Ezine On Wine, January/February, 2003 Tasting Notes

ome Intro Bulletin Board Tasting Notes Articles Best Buys Coups de Coeur Search Contact
Philadelphia Wine Wine Books Wine Quotes Events Basics Links Photos Kudos Wine audio

Tasting Notes
January/February, 2003

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.

Alsace Australia Bordeaxux Burgundy California/USA
Dessert/Sparkling Germany Italy Jura Loire Rhone/South/SW France South Africa

Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
1990 Gewurztraminer “Heimbourg” Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)

Another stunner from the world’s greatest gewurz producer. Sweet, with a touch of mango, this nonetheless is impeccably balanced. It seems lively due to the acid, unusual for gewurz, let alone gewurz VT, on the back end. It is opulent, ripe and young, too. The finish is mouthgripping and lingering, and the flavor just gets better as the wine warms and airs out. There seemed to be almost a touch of cinnamon on the finish, which was interesting and unusual to boot. 95 points.

1991 Gewurztraminer “Clos Windsbuhl” (Zind-Humbrecht)
This wine is showing its age, a so-so vintage more than a decade out. Yet, it still had a lot to offer. There were slight sherry notes from oxidation, but it was spicy and tangy, and filled with pleasing burnished lychee notes. It seemed to show a touch of late harvest qualities as well. It was a bit compact for big time gewurz, and there wasn’t much in the way of pepper. This is close to the end of its life and I’m a hard scorer when I get sherry notes---but it’s still tasty. 87 points.

Australia (except dessert/sparkling)
1996 Cabernet “Bin 707” (Penfold’s)

I liked the red berry notes on this light and bright wine, but it also showed off a fair hit of oak. It became a bit astringent on the finish, showing a fair amount of tannin considering how little depth was displayed. I enjoyed the strawberry fruit flavors, persistent and delectable, but the wine seemed too light, and a bit simple. Pleasing enough, it is also rather pricey for what it shows. 86 points.

Lovely. It opens with a big hit of vanillin oak, but it is remarkable how quickly it integrates. The wine retains a rather bright, mouthwatering demeanor, but its key aspect is surely its balance—every element announces itself, integrates, becomes harmonious. The tannins pop out—and moderate. The fruit gets sweeter and matches the acidity. This elegant, but lush and flavorful wine, kept improving while I had it open. Very nice. 92 points.

I don’t know what was more surprising—the powerful, tannic opening of this wine, which seemed almost brutal. Or, how quickly the tannins moderated with air. Still, this is a powerful wine that is shutting down. There was some mouth-drying astringency on the finish, and the chocolate nuances quickly flattened out. This is a wine that needs at least another three years of cellaring to be really approachable—but five to seven might find it closer to peak. I think this will come around really well, but I would hedge my bets a bit. 89+ points.

Not long back, I posted on the pleasant, but not terribly exciting 1999 Angelique from Monsbousquet. As you might expect, this is a different beast. It opened a bit tight with some plum and rhubarb nuances, but every ten minutes would reveal a different wine. It picked up weight. Showed tannins. Showed fruit balancing out the tannins, and generally seemed to have many layers to unpeel, and secrets to reveal. This young, sturdy wine belies its tag as a “second wine.” It will be fun watching this evolve in the cellar over the next decade, and then some. 90 points.

Awash in heavy lees influences, from the bouquet to the mid-palate, this powerful wine is seemingly drenched in hazelnut nuances. At first, it takes over the wine. But everything falls into place. There is a long finish, a focused mid-palate, and flavor that never quits. Some will, in the end, think that the gout de noisette overwhelmed the aging mid-palate, but I thought this was pretty fine. 94 points.

To lovers of silky, fragrant Burgundy, this is classic stuff. A bit light, it is nonetheless sensuous and perfumed, elegant and persistent, bright and sunny. The bouquet and pristine raspberry notes on the palate make up for any issues of depth, and this is wine is always charming, and a pleasure to drink. It is also, perhaps, velvety enough and persistent enough so that "light" is a misnomer. Call it elegant and sensual.... 90 points.

