Tasting Notes
January/February, 2002

Tasting Notes Contents Page

QPR Winner   I give this award to wines that demonstrate an excellent quality to price ratio. They are sometimes more expensive than the wines featured in my Best Buys section (which is cut off at $15), so while every Best Buy is also a QPR Winner,  not every QPR winner is an official Best Buy.  QPR winners are simply wines that are great values for a relatively  reasonable price.  NB: If you are using Netscape, there will sometimes be some formatting issues, mostly regarding the supposed failure to turn off bold lettering. It is not a big deal, but if it bothers you, try Internet Explorer.

Alsace  Argentina  Australia    Bordeaux  Burgundy  Calif./USA   
Dessert/Sparkling   Germany   Italy    Rhone/South/SW   Spain

---

Alsace  (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Gewurztraminer Bergheim (Deiss)
Gentle and soft, this seems rich but easygoing, tinged with classical flavors of lychees, and just a touch of spice as it warms. The wine is seductive and fruity, and the mid-palate reasonably concentrated but not packed. It shows little intensity,  so I rather like how it drinks now. I’d sure not want to lose that utterly charming fruity character by extended age, even if it can. 89 points.

1989 Gewurztraminer “Clos Windsbuhl” (Zind-Humbrecht)

I’ve always liked drinking gewurz fairly young, and especially this cuvee from ZH. (The Hengst ages better in my opinion.)  The best that it has to offer, decadent fruit, is best enjoyed fairly young. In its youth, it was dense and opulent, and its richness was rather awe inspiring. Today, the mid-palate has thinned considerably, and it hardly seems like the same wine. Of course, there is some good news, too. The bouquet is lovely and very typically gewurz, with lychees and some spice. The wine seems to have developed a classical demeanor that would have been hard to predict from how it showed in its youth. Still, I think this would have hit the right mix of typicity and opulence a few years earlier.  I should note that I had another bottle of this recently, and it showed pretty much the same way, which is several notches off of its peak.  Those who like things more restrained may prefer it now. I don’t. 90 points.  

 

1994 Gewurztraminer Vendange Tardive “Goldert” (Zind-Humbrecht)

Simply gorgeous.  This has it all. I loved the intensity on this wine, the focus, the projection of mid-palate power. But it was a complete charmer, too. On the finish, at first, there was a hit of pure sugar, and the fruit was amazingly succulent. Yet, with air, it showed some trademark lychee, a bit of acid, and even some spice, despite the sugar, as it warmed up. As much residual sugar as this has, it was an afterthought in how the wine presented itself. My first, last and dominating impression is the core of intense, tightly wound, mid-palate fruit. 95 points.

 

1996 Pinot Gris "Vendange Tardive (Albert Mann)
This VT with no designation is a bit simple, and flawed, but still enjoyable. The ripeness on late picking gives the wine substantial depth that ordinary pinot gris doesn't usually get. The sweetness is muted; the wine just seems a bit fruity. The finish is respectable, with an acid kick. Sometimes, there is too much acid apparent. The most annoying part of this generally well done wine is a milky aroma, and sour milk nuance on the palate at times. It marred the whole. 87 points.

 

[Return to Top]   

---

Argentina  (except dessert/sparkling)

2001 Malbec (Altos Las Hormigas)  QPR Winner

Grapey, soft and flavorful, this delectable, little wine from Argentina tastes great and has a sort of Beaujolais feel to it—without the bubble gum. This will run around $8 at most places, perhaps less with sales and discounts, and is well worth it. As with most wines in such price ranges, there is a flaw: this is very light, fairly thin. Drink quickly. It won’t hold. For the price, it is lovely and more than fair, and chock full of flavor. 84 points.

 

2000 Malbec Reserva las Hormigas (Altos Las Hormigas) QPR Winner

However, if you want  a big step up, albeit at approximately double the price, go for the reserve. This is very nice. The wine has focus and intensity, some supporting tannins that give it a backbone. Most of all, it retains very flavorful fruit, tinged with blueberries. I liked the respectable finish, too, which underscored the flavor constantly emitting from this wine. Drinkable now. 87-89 points.

[Return to Top]  

---

Australia  (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Shiraz "Old Vines" (Lengs & Cooter)
This shows some restraint, but is also a bit of a simpleton of a wine. The fruit is pure and sweet, with a bit of that syrupy character shiraz and new oak tend to produce. While the oak is not overly offensive, and should integrate more with a couple of years of age, the wine shows little to distinguish it. It is medium bodied, pleasant and tasty, but not deep, long or complex. This is a fun wine almost everyone will like for some purpose at some point in time, but few will swoon over.  86 points.

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Bordeaux  (except dessert/sparkling)
1989 Chateau Cantemerle
This is certainly a completely charming Cantemerle, holding beautifully, and opening nicely. A pretty nose of blueberries with a touch of leather is followed by pristine fruit in fine form. Touches of cassis on the palate nuance the fruit through the evening, reminding you of the primary flavors, even though the baby fat is long gone.  The wine held and developed all night long. The fruit is supported by an elegant and classical structure, enough tannins for intensity, but nothing astringent or severe. It is medium weight at best, but the lingering finish dispels thoughts of hollowness. This is not a big bruiser,  and it would not hurt if it put on a little weight, but it does most everything right and for gradually maturing Margaux seems just about right.  This was a very fine vintage for Cantemerle. 90 points.  

1999 Chateau Peby-Faugères

A pretty nose gives way to an opulent, lush and easygoing mid-palate, full of ripe and very approachable fruit. It was hard to find any tannins at all in the time I had to evaluate this, and I wonder if it will ever shut down.  For a right bank wine, it seemed very cabernet-dominated to me, and it does have a significant quantity of cab franc. I loved the red berry notes, and the sweet, elegant fruit.  This wine lacks some intensity, and some depth, but it’s pretty enjoyable Bordeaux.  89-91 points.

 

1994 Chateau Petrus

This wine caused some controversy, with a variety of thumbs up, thumbs down. I think the ultimate consensus was, pretty good Bordeaux, not great Petrus, and way overpriced. I still liked it and think it has a future. It seemed to have the feel of Burgundy at first, if you add tannins. That’s because it was remarkably bright, with a gripping finish propelled largely by the acidity.  The tannins on the end kept getting in the way, and the wine at various times was completely disjointed.  (Cellar this until about 2007).  Yet, with air, the wine developed some sweet fruit and charm. Yes, it did. It never displayed acceptable and perfect balance, and it never will, but it needs cellaring to achieve something close. It showed lots of nice fruit and power, with fine depth. Would I pay what it costs? Hah, hah. Would I drink yours? Well, duh. How this evolves with cellaring will determine the final score.  I suspect it will always be both an interesting and somewhat controversial wine.  90-92 points.

 

1998 Chateau Trotanoy
What’s the Trotanoy rep? Lean, austere, needs a lot of time. Well, not this vintage. This opens opulent and lush, and assaults your palate with rich, ripe, flavorful fruit.  It seems friendly.  But it doesn’t stop there.  Aeration reveals the wine’s structure and supporting backbone, and gives it some intensity. Then, you notice the long, stunning finish. From the sweet first taste, to the deep mid-palate to the perfectly balanced structure, to the long finish, this is stunning wine. 96-98 points.  

 

1988 Chateau L'Arrosee
The lavish, opulent, sweet nose promised great things. It was laced with cassis, vanilla and blackberries. Alas, that was the last thing this wine did really well. The body was far too light for this Chateau, and at this point in its life, it seems more like a nice, minor cru bourgeois than a major estate. The finish is a short, which comports nicely with the lack of depth. The wine is not bad; just a step down from the estate's standards. It's even tasty. But something this simple is not enough. 85 points.

