Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Gewurztraminer " Vielles Vignes "Furstentum" (Albert Mann)
A lot of 2001s seem drier than normal in Alsace, and this is no exception. It is another well crafted gewurz, however, from Mann, one of the great value wineries in the region. There is just a touch of sugar, enough to give the wine some charm. But there are tons of varietally true spice and pepper notes, which, as is typical, increase dramatically with air and warmth. This lacks the depth of really first rate gewurz, but it is a classic wine, and for those who like it on the drier side, you'll find it quite nice. 89 points.

1995 Riesling "Brand" Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)
This opens rather light and surprisingly on the dry side for a young-ish VT, but time and air change half that equation. Every now and then you find a wine that just explodes in the glass--this is one such.  It opened bright and clean, with some sugar mostly on the finish, but it picked up weight and became more and more opulent as it sat. It remained sunny, but developed beautiful flavor, and it sported a lovely, lingering finish. A beautiful riesling. 93 points.

[Return to Top]  

Australia (except dessert/sparkling) QPR Winner  
2000 Cabernet/Merlot  "Coonawarra' (Petaluma)
Vintage 2000 in this cool climate cab region was warmer than usual,  so there might be a reason that this doesn't seem so "cool," particularly at first.  It's very good though. Half cab, half merlot, it seems to get tons of chocolate from the merlot, and some creamy notes from the oak, which is not yet fully integrated but should meld well into the wine with more age. The supple tannins and the cabernet provide a little intensity to go with the flavors. With air and decanting, the expected brightness finally shines through and there are nice notes of raspberry to go with the chocolate. I'm pleased to see that the fruit rebounds the next day, and the wine is better, if anything, showing better balance and plenty of flavor. On the whole, nice focus, classic cab flavor and persistence. This runs about $30 AUD, might be similar here.  90 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Piccadilly Valley" (Petaluma)
The label tells you that you will get minerals and stones. Well, the  nose has a smell of wet stones, and they are underneath, and there are some classic chardonnay moments here. But the key nuance in the wine is certainly the creamy vanilla, i.e., a hit from oak. While that will automatically make some stop reading, it shouldn't, for while the wine lacks the austerity or steely quality of, say, Chablis, the oak, while always present, and too present for some, is not too overbearing. You can taste and smell fruit, too. It's medium bodied and flavorful, and has nice viscosity, as well as a nice finish. There's a touch of spice, with more air. I have no pricing on this, but I imagine it, as a blend of vineyards, is well priced, in which event I suspect some will swoon over this wine, given its rather sexy demeanor. Oak-a-phobes will be less happy, and the next day, while the wine showed well, the oak hadn't exactly integrated. But I've seen lots worse.  This drinks well now, should be fine for the near term, a couple of years, too. 88 points. 

1997 Shiraz/Cabernets "J.S.M." (Fox Creek)
It's hard to get past the creamy, vanillin oak at first, but eventually, some sweet fruit does emerge. This wine is holding very nicely, has a respectable finish, and a medium body. That blueberry vanilla note, helped along by the overly generous oak treatment, will be adored by some and reviled by others. Still, there's a lot here to like and the wine does lots of things right. A little restraint in oak treatment would've been nice, though. 89 points.

1998 Shiraz Reserve (Fox Creek)
This wine reminds me a lot of the 97 JSM, above--there's nice fruit lurking underneath too much American oak. This does have a bit more depth, and a nicer finish, and you can actually taste some fruit on the finish. The label promises blackberries and there are blackberries aplenty, but the label also promises well integrated American oak. I've seen worse, but the first impressions here are mostly of oak, of cream and licorice. It integrates a bit, but "well integrated" is a bit amusing as a claim. Both this and the JSM would rate better scores and show better if they were not raised in American oak, and/or showed a lot more restraint---which is hard to do with American oak, given how prominent its flavor altering tendencies are. Still, this will make a lot of folks very happy. Those who saw a huge monster on release, by the way, will be pleased to know the wine has come into balance in other respects besides oak very nicely. It is still lively, and shows some zing from the occasional tannin, but the fruit matches the structure well. 90 points.

1998 Grenache "Cornerstone" (Greenock Creek)
Soft velvet on the texture, and sweet strawberry inside, make this an appealing grenache. It has reasonable depth, and seems mouthfilling. There are touches of kirsch on the finish. It evolves nicely in the glass, but it is perceptibly a bit hot, and too heavy on the alcohol, which gives it a bit of a clumsy feel at times. 88 points.

1997 Shiraz "Balmoral" (Rosemount)
Supple and sweet, the first impression here is from ripe tannins, which give this wine a playful zing, and some zest. It has nice focus, and modest depth, showing some restraint in many areas. It did nothing particularly wrong, but after drinking it I was hard pressed to say what it did really well, too. This is a bit too pricey, around $50, to leave one feeling quite so bored. 88 points.

2000 "Eclipse" (Noon)
Long one of my favorite Australian estates, Noon's 2000 Eclipse shows nicely, and it is accessible now. Big and dense, with supple tannins, it shows a touch of caramel and oak on the finish, but mostly delivers sweet fruit that dissolves onto your tongue. This is a structured wine, but its ability to deliver flavor consistently and effortlessly is impressive and memorable. 92 points.

1997 Grand Merlot (James Irvine)
My last taste of this showed a wine that seemed so stewed that I wondered if it was cooked. This taste was actually a bit better. It still had some stewed tomato notes, and it was hardly what one would call typical merlot. It had a funky nose, and flavor nuances some called rhubarb, others called stewed tomato, but all agreed were odd and bizarre. I did find some focus and some sweet fruit here, and I probably liked this more than most, but this wine has fallen a long way from how it showed on release. 84 points.