Bright, and overflowing with raspberry flavor, this lush, velvety wine is simply delicious. Air brings out a lot of structural components—acid, and a fair hit of tannin underneath. More air shows all the pieces putting themselves back together, and the wine never shows a hint of its flavor dropping off. Persistent, and mouthcoating, the palate is nicely predicted by the intense red berry nose. A lovely wine---but I do wonder as it ages if the structure will become a bit overbearing. I’m told the winemaker thinks this is a vin de garde, but I’d err on the safe side myself and drink by 2007 if I had only a couple of bottles. 91 points.

On paper, this should’ve won its flight easily, with the two wines above, but blind tastings are sometimes instructive. The wine shows power and depth, but a variety of offputting funky notes, too, some vegetal notes, some rhubarb, maybe a touch of brett. It has concentration to spare and a fair bit of brightness to help it along, but the off notes coupled with a certain lack of charm, made this the loser amongst next to the two wines above and a 1996 Beaux Freres pinot. 86 points.

California/USA (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Chardonnay “Gauer Ranch” (Marcassin)
Nuanced by hazelnut influences from lees, this wine seems charming and elegant. Those who think Marcassin is merely over-the-top power, think again. This has depth in the mid-palate, but if anything it seems rather bright, rather restrained. The fruit has enough viscosity to affect an oily texture in the mouth. Nicely focused, with a nice finish, too. 91 points.

Rich and opulent, yet penetrating, intense and focused, this ripe, succulent pinot manages to show depth and lushness while still seeming to be precise and structured, perhaps due to the hit of acid at the back. Something for everyone. The dark cherry notes exude flavor, and the wine develops constantly in the glass. Seductive and lingering at the end, this wine still has miles to go and will improve with more cellaring. I would speculate that it would hit peak around 2007. 95+ points.

There is a whiff of new oak up front, but it doesn’t last too long or become oppressive. In fact, the wine seems rather sexy. This was served blind, and I was thinking something Australian, but elegant. Nuanced by raspberries, with a touch of licorice, it seemed light and bright, and very flavorful. It wasn’t done, though. As it sat, it gained weight, showed some depth, and I appreciated the integration of its components. It did flatten a bit, some hours later, but this was lovely and very enjoyable. 90 points.

Ah, history. Cinq Cepages was once a bargain wine, and an insider’s secret. Well, neither is true any more. Here, though, is another fine performance. These wines are rarely profound, but they have more structure than you give them credit for at first, and they never quit on the flavor. It opens sweet and soft, and a bit inoffensive, but like the Dalla Valle, above, it gains weight with air. I also loved how it showed off some intensity, and the tannins underneath became apparent. Big and sexy, sweet and delicious, this is another CC winner. 90 points.

No, it was not stunning wine. But the good news—it wasn’t dead, either. If anything, it had a bit too much in the way of tannins, for the light, almost Burgundian-styled body and fruit. There was a touch of oxidation, but the wine was fairly clean on the palate. The nose showed a bit of bottle must. Overall, it had a rather elegant, even somewhat tasty demeanor. True, it was a bit too faded to get excited about, but you’ll want to drink it, at least a little of it, not pour it down the drain. 80 points.

This old favorite meritage bottling shows its stuff once again. It opens kinda dusty, but surrounded with a core of cassis, and smooth around the edges. The tannins resolved, it picks up weight and becomes serious wine. The finish lingers, and coats the mouth, and as the wine shows more depth, it also shows focus and intensity. I’ve had so many nice Cain Five bottlings, I wonder why they don’t draw more attention. This 1997 is particularly successful and will continue to improve with further cellaring over the next three to five years. 93 points.

This is one of those super pricey cult wines that always shows well—but always makes me wonder what I’m getting that justifies the price. This opens with a whiff of sweet vanilla from new oak. It is very black and inky in color, but it seems curiously light, not big and fat. Rather more elegant and typical than the 1997, it is also missing some of the 97’s depth. This wine has a lot of charm, and is a pleasure to drink in many respects. Divorced from its price and status and hype, I liked it quite a bit. When factoring all those things in, though, I have to wonder…. “Is that all there is….?” 89 points

I was told this was a meritage bottling, but never got the final blend. It opened bright, with red berry notes, and lots of flavor, but a bit light. It always seemed a bit racier than deep, with touches of stones and minerals for complexity underneath. It picked up a bit of needed weight with air, and was always pleasing and charming. It just lacked that distinctiveness or intensity that could make it more than “very nice.” 88 points.