1959 Chateau Calon Segur
Surprisingly powerful and relatively fat for such an old wine, this held well all evening, although it was not perhaps overly distinguished. It opened with a hit of mouth drying tannins on the finish, and seemed relatively bright. Air only improved it, although at one point in the middle of its evolution it showed some sweat socks aromas. After it pulled itself completely together, it showed some Burgundian characteristics in terms of flavoring, with sweet fruit, nuanced by red berries, in the middle. The most impressive characteristic was that it held and developed all night long. 88 points.

[Return to Top]  

---

Burgundy  (except dessert/sparkling)
1978 Hospices de Beaune “Cuvée Clos des Avaux” (P. Ponnelle)

As with a lot of older Burgundies, the flavor lurks beneath the body, and only occasionally pops up. Still, there is some. The wine is free of decay, and still shows substantial weight. The fine mid-palate concentration makes it almost burly for Burgundy, and there was just enough fruit flavor left to make this enjoyable, not just stolid.  I could do better, but also a lot worse.  88 points.

 

1996 Nuits St. Georges "Vielles Vignes" (B. Ambroise)

It opens sexy and exuberant, flat out delicious, with sweet cherry fruit in the mid-palate. I was thinking, hmm, this is a bit California, and I’m liking it. It’s not all fruit though, and as with most well made 1996 Burgs, the structure is there and well defined.  Tannins popped out with air. The wine held throughout the night, showing some spine and nice balance. This is very attractive, and should cellar well for a village wine. 90 points.

 

1989 Beaune-Marconnets (A. Morot)

This has held very nicely, and developed consistently with air. There were hints of leather and game on the nose, that I rather enjoyed. The mid-palate was stuffed and the wine projected power. With air, though, it also came into balance nicely, showing still flavorful fruit—although not as sexy as the Ambroise, above--and a cool, classical demeanor laced with strawberries. The fruit nuances saved it from being stolid, and I think that and the ability to develop in the glass was a considerable difference between this and the overly muscular 1991 Kalin pinot noir reviewed elsewhere on this page. 90 points.

 

1994 Ruchottes-Chambertin (Rousseau)

This doesn’t exactly remind me of Rousseau grand cru, but it has its good points. It is gentle and charming, lacking intensity and real depth. But it sports some flavorful, strawberry-tinged fruit, especially on the finish, and a little brightness. It flattened as the evening wore on, although I liked the silky texture it acquired as a result. You and Rousseau can certainly do better, but it didn’t hurt to drink this, even though I have not in general been a big fan of 1994 red Burgundy. 87 points.

 

1992 Gevrey-Chambertin “Clos St. Jacques” (G. Bartet)
This opened so soft and gentle that it was a bit disturbing. The wine had no spine, no backbone, no structure. Every last tannin seemed to have resolved. Still, it drank fairly well at first, better than I expected. It showed some vegetal aspects on the finish, especially with air, and turned a bit bitter with even more air. Ultimately, it was no longer even worth tasting.  79 points.

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Cabernet (David Arthur)
This is not, just so we're clear, the more famous cult cab from David Arthur, but I liked it just as well (and it isn't a cheap, low level entry either). There's a nudge from the American oak, particularly at first, and also a touch of game. It's medium weight and has a touch of intensity. Mostly, though it is full throttle cab with a finish so sweet it seems almost sugary.  As the wine airs out, it regains its balance, mostly, but the note of flamboyance never quite dissipates. That's not entirely a bad thing, by the way, granting that it won't satisfy those looking for typicity. Don't misunderstand--this is wine is delicious and sensuous, albeit not entirely classical. It will have a lot of fans. It will not satisfy your yen for classic cab on a given night.  90 points.

1998 Syrah (Araujo)
On opening there was some game, some leather. It seemed like a Rhone to me. With air, it exploded in the glass, putting on weight, showing more fruit flavor, and seeming sweeter and more luscious than most Rhones would get. Suddenly, given that this was served blind, the votes around the table started changing.  The wine never showed anything less than impeccable balance to go along with its fine mid-palate depth, though, and wherever it came from, one thought was unanimous: superb. Add classy, distinctive, flavorful and constantly developing in the glass. It is soft enough to drink now, but has enough depth to keep improving for at least another five years. 93 points.

1997 Pinot Gris Vendange Tardive (Navarro)
A bit of burnt apricot here, and peach there, add up to a very focused wine that I rather enjoyed. Yet, in color and in flavor it seemed a bit older than it should have. There was a lot of acid on the back, to relieve the very dense, intense mid-palate, and a big hit of sugar on the finish. But don't misunderstand--this is wine is just late harvest, not syrupy, not opulent. Its melding of late harvest flavors with a very tight, intense core was one of its more interesting points. This is hardly free from flaws, and is easily bested by many Alsace VTs, but I liked it and was intrigued by it, too. 88 points.

1997 Zinfandel "Nervo Vineyard" (Ridge)
This ATP wine is classic Ridge.  It blends in 9% petite sirah, adds a touch of American oak, and shows beautiful balance, and a nice finish. It is medium weight and seems flavorful, yet elegant, but for a touch of raisins on the back end. On the whole, a very nice presentation, though not the winery's deepest, most opulent zin. 88 points.

1997 Cabernet "Quinta de Pedras" (Ristow)
This is an easy-to-drink, luscious, fruit forward cab that will be a crowd pleaser every time. The bad news is that it is a bit thin in the mid-palate, and a bit one dimensional, that is,  without much structure to speak of. Yet, I had to like the way the succulent fruit dissolved over my taste buds, delivering several welcome and delicious waves of flavor. If you take this for what it is, it is delicious wine; just don't expect anything complex or profound. It could have used a bit more oak restraint, too. 86 points.

1997 Cabernet (Tom Eddy)
The wine never quite shook the initial impression of being over-oaked.There was some very good fruit, though, opulent and rich in the mid-palate, almost a touch syrupy, and a velvety texture that had a great mouthfeel. Medium weight, it seemed ready to drink tonight and fairly taste. But this was also a wine that was a bit too heavy handed with the wood. Back off a bit. 88 points.

1999 "Zin Gris" (Storybook Mountains)
This wine is the type of rosé that is so dark that it is less pink and closer to a light, thin red. Served blind, it made me guess "Arbois."  But it was a blush zin-- a very different animal than the white zins of legend (or nightmares).  Yet, while pleasant enough, it had little going for it even in this style. Light, bright, a bit out of place at our table, it drank well enough and might have been more appreciated in the summer. But there are better examples in this style, like Saintsbury's vin gris de pinot noir and Sine Qua Non's powerful Crossed Rose. Pleasant blush, that's all.  80 points.

1995 Syrah (Bedford Thompson)
When this was young....a theme I seem to be repeating with some woe these days....it seemed lush, rich, and delicious. It hasn't evolved well. There's a big hit of alcohol on the nose, and the flavor seems to tend to cherry cough syrup. It is rather atypical in flavor, and in weight seems closer to Burgundy than Rhone. With air, thankfully, it did acquire some balance and regain its footing to some extent, but never enough so that I really wanted to drink much of it.   82 points.

1994 Cabernet "Sunshine Vineyard" (Hartwell)
This wine was utterly charming. The texture was soft and gentle, and the flavors tinged with dark chocolate and plum. The pretty, gentle bouquet accurately predicted both the flavors and the elegance. The wine was a little short, and not exactly deep, but the persistent, well integrated flavors made it delicious and the overall presentation was seductive.  Very nice, a bit short of superb. 89 points.