1998 Shiraz (Warrenmang)
Inky black in color, this shiraz shows licorice and heavy oak notes on the finish, but it has a surprisingly well balanced demeanor otherwise and a nice, focused mid-palate. I did think it was a bit coarse at times, and substituted oak for fruit flavor at times, but it developed nicely and improved in the glass to the point where it was enjoyable to drink. A revelation it wasn't. 88 points.

1996 Grenache Old Vines "Lalla Rookh" (Coriole)
When this was released it was powerful and tight, dense and closed. Then, it went through a period where the remarkably sweet, strawberry and kirsch fruit popped out, obscuring the structure unless you decanted it. Now, it seems pretty much in complete balance, with the fruit still sweet but not too sweet, and the tannins still apparent, but not too intimidating. It sported a nice, velvet texture, too. On the whole, this is still very nice, and drinking well.  90 points.

[Return to Top]  

Bordeaux  (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Chateau Lafleur
This heralded wine was closed for business, wrapped tight, shut down. Got the picture? While it's not true of all of them, I'm seeing this more and more on the 2000s (my recent review of Cheval Blanc being another example). So, take note: the big boys in this vintage are about to become unapproachable for the better part of the next decade. I thought I detected some mature notes on this a few minutes into it being poured, but they blew off. The wine had no decanting, and went nowhere. It opened bright and refreshing, with dried cherry notes, and some astringency on the finish. It is firm, brooding and tight, giving up absolutely nothing. I'd love to see how this showed on Day 3. As it is, it seems amazingly powerful and dense. I'm admittedly guessing, considering how challenging this was to evaluate under the circumstances, but call it 94-96 points.

1996 Chateau Pichon Baron
This opens a bit stern and flat, but that doesn't last long. There is a lovely floral nose, beautiful perfume coming from this wine. If I didn't like it quite as much on the palate, as it aired out, it showed more stuff, finally displaying some sweet fruit in the middle, and a little bit of velvet. I think this will drink better in about two to three years, although it was quite approachable now. 91 points.

1989 Chateau Lagrange
Although I find this rather overshadowed by the massive and superlative 1990, this was pretty good.  Smooth and focused, this is not quite easy, but it has charm and some sweet fruit, with a bit of air. Its depth and finish are average, and it isn't exactly an earth shattering wine, but it's harmonious and pleasing. Nice, if not quite distinguished. 88 points.

2000 Chateau Pichon Lalande
Served blind and decanted for some five hours, this wine immediately evoked the comment most often heard about it....that it had some olive notes, something a bit green. But there is nothing that seems unripe about this, and the high cab franc content seems to produce that olive note. It's only a nuance, never fear. This showed way better than the simple wine I had at Vin Expo. It also shows some pepper and spice, and ripe tingly tannins after some five hours in the decanter. It is very supple, very young and grapey, with almost a syrupy, sappy core at first. It seems soft and elegant, with classic Bordeaux notes. The texture is very sensual. What I don't get on this wine is a whole lot of depth, though. It is delicious, but I'm not sure it is particularly profound. 92 points.

1989 Chateau Saint-Pierre
This often charming, never profound wine is usually a good deal and always pleasing. The 1989 has come along nicely, and still shows some fresh fruit, although it has thinned a bit, and finishes a bit short. At this point, this is what the British might call a "luncheon claret," but it has always had a certain charm, elegance and flavor that make it very appealing. Not dying yet, but this is a good time to drink it. 88 points.

1986 Chateau Poujeaux QPR Winner 
This was one of the finer performances from this excellent cru bourgeois. I think this was about $9 as a future, and over fifteen years later, it is still drinking well, still shows excellent depth. I do notice some notes of maturity in this wine now, some earthy notes, but there is nothing here that is in danger of dying if well stored. Even from this bottle (the cork was a bit saturated although there was no seepage or stain on the top of the cork), it shows robust flavors and there has hardly been any thinning of fruit. The tannins, however, have moderated. Drinking well now, this is the kind of find you hope for. If, eighteen years later, it is merely very good instead of superb, consider that $9 cost...  88 points.

[Return to Top]  

Burgundy  (except dessert/sparkling)
1992 Corton-Charlemagne (B. Ambroise)
I rather disliked the sour nose on this wine, but the rest was pretty nice. Lush, yet with a touch of brightness on the long finish, this showed lots of class and respectable amounts of fruit. For all of that, there was something about this wine--perhaps its lack of intensity--that did not completely convince me. Maybe you'll like it better, especially if you enjoy more mature notes. 90 points.

1992 Chablis "Montée de Tonnerre" (Raveneau)
Just lovely. It's a bit light, but in all other respects it is startling how young and fresh this wine is, how pristine and pure. It is sunny and lively, hardly stereotypical austere Chablis, completely open and giving. There are no hints of mushrooms, which some of the really old ones start to get. If someone told you this was only a few years old, you might believe them. Refreshing and scintillating. It could use a touch more depth, but other than that, it's a big winner.  94 points.

1995 Pernand-Vergelesses "Ile de Vergelesses" (Chandon de Briailles)
I loved this at the Domaine, but as it shows here, it has thinned a bit too much, too fast.  Not exactly vin de garde.  It opens with nice perfume, and has that silky texture to the body that fans of the style will appreciate. It has little bursts of raspberry flavor, too. The problem is that the wine is a bit short on fruit, and while the grip and structure is nice, I yearned for a bit more depth. Okay, but undistinguished. 87 points.

