Ezine On Wine, July, August Tasting Notes, 2002

Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Gewurztraminer “Furstenstum Vielles Vignes” (Albert Mann)

Thick and very ripe, this has a finish of pure sugar, but acid on the back and the dense mid-palate eat a lot of it up. There is little gewurz varietal character, just a hint of lychee, in this very young wine. For all of its seeming depth, it also seems a bit compact and short on the finish. Time may let this expand, evolve and open, as well as allowing a little varietal character to emerge. At the moment, it is tightly wound, perhaps a bit too much, and not sufficiently flavorful. That would indicate to me a closed wine that needs some cellaring. 89-91 points.

1990 Riesling "Clos Windsbuhl" Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)
This has to be the classic iron fist in velvet glove story. The balance on this beautiful wine is simply impeccable. It never seems out of sorts anywhere, and as tends to happen with aging VTs, the sugar integrates, and becomes part of the whole rather than a dominant feature. Just pleasantly off dry, the main focus here is the lingering, spectacular, seemingly endless finish, and the complex medley of flavors, from peach to pear, maybe just a touch of marmelade on the end. This shows both opulence and precision, intensity, and lush flavor. A tour de force Riesling that has to remind me, when I opine that ZH is hands down the best pinot gris and gewurz maker in the world, that they ain't too bad with riesling either. Drinking perfectly now---can be held, but why? 97 points.

1991 Pinot Gris "Clos St Theobald -Rangen" (Schoffit)
This wine did not exactly benefit by being served in proximity to the Clos Windsbuhl, above. Even so, it seemed faded and in decline, showing some orange rind notes and little else, as it went flat, and basically bored me a lot. 80 points.

Argentina (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Syrah (Luca)
Inky black, this is nuanced by plums, and seems otherwise a bit flat in flavor. With air, the oak pops up, and while it does not obliterate the wine, it smooths it out, and rounds it off, and seems rather too prominent. On the finish, the wine remains a bit flat, most of the flavors being provided by the oak. It was hard to find the wine in here, and considering that this prestige Argentinian bottling is over $30, that is a bit of a problem. I did have some inkling that the wine was closed down, but not much inkling that it would ever be distinguished. 85+ points.

Australia (except dessert/sparkling)
1995 Shiraz “Centenary Hill” (Orlando)
How you react to this wine will depend on your tolerance for American oak. There’s quite a lot. Start with the nose, that reeks of vanilla and dill, then go to the jammy mid-palate, which seemed like pureed blueberries after being drenched in oak. I personally found some things here to like, but the oak treatment was way too much. Your mileage may differ. Call this a compromise score, as I wouldn’t want to drink it at all, but you may love it. 85 points.

Beautifully structured, this opens with fair intensity and grips your mouth immediately. Nice attack! But it is very well balanced, the tannins are very ripe, and the components mesh together quickly. There’s a fair dollop of oak, but again, it is fairly well integrated. The wine manages to always retain its focus, improve steadily in the glass, and also throw off oodles of fruit flavor. It seems very classy, for all its depth and flavor. 94 points.

Whereas its older sibling opens with intensity, this seems more of a fruit bomb at first. Very youthful, very grapey, it seems soft and charming, but a bit simple. Impressively, it evolves with air, coming closer to the 1996. It begins to show some supple tannin on the back end. I wonder where this is going, i.e., if it will shut down and present itself more like the ‘96? Ultimately, this becomes a very pleasing, very well balanced wine, but I give the 1996 the edge for intensity nonetheless. 92 points.

Weird wine. Very sweet, with raspberry liqueur and kirsch notes, this eccentric wine adds some brightness, and almost a Grenache-y feel. It otherwise has rather nice balance, believe it or not, but the eccentric flavor profile may win it many enemies—or friends, depending on your preference. This can only be another compromise score. Some will just hate it; others will adore it. It was a bit too eccentric for me. 86 points.

Incredibly sweet, to the point where folks wondered if there was some residual sugar dumped in, it is also drenched in new American oak. Dominated by flavors evolving from the oak, it was hard to focus on anything else about the wine. It seemed decent in every other respect, but you may not be able to tolerate this style, the over-the-top elements, and the oak. If you can, you may absolutely love it. 87 points.

This opens with a soft, but persistent core of sweet, lovely fruit. Focused rather than overbearing, sweet rather than opulent, it shows nice balance, and a certain classiness that is hard to describe—but I know it when I see it. One of the nicer Aussie Grenaches I’ve had lately. It could use a bit more intensity, and it is not seemingly powerfully structured, but it tastes great. 90 points.

Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)
1990 Chateau Haut Bailly
A pleasant, good value and good drinking wine…..This showed average depth, finish and intensity, some lead pencil and tobacco. It is drinking beautifully. If it excels in no area, it is still a fine example of how pleasing Bordeaux can be without reference to the high priced superstars. Just have a nice glass of wine to drink, not a trophy…. 88 points.

After some disappointing bottles of this, which I attribute more to storage than bottle variations, this sung out, loud, clear and beautifully. It opened with that gamey, bretty Montrose nose, yet that blew off fairly fast. It retained a hint of sauvage character throughout, but not a lot, nothing distracting. The amazing part of this wine was how ripe, opulent and deep the mid-palate was. Without a hint of being overbearing, it was still rich and powerful. Yet it remained balanced and velvety, not harsh and astringent. It seemed to drink well now, yet was pristine, fresh and young, showing no hint of real age. I loved the flavor nuances, too, some hints of game, some chocolate, some cassis. A superstar. 95 points.

1990 Chateau Tertre Roteboeuf
An amazing wine, and just a baby still. This opened with spectacular intensity and grip, but never astringent. The fruit asserted itself, and the wine showed notes of chocolate and cassis. Call it chocolate cherry! Youthful, pristine, tightly wound, and velvety in texture, I kept looking for a crack or a flaw in this wine. The finish was superb and intense. The fruit got sweeter and sweeter every time another layer was peeled away. All this needed was another five years in the cellar--or another couple of hours in a decanter. This is not at peak, by any means, and I expect it will take all of that five years to get it there. But you won't be committing a crime if you open one for scientific purposes now as long as you give it some air. 97+ points.