1999 Gewurztraminer (Lamoreaux Landing)
Not long back I had a Finger Lakes gewurz, 1999 Gewurztraminer Reserve (MacGregor), that I thought was varietally true and lovely.  This is not in the same league, but don't write off the Finger Lakes for gewurz.  This bottle may have a dollop more concentration than the MacGregor, but it shows little varietal typicity, and seems bitter and harsh, a wine with components out of whack that will never quite mesh.  I found little to like about it, and its bitter finish was a bit offputting. Another misstep, in short, in the annals of gewurz winemaking in the USA.  79 points.

1993 Petite Sirah “Hayne Vineyard” (Turley)
I really liked the way this has developed with some age. At first, it seemed almost to have a Bordeaux feel, something not too far from the ‘89 Cantemerle I had recently. It showed perfect balance, class and distinctiveness. With air, the mid-palate fruit became a bit sweeter, nuanced by some blueberry notes. On the whole, the entire presentation was rather elegant and distinctive. It did, perhaps, go a bit flat by the end of a long, four hour evening, but there wasn’t much left in the glass or bottle by then anyway. 92 points.

1996 Zinfandel “Hayne Vineyard” (Turley)
Intense and powerful, and very focused, this shows pure power in the mid-palate, and some tannins still. Call it “burly.” I liked the way it opened with air, particularly. The mid-palate fruit and finish became sweeter and more flavorful. As it aired out even longer, it showed more balance than Turley detractors might believe possible, while not surrendering either its power or mid-palate concentration and flavor. The finish was particularly fine, delivering waves of lingering, sweet fruit flavor. Big bruiser zin at its best, with years to go in the cellar.  94 points.

 

1999 Petite Sirah “Granite Hill Reserve” (Lava Cap)
This had a sort of cool climate shiraz-y feel to it. The fruit was sweet and gentle on opening, but there were also some tannins and intensity on the finish, along with a touch of sweet oak. The overall feel, though, was of a focused wine that provided flavor in a medium weight core. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this wine shut down soon, and wind up drinking best around 2005.  88 points.

 

1999 “Claret” (Robert Foley)

This is yet another relatively unknown winery that has decided to push a triple digit priced meritage or cab wine. On the one hand, all I can say is, wouldn’t it be nice if this sold for about $40-$50?  But the quality is certainly in the bottle. The fruit is thick, sweet and exuberant, but this isn’t just a fruit bomb. The ripe tannins pop out as the wine airs out, and it seems to improve and develop constantly in the glass, a sign of something special. The pristine, sweet fruit was remarkably flavorful, laced with cassis.  I would have liked a little more intensity from such a young wine, but let’s not quibble too much.  This is my first taste of this, and in many respects it was drinking well now, but I would guess that it will hold well, at least for mid-term drinking up to age 10.  It helps to have a track record to gauge whether this will close and age well; I think it will, but I wouldn’t peg this as long term, 15-20+ year wine.  How it develops will be an important part of the final score. 92-94 points.

1995 Cabernet Reserva (Cafaro)

On opening, this seems more Bordeaux than cab, but with air, some sweet New World fruit pops out, too. It eventually settles down into a bright, elegant and sweet wine, tinged with strawberries,  but with a certain Medoc feel to it. It didn’t hold as well as I hoped through a long evening, but it was a LONG evening…..  88 points.

 

1998 Cabernet “Jericho Canyon” (Rudd)

Ok. Yet another pricey cab and newcomer. But the quality is here, too. Cool and classical, this sneaks up on you and then delivers big. The underlying fruit is all California in flavor, although the mid-weight demeanor owes a lot to Bordeaux. The very sweet finish persists with unrelenting classic cab cassis flavor. It turned a touch herbal with air, but the overall presentation was impressive. 90 points.

 

1998 Merlot (Pahlmeyer)
Served next to the Rudd Cab, this old favorite out did it in weight, class and structure. It seemed all Bordeaux, and it was hard to believe later that it wasn’t. The touch of mouth drying tannins on the finish provided some welcome support and intensity for the sweet, bright fruit. It was otherwise all elegance and flavor. Delicious. 92 points.  

 

2000 Pinot Noir “Melville” (Brewer-Clifton)

Burgundy-styled, meaning medium weight and laced with more acid than I’d like to see or usually do see in USA pinots, this very young wine pulled itself together with some air and showed some capacity to have its components integrate successfully. It always remained a bit too bright for my taste, but the pleasing red fruit flavors held their own most of the time and the finish was particularly nice, with a lingering, acid-propelled conclusion.  86-88 points.

 

1994 Pinot Noir (Beaux Frères)

This big, burly pinot in its youth was massive and powerful, and seemed to have depth to spare. Some questioned its right to call itself pinot.  Funny how a few years of cellaring changes everything. This is consistent with my last note on this wine about two years ago. The wine hardly has budged since.  It now shows some grace and elegance, while still emitting waves of pure fruit flavor. Ok, it's not Volnay, nor intended to be. Still, elegant is not a word many would have used to describe this in its youth, but there really is a certain serenity to this wine now, granting that fruit and flavor are still its primary goals in life. It still shows welcome intensity and good depth, too, promising considerably more aging potential.  There is bit of noticeable oak rounding off the wine that I could have lived without.  Overall, this has developed about as I hoped and thought, and I'm sure it will confound many detractors who haven't tasted it in awhile if served blind. 92 points.  

 

2000 Pinot Noir “Julia’s” (Brewer-Clifton)
This is the second BC pinot I’ve had in a week or so, and both left me rather underwhelmed. This seems a bit odd, with some green pepper notes that I didn’t like, perhaps due to stems? It had some elegance, and stylistically it was real pinot in weight, and there was decent fruit underneath—just barely though, as the wine seemed rather light. The vegetal aspects were particularly annoying, and there was nothing so interesting about the rest of the wine that would make me ignore the flaws. Uninspiring, uninteresting.  82 points.

 

1998 Pinot Noir (Kazmer & Blaise)
This is a new producer for me. This wine runs about $40 and shows some promise. Stylistically, it is of medium weight and fruit forward. The fruit is flavorful, sweet and seductive, and the texture has some velvet. There were a couple of off notes, a touch of herbs, perhaps, but nothing too severe. The wine had good focus and a reasonable finish. I’m not sure they’ve gotten everything right here, but it’s a nice effort, with oodles of tasty fruit and some elegance. 89 points.

 

1997 Pinot Noir “Camp Meeting Ridge Moon Select” (Flowers)
Intense and well defined, this showed excellent weight and concentration, and seemed to have most elements in place, including nice flavor on the palate and sensual texture. It also had a nose of asparagus that I found offputting, that marred the whole. Maybe with time, that nose will blow off and this will come around. The raw materials are certainly excellent, but  I’ve had Flowers pinots that have seemed more elegant, more pure.  This had a lot going for it. It coulda been a contender; maybe some cellaring will improve it.  I feel guilty not liking it more, but it just seemed "off."  87+ points.

 

1991 Pinot Noir “Cuvée DD” (Kalin)
Tight and powerful, this burly pinot sports some mouthdrying tannins even after ten years. The good news is that there is some fruit still there, and nice strawberry flavors poke through. The fruit seems pristine, without decay, and the finish is very respectable. If this did a lot of things right, I didn’t get much charm, much elegance…..I respected what it did well, liked it enough to finish what I had, and enjoyed it all, but I wished for a little more balance. As the evening wore on, the flavors flattened out a bit, and I liked it a bit less than I did early on, even though the tannins ameliorated. It never quite shed it's one dimensional, muscular feel.  87 points.