1988 Clos de la Roche "Vielles Vignes" (Domaine Ponsot)
Sweet and lively, this shows mature notes at times, some earthy, forest leaves nuances, and some strawberries, but the liveliness of the wine gives it a certain vibrancy and exuberance. The tannins are very soft, and the depth is just average, at best, at this point, and the color is very light. I had this wine when it was younger many times and loved it more. Perhaps fans of more mature Burgundy will like this thinner, gentler incarnation, but I found myself wishing for days gone by, even though I still enjoyed this a lot. 90 points.

[Return to Top]  

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
1995 Chardonnay "Cuvee Cathleen" (Kistler)
Loaded with oak, as well as lees notes, this projects butterscotch and popcorn, yet it is piercingly clear in the mid-palate. Is there fruit here, too? There is! Quite a lot, actually, and rather sweet and concentrated. Oak-a-phobes and those who prefer delicacy will be less forgiving of this wine, but if its style is one you like, there's a lot done well here. 92 points.

1995 Chardonnay "Gauer Ranch, Upper Barn" (Marcassin)
This opened with toast, and charcoal. The latter, I consider a bad sign, one of the taste nuances that gives me some hint that the wine may start cracking in the not too distant future. But for tonight, it was a hint, and a nuance, and the wine worked well. Big and powerful, with lots of complex flavors, it showed great balance and a fruit driven finish. The nose was dominated by that charcoal note though, which did follow through to the palate. Drink happily, but drink up. 90 points.

1996 Dominus and 1997 Dominus
These are both very nice, but not great Dominus. Let's take them together. I understand that the 1996 received heavy filtering. The 1997 didn't. If I hadn't known that, I'd have wondered at the stylistic change between vintages. The 1996  is focused, pure, clean and flavorful, seeming like classic cab in many ways. Its fruit and flavor are lovely, the texture has some respectable amount of velvet and I liked its focused presentation, although at times it was a bit compact.  But for the disconnect between the price and the wine, I'd be happy to drink it any time. IF you want to see some differences, though, try the 1997. It's not as pure and clean, and it shows a little bacon fat, some might call it brett, as well as cassis and chocolate. It's a bigger, rich wine, and also more distinctive. Of course, perhaps you won't like that distinctiveness. Nonetheless, for me it's the clear winner in every respect. The '96 and '97 are both youthful, but I suspect only the '97 will improve with furthering cellaring. Both should hold fine for the foreseeable future. For the 1996: 90 points, and just barely. If it does not improve with cellaring, as I suspect, it will drop a bit.  For the 1997: 93 points.

1996 Cabernet ( Abreu)
Poured next to the monumental '96 Shafer Hillside, this was neck-and-neck with it initially. Both wines were decanted a couple of hours. How did this differ? It was unusually bright, with a finish that might seem more appropriate for Burgundy. at first, I just loved the fruit flavor, tending to raspberry (naturally!), although the lushness added a touch of chocolate. The wine turned astringent with more time in the glass, but eventually the tannins moderated. It had a beautiful texture, but it left that lingering brightness which in my view detracted from the flavor on the finish. All that said, this is just by way of explaining why I didn't ooh and aah over the wine. It was still pretty fine. 93 points.

1996 Cabernet " Hillside Select" (Shafer) and 1997 Cabernet " Hillside Select" (Shafer)
An interesting matchup. Both are super wines. Nod to the '96. I think. The best part about the '96--the amazingly intense, gripping finish. Despite nearly two hours of decanting, this was still tight when poured, though watching it develop in the glass was a lot of fun. It showed substantial tannins on the finish, but became seductive, while retaining its focus and intensity. Beautiful flavor and texture, too, although it is not quite as lush as the '97. The '97, speaking of the '97, was supple and pure, pristine and gorgeous. I loved its elegance, a great change from the thick monster it was in its youth, yet it was still intense and tight. As it sat, it got sweeter and sweeter, with bright elegance, but I liked the structure on the '96 better. Still---I wouldn't be surprised to see the '97 overtake it with time, and have more of an upside. So. For the '96:  97 points.  For the '97: 95+ points. 

1997 Cabernet "Eisele Vineyard" (Araujo)
Decanted about two and a half hours, this was supple, but still huge and dense when we got to it. It show spicy and very ripe tannins that created a pleasant tingle on the tongue. Rich, deep and round, with beautifully pure fruit, it had a certain voluptuousness caress on the tongue that I liked a lot. This lacked the focus of the Shafers, above, but if anything, it showed denser fruit.  This wine has developed magnificently from its awkward youth. I hope I'm not underrating it. 95 points. 

1997 Zinfandel "Hayne" (Turley)
Oh, my. Is it really possible to have this much flavor in a wine with this much structure? This seems to have improved brilliantly in the cellar. Sweet, but powerful and gripping, the flaws I thought I saw in this young are no longer there. I love d the raspberry notes, the supple tannins, the bright, intense, lingering finish. What a difference a couple of years makes. No longer merely good, this is superlative. 95 points.

1993 Petite Sirah "Hayne" (Turley)
Some liked this better than I, but personally, I thought this far too civilized for Turley, and a little boring. Others found it charming and well balanced. It is true that Turley PS tends to be more civilized than the Hayne Zins. Still, this seemed bright, with some dense fruit still, but the fruit seemed to be losing a bit of flavor.  There were many things this wine did right, but I just felt a bit underwhelmed by its restraint and relative lack of flavor. 89 points.