From the moment I tasted it, served blind, this seemed like pretty fine cab to me, and one of those wines that makes you say “New World cab imitating Bordeaux.” It opened tight and focused, showing earth and cherries. The finish was penetrating and persistent, and the wine seemed to expand with each sip. It is not lush, exactly, though. Velvet is not the right term for the texture, as the wine is a bit brighter than that, and sturdier. Structured and reasonably deep, this got better every time I went back to it. 92 points.

The 1993 was served blind next to the 1994 (unblind). For awhile, maybe five minutes, the two wines seemed quite similar. They both seemed to have green pepper, rhubarb and vegetal nuances. Those nuances weren’t always so pleasant. But then the two wines headed in very different directions. The ’93 showed light and bright, with some raspberry notes, but always seemed dominated by vegetal nuances to the point where I had no interest whatsoever in drinking it. There were claims hours later that it had improved, but I didn’t see that. The 1994, however, started elegant, ok, and marred by the green pepper, but dramatically turned around. It really should have been decanted for at least an hour. It changed from elegant to deep, and lush fruit and oodles of cassis and plum nuances emerged. It kept putting on weight every time I went back to it, and the other components of the wine overwhelmed that vegetal nuance. In the end, the 1993 moved me to award only 83 points. The 1994 gets 94 points.

When I first reviewed this wine, I thought it was pleasant and fairly tasty, but light, inoffensive--and a bit of disgrace considering its $40 price tag and its famous vineyard. I wasn't the only one with that opinion--from different lots and cellars, the wine drew faint praise at best. I have to say, this wine is suddenly showing better. To be sure, it is still a bit underwhelming for something as pricey as a $40 zin. But suddenly it is lively, and spicy. It has some racy aspects to it, and it shows enough additional depth to no longer be a joke. The fruit seems riper and more flavorful. This wine has undergone major transformation. To be sure, I still can't recommend it. Too many $$ for what it is, but it is at least serious zin now. 89 points.

Powerful, tannic, maybe a touch overripe—but quite impressive. I admit that the overripe, caramel notes had me wondering if this might not be a big zin—but not many zins show this much tannin. For all of its youth and power, it came together rather well in the glass after an hour or so open, acquiring some balance, and some less flamboyant flavors. This wine shows like a wine that will not really be ready to drink for at least four or five years---but it was fun to try it now. 90+ points.

It’s hard to think of what you can find in Chardonnay in California—or most other places actually—that is this good for $13. Gallo of Sonoma simply is one of the best values in California. You’ve seen my reviews on their cabs, for instance. Now, try this. For such an inexpensive wine, it is relatively plump, with a touch of toast, a nice body, reasonable depth, and sensual mouthfeel. It has some balancing acidity, and always seem elegant and flavorful. It is not a blockbuster, it doesn’t have the longest finish in the world, but it doesn’t seem thin or sharp, ever. In cheap Chardonnay, it’s hard to figure out what more you can ask for. 87 points.

At about $20, by California standards, this is about as cheap as drinkable Cal cab seems to get these days, so reduce expectations accordingly. Personally, I’d pass. Try some Gallo “Frei” for a couple of dollars more. It’s fruity, with cherry notes, but it finishes bitter. Ultimately, I found it unappealing. The initial tannic kick moderated with some air, and the oaky notes seemed reasonably in balance, but it was hard to get through the somewhat compact, bitter demeanor of the wine. In color, the red is pure, but it is easy to see through, too. Mediocre, even at that price. 82 points.