 

1999 Pinot Noir Reserve “Martinelli Vineyard” (Martinelli)

Oh, sure. Identify THIS as pinot noir blind. If the Kalin is burly, mostly due to the tannic kick,  this is Frankenstein, a pinot on steroids, something with a lot of oak, some heat, and a lot of power. I’ve often thought that Martinelli pinots often remind me more of their zins than pinot noir, and this is no exception. If you treat this as a zin, you might like it. It did nothing for me as pinot, lacking typicity, and varietal flavors (at least they were obscured by the oak).  If you’re more tolerant of lack of typicity, not to mention oak, you might like it better. I really hated it. You’ll either like it or you won’t. There won’t be many lukewarm feelings about this, despite its excellent depth and concentration.  84 points.  

 

1997 Cabernet "Hillside Select" (Shafer)
This shows like no other Shafer I've had, certainly in its modern incarnation. It is less austere and focused, and oakier. The rather lavish oak imparts a smooth, creamy vanilla scented and flavored texture to a medium weight wine. Yet, I think some of the soft, lush texture is a vintage function, and I think this will all work out in the end. With air, the wine constantly improved, and even the prominent oak integrated some. There were also welcome signs of a backbone, supple, but notable tannins. I suspect this wine will shut down. While it is drinking just fine now, I would bet that two years hence it will close, and then drink better around 2008-2012. It seems like a keeper to me. 92-94 points.

 

   

[Return to Top]  

---

Dessert/Sparkling 
1999 Huxelrebe Trockenbeerenauslese "Bissersheimer Steig" (Bender)
This is typical of late harvest Bender hybrids--good value, mediocre for their pradikat rating. I liked the apricot, with tingly acidity in the back, and the viscosity was more like mid-level BA than TBA. Tasty, succulent, but a bit short, and not at all opulent, it was a nice value at around $19 per half for TBA, but drinking it shows why it is only $19 per half.  Muller-Catoir might consider this to be a fine Auslese.  :) 85 points.

 

1989 Gewurztraminer Cluster Select Late Harvest (Navarro)
In color, it had the look and consistency of apple cider, cloudy and brown.  The residual sugar was over 21% and was the dominant feature of the wine. It would be impossible to even hint at the varietal, and what typicity it might have had was overwhelmed by the ravages of age. There was relatively little fruit flavor, but plenty of flavor from the sugar. To my surprise, it actually improved a bit with air, and there was some succulence. I was willing to drink it. Pure sugar can be tasty, but it isn't always great wine, of course.  82 points.

 

1995 Champagne Brut "Cristal"  (Roederer)
What do you want in tête de cuvée? Surely, not too much more than this. At $160 per bottle or so, expectations can be high, but this mostly meets them. The wine seems in perfect balance and good to drink now, but it also shows promise for aging, too. The fruit is reasonably powerful and concentrated, although not unusually so by Cristal standards. It is also very flavorful, as I usually find in Cristal. The best feature of the wine, though, is its superb, lingering finish.  The delicacy and purity of flavor on the long finish is what truly makes this a memorable wine. 93-95 points.

 

1995 Champagne Rosé "Cristal" (Roederer)
The price, over $200 per bottle,  is a little hard to get past, but this is surely a gorgeous Rosé that seems actually to meet inflated expectations. The color is very delicate, with just a slight salmon tint to it.  Unless you have it sitting next to the regular Cristal, you might not notice that it was slightly pink, especially in the glass. Rich and toasty, with nuances of red berry fruit, this was delicious and packed. The finish was almost as good as on the regular Cristal, and the mid-palate was better. The nose was powerful, and presaged the depth of the wine on the palate. A tour de force pink, that will improve with age.  95-97 points.

 

1988 Champagne "Dom Perignon" Rosé (Moet et Chandon)
Well, this was different. I don't think I've ever seen Dom show quite like this. This was more like a bretty Burgundy with some fizz. While the wine didn't show the oxidative levels of something spoiled by high heat, brett colonies do multiply with warmer storage, so perhaps that is part of the answer. The nose was simply off-putting, with that combination of spoiled meat, and used  sweatsocks that strong brett gets. The palate wasn't as bad, and the wine showed richness and depth, actually. It was just too hard to get past the brett. We had two bottles, one being far more bretty than the other, so it is possible that impeccably stored bottles will give you all the benefit and none of the problems of this, but I would have to try more to be sure.  As for this, the brett was just too much not to cause some big markdowns in score.  I'm sure glad I didn't drop, oh, $150 or so on this.  85 points.

 

1995 Champagne (Veuve Clicquot)
For a regular vintage champagne, this is pure power. Deep and concentrated, it shows a lot of powerful components currently at war with each other, and in need of some cellaring to come into balance. On the back there is some green apple notes, and the acidity is rather strong and aggressive. The mid-palate has impressive depth, too. I would really like to see how this shows in another three years, perhaps five, when I suspect it will be a lot better integrated and more fun to drink. 90-93 points.

 

NV Champagne "Grande Cuvée" (Krug)
Compared to most tête de cuvée champagne, this wine competes well in price (around $100 give or take) and holds its own in terms of quality. While not technically a tête de cuvée in Krug's lineup, since it blends several older and younger vintages,  it plays in that league. This, the current release, is about as good as I've had. It has all the depth and power I expect from Krug, but the fruit is so fresh, flavorful and exuberant that it puts a smile on your face. Tasty, rich, deep and opulent. 95 points. 

 

NV Champagne "Anderson Valley" (Roederer Estate) QPR Winner
Bright and pleasing, this charming entrant from Roederer's USA operation shows more than enough depth for a $18 champagne. The acid is sprightly and ominpresent, but never intrusive.  For the price level, this is an excellent deal, a very nice champagne that everyone will like. There was, perhaps, a touch of bitterness on the finish, but that's the only flaw I could come up with. 87 points.

 

NV Champagne "Premier Brut" (Roederer)
Back at Roederer's French operation now,  we come to their "premier" brut, about double the price of the USA entry. Worth it? Your call. It is surely better by almost any objective touchpoint. It is deeper, toastier, and riper, with touches of caramel. I rather liked it a lot. Double the price covers a lot of monetary territory, of course. My answer, given the right occasion, would be "very worth it."  90 points.

 

NV Champagne Brut (Larmandier-Bernier)
I liked the mousse and toast on this flavorful, elegant wine. Tossed into the lineup above, it was in very tough company, and its much lighter style and mid-palate showed. Still, the flavors, if delicate, were pure, the presentation was excellent, and as an aperitif, this style goes better. The persistence of the flavors made it seem more than just light, too. 87 points.

 

NV Champagne Rosé (Egly Ouriet)  QPR Winner
The wine just makes your mouth water. The acid on this is not overly aggressive, but rather propels the fruit flavor on to your palate. The wine made up in finish and stylishness what it lacked in some mid-palate depth. Drunk after the fantastic Cristal, it suffered a bit, but at only $35, it was surely a pretty good deal for fine pink. 89 points.

 

1985 Port (Grahams)

Wine of the vintage? Could be.  Tonight, it shows youthful and pristine after about four hours of decanting. The tannins are eager but supple, the fruit very, very sweet and succulent in the mid-palate, but especially on the finish, where it seems to have a dose of pure sugar. Very impressive, very youthful, and still improving. 94-96 points.

 

1985 Port (Dow’s)
Soft, smooth and relatively gentle for young port, this seemed a bit hollow in the mid-palate, but was still plenty tasting. I liked the chocolate nuanced fruit, and there was a respectable finish, but tasted after the more aggressive, more opulent Grahams, this was a bit of a let down. 88 points.

 

1947 Vouvray “Haut Lieu” (Huet)

I was a little startled when the removal of the top of the capsule revealed a black, oily substance, almost like a petroleum spill. None of it permeated the cork or hit the wine, thankfully; it was confined to the top. After that inauspicious beginning, things went very, very well indeed. You know the old joke about how the best praise you can give an old wine is how fresh and youthful it seems? Well, this does seem mature, but I’ve seen wines only ten to fifteen years old show about the same way. The color is  a light orange, but still good. While it is not too sweet, it is still succulent and ripe, and, wait, the wine keeps improving with air and gains weight! Ultimately, my mouth was beginning to water from the combination of tasty fruit, laced into my tongue by the acid still remaining. 95 points.  