1996 Pinot Noir "Riverblock" (Williams-Selyem)
This is one of the more successful W-S '96s I've had of late. I've been disappointed by the vintage at WS, which seems to have prematurely aged. Not that this wholly avoids some of the flaws I've seen in others. It has a bit of tomato, some touches suggesting an overly mature wine around the edges, some brown around the rim. But it also has beautiful, sweet raspberry fruit on opening, and a certain richness I rather liked. It was drinking pretty well the next day, too, although the tomato was a little more prominent vis-a-vis the raspberry.  91 points.

1987 Cabernet Reserve (Mondavi)
Big but focused, this famous wine mostly does not rest on its laurels--it proves why it has them. Pure cassis flavors abound, and the wine has mature notes around the edges. While it always seems weighty and solid, it is also well constructed and structured, never seems ponderous. A goldie oldie, still doing well. 94 points.

2000 Zinfandel "Paso Robles--Dusi Ranch" (Ridge Vineyards)
This 100% zin is a real nice effort. It has a lot of earmarks of Standard Practice Ridge. Yes, there's that creamy oak and vanilla up front. But the wine also improves with air, showing brighter, with supple tannins and a medium body. Once past the oak hit, there is also some blackberry flavor, and the wine mellows out considerably. In fact, as it aired, I'd have to say it proved there's not much depth here. It is still an attractive concoction for early drinking. It shows nicely now, although it shows that it will improve more with a year or so of cellaring, but I wouldn't expect this to be a Ridge vin de garde. Drink on the younger side if you want to retain a wine with some flavor and intensity. 89 points.

1985 "Monte Bello" (Ridge Vineyards)
This, like the Mondavi Reserve on this page, is another mid-80s Cal Cab or Bordeaux blend that has held well. This shows a bit thinner than the Mondavi, and has a bit more cream, a trace left of American oak. It is also very elegant, and still flavorful, and shows finesse and purity in all other respects. The key concession to age is the thinning fruit. That American oak note, which has thankfully faded some, was always the one thing I hated about Monte Bello, but it is not overly prominent. Ultimately, this has a sensual, easygoing charm that is very appealing. 89 points.

2002 Pinot Noir "Upper Terraces" (Beaux Freres)
This opens with a fine, expressive nose. It's what you want in pinot noir. The palate seems a bit light, very elegant, showing lots of finesse, but I was looking for just a touch more weight. There wasn't sufficient time to really let it air out, although we didn't leave immediately either. In place of that depth, though, there was a medley of lovely flavors that were irresistible. It started out as bright and raspberries, turned to black cherry. It never stopped throwing off waves of flavor, and remained intense and determined. Very young, so a range. 90-92 points. 

1996 Petite Sirah "Aida" (Turley)
As one might expect, this has oodles of flavor, but the interesting thing about this PS is what it's not: overbearing and over the top. Some have this stereotype of Turley...  This shows beautiful focus, a precise, carefully delineated mid-palate, supported by ripe tannins. It's intense and powerful, but not particularly thick. There's a nice, lingering finish to close it up. 92 points.

1991 Cabernet Reserve (Beringer)
I've reviewed this several times, and at its best, i.e., perfectly stored, it has been a superb, even a young, bottle of wine. I've had other incarnations ranging from clearly damaged to tasting five years older, too. Storage, storage, storage. This is beautiful. The nose says Bordeaux, but the palate is full of fresh, sweet fruit that still gives off intense flavor. The texture is velvety and the wine is supple, but still firm. It is certainly ready to drink, but from this bottle tastes refreshing and youthful, too, although the tannins seem nominal, so at least that aspect of the wine is at or near maturity.  The balance is superb, mixing elegance in with pure flavor. Another fine 1991 cab. 94 points. 

1999 Chardonnay (Kongsgaard)
There is some oak, but also seemingly some pepper and spice, and this wine is marked by two features: brightness and depth. The latter you expect in top California chardonnay, the former is not always the dominant feature. There was a toasty nose, but I came back again to that vibrancy on the finish. Lively and deep, I'd like to see what happens to this with a few more years of age, but I'd say it's drinking well now. 91 points.

1993 Pinot Noir (Beaux Freres)
When this wine was released, it was basically undrinkable, the wine's characteristics totally obscured. It took a year or so to shrug off the aftereffects of bottling and vinification, and it became what the winery probably considers its most Burgundian-styled release. I thought, though, that it needed early drinking. Yet, here we are. A decade later, and this relatively lighter styled wine is still drinking well. The wine is elegant and flavorful, bright and lively.  There are some mature notes, some forest leaves and earth, but the fruit is also sweet, its depth has not declined much, and a couple of hours later--it was just as good, if not slightly better. A very impressive performance for the second commercial release from this winery.  92 points.

2001 Zinfandel (Madrigal)
In 2001, this seems riper, deeper, and not quite as bright as some prior years, although there is some liveliness around the edges. It needed some depth, in my view.  The oak is restrained, altering mainly texture not flavor. There is a round chocolately note to the mid-palate, and some plum notes, i.e., darker fruit.  In most respects, it would be my favorite of the zins I've had from Madrigal, certainly the one I enjoyed the most out of the bottle, but read on for a caveat.  But how can a wine this young from a fine vintage be so easy, and pretty much lacking in intensity? It seemed much more mature than its vintage date, almost as if it had been held back for late release.  Holding it in a decanter for a couple of hours brought up some structure and tannins, and I was relieved to see it was, if anything, better wine the next day, but it always had that extra note of maturity.  On pure enjoyment at the moment, given that the wine is currently quite tasty, approachable and charming,  I'd give it 90 points or more, but I usually take off points for wines that should have the potential to improve, that I think will not. At the moment, this is far better than the exuberant but somewhat short 2000. Still, in 2001,  I'd really like to see this improve in the cellar, even with a year or so, before giving it a bigger score. I'm a bit concerned with how mature it tastes.  88+ points.

