, and a steal if you find this in pristine condition. The only shortcoming is in the area of depth; this won't be a long termer. 90 points.
• 1988 Champagne (Dom Perignon)
  The wine showed open, sweet and obvious fruit. It's good to go, and the amount of fruit is a pleasure to absorb. Big but not overbearing, pure and pristine, with no oxidation. Just plain delicious. 91 points.
• 1970 Port (Taylor's)
  One of the great Ports in our memory. There, I said it. Some of the astringent tannins have moderated now. The fruit is accessible and very sweet. You might think this was a 1985, not a 1970, it seems so pure, and young. This immortal wine will outlive us all. If well stored, you may never see it age or decline even in the slightest. If you like them young and sweet, that's how this shows now. The days when it was hard and tannic seem past. Rich and monumental. Great port. 97 points.
• 1963 Port (Grahams)
  From this bottle, this was showing its age a bit. The tannins were overtaking the fruit and the wine seemed to be drying out a bit. Too bad, but no competition for the 70 Taylors. 87 points.

Copyright © 1997, all rights reserved, Mark Squires.