 

NV Premium Fine Muscat Solera (R.L. Buller & Son) QPR Winner

This is along the lines of the Chambers Muscat line, not too far away, and also in Victoria, where a lot of wines like this come from. It's a solera, meaning a blend of many vintages, and has a liqueur feel to it, not just a fortified wine feel. It's about the equivalent of the entry level Chambers Rosewood, and does things very nicely. I think the entry level Chambers, with which this competes, is a bit more intense and opulent, and  not much differently priced (both about $12 per half). Of course, Chambers in the USA has upper level bottlings that run around $80 a half bottle.  Still, this drinks well. If you've never had this style of wine before, with its nod to being a liqueur as well as a fortified wine, try it. It may not be your cup of tea, but it's tasty and interesting. 87 points.

 

NV Premium Fine Tawny (R.L. Buller & Son)
The tawny tastes more like tawny than the liqueur-ish Muscat (and Tokay they make), and it's quite good. The blend of vintages leads to a soft, gentle, flavorful wine with a nice, sweet finish and some lushness. But at over $11 a half it is pretty pricey considering the fine values of Old Cave Tawny from Chateau Reynella or various competitors like Yalumba. Still, while this is not as deep, not as intense, not as brawny, it has a certain smooth appeal and maturity that is very charming. 89 points.

 

1996 Tokaji Aszu 6 puts (Hetszolo)

Nice, gentle acidity mingled well with that mixture of tomato and apricot I often seem to get from Tokaji.  This was fairly light, though, and not showing much depth or sweetness for a 6 puts Tokaji.  Tasty and elegant, it lacked much distinction and depth. It could have used some unctuousness.  85 points.

 

1997 Quarts de Chaume (Baumard)

Lovely.  Notes of peach and apricot mingle, and provide tasty fruit nuances all the time. The wine was not all that sweet, nor all that deep, but did develop a touch of honey with warmth and air. It seemed a bit too compact—although I find these often put on weight with time and oxidation—but it was certainly utterly charming. I bet this will improve with a few years of cellaring. 89-91 points.

 

1993 Cluster Select Late Harvest Riesling (Navarro)
This CSLH Navarro seems tinged with apricots, but only medium sweet and moderately deep. It seems far off the usual Navarro depth and concentration with this bottling. Not that it’s bad. This is a wine Navarro has down; but this isn’t their best vintage. 88 points.

 

1997 Dolce (Far Niente)

This usually overpriced wine sometimes delivers a lot of bang for the buck, but this version left a lot of folks underwhelmed. It seemed too light, too inoffensive for something this pricey. Not to say it was bad. It had nice focus, great elegance, a creamy texture, and tasty, spicy fruit. In a wine this expensive, that’s not enough, and more depth was required. Sometimes, wines like this put on weight with air and some oxidation. This still has a chance to improve. At the moment, it seems like an awful lot of money for average wine. At its best, this wine is still arguably overpriced.  This performance leaves something to be desired unless cellaring improves it a lot more than I think is possible. 88-90 points.

 

1976 Quarts de Chaume (Chateau Bellerive)

The wine seems fresh, but a bit bland. It still has enough left to improve with air, though. It becomes rather charming, rather dry, gentle and soft.  If it is seemingly fresh, it is also a bit flat, though, and the flavors are rather subtle at this point, even if the texture has a surprising, and enjoyable, touch of velvet, rather than being sharp and acidic. I found some things here to like, but couldn’t get too energized after weighing all the pros and cons.  85 points.

 

1995 Monbazillac (Bosredon)

Soft, gently sweet, and very charming, this wine is more or less spineless, but for a bit of acid in the back. I liked the orange peel nuance, followed by apricots as it warmed. It drank easy, always tasted great, emitted waves of persistent flavor. I’ve seen bigger, deeper, more intense Monbazillac, but this was pretty enjoyable. 88 points.

 

1994 Vin Santo (Rocca di Montegrossi) QPR Winner

At about $25 per half, this isn’t exactly cheap, but it seems like a fine deal anyway. Everything is relative.  The 1990 Avignonesi is selling for up to $200 per half.  This is simply stunning. Toast, nuts and grilled bread nuances support the wine, with just a touch of sherry, too. It is sweet and luscious on the finish, but also amazingly ripe, thick and opulent. Everyone who went near this swooned, assuming they liked dessert wines. If you check my pictures section, you can see  this photo I took of winery owner Marco Ricasoli standing next to his vin santo trellises indoors. Who knew it would be this good? 95 points.

 

1997 Recioto di Soave “Re Nobilis” (Gini)

Bright, but rich and sweet, like a Moscato on steroids, this wine is fragrant, delectable and delicious. I think this will improve with cellaring, too.  90-92 points.

 

 

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)

1994 Riesling Spatlese "Monzinger Frulingsplatzchen" (Emrich-Schonleber)
Bright and hard, this is all lemons, and the wine projects a rather unpleasant sternness. It seems tight and closed. With air, the acidity begins to resolve a little, a good sign, but never enough to make it drinkable on this night. I sense good weight and underlying fruit; the question is whether it will balance out the aggressive acidity. I think it will, but this is in a "hard to evaluate" stage at the moment. 87-89 points.

 

1994 Riesling Spatlese "Bacharacher Wolfshohle" (Lieschied-Rollaver)
Soft, gentle and light, this is a 180 degree turn from the hard, powerful Emrich-Schonleber, above.  It errs on the opposite side of the coin, being a bit hollow in the mid-palate, a bit too thin, a bit too short. All that said, it had some charm, and easy going, open fruit, with a touch of residual sugar on the finish, that made it pleasing for current drinking. I wouldn't hold this puppy, though.  84 points.

 

1988 Riesling Spatlese "Trabacher Schlossberg" (Reutter-Kunz)
Stern at first, this seemed dominated by the acidity. But the acid provided more than lemons. Here, we had a powerful backbone, tight and ultimately mouth-gripping. It took a good hour before air and warmth started to bring this around. It would up having nice fruit, too, with a solid mid-palate and a mouthwatering finish. I'm not sure it ever fully opened during the course of the evening, but it shot out enough flavor so that I had to really like it at the end. 89 points.

 

1990 Riesling Spatlese "Kanzemer Altenberg" (Reichsgraf von Kesselstatt)
This rare Saar offering from this producer is several steps behind some of the great wines they produced in this vintage. It opens with some mild lemons and even milder fruit. There is nothing like the power or the concentration of some of the other vineyards from which they produced wine in this vintage. The wine is almost delicate, slightly thin. It is relatively inoffensive, and unimpressive, considering what else was produced from this estate and elsewhere in 1990.  84 points.

 

1999 Riesling Spatlese “Urziger Wurzgarten” (JJ Christoffel) QPR Winner
When I first had this, it seemed a very typical 99 Mosel, a bit grapey, off dry, tasty but also a bit flabby.  Eight months or so later, yum. It seems to have gained some weight, the acid has emerged to give it more structure, and while it is still off dry, flavorful and fruity, it has also developed grip and intensity. Another inexpensive, “best buy,” winner from JJC (around $15)? How tiresome, right?  I wonder where this wine is going next. The upside looks promising, and I think I underestimated this when it first came out.  90-92 points.

 

1990 Riesling Auslese “Ungsteiner Honigsackel” (Vier Jarheseitzen)

Oh, okay. It’s not bad. Still…. It’s a bit too stolid and one dimensional. It has SOME acid, some weight, some flavor. It’s not particularly sweet, has little zest, and is curiously restrained, though. It has some flavor, but just seems a bit too one dimensional, too clunky, to really warm up to. 85 points.