2000 Cabernet Reserve (Chimney Rock)
There were things I was loving about this when it opened. It was fragrant and charming, very tasty, with bursts of raspberry fruit. But it was impossible to get past that one big problem: it seemed hollow and diluted, simple and thin, like too many 2000s. In fact, it was scary how thin it seemed for a premium wine (prices vary widely at retail, but list is $95). Fortunately, I didn't write it off, as this wine has hit a dumb stage and needed some breathing.  Two hours of breathing later, it suddenly showed intensity, from tannins that emerged, as well as more depth. The delicious red berry notes never went away, moreover, and suddenly this was a very attractive wine in an elegant, very focused style. Drunk next to some heavy hitters from 2001, it still revealed itself to be a bit shy on depth, but it had a laser like hit of delectable fruit, and ultimately I thought this was a very nice effort in the vintage. Let's see if this improves or not with a a couple of years of cellaring and the fruit and tannins are in balance. 89+ points.

1981 Cabernet Limited Cask Reserve (Inglenook)
This is long past Inglenook's glory years, of course, and it shows. This wine is a deader than a doornail, showing little but oxidation and maderization. The wines from the '60s and '50s often still show well. This is a goner with no redeeming features. Undrinkable. 50 points.

1999 Cabernet "Fay Vineyard" (Stag's Leap Wine Cellars)
This seemed to do everything nicely, nothing superbly. I liked the cassis in the middle, and the focus of  the wine, but like a lot of '99s, it also seems a bit easy and bland. Medium bodied, with just a little bit of dusty tannin on the end, this does a nice job of making classic cab, but it isn't cheap for what you get. 88 points.

2001 Merlot (Pride)
Sweet chocolate opens up this big, sumptuous merlot. There's toasty oak up front, but also structure and tannins that give this more intensity than routine merlots. It's not a flabby fruit bomb. The intensity, balance and backbone give this a sort of St. Emilion feel, although the flavors are all New World. Very nice. This is supposedly Pride's basic Merlot, but of course its price is not so basic. It shows well the next day, too. This is approachable now, but should hold well. There's enough tannin there so I wouldn't be surprised if it shuts down, though.  91 points.

2001 Cabernet (Pride)
Gripping, deep and powerful, this "regular" cab is chock full of cassis, and lurking underneath is a wave of ripe tannins. On top there is a note of toasty oak, which integrates well, however. With air, it becomes brighter and more lively. The finish is lingering, and laced with raspberries. This is a superb performance from the so-called "regular" cab, and if it cellars as well as I think, its score might even go up.  92+ points.

2001 Claret (Foley)
Contrary to the Pride wines, above, which Foley makes, this shows sweeter, softer and less tannic, at least at first. Its focus is sensual lushness and velvety texture. But don't make too many conclusions too soon, because underneath, with air, there are lots of tannins, although they are ripe and do not interfere with the wine's supple quality. I rather like the intensity of the 2001 Pride more, but this has a sexy quality some will much prefer, and I think it has the structure to cellar well. If I'm right, it gets Pride of Place, no pun intended, but I'd like to see it prove it has the goods in the cellar before I commit to the higher score. I'm betting it does.  92-94 points.

1998 Cabernet (Shifflet)
It's hard to identify this as cab, but it's very pleasing. The chocolatey note screams merlot, although it seems like chocolate covered rhubarb at times. Its round and lush feel screams merlot, too. It seems a bit too soft for cabernet, although I bet this showed more intensity and berry flavors when young. Soft and balanced now, this is a bit bland, if very pleasing. Only 120 cases, and $35, which is pretty reasonable for Cal cab these days. Drink young, as I think the score will go down, not up, with cellaring. 88 points.

2000 Cabernet Reserve (7)
This winery is, indeed, just called "7." It's bright and easy, shows nice balance, but is short and simple. There's a touch of a herbal note, but not much else for flavor. It's a pleasing, very lively, acid driven style as it shows now, but it's too short of stuffing. 86 points.

2000 Cabernet "Peterson Vineyard" (Switchback Ridge)

I hear the winery greatly preferred earlier and subsequent vintages, but this wine surely can't embarrass anyone. In fact, it is very fine and downright chock full of fruit. Rich, thick, almost syrupy in the mid-palate at first, it shows opulence but also good structure, a fair hit of tannins supporting the sweet, sweet fruit. Air brings it into good balance, and it is surprising how well balanced it eventually becomes.  There's a touch of licorice around the edges. Call this a fruit bomb wine that nonetheless has structure and balance. 92 points.

2001 Petite Sirah (Madrigal)
A candidate for the best wine this winery ever made (of those I've tasted...), this PS from Madrigal puts it all together. It shows nice texture, beautiful balance, pleasing depth, and lotsa flavor. It opens with some oak notes, but the oak is well under control here. There are also some bursts of brightness interrupting the velvet-textured fruit, which careens from blueberries to blackberries. With more air, firm supporting tannins emerge, promising that this should age gracefully. It is charming and sensual, with some power in reserve. The next morning finds it more elegant, but flavorful and attractive, although the oak is a touch more prominent. 800 cases, about $35---a very good value. I might consider a higher score--but let's see how it develops in the cellar. 92 points.