It’s funny how wineries develop stereotypes. According to some, BF makes only monster wines. Uh, no. This beauty is now coming along. It seemed to be in a state of suspended animation for a couple of years where it showed no flavor and nothing budged. It’s not unusual for BFs to need a little extra time. It is only now opening again, and it’s pretty nice. Elegant, pure and pristine, this beautiful balanced wine shows supple fruit, a fragrant bouquet and persistent flavors. It’s relatively bright and charming, too, if not quite as deep as other years. Served blind, I’d think a lot of people would call this Burgundy. 90 points.

One of the rarest wines in Vouvray, this beauty is everything you might want sweet Vouvray to be. The brightness makes the fruit almost dance across your tongue, and although it is not sparkling, its personality is effervescent. Sweeter on the delectable finish, it develops a sensual aspect, too. Charming, and easy, it is a pleasure to drink. 94 points.

A touch of vanilla from the oak is the first impression, but everything falls into place fast. Focused and penetrating, this wine integrates the sweetness, wood and fruit impeccably, and it washes over the palate, delivering waves of flavor. Medium bodied, this has plenty of depth when it matters. Ready to drink, this is well developed and balanced, but still fresh and pristine. Go for it. 93 points.

This seems to be pretty classic young Dow. Tannic, and powerful, intense and focused, it nonetheless is balanced by beautiful, delectable fruit. I like the ripe, plum-like bouquet, and the tannins were bright and ripe, rather than severely astringent. On the whole, this should be a beautifully balanced, long lived port in the Dow style. 93-95 points.

This is everything the Dow, above, is not. Depending on your tastes, that could be good or bad. While the Dow is structured and powerful, this is charming and flamboyant. The bouquet is marked by kirsch notes, and the palate tastes like Chambord. It is soft, but still well structured, and it has that black, inky color young port affects. It reminds me a little in flavor of the 1994 Rozes, although the Rozes was not so exotic. This is going to be more compact than the big ports, but also rather flamboyant and fun. When it loses its baby fat, I predict, too, it will show some structure, and the fruit is very concentrated. 90-92 points.

In the last few years, this producer has churned out a bunch of cheap, hybrid TBAs. They run about $20 per 375ml. The bad news is that they are never profound, and sometimes lean to mediocre. They are more often like a BA than TBA. The good news is that they deliver some value for the money. Just don’t expect, oh, Donnhoff quality TBA for the price. And there is even better news. Of all the vintages I have had from this producer of this wine in TBA, this, however, is plainly the best. It is about the most delectable Huxelrebe I’ve ever had. It is greatly helped by having some additional acid and liveliness, and has unusually fine balance. The fruit seems pure and pristine, especially for Huxelrebe, which always gives me that fried mango nuance, and clean and tasty. It’s a pleasure to drink. 90 points.

In a sense it hurts to like Dolce---the pricing is too aggressive. But the wine is pretty good, even if seems to sell for literally double what it should. This is typical Dolce, and holding rather well with age. It shows a creamy texture from some oak, and vanilla notes. Your first guess if served blind would have to be Sauternes. But it also shows some brightness in the back, and an elegant, lovely finish, chock full of flavor. It’s fun to drink, and has held rather nicely. I’m not sure I want to buy any more, but I’ll be happy to drink yours. 90 points.

Albala is a fine estate that makes harder to find sherries, but are well worth seeking out. The 1972 is delightful. Black and thick, as typical, this shows intensity and roasted caramel flavors. The wine’s balance is strikingly elegant, for PX sherry, but it is still opulent and flavorful enough to make you drool. Lush, but focused, this is simply a beauty. 95 points.

This was a disappointment to me. It seemed soft and inoffensive, lacking both depth and intensity. It wasn’t particularly sweet for a BA, and seemed more than a little simple. This was one of those wines that some folks call a Peggy Lee wine. “Is that all there is?” Pleasant, unexceptional, underachieving. 84 points.

This Jura is sweet, and the sweetness greatly moderates and minimizes the offputting sherry notes I tend to find objectionable on these wines. The core here tastes like syrupy apple cider, but it is laced with acidity and has a lovely finish nuanced by quince. The acidity makes it mouthwatering and mouthgripping. For all that, this is a bit of an oddball wine, and while it slowly grew on me, the odd flavor profile will not please everyone. This is a score in the context of what it is supposed to be. 92 points.