 

1992 Riesling Auslese “Brauneberger Juffer” A.P. # “3” (Willi Haag)

Hmmm. Do I like this better than some great 90 Reichsgraf VKs that I’ve had recently? Thankfully, I didn’t have to choose. Well, this Auslese is tremendous. The wine is initially stern, and the acid simply takes over your mouth in a powerful, mouthgripping vise. But this is no one-dimensional, lemony Riesling.  It never in fact seems lemony; the acid projects pure power and intensity.   The depth of fruit is just as impressive, and holds it own effortlessly as the wine airs and softens. The chameleon changes, too; now, the fruit sugars dissolve onto your palate for an incredibly sweet, amazingly succulent finish. Oh, the powerful nose was pretty fine, too. You could smell the pears and apricots without getting too close to the glass.  The wine was so succulent, so intense, so penetrating, so beautifully structured, there was only one problem. The person who brought it indicated that the winemaker commited suicide a few years ago, distressed that his wine’s were not getting attention. 95 points.

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1961 Gattinara (Antoniolo)

This is a late bottled Gattinara, bottled just a year ago actually. I've had these wines from Antoniolo before, never much cared for them, and this is about par for the course.  Relatively light and thinning badly, the wine seems a bit sour on the finish, and hollow in the middle, a bad combination. The only thing truly alive is the hit of tannins on the finish. Charmless, low on flavor, of little interest to me, perhaps old wine fans will like it better.  79 points.

 

1997 Gattinara "Vigneto Osso S. Grato" (Antoniolo)
What a difference a few decades makes, I guess. I really liked this Gattinara. Lovely fruit, call it some chocolate plums, with a gentle hit of acid on the back, delivers flavor from the get go that keeps on opening. With an hour of air, the focused and intense core expanded and became more gentle, and the texture more lush and velvety. Ripe, opulent, even, and fruity, this tastes darned good, and is well structured too. 90 points.

 

1997 Barolo “La Villa” Reserva (Seghesio)

Bright, and fairly bland, this was hard and tight, and delivering little. Was it perhaps even a touch sour on the finish? It never did develop much while I had it in the glass, and the only hope for it is that it was closed. It otherwise seemed in good balance, with moderate tannins, and good weight, but it was hard to evaluate at this juncture.  86-89 points.

 

1990 Barbaresco “Vigneto Cole” (Moccagatta)
This big, powerful beauty has it all. Yes, there are the nebbiolo tannins and power, but there is also plenty of sweet, dark chocolate fruit, with perhaps some caramel tinge. I liked the velvet on the fruit texture, and the flavors kept developing every time I went back to it.  Rich, opulent, deep and beautifully structured, this wine will still improve with more cellaring.  96 points.  

 

1995 Brigante (Fattoria dei Barbi)
This opens with too much acid, but also some brawn and power. With air, the acid dissolves fairly nicely, and ceases to be intrusive. With air, the fruit the becomes somewhat sweeter, although it remains a bit dusty. Ultimately, the parts come together well, and the wine shows in pleasing fashion, although it is a step short of distinctive and superb. 88 points.

 

1995 La Poja “Monovitigno Corvina Veronese” (Allegrini)

It opened slowly, dominated by roasted plum flavors. The texture was soft. In the mid-palate there was some aggressive acidity and tannins. Twenty minutes later, it was a new ball game. The plums were now juicy and flavorful, the texture was velvety, and the mid-palate had firmed.  Suddenly, it was richer, riper, lusher.  I liked the sweetness of the fruit on the finish, which, if it wasn’t overly long, was at least delectable. In texture and flavor, this was a tasty winner. Approachable now, it will be better still in approximately two years, I think.  90 points.

 

1998 Campoleone (Lamborghini)

Another Italian wine with a proprietary name, this is a sangiovese / merlot blend. I’m having trouble keeping them all straight. How about you? The color is black and inky, but the wine opens silky, smooth –and thin. It seems to have no depth, no finish, seems hollow in the mid-palate. Some air, thankfully, cures the worst of those problems, and the wine steadily picked up weight, and actually began to develop some flavor. I kept going back to it, but never got anything terribly impressive, though.  87 points.

 

1997 Barbaresco (Gaja)

Served blind, this wine shocked everyone at the table because no one guessed nebbiolo. It seemed lush, and very new world, without much in the way of defining nebbiolo characteristics. Most guessed cabernet. Well, in any event, the wine opened disjointed, with oak, acid and some mouth drying tannins fighting for control. Ultimately, they all integrated nicely with the fruit, and developed into a pleasing whole with aeration. What there wasn’t in this wine was the depth and intensity that should go with a premium, pricey bottle.  It was nice. It wasn’t special. 89 points.

 

Marc de Grazia current releases: 

The following were all tasted at one showing. Given the nature of those events, I use score ranges more liberally.

 

1999 Montepulciano d’Abruzzo (F. Guelfi) QPR Winner

This great value wine should come in around $10-$11, and it’s a great deal. Grapey and juicy, this is the type of wine that makes you think of fruit crushed in your mouth, the juices oozing slowly onto your tongue. Tinged with blue fruit, it is flavorful and sweet, and yet, it’s not just a fruit bomb. The wine has structure—in fact, the tannins can be somewhat astringent on the finish—and should be able to cellar for at least three years comfortably.  A year will improve it.  Not quite as velvety as the Reserva las Hormigas on this page, but perhaps more intense. And who knows—we may be surprised.  87-89 points.

 

1996 Brunello di Montalcino (Uccelliera)

This very distinctive Brunello shows notes of game and leather, some brightness and tannins on the finish. The wine is developing slowly, and seems complex and rich—very rich.  The finish is by far its best feature, though, long, lacerating, impressive. It is pretty tight now, and should slumber peacefully in your cellar for at least another four years or so.  90-92 points.

 

2000 Rosso di Montepulciano (Dei)  QPR Winner

A gorgeous Rosso beauty, exuberant, sweet, and flamboyant. At times, it seems almost unrestrainable, almost slipping into strawberry kool-aid territory, but a minute of air sees this wine regain its focus. The wine has little if any structure discernible. It is definitely a “consume now and early” wine. I can’t rate it higher, therefore, but for immediate consumption it will rate a “wow” or two. This will be a good Beaujolais substitute.  87 points.

 

1998 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano (Dei)

Gripping and powerful, this “regular” Nobile from Dei has intense fruit, and astringent tannins. I loved the depth, and if the tannins aren’t just a bit too much, this wine will unfold beautifully with cellaring.  How the tannins resolve is a key issue. It needs at least three, perhaps five years of cellaring. If the fruit is still vibrant then, it’s a big winner. 89-91 points.

 

1998 Vino da Tavola “Sancta Christina” (Dei)

This “kitchen sink” Super Tuscan is about 1/3 each Sangiovese, Syrah and Cabernet sauvignon, plus a dollop of Petit Verdot.  Sweet, lush and very ripe fruit delivers flavor from the get go. The wine shows good balance, with a considerable hit of supporting tannins, too, but I like the balance here better than on the Nobile, above.  This will be approachable soon, but perhaps will hit peak around 2005.  90-92 points.

 

1999 Chianti Classico Riserva “Capannino” (Tenuta di Bibbiano)  QPR Winner

The fruit here is just remarkable for Sangiovese, and the price, under $20 a bottle, is pretty special, too, for this quality. The fruit is exuberant and delectable, laced with black cherry flavors. It’s opulent and ripe.  This wine seemed to drink well now, although it may close down some. I wonder how long and how well it will keep that amazing, flavorful character?  The score might take a tick up.  Not your father’s sangiovese!  89-91 points.