2001 Syrah Russian River Valley (Novy)
Having had some Novys previously, all of which I liked a lot, I'm a little befuddled by how this wine showed. Everyone in sight trashed it, and rightfully so. I wondered if its candied bubblegum flavors were indicative of some carbonic maceration. Others just thought it was odd. No one wanted to waste much time with it when it sat next to real syrahs, like Cote Rousse from L'Aigulière. Decent weight, toasty nose. Odd flavors. 82 points.

1993 Cabernet Sauvignon (Dalle Valle)
Like a lot of '93s I've run into lately, this is drinking very well, and shows focus and well delineated. It's plenty big, though, as it also shows gripping tannins, firm, but not terribly astringent. There's cassis in the middle, intensity around the edges, and it opens nicely with some air. A very nice if not quite spectacular wine. 92 points. 

1992 Syrah "Durell Vineyard" (Edmunds St. John)
I don't know that I thought that this wine would age this gracefully, or acquire so much typicity, but it has done both. In its youth, it was a big, deep wine, and one of my two favorite wines from this winery. But here's an object lesson in how time and cellaring can civilize such wines, while still leaving fresh fruit at the end of the journey. If this were served blind with Northern Rhones, I think no one would guess this was a California syrah. It is classic syrah now, with bacon fat overtones and gamey notes, reminding you more of Hermitage than of California. It has thinned, but the depth is still good and the wine has acquired a certain elegance that is very nice. While I don't like this incarnation quite as much as its youthful mien, it is an impressive performance that shows just how California syrah can get it right.  91 points. 

2002 Viognier (Pride)
Sweet fruit, with oak on the edge, melds all together in a pleasing, well balanced old for vigorous, but not ponderous, viognier. This varietal tends to be "bigger" in the USA, mostly, and see more oak, often too much. This wine provides a very nice balance, tasty fruit, and nice depth for the varietal. Well done. 90 points.

[Return to Top]  

Dessert/Sparkling Wines
1989 Riesling Beerenauslese "Forster Mariengarten" (J.F. Kimich)
How sweet can it get? Give me a number for residual sugar. It might not be high enough here. The color is amber, and the fruit is being overshadowed a bit by the sugar. There are some traces of oxidation. But...what a hedonistic wine.  Those who seek crisp eisweins can look elsewhere. But this monumental stickie leaves you simply drooling as the sugar washes over your tastebuds. Drink up---I can't see this getting any better. 94 points.

[Return to Top]  

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
1995 Riesling Kabinett "Graacher Dompropst (Friedrick-Wilhelm-Gymnasium)
Lemons and acid mark this early, and that never quite goes away. While it doesn't show any tertiary characteristics of note, the fruit seems to have thinned some, and is overshadowed by the acid.  It's not a lost cause though, not hardly. There is still enough fruit there, and if the wine is a bit too intense, there's still a lot to like, especially for crispness fans. Some might argue that this should have more cellaring, hoping the acid comes into better balance with the fruit, but I don't see that there is enough fruit there to make that pay off.  86 points. 

1989 Riesling Auslese "Wehlener Sonnenuhr" *** A.P. No. 2-576-562-1390 (Kerpen)
This 3 star from Kerpen is burnished and golden in color at this point, or at least from this bottle. What shines through immediately is how ripe and concentrated this wine is for an Auslese. Dense, rich and opulent, it is not quite syrupy but is plenty thick. There are nice toasted apricots nuances in flavor, some mature notes, and a long finish. A rather decadent Auslese. I do like drinking this now, by the way, instead of holding it, but it should hold just fine.  94 points.

1998 Riesling Spatlese "Haardter Burgergarten" (Muller-Catoir)
Gripping acidity leads this wine off at this stage of its development. It's VERY intense. The sweet fruit is pushed in the background, initially. Air and warmth have it picking up weight and the fruit shows some opulence, finally. It becomes more and more succulent, almost spicy, and shows more viscosity, without ever losing that intensity, and without seeming heavy. It has a great finish, too. 93 points.

1990 Riesling Auslese "Forster Ungheurer" (Egon Muller)
This seems fairly mature and not very lively, at least at first. It seems mineral driven, and somewhat mature, of modest depth, a wine to think about more than get excited about, perhaps.  There is a lot of acid lurking underneath, though, and it all begins to ooze out with time. It's only moderately sweet at this point in its life. You gotta admire its intensity, though.  89 points.

1999 Riesling Spatlese "Urziger Wurzgarten" (J.J. Christoffel)
An old favorite yanked from the cellar for a "how's it doin'" check. Answer: brilliantly. This producer's style, when it hits, can leave you feeling exhausted because there's so much going on. A wave of acid opens the wine, but there's just SO much deep fruit and then the sugar rushes in to balance the acid and then it seems to pucker your mouth and then it seems very sweet and then it all hits your tongue at the same time and...you're amazed, but gratified. Pure and sweet, intense and lively, this does it all. 93 points.

2000 Riesling Spatlese "Graacher Domprobst" (Selbach-Oster)
Bright, without a lot of depth and not terribly intense, this is nonetheless interesting and charming, largely as a result of its flavor profile, Minerals? Smokey? Petrol? Mushrooms? All of the above? Distinctive and flavorful, this hardly seems even to be the same varietal as the Christoffel, above. 89 points.