1990 Chateau Latour
The Tertre Roteboeuf above was everything I expected the Latour to be--and it wasn't. I was shocked at how poorly this pristine bottle showed. The last note I have on this is quite old, but the wine at the time was opulent and massive, and seemed to be one of the great wines of its generation. This is still very good Bordeaux, but if this is a representative bottle, it is not a masterpiece. It shows some of that classic Bordeaux nuance, lead pencil, cassis, cedar, prominent tertiary notes. Those who are fans of mature Bordeaux will love this. Uh, the problem is that this is a twelve-year old FIRST GROWTH in a great vintage. Should it really be this far along, stripped of its baby fat, showing as if it were 22 instead of 12? It was a welcome sign to see some tannins pop out with more time on the glass--there was something underneath. This was decanted, though, so it's not like it got no air. The nose showed some charred notes at first, but they blew off, so I'm not suspecting poor storage. The fruit has just fallen off this wine quickly, making it more an intellectual wine than the opulent baby it was. I've seen that before, with things like '85 Mouton, most of the '83 Left bankers. I didn't think I'd see this come around so fast though. It's not bad by any means. As I say, it's classic Latour in many respects. But some of the opulence and depth I expected was sadly missing--the difference between a fine wine and legend. 92 points.

Burgundy (except dessert/sparkling)
1978 Charmes-Chambertin Tastevinage (Domaine des Varoilles)

The nose at first gave me concern here. A bit too old. A bit too autumnal. The palate was more reassuring, showing good weight, and some flavor, if tending to strawberry or even tomato, rather than any bright, primary fruit. I wasn’t sure that, given the hints of oxidation, this was going to do anything good. To my surprise, the wine shook off its bouquet, and the palate rounded into form as well. It drank extremely well after about fifteen minutes, and actually held for the whole evening, although it was at its best for about an hour and a half. Surprisingly rich and deep, for its age, once it threw off the wet leaves notes, it tasted like Burgundy again, mature, but a long way from dead. I suppose wines like this get credit for exceeding expectations, but I wound up enjoying it quite a bit at times. 88 points.

Spicy and sharp on opening, it airs out and warms up well. Or, as the saying goes, it cleans up nice! The lees notes dominate at first, but the wine shows impeccable balance, and a smooth focused demeanor with pristine, fresh fruit flavors. The finish turned a bit buttery, a texture I appreciated. Some though this wasn’t even ready. I would disagree, and say this is a great time to drink it, though there is no hurry. 91 points.

1991 Vosne-Romanée "Aux Brulées" (Meo-Camuzet)
When '91 rouges fail, this is what they seem like to me, and it's why I can't quite warm up to this vintage despite successes. It's everything I don't want in red Burgundy. Hard, austere and charmless, this wine shows excellent depth, but is overwhelmed by tannins and astringency. There's little flavor, perhaps a bell pepper hint--stems? The nose is gamey and powerful, but not really inviting. Some speculated--shall we say hoped--that with extended cellaring this wine would come around and smooth out. I personally think it's balance is seriously in question, but I guess we'll see. Give it about four years. If the tannins are still dominating the fruit then, it's all over. If they're not, it will be interesting to see if there is any vibrant fruit left. The best bet with this might be to drink now, air it out before drinking. I just don't trust the balance on this wine at all. 85 points.

1996 Nuits St. Georges "Pruliers" (Chicotot Georges)
I've never heard of this producer, and nothing here made me want to hear again. A bit sour, dominated by acid, this sports a nice raspberry nose, and nothing else. If I have some doubt as to the balance of the Meo-Camuzet, above, I have no doubt as to this. Its balance is simply off, and I don't see it ever becoming a pleasing wine. At the moment it was pretty close to undrinkable, though cellaring will no doubt effect some improvement. 79 points.

In one evening I had perhaps three wines that were so sweet they had folks wondering if there was residual sugar. This was one of them. Soft and supple, and very grapey, this young wine only hints at structure, which just a touch of tannin popping out at the back. I was pleased to see it integrate some with air, but this may always be a touch too flamboyant for some, and it isn’t going to remind most of a Rhone-style syrah. With wines this flamboyant, one can only repeat that your mileage may vary significantly if you like the nuances that make me call it flamboyant. My mileage said 88 points.

The good news is that this cab has held very well, and seems to have reasonable depth and lushness, although it lacks intensity. It is a bit too soft, a bit too sweet. I have to say, I rather enjoyed the ripe, very sweet, strawberry-tinged fruit, but at the same time, I’m not sure this is exactly what I want in a cabernet. This will be a general crowd pleaser as it is easygoing and friendly, but it lacks any gravitas, focus or intensity, unlike, say, the 1991 Beringer Reserve. It still seems fresh—drink now, though, because I don’t sense much in the way of supporting tannins. In a way, this is a simple quaffer. In a way, it is a lot of fun. 87 points.

This wine sent some folks bonkers as being an incredible value. It’s pleasant, has some virtues and was about $22, which is about right, and perhaps too expensive. Medium weight at best, the wine sports tannins, a bit of acid and seems a bit tight. The problem is that there does not seem to be enough supporting fruit, little flavor. It is not terribly flattering at the moment. While some of the harsher elements will moderate with cellaring for a year or two, I suspect that there is not enough depth of fruit here to matter, as the wine’s balance has to be called into question. Addendum: This was actually a bit better with a few hours of air, so I would up the rating marginally to 86 points and say it needs a year or so of cellaring. It is still a pleasant wine, and little more, but in context of the vintage at it's price point it is not bad. I should note, however, that I had also frozen it for a few days, which tends to reduce acidity, one of the things causing some harshness. 86 points.

This early Maiden is a bit disappointing at this juncture. After not liking the over-the-top 1997, I ironically have to knock this one instead as rather underwhelming. On opening it seems relatively ripe and opulent at first, but the wine fades badly and quickly. It lacks concentration, as it thins out too fast in the mid-palate. I enjoyed the flavor nuances, a tinge of chocolate. But this wine simply lacked too much, little finish, little depth, little of distinction. Pleasant enough for a $15 to $20 wine. Divorcing it from its price and lineage, I can give it a decent grade. However, a good value it is not. At current pricing it is probably one of the worst values around, actually. 86 points.

The nose on this was just awesome, everything a cab nose should be, cassis and cedar, focus and precision. Take this wine to a wine class and use it to demonstrate what classic cab is like. The palate, unfortunately, was not as nice. The flavor followed through, but the wine has thinned and was lacking in various ways in distinction, depth and finish. I have to give this some nod just for the nose, but you may not find drinking it to be as much fun as smelling it. 86 points.

This “regular” Arrowood bottling is just delicious. If it is a touch straightforward, it is also ripe and opulent, with a jammy mid-palate and more concentration than the majority of wines at this level have. For all of its sweet, lush style, it also shows some brightness and balance. It simply drinks beautifully. This is ready to drink in my view, and it is at peak, although there is no evidence of it being even close to declining. But why waste all this lovely fruit? Crack it open. Ok, perhaps it is a bit simple, a bit soft. But it is delectable. 89 points.