 

1999 Chianti Classico Rieserva “Petresco” (Le Cinciole)

My notes on this looked a lot like my notes on the Bibbiano. Maybe 1999 Chiantis are just in an exuberant stage these days. This was, if anything, a touch grapier than the Bibbiano, and younger. It is also probably about $5 more, so that would be MY determining factor…. 89-91 points.

 

1997 Brunello di Montalcino (L. Sassetti Pertimali)

The first feature of this wine that gets your attention is its pure power. The tannins are mouth-gripping. But the focused fruit is spectacular, too, very flavorful, and battling on an even playing field with the tannin.  This is a bit hard to evaluate at the moment. It seemed disjointed, and needs to pick up some weight, which I think it will. It has bright future.  91-93 points.

 

1999 Rosso di Montalcino “Fonte” (Ciacci Piccolomini)

If the Dei Rosso is a sweetness and charm, this is Darth Vader Rosso, all power and intensity. It almost makes you want to come over to the dark side. It is certainly about the most intense, most powerful, tannic Rosso I have ever had. It will be interesting to see how this develops; sometimes I find that supposedly little wines that are too tannic just never quite come into balance. They require more cellaring than their fruit can support. However, Cicacci is very, very good at this. 88-90 points.

 

1999 Brunello di Montalcino “Pianrosso” (Ciacci Piccolomini)

Immense waves of flavor, soft, sweet, ripe cherries, roll over your tongue like the tides coming in on schedule. The core is elegant and spicy. The wine is well structured, too, bright, with a formidable backbone. Everything seems in place here for a formidable wine. At about age ten, I want to be there when this is opened. 92-95 points.

 

2000 Dolcetto d’Alba (M. Molino)  QPR Winner

The Molino lineup reviewed beginning here and on down that I had was delicious from top to bottom, and very new wave, focusing on fruit and flavor, supple tannins. I thought these wines as a group were delicious and concentrated. The Dolcetto is an amazing deal. For about $10--$11 per bottle, this delivers remarkably lush, ripe fruit, and more flavor and depth than a Dolcetto should have a right to have. There is an obvious touch of new oak that softens the fruit—I think it was a good idea. Purists may not. Very sexy Dolcetto for a pittance. 91-93 points.

 

1999 Barbera d’Alba (“Gattere” –Barrique) (M. Molino)

Fabulously sweet, the touches of oak soften the acid one normally finds on Barbera, and give it some lushness.  The fruit is delicious, and the mid-palate is solid and concentrated. I liked this a lot, and to those who might object to the oak, know that a little air gave this typicity, too. I thought this was a super Barbera from start to finish. 91-93 points.

 

1998 Barolo “Gancia” (M. Molino)

Ripe, rich and mouthfilling, this wine emits flavors for every second you have it. The tannins are very ripe, too, very supple, and very refined. They are there, but hardly obtrusive. The whole is a supple, easygoing Barolo that has a solid mid-palate.  This wine could have used a bit more intensity, though. Quality, single vineyard Barolo under $50 isn’t so easy to find these days.   90-92 points.

 

1998 Barolo “Conca” (M. Molino)

Take the “Gancia,” and add a little more depth and a lot more intensity, and you get the well known “Conca.” The structure on this wine gave it a step up on the flavorful Gancia. It’s probably going to run about $8 to $10 more per bottle, too. This will run around the low 50s in most cases.   92-95 points.

 

2000 Dolcetto d’Alba (Moccagatta)  QPR Winner

This cheery Dolcetto from this great Barbaresco producer is nicely balanced, very bright, and deep for Dolcetto.  The fruit is not overly sweet, but the concentration bodes well for this young, very attractive wine. 87-89 points.

 

2000 Barbera d’Alba (Moccagatta)

I liked the Dolcetto more, among the bargain entries. Both wines have a similar style, showing considerable brightness. Barbera lends itself to that, of course, and if there is a nudge in that direction, it can easily go too far. This also seemed a little bitter on the finish. The wine is rather disjointed at the moment, in short. It does show nice concentration, but I have some question as to how well the parts will come into balanced. 86-88 points.

 

1999 Barbera d’Alba (Barrique) “Basarin” (Moccagatta)  QPR Winner

This is a huge step up from the regular offering, and for those who have a knee jerk reaction to oak, it is also a good example of how oak can tame the edges of a wine that might otherwise be too sharp, too angular. This shows lush fruit in the mid-palate, which is solid and concentrated. The wine is powerful and deep.  There’s a backbone, too, with some fierce, astringent tannins, especially on the finish. The fruit is solid, though, and can balance them out.  This is a Barbera that is very serious, that demands cellaring for a few years. It may not show at its best until 2005, in fact, or even a little later.  Most places will sell this in the low to mid-$20s, and it is a deal in that range.  90-92 points.

 

1998 Barbaresco “Bric Balin” (Moccagatta)

This powerful wine shows supple tannins at first, but they quickly become astringent, and it is mouth gripping on the finish. Not to worry! The fruit here is up to the task, and is very deep, very concentrated, surprisingly lush.  It emits waves of flavor, laced with plums and cherries, and shows remarkable intensity.  This wine is not exactly drinking well now, but you can at least taste the fruit. I would expect it to shut down in the near future, and then well, it will be quite some time before you want to touch it again. Look to drink this around 2008, minimum. Selling price is likely to vary from the high 40s to low $50s.  92-94 points.

 

1999 Barbaresco “Basarin” (Moccagatta)

Compared to the powerful Bric Balin, this is soft, supple and will drink well young.  The difference in price between the two is likely to be $10 a bottle, so the question is: this wine, for the mid-term, at a better price, or a potential classic that you’ll have to display some patience on?  Hey, buy both.  Why deprive yourself?  This lush beauty is fabulously tasty, charming and gentle. It drinks easily now, and seems very approachable, which is its reputation.  Impeccably balanced, it is delicious, although it could perhaps use a little more intensity for such a young Barbaresco.  Selling price is likely in low $40s. 89-92 points.

 

1999 Barbaresco “Cole” (Moccagatta)

This is usually my favorite from this producer. In price, it sells for the same as the comparable Bric Balin. The 98 Bric Balin projects more pure power versus this 1999 Cole, but I like the balance on the Cole better. (The 99 Bric Balin showed more like the 99 Cole, by the way; the power difference between the 98 Bric and the 99 Cole is more a vintage function, and a question of how they are showing now than something to take to the bank every vintage.)  Oh, there are plenty of tannins here, and they have some astringency on the finish, too. But the ripe, silky fruit in the mid-palate is stunning in its sensual texture and depth.  Which you might prefer is up to you. Buy both!  They’re cheaper than most single vineyard Barolos, and just as good.  92-94 points.

 

1998 Barolo “Pajana” (Domenico Clerico)

Surprisingly soft at first, this Barolo (a wine often noted for powerful bruisers, especially in their youth) is fragrant and charming, and very approachable, unlike a lot of 1998s I was tasting. It is chock full of fruit and very deep, very ripe and very round.  This is a Barolo with a lot of sex appeal.  There is structure underneath—it’s not a wimpy wine in any respect—but the charm of this wine was its dominant feature.  90-93 points.

 

1998 Barolo “Ciabot Mentin Ginestra” (Domenico Clerico)

In sharp contrast—almost a 180 degree turn—to the charming, elegant Pajana, above, this wine is powerful and tight, chock full of tannins, and completely shut down. The fruit and flavor are subdued and the wine is a bit hard to evaluate. You can feel the size and depth of the fruit, though, even if you can’t taste its flavor. The one thing that is clear, is that you will not want to go near this for a good decade or so.  89-92 points.