2002 Riesling Auslese "Urziger Wurzgarten" (J.J. Christoffel)
This is a wine that you can only hope will put on some weight or develop some intensity. On the nose, it is all classic JJC, but it shows nowhere near the depth or intensity of the last several vintages, even, relatively easy 2000 as it showed on release, let alone the 2001, 1999, 1998 or 1997. It finishes sweet, but not very for young Auslese, and it seems light and easy. Some early spritziness blows off. I have seen wines put on some weight with air and/or cellaring, but this had plenty of time and air, and didn't expand much. The next day, it was a bit smoother, but nothing interesting had happened. My sense is that this is and should be the lowest rated JJC Urz Wurz Auslese in some time. 87 points.

1990 Riesling Spatlese A.P. 3 536 014 35 91 Valckenberg Edition (Maximin Grunhaus)
This was a limited edition Valckenberg release with "easy to read labels" in a 500ml bottle. It wasn't necessarily anything special--and it sure isn't today. It shows relatively little fruit, a very compact and somewhat thin style. It is moderately heavy on acid, but only in the sense that the fruit is no longer there to match it. It has occasional charms, but from this bottle at least (the cork did show some problems), it too thin, too restrained in fruit flavor and too simple to be of much interest. 83 points.

1999 Riesling Spatlese "Wawerner Herrenberger" (Dr. Fischer)

Sweet and friendly, this had a somewhat amusing lemon-lime taste that was so prominent that I had to label it "Sprite." Others voted for "7-Up," but we know Sprite is more accurate for sweeter wines, right? There was an interesting, somewhat smoky note on the end, just on the finish, and initially, perhaps a bit of petrol blowing off. I liked the presentation, but this wine at this point seemed a bit too easy and a touch simple. I'd like to see it develop more with age. 88+ points.

[Return to Top]  

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1994 Ornellaia
I was not thrilled with this from the first bottle I had of it, but the second shows very nicely. Not great, perhaps, but pretty good for a so-so vintage. It opens with decent weight and a nice, caressing mouthfeel. Air, though, helps a lot. The fruit gets sweet and evolves, and the wine picks up a bit more weight, too. It becomes quite enjoyable, if never quite distinguished. It did ultimately fade a bit, but that was also some four hours later. 88 points.

1999 Barbera d'Alba"Affinato in Carati" (P. Scavino)
I love this producer, and I'm not a purist--a little oak often rounds out Barbera IMHO.  But this is just too much--drenched in oak, it does have some nice, round fruit, and some air showed some relief as it poked through--a bit. It shows great depth. BUT geez--pick those splinters out of your mouth for the foreseeable future. It's hard to taste much else. 84 points.

[Return to Top]  

New Zealand (except dessert/sparkling)
1993 Cabernet/Merlot (Goldwater)
I would imagine that in its youth, this actually showed fairly well. At this point in its life, things have gone a bit wrong. It shows some brick around the edges in color, seems austere and flat. The cassis, if ever there was any, has turned to rhubarb, and strawberry,  the latter usually from of some oxidation.  Still, it wasn't so bad on opening. Medium bodied at best, perhaps, but still with some vibrancy, it had some impact and presence. It didn't take long for what was left of the fruit to crack, though.   79 points.

Rhone/South/SW France (except dessert/sparkling)
1990 Cote Rotie (Clusel-Roch)
Drenched in that bacon fat flavor that I've come to dislike when it is truly overpowering, as here, this wine shows plenty of flavor--but not the right kinds. Perhaps the problem is that the fruit is a bit light for the overwhelming waves of animal fat. All that said, there are some things here to like. It is otherwise and easy drinking, cool, bright and refreshing wine. If you don't mind the flavor profile, it would be a nice luncheon claret, if it were a claret. It lacks depth, intensity and distinction at this point, however. 85 points.

2000 Cotes du Ventoux "Quintessence" (Chateau Pesquié) QPR Winner 
This runs about $18, and it sure is good value. I liked it on opening, sweet and dense. But there was more. A beautiful tannic structure was lurking under the fruit, and tannins popped out with air. Still more air brought everything together several hours later. The next day, the wine was smooth and well integrated, but perhaps a little thin. It showed not a hint of decay, though. The red berry flavors kept poking through. Thoroughly delicious. 90 points.

1998 Coteaux du Languedoc "Copa Santa" (Clavel) QPR Winner 
A perennial charmer, this was a particularly good vintage for this roughly $20 wine (it could be had cheaper on release, but current vintages have escalated a bit). It opens with surprising power and some considerable tannin on the finish, but the tannins are very ripe, and air moderates them quickly. The wine is very extracted and purple, very youthful in appearance. Nonetheless, although is mostly primary, it is starting to drink well and there is no problem doing so right now. In fact, if you're holding a lot, you should start popping them as I don't see this being a long term wine. I'd certainly think it would show best from now to 2008, although it will survive longer. With air, it took on a pleasingly supple quality, with sweet fruit, surrounded by velvety texture. Very nice. 91 points. 

1999 Chateauneuf du Pape (Beaucastel)
I liked the refined, elegant feel of this wine. While it doesn't seem particularly tannic, or particularly lush, it is focused and flavorful, and has sweet fruit, and meaty notes. It is a bit on the compact side, like a lot of '99s compared to the lusher 2000s or more powerful 2001s,  but it I think it will cellar well and almost always show well during its useful life. It seemed to me to be approachable now. What it won't quite manage, though, is to be a great Beaucastel, rather than a merely good one. 90 points.