Now, here’s an example of a “regular”cabernet that takes a different tack than the Arrowood, above. For one thing, it runs close to $70. For a second, it is a wine of utterly no distinction of class. There is little here but oak, the fruit is thin and masked. Selling this wine as anything other than a $15 mediocrity is wrong. Selling it for over $60 and giving it some pretension of being special is simply outrageous, and a fine example of the delusions of grandeur, the “why pay less” attitude prevalent in too many wineries today, especially in California. Basically, Caymus took a regular cab that used to sell for under $20 and just jacked up the price. Did the wine get any better? Uh, no. This is simply a disgrace. It is not very good wine, even at $20. As super premium wine, it’s a disgrace. I’m probably overrating it, but I don’t want the angst over price to influence me too much. This was served blind, by the way, and the predominant guess was mediocre, overoaked Aussie shiraz, which speaks for itself. It was universally trashed, and trounced by wines like the Cartoixa, the Nero d’Avola and Arrowood on this page, all under $30, and all trying hard. 84 points.

This small production wine—only 125 cases—whets the appetite of the obsessed. Not too expensive (under $35), small production and from 80 year old vines. What could be better? Well, the wine. The initial attack isn’t bad. The mid-palate is ok. There is some indication of good depth and fruit. But the finish on the wine is extremely off-putting, bitter, a bit sour, perhaps indicative of some volatile acidity, and very unpleasant. I could not help but wonder if this bottle was representative, it seemed so odd, yet there was no indication of damage. It was hard to drink this, and no one really wanted to do so. It improved slightly with air, but not by nearly enough. Despite many virtues, the final point to be made is only that it was ultimately unpleasant. I will plan to retaste one soon, but this gets 75 points.

The following wines, separated by horizontal lines, were part of a big, peer group blind tasting devoted mostly to the fruit from Garys' Vineyard and pinot noir. There were a few ringers...

2001 Pinot Noir “Garys' Vineyard” (Loring Wine Company)

This was a barrel sample. It was a seductive raspberry fruit bomb, bright at first and then laced with cherries. Long aeration helped it moderate the acid. With more air, it showed a touch of darker cherries and became brighter. I’m not sure I like this as well as the 2000—but this is only a barrel sample—and I’m not sure I don’t. I will be interested to see it’s evolution. 90-92 points.

2000 Pinot Noir “Garys' Vineyard” (Loring Wine Company)

This is my second note on this, but the first since near release. In a different setting without long decanting now, this showed beautifully, but a bit more restrained, perhaps a sign that it is not far from shutting down. There was a killer, red berry nose. On the palate, it had acquired more elegance, and supple tannins. It showed impeccable balance, constantly threw off red berry flavors, and I just loved that velvety texture. Air simply revealed its structure—a mere fruit bomb this is not. Very nice. 90-92 points.

1999 Pinot Noir “Garys' Vineyard” (Siduri)

Thick, rich and opulent, this lovely pinot is delicious. Laced with cherries, the deep mid-palate evolved nicely while I had it. It also showed some complexity, a touch of earth. Add a very sexy, velvety texture to the depth of the mid-palate and the beautiful flavor, and this was a serious Wine of the Event candidate. 92-94 points.

2000 Pinot Noir “Garys' Vineyard” (Candela)

To me, this was a touch too simple, a bit candied on the finish, a bit too bright around the edges, and without the depth or concentration to match its components. It might be that another two years of cellaring will help it come into pleasing balance, but I am not sure this has enough depth of fruit to make that endeavor worthwhile. 85-87 points.

2000 Pinot Noir “Reed and Reynolds Vineyard” (Sineann)

There were moments I really liked this Oregon ringer, and moments when I didn’t like it at all. The nose was sort of stinky, almost a touch of sulphur. It was not as lushly textured as some of the wines here, but showed reasonably good depth and balance. Cherry dominated fruit gradually popped out, but was rather restrained and reticent. I think this has a chance for exceeding my score, but at the moment, 86-88 points.

1999 Syrah “Garys' Vineyard” (Arcadian)

I loved this syrah, even if it humiliated me and everyone else by not being spotted as the wildest ringer in this tasting, even if it was from Garys' Vineyard, too. But it had the red berry notes, and in fact seemed more Grenache-y than syrah-y. It was chock full of fruit, yet impeccably balanced and charming. The long finish was the cherry on top. 91-93 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Pisoni" (Siduri)
Beautiful black cherry fruit mingled with touches of oak and a big hit of acid in the back, and mostly worked well. This is a very focused pinot that emphasizes precision and structure, but is hardly short of fruit. Very nice. 90-92 points.

2000 Pinot Noir “Russian River” (Merry Edwards) QPR Winner

This pinot runs about $30-ish and is simply a hedonistic stunner. Better pinot value should be hard to find…! It opens with a powerfully fruity nose, mostly cherries, that eventually becomes very flavorful on the palate, perhaps finishing with a touch of black cherry or plum. The wine has fine depth and a sexy texture, and about the worst thing you could say about it is that it is drinking well now, and might not be a big cellar candidate. This is pure fun, though, and hard to argue with in too many respects. 91-93 points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Testarossa)

This is a pleasant, but fairly simple pinot, straightforward and sweet, but light and not terribly distinguished. I suspect you can have some fun with this wine at a dinner table, but it was not what I would call really impressive in any element. 86-88 points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Cinnabar)

Elegant and flavorful, this is a touch simple, but also well balanced and often charming, with plump, ripe fruit in the mid-palate. The fruit flattened out a bit too much for my taste with air, but the whole was pretty pleasing. 86-88 points.

1999 Pinot Noir “Olivet Lane” (Merry Edwards)

This is more prestigious than the Russian River bottling above, but I did not like it any better, and actually not as well. Not to say it’s bad….The fruit is mostly strawberry, i.e., very sweet and very ripe. The depth and other components are good, but the Russian River seemed to me to be even more hedonistic. Perhaps cellaring will change that equation, but I did not sense any great structural revelation here, either. 90-92 points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Miner)

Lovely, and a serious Wine Of The Night candidate. This shows everything, from sweet cherry fruit, to a soft, supple texture, to layers underneath that evolve with air. There is balance, depth, intensity. The wine shows a certain grip as it evolves, something a lot of the wines here lacked as their principal failing. Structured and hedonistic at the same time, a beauty, from a winery I did not know before. 92-94 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Capiaux)

Elegant and bright, charming at every juncture, this is medium bodied at best, and a touch tart on the finish, but tasty and sunny. I suspect a year of cellaring will help this a lot, although I’m not sure it has the depth to be really distinguished. 88-90 points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Savannah-Chanelle)

Black cherry fruit, perhaps a touch of plum, and a note of earth give this some welcome complexity. This has enough depth, but does not look to be a heavy monster. Its brightest spot is a beautiful, lingering finish with a medley of flavors you could predict from the fragrant bouquet. A Wine of the Night candidate. 92-94 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Miner)

If the 1999 Garys’ from Miner sang beautiful songs, this seemed a little off key. There are the same pleasant, red berry notes, but the intensity, the grip and depth is missing, and the fruit flattens with air. Nice, but unexceptional. 85-87 points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Pessagno)

This was a little tough to evaluate, because unlike almost every other wine here, it showed very tannic. The fruit seemed flat, or at least flattened by the tannins, and while it softened a bit in the glass, it never evolved into anything terribly interesting. This is a wine you have to cellar---and hope there will be enough fruit left to survive the tannic burst. 85-87 points.