 

2000 Dolcetto (Paolo Scavino)  QPR Winner

This Dolcetto, from one of Piedmont’s greatest winemakers (and one of my favorites, who epitomizes the new wave winemakers….) is sweet, grapey and more or less formless. It epitomizes a flavorful, easygoing Dolcetto, intending to deliver taste sensations and not taking itself too seriously.  It is very enjoyable for near term drinking. 88-90 points.

 

1998 Barbera d’Alba “Carati” (Paolo Scavino)

Like the 2000 Dolcetto, this Barbera seems to aim for easy drinking charm. The fruit is gorgeous, lush, ripe and fragrant, and the focus is on flavor.  I thought this was incredibly charming. It is a bit pricey, though, with a likely selling price in the low $30s.  You might do better in some places if they buy in volume. Drinkable now, and I’d drink it young. 90-92 points.

 

1999 Corale (Paolo Scavino)

This “Super Piedmont” is a blend of Barbera, Cabernet Sauvignon and Nebbiolo.  It is another sexy beauty from Scavino. Laced with cherries in the mid-palate, red berries on the finish, it is very flavorful and lushly textured.  There’s a backbone here, though, and the tannins provide some welcome intensity. This is a wine, though, that will be approachable fairly young, and I suspect it will be rather delicious almost whenever you stumble upon it. 90-92 points.

 

1998 Barolo “Carobric” (Paolo Scavino)

Long and ripe, amazing in its sweetness, this gorgeous wine delivers everything. There’s plenty of power, and a formidable backbone. There’s also amazing fruit, laced with blackberries, that never quits deliver flavor. Very ripe, and stunning. 93-95 points.

 

1998 Barolo “Bric del Fiasc” (Paolo Scavino)

After a rather hedonistic lineup from Scavino, we come at last to the Bric del Fiasc, which might have been the show-stopper wine of the evening. To be sure, Scavino’s style allows the wines to show well younger, so they had some advantage over those that were more powerful. Still. This is a great wine, which will probably run about $850 a case if you can find it. Take the tremendous Carobric performance. Add depth. Add even more flavor. Can cherries in real life get that ripe and sweet? And this is what you get. You might not have known Barolo could deliver this much pure fruit flavor. 95-97 points.

 

2000 Barbera d’Alba “Ornati” (Parusso) QPR Winner

This is usually one of my favorite values and Barbera, running about $200 a case or so if you shop well.  This is, as usual, absolutely delicious for short term drinking. The fruit is simply glorious, open, fragrant and sweet. The wine is soft, charming and drinking well now. You won’t be disappointed at this price, no way, no how.  88-90 points.

 

1998 Barolo “Piccole Vigne” (Parusso)

Soft and elegant, this has a nice finish, modest tannins, and a gentle, easygoing charm. The young vines fruit is open and expressive, but not particularly deep or intense. It seems to be drinking well now, actually. It will always charm, but not always impress. Considering the price differential, frankly, I could have about as much fun with the Barbera in this style for a lot less, actually, for well less than half the price. The Barolo will hold better, though. 87-89 points.

 

2000 Barolo “Bussia Fiurin” (Parusso)

This has a great future. It opens a bit brooding, very focused, very precise, with velvety texture and a tightly wound core of fruit.  The flavor pops up, as does the acid. The components are all there, and they are impeccably balanced.  This wine will never disappoint. It may not always amaze, either, but it will never be out of place or out of sorts, I think.  90-92 points.

 

1999 Etna Rosso (Val Cerasa)  QPR Winner

Soft, charming and grapey, with straight ahead cherry flavors, this Sicilian wine is likely to drink well young—even now. It shows little depth or likelihood of cellaring well, but it will provide tasty drinking young. For the price, likely around $13,  it is well worth the effort and will exceed expectations in the short term.  83-85 points.

 

1999 Nero d’Avola  (Do Zenner)  QPR Winner

For inexpensive, early maturing Sicilian wine, I thought this likely to be a step up. It is pleasantly spicy, with ripe, tingly tannins, just enough to provide some backbone. The fruit is very tasted, along bing cherry lines, and sweet. I like the soft, velvety texture, too.  A fine deal for the price, around $13.  85-88 points.

 

 end Marc de Grazia event

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Rhone/South/SW France (except dessert/sparkling)

1995 Saint Joseph "Offerus" (Chave)

When tasted on release, this wine was massive and very tannic. It is sometimes amazing how quickly a couple of years of cellaring can change its demeanor.  Today, it seems bright, elegant and very Rhone-y. The fruit dissolves onto your mouth, and the wine is marked by notes of game and leather.  I was actually surprised at how light it seemed, and was looking for a little more oomph and texture. 85 points.

 

1998 Bandol (Mas de la Rouvière--Bunan) QPR Winner
Grip and intensity on opening, gradually dissolved into a relatively open and flavorful wine. Unlike a lot of meaty Bandols, this was tinged more with pure, sweet fruit and blueberries. I don't know that I would have guessed mourvedre!  That aside, the wine developed beautifully, and in France sells for about $8.  It has more than enough power for its style, the fruit is nice, and if it is a bit short, it is a heckuva achievement at that price level. 86 points.

 

1996 Cotes de Roussillon Tautavel (Domaine Gardiès)
This is rather astringent on opening, and very flat, the flavors subdued by a wall of tannins. It's hard, tight, yet relatively light in the mid-palate, and fairly charmless at first. It does respond well to air, developing some hints of flavor and showing some moderation of the tannins. Yet, this wine never shows much in the mid-palate to justify the tannins or the patience that it will require.  It seems to have some delusions of grandeur in its style of wine making. 83 points.

 

1999 Cotes du Rhone Villages (Seguret; Texier) QPR Winner
This well priced wine seemed like a real bargain at about $13. For Cotes du Rhone, what more do you want? Of course, $13 isn’t exactly cheap for Cotes du Rhone. Still, this wine shows structure, supporting tannins, a solid mid-palate, and nice concentration. It didn’t seem very Grenache-y at first, but with air it developed a bit more typicity, too, and opened nicely. You could certainly get a lot less for a lot more money…..88 points.

 

1998 Chateauneuf du Pape (Chateau la Nerthe) QPR Winner
This "regular" bottling of La Nerthe is beautiful in this vintage. It is a little compact, but the fruit is gloriously seductive and sweet, and the wine develops gradually but consistently with air. I loved the texture, the purity and flavor of the fruit, and the ability of the wine to develop.  It didn't hurt that it was approachable now, and very sexy, from nose to finish. Still available in the mid-$20s. 90 points.

 

1995 Chateauneuf du Pape “Cuvée Centenaire” (Les Cailloux—Brunel)

This opened at a snail’s pace through the afternoon, but I hoarded a glass and didn’t mind refills, either. It showed power, grip and intensity all day, but with air, the fruit first became grapey and pulpy, all sweet, ripe blueberries. With more air, some of the baby fat blew off and the wine became nuanced by more traditional strawberry notes. The finish was long and persistent, and kept getting more flavorful, too. I loved the mid-palate depth as well. All that was wrong was that this needed to be held for about another five years.  94-96 points.

 

1990 Chateauneuf du Pape “Cuvée Reservée” (Domaine Pegau)

In many respects, you’d have to say, “This is IT.” I can think of some great Chateauneufs with more power, but for typicity and flavor this holds its own with about everything. It is an utterly charming, succulent CdP that delivers for every minute it is in the glass, and it is drinking perfectly now.  Despite the succulent, flavorful, fully open fruit, the wine shows a backbone and some intensity, too. There are some notes of game and leather for character, but the dominant impression is waves of fruit flavor rolling over your tongue. Did I mention the velvety, sensuous texture?  This was great CdP in full flight, an utterly sexy, wonderful wine caught at exactly the right moment. 95 points.