2000 Chateauneuf du Pape (Beaucastel)
Contrasted to the very focused and precise 1999, this seems softer and lusher, round and expressive. It is hardly a simple wine, though, for it is plenty stuffed with fruit, which is gloriously sweet and fragrant. While this will hold well, it should also be very accessible young, and frankly, it didn't bother me much to sample it now. The rounded, lush texture makes it very seductive and appealing. There is tannin underneath, but right at the moment, the lush fruit dominates this wine. Sensual and seductive, as well as stuffed. I'd like to see how this develops in the cellar before scoring it higher, but it has the potential for a better score.  92+ points.

2001 Chateauneuf du Pape (Beaucastel)
This wine to me was almost a synthesis of the 2000 and 1999, and easily the best of the trio, showing all the stuffing, lushness and flavor of the 2000--indeed, it seems sweeter and richer--and all of the focus and delineation of the 1999. In fact, it has more intensity and better structure than either. It also has remarkable depth, a fine finish, and great texture. To me, this is the most complete and successful Beaucastel since the 1990.  95 points.

2000 Coudoulet de Beaucastel Cotes du Rhones (Beaucastel)
I loved the sweet fruit in this wine, and while it had plenty of power for Cotes du Rhone, it also showed a sappy, very sweet middle that was very appealing. Like its big brother, it shows some softness, and it is very approachable, despite the feeling of power.  I loved its texture and sweetness, and I thought this was a lovely Cotes du Rhone. 90 points.

2001 Coudoulet de Beaucastel Cotes du Rhones (Beaucastel) QPR Winner 
Not surprisingly, considering how well the 2001 Chateauneuf shows, this is a special Coudoulet, one of the best I've had in recent years. It is stuffed, shows great structure, a nice backbone, and .... loads of very sweet fruit. Gripping, powerful and deep, this is a Coudoulet that should hold well for some fifteen years. At half the price of the Chateauneuf, it is a super bargain. Just for one example, I liked it better than the '99 Chateauneuf and almost as much as the 2000 Chateauneuf.  92 points.

1999 Chateauneuf du Pape "Hommage à Jacques Perrin" (Beaucastel)
I've never had a "Hommage" that wasn't a great wine, and this is no exception. Whether it's worth the enormous price (this was $200 a bottle; the 2001 is much more; auction prices for the great 1990--one of my favorite all time wines-- can hit around $500 or so), is another question. I'd say I could be just as happy with the 2001 Beaucastel Chateauneuf at one-fourth the price of this, although the styles are very different. This has a certain brooding, depth.  Still, price aside, this is a super wine. What it adds over the regular 1999 is great depth and a particularly rounded, lush texture. This wine seems almost like a jaguar preening in the sun. It doesn't do anything flashy, but as you study it, you note that it's like a well oiled machine. Turn the ignition, and watch it do everything right. Underneath, there is more depth than you get at first--it broods. This was surprisingly approachable now, but wasn't even close to showing its stuff. Ideally, give it a few more years of cellaring, and then, well, it should hold more or less indefinitely. 95 points.

1999 Minervois La Livinière "Cuvée Chandelière" (Domaine Combe Blanche)
This may not be as deep or powerful as the 1998, but if anything, the fruit is prettier and sweeter, pure and pristine. It is in a very young, grapey stage still, and I really liked the relentless wave of delectable fruit. It shows some grip, too, supporting a mid-weight body.  Very nice. 89 points.

1998 Coteaux du Languedoc "Cote Rousse" (Domaine L'Aigulière)
This winery is one of the Languedoc's stars, and is known for several things. First, for the two specialty cuvées (Rousse and Dorée) making big, powerful wines that need some time to unfold. Second, making wines drenched in bacon fat, and seemingly rather bretty. All those things apply here. On opening, this seems soft, velvety and charming, but not quite as big as usual. However, it took nearly two hours for this to really begin to open, and it wasn't fully there yet. The weight deepened and tannins emerged, and this was far better after two hours than on opening. It's approachable now, but more cellaring would improve this. Those who like their wines pure, pristine and fruity should look elsewhere as the gamey notes dominate here, as they always do.  92 points.

1996 Coteaux du Languedoc "Cote Dorée" (Domaine L'Aigulière)
The 1998 may be bigger, better and have a couple of extra layers, but this is fully open and singing beautifully now. There's plenty of the game and bacon, lots of maturing syrah notes, but also sweet, expansive fruit. This actually reminded me of some '96 La Chapelle that I had recently. This is drinking easy and well--a perfect time to pop it. 90 points.

1990 Hermitage "Monier de la Sizeranne" (Chapoutier)
Gamey syrah notes, bacon fat everywhere, open this wine and pretty much dominate it. It is pretty ready to roll. Although it is dense enough, it is also open and gentle on the finish. The fruit does seem to fade a bit on the finish, though, and I can't say this really thrilled me. 88 points.

NV Image du Sud (Pegau-Cailloux)
This non-vintage wine is actually a collaboration between two prestigious estates, Pegau and Cailloux, and blends a bit of juice from the 1998 vintage of each estate into this wine. With all that, and an original price around $20 (the price was cut dramatically in my region...by about half...), I was looking for something interesting. My first taste on release showed nothing but a mediocre wine. A couple of years of cellaring has not improved it any. It shows some game and some velvet on the texture, but it seems a bit coarse, very simple, and has little depth. And it's not improving with age, either. Disappointing. 84 points.