1996 Pinot Noir “Sonoma Coast” (Kistler)

Very intense, and tightly wound, this ringer, one of my favorite vintages of Kistler Sonoma. It showed well tonight, displaying a very focused core of fruit, a beautiful, supple, velvety texture, and delicious black cherry notes. It seemed a bit spicy, and was rather more intense than most of the wines in this group. We will see if they show as well as this does five years from now, as this is still in the prime of life, ripe and delicious. 92-94 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Tantara)

I wasn’t quite sure where this wine was going. It opens with a bit of mint, good focus and beautiful cherry fruit. Then what? Then, the components start struggling with each other, and the wine becomes a bit disjointed. In a way, for a young wine, that’s almost what you might want to see, some palpable evidence of structure and other components besides fruit. I have a good feeling, but not a certainty, about this wine. 89-91 points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Lorca)

Perhaps the only other wine than the Pessagno that showed powerful tannins, this went it one step more, as the tannins were a bit astringent. There was also a nice hit of acid. Somewhere in there, there seemed to be decent fruit, too. This is another wine that is hard to evaluate at the moment, and with the time I had. The winemaker here is clearly going for something other than the fruit bomb model; whether it succeeds is another question. I think it will, and it is a step up on the Pessagno. 89-91 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Testarossa)

Silky smooth, a bit too acidic for me, and a bit restrained in flavor, this had some good things going for it—elegance, charm, accessibility—but I would have liked a touch more depth and intensity. Those who like wines with finesse may find a lot here to like. I suspect this needs a year or two in the cellar, and then relatively early consumption. 87-89 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Clos Pepe” (Loring Wine Company)

This is my second note on this, but the first had the benefit of long decanting. Served blind this time, the wine did not do much better than my first evaluation. The brightness seems to be a bit on the high side of the equation, and the fruit seems a bit more subtle than the Loring from Garys’ in flavor. Not that there isn’t any—this is only relative. The wine has lovely balance and charm, and while it is not as lush and deep as the Garys’, it is more elegant at the moment. The Loring Wine Company notes on this claim that this is the bigger wine of the two, and frankly I just don’t get that at all. I just don't see the same lushness and overt flavor that the 2000 Garys' throws off. 87-89 points.

1998 Pinot Noir Reserve (Martinelli)

After a run of very similar pinots, most marked with cherry notes, and the occasional black cherry, this wine seems to be marked with coffee and toffee. Served blind, it is obviously radically different. It sports one of the best finishes in the group, but seems less pinot-ish than the Garys’ Syrah, above. On the whole: drinks well. But I’m not surprised to find it is Martinelli’s often heavy hand with pinot. 88-90 points.

2000 Pinot Noir (Carriere)

Pleasing, but without much overt flavors, this shows nice balance, but seems average and ordinary. It is bright, supple, and a bit flat. Oh, it drinks well enough, but I see nothing here of any great distinction. It is middle-of-the-road all the way, and a little shy on fruit. 84-86 points.

1995 Pinot Noir (Beaux Freres)
This actually reminded me of the Carriere, above, not surprising perhaps, since they are both Oregon. This light vintage produced a BF that was light but tasty for a few years. This bottle seems faded and fading, a bit flat, if bright and supple. It still drinks OK, but nothing more. 83-85 points.

1986 Pinot Noir "Rochioli Vineyard" (Williams-Selyem)
For many years, this seemed to me to be THE benchmark USA pinot noir, holding its own very well with age. The time may have come, though. Time and tide waits for no man, nor wine. This still has something left, but needs drinking. Soft and gentle, its harmony will still appeal to those who like it on the older side. It has subtle strawberry notes, a sign of age, that are tasty but not particularly vibrant. The wine seems a bit flat and forlorn compared to its glory days. It's ok. But it doesn't make me want to run home and tell everyone what a great night I had drinking it any more. 85 points.

1995 Pinot Noir "Cuvée Catherine" (Kistler)
Smooth, and refined, this fine pinot has a nose of oriental spice and black cherries, and is dominated by black cherry notes on the palate. For those who had this wine young, let me say that it has thinned quite a bit, and acquired some welcome elegance. There are still some astringent notes on the back end, and the wine is by no means finished developing--although I do question whether its mid-palate is sufficiently deep to let it age for a long period more. As tight as it seemed, I think this can drink well now if you give it some air, and it should hit peak in a year, maybe two. I think it can be kept safely to 2007 at least. I think it will reach a point in the near future where the balance changes from smooth, pristine fruit, to a wine that shows some maturity, whether you think that is welcome or not. This is a very classy pinot that falls just a step short of stunning. 92 points.

1997 Cabernet (Harlan Estate)
What's going on at Harlan??? The 1997 Maiden was drenched in new American oak. (If it wasn't new American oak, it was the oddest French oak I've ever had...!) The Harlan has too much, too. For something now selling for $250 a bottle, would French oak--or good oak-- be too much to ask? After the oak-induced mint and vanilla, the wine seemed charming but a bit simple, flavorful, but unstructured. Hold on to your seat though. With air, the oak did a pretty fair job of integrating. There was still too much of that overt mint (some might say dill, licorice, etc) to make me happy, but it no longer dominated the wine. Better yet, the wine started unpeeling itself, showing layers of fruit and tannins that I didn't suspect were there. If you tasted this quickly in a big hit-and-run tasting, you would've missed everything that was fine about it. By the time this was done exploding in the glass, I wanted more, but there wasn't any! Despite some jagged edges and quibbles, you'd have to say this was pretty impressive, and what it most needs is five years of cellaring--maybe ten. NB: Not more than one week later I had this again and it seemed like a different wine: hard, tannic, with oak well integrated. What's happening? Probably a difference in storage somewhere. 94+ points for version 1; 97+ for version 2.