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Riesling Kabinett “Deidesheimer Paradiesgarten” (Basserman-Jordan)

It is simply impossible to believe that this is a Kabinett. You do a doubletake when you find out. This is so rich, so lush, and it has such a ripe, velvety mouthfeel, that I doubt anyone would guess less than Spatlese. Surely, it has to legally qualify as such. There is a little bit of acid dancing across the palate, but if you’re looking for a semi-dry, piercing Kabinett, this isn’t that style. In reality, it is a mislabeled spatlese, and fairly ripe for spatlese. Delectable. Seems to be drinking well now, and all it really lacks is just a touch of intensity. Scary concentration levels for a Kab! 90 points.

Selbach, I’m told, gave up this vineyard plot, which seems incomprehensible. Here’s a delight. Still off dry, and rich and opulent for spatlese, this is a beauty. It shows some maturity, the edges are rounded off—but the wine is still fresh, vibrant and awfully tasty. Its depth for spatlese at ten years old is rather impressive. 92 points.

Lively, but well integrated this wine showed just beautifully. It ended just a bit sweet, with some mouth gripping acidity, but nothing ever seemed even slightly out of place. This was a good sign for the future. As the wine warmed and aired, it just got better. It sure got sweeter, and if you have a sweet tooth, c’mon down. The fruit seemed to dissolve delightfully over your tastebuds. Some kerosene and lime came out, too, making the wine rather interesting. Very nice, especially in a tough year. 91 points.

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Brunello di Montalcino (La Magia)
This is not a profound Brunello, but it’s pretty tasty for relatively early consumption, and is drinking well now. Soft and flavorful, it avoids being too simple by having some focus and a little persistence. It shows off supple, ripe tannins and a relatively bright demeanor. This is an easygoing, charming Brunello, although it lacks the depth and complexity to be great wine. 88 points.

This is a yin and yang Barbera---on the one hand, it preserves the traditional brightness of the varietal. On the other, it seems very sexy, very new wave, and seems to show a dollop of oak, too. Sweet and sharp, round and bright, grapey and zesty, the contrasts in the wine seem to work well, and provide a tasty, really enjoyable wine. 89 points.

Those who wish to opine and fret about traditions and “somewhereness” should avert their eyes. Yeah, in many respects this is a poster boy for an internationally styled wine from Piemonte. Still. What’s not to like? The flavors are intense and concentrated in their attack, and the chocolately notes reminded me a bit of merlot. It is powerful, ripe and deep, but it acquires balance effortlessly and never seems overbearing. Its finish was literally mouth watering, helped by some subtle but existing acidity, and the velvety texture was a pleasure to touch. I can certainly take more of these wines. 94 points.

This is not a great Dolcetto, but it has everything in place to be a very nice one. Soft and grapey, with a nice velvety texture, it has a certain purity of flavor and easygoing charm that I appreciated. There is another level of Dolcetto around these days---things that have more depth and intensity, and don’t have to be drunk within in two years. But this sweet, charming wine fulfills a traditional purpose very well. Drink soon. 86 points.

This was a fascinating performance by a wine that ultimately seemed very sexy, and very new wave, but managed to preserve a lot of traditional nuances, too. Sure, there was a the roasted almond nuance, and some intensity, but on the attack and the nose, there was a sweet, raspberry note that was, well, different. Certainly, it was not something I’ve ever seen in Barolo before. Then, too, the wine was lush, and kept getting rounder with air. Its texture assumed a certain appealing sensuality. I’m not sure this wine would appeal to a traditionalist, but it sure was a crowd pleaser, well structured, and very flavorful. 93 points.

This white wine is a blend of Inzolia and Chardonnay from one of Sicily's best known wineries. The winery calls the wine redolent of apples and bananas, as well as white peaches and other fruits. Normally, I look at descriptions like that with some disdain, but they have a point. The apple is a hint, the banana--maybe not the right word, but close--even more subtle, and peach indicative of something perhaps a touch sweeter than this dry wine. Yet the wine projects a pleasing medley of flavors, in a core that is medium to medium-light bodied. It doesn't have the longest finish or most intensity, but it is a sprightly, sometimes lively, usually interesting, and always charming wine. 86 points.