1997 Chardonnay "Hudson" (Marcassin)
For all of the stereotypes, Marcassin, especially as the years have gone by, can indeed be elegant and impeccably balanced. Here's proof. This alternates between buttery and racy. The steely finish is is focused and precise, and rather long. It is never heavy, but the mid-palate always feels solid. California does not always put its best foot forward with chardonnay, but Marcassin is the winery I'd anoint as the leader of the pack these days. 93 points.

This vintage in California seems to produce either massive, almost port-like wines, or diluted ones. The right balance seems to have been hard to achieve, and I suspect a lot of producers overcompensated to avoid the dilution that appears in many of the wines. Forman seems to get it just right here. Oh, I would like a bit more intensity and depth. But the wine is impeccably balanced, has charm and finesse, and seems bright, sleek and cool. It is also redolent of classic cab flavor nuances. This falls a step short of being profound wine, but it certainly utterly charming and a pleasure to drink. It is drinking fairly well now. 90 points.

A lovely early Seavey. Some tannins are here, for some welcome intensity. The wine is bright and charming, elegant and laced with flavor, trademark cassis, touches of raspberry. It is well structured, medium bodied, and sports a nice finish. With air, at age ten, the weight increases in the glass. This is not the biggest Seavey ever, but is certainly a charmer, with impeccable balance and flavor to spare. 92 points.

Pleasant, and not entirely without charm, this wine nonetheless sports very little fruit, a rapidly thinning mid-palate and shows little flavor or texture. The one noticeable element is ripe, tingly tannins. The rather boring aspect of this wine in this vintage is a significant disappointment for the vintage. It was my understanding that they were replanting the vineyard in this era and had some known problems. 84 points.

This opened with some vegetal notes on the nose, which didn’t follow through to the palate. They mostly blew off though. What was left was often a lovely wine, with nice intensity, brightness and focus. The touch of red berry fruit in the middle was appealing, and while the wine was of only medium body, it was never hollow, always charming. The vegetal bouquet was a little troubling, even though it mostly blew off, and stops me from really enthusing about this wine, which was otherwise remarkably elegant, and a credit to its vintage. 92 points.

This opens with fruit, a velvety texture, a jammy core. Then, comes flavor—pure cassis, absolutely delicious. But that’s not all this wine has. The structure becomes evident with air, substantial tannins pop out, too. I suspect this wine, and a lot of top 1997s, are going to close, and close hard. With air, this wine gave evidence that it will be a beauty, but it was a bit hard to evaluate at the moment. 94+ points.

Tough and tight, this shows focus and classic cab flavor nuances. It is also hard and shut tight, and while the fruit around the edges seems superb, there is also enough tannin to prevent you from paying much attention. This probably should not be sampled until 2006 or 2007 at this point. There is some issue as to the wine’s balance, and I am not sure it will ever be quite as charming as some other Seaveys. 89-91 points.

Flavorful, with a open, expansive fruit and soft tannins, this seems solid in the mid-palate, well balanced, focused, intense, and not surprisingly, very tight. I do not sense that this is going to be a monumental cab, but I think that when it comes around, probably around 2008, it will be a flavorful charmer. 90-92 points.

Big, rich, succulent and mouthfilling, this wine had all the fruit you could want, piercing raspberry notes, and pure opulence. Yet, it was not just a fruit bomb. There is structure here, even a touch of mouth-drying tannins on the finish, and the promise of long life. The wine seems youthful, fresh and pristine. It was hard not to like, as it seemed to be a friendly puppy dog slobbering all over—but don’t forget its well structured core, too. 95 points.

Sweet, almost candied on the finish, this seems almost like drinking pure cassis at first. It is not necessarily a compliment. With air, the wine does pull together, and become more like wine than a liqueur. I actually came to enjoy it, although it seemed a bit eccentric for as long as I had it. One thing I can say is that at age 9, it seems like it is a baby. Maybe another five years will give it some balance and maturity. 88+ points.

Served blind next to a 1994 Chateau Montelena, this won a lot of friends. True, the Montelena needs another decade of cellaring, while this was perfect now. Still, for a modestly priced “drink on release” cab, this has held beautifully. Sweet, but bright and elegant, it is beautifully balanced, and provides lots of flavor and chocolate notes—it definitely has a bit of a merlot feel. The American oak notes (they blend French and American) that were evident on release have fully integrated, and the wine seems not nearly so obvious. This may not have the depth of the biggest boys, but it is charming at a very nice price (under $20 then, a touch over now), 90 points.

Focused, intense and powerful, this big bruiser is one of the most backward ‘94s I’ve had of late, actually, probably the most backward. While many of the others seem to be coming around, this merely screams “Cellar me, cellar me!” There’s a hit of acid up front that integrates well with air, but the tannins always remain powerful. With more air, there were hints, but only just, of some integration and evolution of fruit. Perhaps this would’ve been approachable with some two or three hours of decanting. There is plenty of fruit here, and this gives every sign of being a classic Montelena, especially if the tannins integrate well. 94+ points.

Big and powerful, this seems spicy on opening, but almost all features are blown away by the astringent, up front tannins. There is blue fruit that might be tasty hiding in there someplace, and a certain rose petal note on the bouquet. I think this wine will evolve fairly well, but with this degree of tannin being shown, there are always some question marks. 90+ points.

Dessert/Sparkling
2001 Riesling Eiswein “Zeltinger Himmelreich” (Selbach-Oster)

To start with, there was some fabulous eisweins present at this event. This was not the best. But it is also about half the price, say about $550 for a case of 375mls. Thick and ripe, not showing much nose, the was very sweet on the finish, as these wines tended to show this year. There was no eiswein restraint present. I liked the elegance and flavor, the concentration and finish. It may not have been the best eiswein present, but it was pretty impressive. 92-95 points.

First, the Mosel weighed in, now the Rheingau; next, the Rheinhessen. This is a big step up from the Selbach-Oster. The price, at roughly $1050 a case for twelve 375s, in this case is indicative of a quality differential. Incredibly ripe, rich and round, it seems like burnished, polished apricots. Beautifully structured as well. 97-100 points.

Rather dark in flavor, almost with a touch of plum, this monumental eiswein is simply fabulous. Great depth, amazing, almost impossible, mid-palate concentration, and an intense demeanor featuring enough acid on the back for some zest, make it nearly perfect. Maybe it will be. Sadly, it is about $1100 for a case of 375s. Sob. Anyone wishing to send Christmas gifts…..Of the three eisweins on this page, this was my favorite. 97-100 points.

This Sauterne-styled wine has held beautifully. If it no longer seems quite as intense and powerful as it did when young, it is still fresh, pure, pristine, and delicious. The sugar is still there, though more modest, and the wine simply drinks well. Charming, elegant and tasty, it has by no means thinned to the point where it seems uninteresting or hollow. 90 points.

2000 “Postre” Sauvignon Blanc Late Harvest “La Ribera Vineyard” (Husch)

Sweet and charming, with light mango and apricot notes, this seems a better choice for an aperitif than a dessert wine. I will say that with air it put on weight and showed more sweetness, and became pleasingly thicker. I started liking it. I began liking it much more. I’m not sure how much more I’ll like it in two years, when, I think, some cellaring will improve it. 89+ points

The numbers on this Riesling—28% residual sugar!—belie how it shows. It seems balanced and lovely, all peaches and apricots. It doesn’t seem terribly thick or overly sweet. But what about those numbers? This is a wine in total slumber. The acid balance is excellent, but I suspect that with age and cellaring this will expand, put on weight and blossom into a thick, unctuous wine. The fact that it has not done so at this point, at age 5, could mean a heckuva wait for a California dessert wine. 2007 might see better things. 92+ points.

Young, vibrant, fresh and pristine, this sexy Sauternes shows the vanilla notes of oak up front, but nice acid in the back, together with botrytis everywhere. This is sweet and supple, creamy and delicious. At this point, it seems to drink well, and appears fully open, but it is so youthful and primary that it I think it will still improve with cellaring. 92 points.

Gone to amber…..yet as it sits in the glass the very sweet, succulent fruit seems relatively fresh, losing most of the touch of apple cider notes that older Navarro late harvest wines can get. For all of its sweetness, this has lost some of its thickness, and seems to have a certain elegance and charm, not just pure sugar. It was particularly delectable on the finish—how could your mouth not water? This, by the way, did not have close to as much residual sugar as the 1997, above, yet it seemed three times sweeter, supporting my theory that some cellaring will bring the 1997 to a more unctuous and sweeter state. 90 points.

Very sweet and sugary on the finish, it nonetheless seemed remarkably focused and pure in the mid-palate. The deep, concentrated fruit is simply glorious, and you wonder if this can really be pinot gris. Notes of peach alternate with just a touch of mango and the wine throws off constant waves of flavor. I wonder if a finish could be any longer and more flavorful than this one? This is just a tour de force. My only question is that I'd like to see if it improves with cellaring--I think it will. 98+ points.

1998 Riesling Eiswein "Mussbacher Esselshaut" (Muller-Catoir)
Gentle and subtle, I cannot say this stood out in the pack. It also was matched next to the blockbuster ZH Heimbourg, above. This was charming and elegant, and there was just enough acidity on the finish to make your tongue acquire that welcome tingle as the fruit danced along your mouth. Very nice, but a little underwhelming. 90 points.

1970 Port "Quinta das Carvalhas" (Royal Oporto)
Not decanted. This took a few minutes to come to life, and I was pleased to see that supple tannins popped out. At this point in its life it is more of a tawny than a red, but I enjoyed what was left of the nutty flavors. Age has robbed it of some flavor and vitality, and thinned it out too much. Still, it has a few good notes to it in its dotage. Just don't rush out to buy any! 82 points.

NV Sherry PX (Cardenal Cisternos)
So. Take about a pound of motor oil and slam it into your mouth. Only it isn't motor oil. It's rather delicious fruit, laden with raisiny notes, some nutty nuances and a glorious caramel and toffee finish. I was told this was hand imported and not sold in the USA. Too bad. You will have to live vicariously. 94 points.

1999 Condrieu "Essence d'Automne" (Cuilleron)
With over 30% residual sugar, this is surely the sweetest viognier I've ever had. The color is amber, a suggestion of a rapidly aging wine. Given the amount of sugar versus fruit, there's a good chance this will turn into one of those orange rind wines where all you have left is sugar. Yeah, it's a little unbalanced. But that's awhile from now. Today, this is glorious, pure hedonism, tinged with a fascinating variety of citrus and tropical notes, mangoes, oranges and peaches. It reminded me a bit of a Huxelrebe Beerneauslese. It's simply beautiful and incredibly sexy. Take my advice, drink this young for maximum enjoyment. 95 points.

Rich and focused, but opulent and balanced, this wine just is about all you want from Sauternes. Very sweet for Sauternes, it comes together perfectly with air and shows class, finesse and balance, while never surrendering its sweetness, fruit or flavor. The finish is lingeringly and decadently sweet. Classy and distinctive, very fine. 95 points.

This opens with just touches of Scheurebe cat pee notes, some mild sweetness and some elegance and charm. It doesn’t take much air, though, for the scheu trademarks to come bursting through. For me, that’s a bad thing, but tastes differ. Objectively speaking, the wine shows elegance and charm, and seems fresh, but is not particularly unctuous nor sturdy enough to be a real dessert wine at this juncture. If it were not Scheu, it would be pleasing to drink by itself. ;) 88 points.

Charming. There is a touch of some acid in the back, a long and delectable finish, and overall elegance. Now, there are some oddities. It has a bit of a Semillon feel. I wonder if it got some oak, and that is the nuance I’m picking up. It doesn’t seem terribly sweet, even though the RS is listed at over 15%. I think I would just as soon drink this as an aperitif. Whatever, the end result is pretty nice, and the wine is sunny, and a crowd pleaser. 89 points.

This seemed like a cheap, not terribly impressive Monbazillac blind, and that guess was not far off. Mostly if not all Semillon, this showed thin, light, and a bit too dominated by oak. It moelleux, but it was hard to find much sweetness. At best, this would be a pleasant aperitif, but it is hard to find much of interest here. 82 points.

Zoweee. I suspect a lot of 2001s are going to close up and have a period when they will show an aggressive acid attack. This one may already be there. It grips your mouth and leaves you saying terms of art like “Zowee.” Yet, it manages to integrate well, and shows balance with its intensity. It is mouth drying a bit, but also more lime than lemons, and shows a lot of fruit underneath. This is a sugar eater at the moment, but the experience of drinking it was fun, and sort of like a roller coaster—you never knew what would happen next. 90+ points.

The following 2001 releases were all at a trade tasting of mostly 2001 German releases from the Terry Theise catalog. Considering how manic these things are, plus how young the wines were, particularly wide point ranges are used.

Some wondered whether this estate, which has seen owner Hans Leo turn over the reins to Monchoff’s Robert Eymal, would suffer. Not this year. If you needed a non-verbal and rather dramatic answer, here it is. In a room filled with fabulous spatleses from producers great, up and coming and small, this was my favorite, and probably the best young spatlese I have ever tasted. Full bodied and off dry seemingly, this legally qualifies as an Auslese and would crumple most producers’ Auslesen. It is remarkably flavorful and deep, and powerfully structured. There seemed to some peach nuances, so fresh that it was startling, as if just picked. You can sense the components beginning a war with each other, the acid being muted at first due the amazing depth of fruit, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see this close down not long from now. Eymal says this is a wine that can go 30 years. I will say there is no doubt it will be in fine form if well stored for 15, effortlessly. After that, we’ll see what’s what. I’m betting on this being at the upper end of this point range. A simply stunning spatlese. Bad news: this was a wine that, if you shopped well, was often available for $15 and rarely for more than $18. Current pricing looks like it will wind up around $20 at the stores that buy early, and perhaps more like $22 elsewhere. Case discounts may bring that down, but shop early and carefully. Considering the quality, this year at least it is still a QPR Winner. 94-97 points.