1999 Cygnus (Tasca d'Almerita)
This is a premium blend of Nero d'Avola and Cabernet, the latter being 25% of the mix. Aged in new oak, this wine projects all Nero d'Avola on opening, a little rhubarb, some strawberry, and it seems compact and tight. Air changed this wine dramatically, though. It smoothed out, began to show some integration of components and charm, and the cabernet began to assert its flavors, too. The red berry notes that seemed a little off, suddenly flowered and became pristine and pleasing. The wine is not terribly deep, but drinks easily and is bright and refreshing. By Sicilian standards this is fairly pricey, selling for around $30+ in the USA. I suppose, though, by normal wine standards these days, that is a modest price. 88 points.

1997 Chianti Riserva Rancia (Fattoria di Felsina)
Whew. What's your vision of Chianti? A simple pizza wine? A smooth, bright, delectable wine? This has another dimension, namely, pure power. It's bright, but the main feature here is the tannin levels. You might think it was Barolo at first not Chianti on that basis. It finishes astringent, and the tannins never quite integrate through the course of the evening. However, the wine's demeanor did improve a lot with air, the fruit got sweeter, the tannins got tolerable. I'm not sure this has quite the right balance--but it's close. There's also fine depth and concentration here, and the wine is mouthfilling in all respects. It certainly needs another three to five years in the cellar though. Then, we'll see what's what. 89-91 ponts.

Jura (except dessert/sparkling)
1989 Jura Cuvée Speciale L’Etoile (Domaine de Montbourgeau)

Have you tasted wines from the Jura before? They are definitely an acquired taste, seemingly oxidized (though I’m told this wasn’t…), reeking of sherry notes, and a lot closer to a fino at times than a normal wine. They, and this particular wine, feature pretty good weight and depth, but those sherry and cider notes, with hints of cognac, take a lot of getting used to. I did see evidence that it cut the fat on some cheese courses rather well, but it was hard to have much fun drinking this. I’ve had these before, and the depth on this one is special if you like the style. I just can’t manage to, though. I rate it for what it is—some of you will no doubt think no rating is too low. Others will call the wine undrinkable. This is one example from a recent tasting I attended. 90 points.

Loire (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Savennières Clos de la Coulée Serrant (Joly)
This stunning wine is everything you would want a long-lived Loire to be. Focused. Precise. Powerful. Opulent, yet impeccably balanced. Mouth-gripping in its finish. The color is already more golden in hue, but the wine seems nothing but youthful, indeed aggressive and persistent. It is hard to forget the fine finish. 95 points.

This wine developed and changed constantly and dramatically in the glass, and every incarnation was pretty fine. To start with, it was thick and lush, deep and round, and I loved every ounce of the wine, as it rolled around my mouth. But that wasn’t all there was. In fact, with air, it became a completely different wine. It became brighter. You could begin to discern flavor, not just depth and texture—and by the way, the raspberry notes were pretty tasty. It also began to show some structure and ageworthy aspects, and at times brooded a bit. It was penetrating and focused and remained mouth gripping in all of its incarnations. The balance on this wine an depth of fruit is very fine, and it should be a big winner as it evolves. 92+ points.

This collaboration from three well known producers was a big hit, I thought, if a step short of great. It opened very mellow, and exceptionally charming. It did show some welcome focus for such a young wine, and it was chock full of flavor. I was pleased to see tannins pop out with air, giving the wine some intensity and structure that it needed to escape mediocrity. All this is missing is a little more grip—but I have to say, I loved every amazingly charming sip I had. 89 points.

The ’92 in this wine was one of the wines that made me look seriously at the Languedoc; and the ’94 was even better. This ’95 is a couple of steps off of those performances, but is still quite nice. What it lacks compared to the better vintages is depth. Other than that, you get an elegant, rather typical Languedoc, with some hints of game and persistent, bright flavors. If it is undistinguished compared to earlier vintages, it is still pleasing, balanced and charming. 88 points.