While the Urz Wurz shows power, the Erd Trepp shows more charm. Lively, racy and refreshing, the wine is nonetheless a mouthful, and should drink well a bit younger and I suspect hold for a shorter time than the Urz Wurz. Impeccably balanced, showing less perceptible sugar than it has, I believe this wine will come to define elegance, and will show more persistence than seems apparent at first. I’m not as convinced that this will wind up at the upper end of this point range, but no one will regret having it in their cellars. I think there will be a period early on when it may drink better than the more powerful Urz Wurz. 92-95 points.

The Urz Wurz spatlese, legally and for all other purposes, is effectively an Auslese. So it is not surprising that there is not huge jump from Spatlese to Auslese here. At this point in time, I think you'd have to be paying attention closely to pick out which is which blind. The differences are subtle. It shows a touch sweeter, a touch riper, maybe a touch more intense--all things that could be affected at a big trade tasting by just how long the bottles were open, how cold, etc. The good news is that the price hike is incremental, too, about $3.50 per bottle more, I suspect. That lets you try both, and decide for yourself how they will evolve and which is better. This is not quite as stunning in context as the Spatlese because the Spatlese busts its category. That is, the Spat is a better compared to other spatleses than the Auslese is compared to other Ausleses, but viewed as “just wine,” they are of roughly equal quality, and I liked them each about equally well. Stores that bought early should offer this around $315 or so per case, not including any applicable case discounts. 94-97 points.

The Auslese is so good that again, the progression up the scale is marginal, not dramatic. The price progression is marginal, too, as this one star will likely sell for about $30-$33 per bottle. I thought this showed a bit more finesse and class than the regular Auslese, but was otherwise fairly similar. Its depth is hidden at the moment by the momentarily open fruit, but that may not continue. 94-97 points.

Another stunner. Showing sweeter, this remarkably ripe Auslese has a fantastic finish. The fruit is so forward that it doesn’t seem any deeper than the regular at first, but that’s an illusion. The finish is sugary sweet, but this powerfully structured wine will have no problem integrating the components beautifully. Roughly $450 a case. 95-98 points.

Sweet on the mid-palate, this at first shows more subtly than the Urz Wurz ** and considerably lighter. It does seem to sport a fine finish, excellent focus and lots of charm. Then, as I expended time to talking to the winemaker, I went back to the wine, and it had just exploded in the glass, showing more depth than I thought it had. Continuing the trend with the Spatleses from each of these vineyards, I think that this is likely not to hold quite as long as the Urz Wurz, and to drink better younger, but the Urz Wurz will overtake it in time. Needless to say, everything’s relative. Both wines are masterpieces. Roughly $450 a case. 95-98 points.

A bit lemony to start, this sports a nice body, and nice mid-palate. If I weren’t still mentally comparing it to the masterpieces from Christoffel, above, I’d be impressed. There’s a hint of sugar on the finish, but at the moment the acid is dominating this young wine. It still has a zesty, refreshing charm that I liked a lot. Roughly, $200 a case. 88-91 points.

This to me lacked the flesh, finish and depth of the Sonnenuhr, above. It was sprightly and lively, and drinking well, and, one might add, only $190 or so per case. There was almost a hint of fizz, it was so lively, but I preferred the Sonnenuhr, and for a difference of about $15 per case, the choice was clear to me. 86-89 points.

Showing lots of sugar, and soft, open fruit, the structure is masked on this charming, expansive Auslese at the moment. Ripe, pleasing and plump, it will be a charmer when it all comes together. The price, at about $270 a case for early buyers, is pretty nice too. 89-92 points.

Ripe and deep, this stands in sharp contrast to the Sonnnenuhr above. The Sonnenuhr is open and gentle, not yet closed. This seems already half closed, acid dominated, brooding, and muted in flavors. At the moment it seems on the dry-ish side for Auslese, but that may be because the acid is currently so prominent. At about the same price as the Sonnenuhr, these are “pick ‘ems,” depending on style preferences, although admittedly the Himmelreich is harder to evaluate at the moment. 89-92 points.

Something Donnhoff does as well as anyone in the world is make delicate wines that don’t seem hollow. They have great finesse, and in this incarnation there is another reminder. This wine seems a touch light in body, but the charm is there. There’s a lash of sugar at the end, on the fine finish, and the flavor persists. Expect this to be around $375 a case; very nice wine, but if you are not a Donnhoff fanatic, as many are, there are a lot of other fine Spats on this page that offer greater value and bang for the buck. 88-90 points.

The nose is all slate and minerals, but the body shows more depth than the Kirschheck, and the lemony notes promise an aggressive structure. The sugar doesn’t appear clearly until the finish, but in between, the mid-palate concentration is superb. This may not be the most elegant wine in the lineup, but it is generous and open, and probably showing the best of the spatleses at the moment. It will run around $400 a case. 92-95 points.

As with the Kirschheck, this wine shows the acid already taking over. A cross in mid-palate depth between the Kirschheck and the Kupfergrube, this shows a certain brooding restraint at the moment, but also promises lovely elegance. There may be an iron fist in a velvet glove here. 90-93 points.

A lemony nose made me expect another acid bomb, but this was simply sprightly and bright, with a superb, lingering finish that did not approach mouth drying. Impeccably balanced, this should be another big winner with a few years of cellaring. Expect this to run about $450 a case. 91-94 points.

Here is where I kinda got off the Donnhoff boat. Oh, the lineup is superb, although not as earth shattering as one might think... not necessarily head and shoulders above all others. And now, you get this Auslese selling for about $450 a case for 375ml. That’s about the same price as Christoffel is asking for the ** Auslese in 750ml. I.e., this is literally double the price of Christoffel’s two star lineup. Sorry, I don’t see it. The wine is pretty fine, if divorced from the hype and the pricing. Full, ripe and opulent, and rather sugary on the finish, this wine is deep, tinged with peach notes, and made to age, despite its current approachability. Look for it to shut down big time. The finish is superlative, lingering, refreshing, pristine. But no, it is not a mystical revelation that gives insight into the mysteries of the universe. 92-95 points.

At the same price as the Oberhauser Brucke, this steely wine shows a bit more tart, but the body more than integrates the acidity. It seems to have a touch more focus than the Ob Bruck Auslese, and an equally fine finish. The Ob Bruck is a bit easier to taste at the moment, but I suspect that after they both shut down and revive, this will be its equal, or better. It was hard at the moment to find the sugar necessary to balance the wine, but I think that was a more a matter of the acid taking over than the wine being deficient. 92-95 points.

This QPR wine is sold by the liter for under $100 a case. Look for a liter around $8! As a halbtrocken, it finishes dry, and perhaps a touch bitter, but is cool and refreshing. It lacks any real distinction, but is a pleasant quaffer if you’re bellying up to the bar to get a glass of something white and cold. 80 points.

The Rheinhessen is routinely dissed as a wine region, but Strub is pushing the boundaries for sure. Plus, they’re cheap. This superb spatlese lacks the structure and power of the best, but everything is relative. If you’re not comparing it to Christoffel Urz Wurz, it is still super wine, and only about $160 a case. Very sweet, perhaps betraying a softer underlying structure, this is incredibly opulent and generous for a spatlese, though it does seem a touch flabby at the moment. I suspect some age will change that equation somewhat. Still, this remarkably charming and flavorful wine is a big time MUST BUY given the quality for the price. It will be an infallible crowd pleaser for easy sippin’. 88-91 points.

At roughly the same price as the Oelberg, above, this didn’t seem to me nearly as interesting. It seems sharper, tarter, not as opulent or rich. It is true that tasting young Riesling that is powerfully structured can sometimes be misleading, as one component may dominate, and the others may be hard to discern, but while this is a very good wine, and may even age better than the Oelberg, I think it will not hit the same highs. 87-90 points.

Penetrating and focused, this dry-ish Spatlese is precise, well delineated and very intense. It is from an up-and-comer in the Rheingau. This is a spat that will age well, develop well, and always seem chiseled, well delineated that is. Excellent mid-palate and fine finish. About $225 a case, not cheap but fair. 89-91 points.

Despite carrying the same name, the winemaker personally assured me that the Spatlese with the big 303 label did not come from the same vineyard as the wine above. It certainly seemed that way to me, so I believe him. This takes all the virtues of the other Lenchen from Spreitzer and adds sweeter fruit, more sugar, a fuller body. Even the structure seems more powerful, the mid-palate deep and thick for spatlese. Absolutely delicious. About $325 a case, remarkable for spatlese, and worth every nickel. I suspect this might get some * designation at a lot of estates. This is a stunning spatlese. If it develops as well as it showed here, it will be at the upper end of the point scale. 92-95 points.

I’m not sure, frankly, what to make of this Nahe wine. I didn’t much enjoy sipping it. It finished a bit bitter, seemed a bit flat. Yet, it also seemed to be hiding something, as its density and weight was very impressive for a Kabinett. At about $145 a case, it might be a steal if you like them on the brooding, drier side, and assuming it opens up with a year or so in the cellar. 84-87 points.

This Pfalz Kabinett did not make me terribly happy. I kept looking for something of distinction, but while pleasant enough, it seemed too inoffensive for such a young wine, too light, not distinctive at all. It’s a pleasant enough quaffer, but not much more. About $145 per case. 82-85 points.

This Nahe Kabinett has nice depth and weight for a Kab, but is a bit stern and acidic at the moment, and not showing enough fruit. I thought I saw a fair bit hiding deep under, though, and I think with some time the fruit, mineral notes and acid will integrate into a solid Kab. About $180 a case—not so cheap for a Kab that doesn’t knock your socks off. 85-87 points.

Not much sweetness, but a wave of mouth puckering acidity, hits you immediately. It took quite a bit of warmth and aeration to settle down. As it did, you could finally get a touch of welcome, balancing sweetness on the finish, and the acidity became more tolerable. The fruit was always a distant second though, and the wine seemed relatively light bodied. I liked the intensity on this wine, but I would’ve liked more fruit flavor, a different balance. Some will suggest further cellaring, which might moderate the acid kick, but I wonder if the fruit will still be holding well in another five or even ten years. I confess to not being as consistently enamored with Donnhoff as some others are. 88 points.

On opening this is almost two separate wines. The first wine is also, so powerful it is mouth puckering. The second wine is a flat mid-palate, showing nothing much. Air and warmth help a lot, and it transforms itself magically. The intensity of the acid doesn’t quite go away, but it integrates with fruit that is actually present and alive. Now, it becomes not mouthpuckering, but mouthwatering. It becomes ever more charming as it sits in the glass. Someone said it tasted best nearly at room temperature. I would have to agree. Nice, long finish. 90 points.

1998 Riesling Kabinett “Piesporter Goldtropfchen” (Reichsgraff von Kesselstatt)

This is certainly not a Kabinett in any legal sense, surely qualifying as a spatlese. For a Kab, it is amazingly dense, and powerfully structured. The acid is mouth-grippiping at first, but the fruit is opulent and lightly sweet, and the wine integrates all components marvelously and quickly. It shows great focus, depth and intensity all the time. It still manages to project charm and elegance, too. Kabinetts don’t get too much better. 90 points.

This is a super wine from this vintage at this point, and it opens with a declarative “Take that!” The hit of acid is powerful, at times mouthpuckering, and intense, but never shrill. This is because it is surrounded by fine fruit, with just a touch of sweetness, that softens and evolves with air and fruit. Relatively dry, it has just enough sugar to gentle the other components of the wine. If it is not quite as charming as the Kabinett, above, it is certainly more powerfully structured and focused. 92 points.

This wine opened a bit soft and innocuous, off dry, pleasing, but flabby. Despite good reports on Leitz in a tough vintage, I was about to write this off. It was better two days later! The structure was superb, a nice crisp core of vibrant acidity--but impeccable balance, too. Nice peach flavors persisted on the finish. Very fine. 92 points.

At age ten, this is a youthful puppy. It begins like a Doberman, though, all acid and rather tight. Air and warmth saw a continual evolution in the wine, a increasingly and impeccable integration of components. It does not seem sweet, but the sugar there balances the acid. The mid-palate is respectably deep and the fruit assertive enough to hold up to the other components. The finish is fabulous, mouthgripping at times—call this wine a bloodhound now, very intense and focused--and very long. The wine never fails to emit peach and pear notes, and with time, becomes ever more gentle and charming. Call it a golden retriever in the end! I was more impressed by this than I thought I would be, and I kept getting more impressed each time I went back to it. This was one of the most impeccably balanced rieslings I can ever recall drinking. To some, balance winds up being a euphemism for elegance. This wine has power to spare--but everything is in place. 95 points.