Australia  (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 Pinot Noir (Curly Flat) and 1999 Pinot Noir (Curly Flat)
There's a theme here, so let's take these all together. This relatively new winery produced a chard I liked a lot. The pinots are more a work in progress, not surprising given that pinot noir is a difficult grape to get right. The thought process of the winery is on display when you taste these side by side. The '98 is minty on the nose and shows new American oak, a nuance so strong it essentially destroys the aromas of elegant pinot noir,  one of the more fragrant grapes around. I'm told that the winemaker says there is in fact no new American oak, so it's an interesting question where this comes from.  But the more important fact is....it's there.  It is also rich and ripe, but rather stolid, seeming almost more like chocolate mint, i.e, oaky, new world merlot, than pinot noir. There's just a touch of brightness around the edges and some strawberry notes, but it isn't going to win fans of pinot lovers, despite its good depth. The '99 evidently is a reaction to what I suspect was perceived as problems in the '98.  Here, there is a big hit of acid up front, and the wine is anything but stolid. The chocolate and strawberry is gone--replaced by more typical raspberry, and closer to a Burgundian demeanor.  And the new American oak is gone. No mint. At first, the '99 seemed like a winner, and everyone greatly preferred it to the '98. By the end of the evening I wasn't sure I really liked either one. The '98 at least retained depth, even if the oak treatment made it seem like anything but pinot noir. The flavors in the '99, however, flattened out as the wine aired out, and eventually I thought the acid was winning out over the fruit.  It wasn't a good show of development for a young wine. Which of these you like better will depend on whether you approach it as pinot noir and demand typicity, or not. For me, the '98 is just not tolerable as a pinot, although it has some virtues. The '99 has its own set of flaws, but at least the attitude is right, and the winery is going in the right direction. For the '98: 84 points. For the '99, 86 points.

[Return to Top]  

Austria  (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Gruner Veltliner "Novemberlese" (Hiedler)
Fruity, and very slightly off dry (some would just say "fruity"), this late picked Gruner has none of the austerity and brooding sternness one can sometimes find. It has a nice velvety mouthfeel, some pepper and spice, and loads of charm, even if it is a touch on the light side. A pleasure to drink. 88 points.

[Return to Top]  

Bordeaux  (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Pavillon Blanc du Chateau Margaux
This was a mouthful. Powerful, marked with lees notes and some wood, this rich and deep Pavillon Blanc showed depth and also some liveliness. A nice long finish was the last impression. This isn't cheap, around $50, but it is first rate white Bordeaux.  94 points.

2000 Chateau Tayac Cotes de Bourg
Thin, a bit light and watery, this shows too diluted to be of much interest, and it also seems to finish with a bit of metal.  To be fair, this is only a $10 wine, but in a vintage where a lot of little guys made real nice stuff, it is very underwhelming. 82 points.

2000 Chateau Rauzan Gazies
Running about $40, this is perhaps a bit pricey for what it is, and perhaps a bit underwhelming for a classified growth, but it was fun watching the smiles break out as people tasted this.  Bright and cheery, this sported beautiful flavors, and very sweet fruit. It was just delicious, the cassis notes rolling over your tongue. What it seemed to be missing was a real mid-palate. I don't expect Latour-ish depth from a mid-level Margaux commune wine, but still. Hopefully, it will pick up some weight in the cellar. As it stands, it is one of the nicer Burgundies made in Bordeaux. 89+ points. 

2000 Chateau Lagrange St. Julien
Opulent, rich and mouthfilling, this wine managed to take over your mouth, and still remain, somehow, rather gentle.  The rich, fat fruit, the velvety texture and the sweet, cassis-laced finish made this wine something sensual, to be savored and rolled around the mouth. I'm not sure this is true vin de garde, but the ripe tannins and beautiful texture make it very attractive.  About $40, worth every penny, and in fact, it seems to be a sensual and seductive deal. It is seemingly twice as deep as the Rauzan Gazies, above.  It reminded me a bit more of right bank than left, which is indeed a Lagrange style change compared to what we saw in, say, the 1990.    94 points.

2000  Chateau Rocher Bellevue Figeac  QPR Winner

Roughly $20, this showed nice flavor, not a lot of depth, but very sweet, sexy and bright fruit. What this well priced St. Emilion lacked in depth, it made up for in flavor and charm. Very elegant and delectable. Drink on the early side, 2004-2010. 88 points. 

1996 Chateau Villa Bel Air (Graves) QPR Winner
This was the debut release of this Graves estate after rescue by Jean-Michel Cazes, I believe. It was all of $13 on release, and these days under $10 as a future.  My first taste in 1998 showed a fruit forward, exuberant wine that seemed more California than Bordeaux, but was also delicious and a great value. I wasn't sure how it would age. Now, it's even better, is the simpler answer. The wine seems like Bordeaux again, and it is laced with cassis, bursting with flavor and remarkably fragrant. It has a certain cool, brightness around the edges, and a nice finish nuanced with a touch of herb. It tastes so young at this point, that I could almost suspect it was released yesterday. There's not a lot of tannin here, but there is structure underneath, and considering how fresh the wine is, how lively the fruit shows, it seems about perfect now. One note of caution that would suggest drinking now: it did lose a little the next day.   It lacks the intensity to be an "A" level wine--but it isn't shy and sure does have a lovely mid-palate. About the best $13 or so I spent on Bordeaux, for sure. 89 points.

1979 Chateau Lafite-Rothschild

Cool and refreshing, this showed some musty notes on opening, which generally blew off. Eventually, the fruit popped out, although there were always some oxidation around the edges fighting with the cassis in the middle and the tannins on the finish. I found it hard to really warm up to this wine, but there was still a lot to like---as long as you didn't pay 1st growth prices to acquire it. 88 points.

1993 Chateau Haut Brion Blanc

If this wine has any flaw, it is a lack of intensity. But this is certainly a perfect time to drink it. If the wine is soft and gentle, and perhaps unduly tame, it is also sensual and charming, laced with tropical fruit and melon notes, and simply delicious. Completely expansive and open, it also has enough vibrancy to be more than a curiosity. In a few years, this may not just show as gentle, but faded, but at the moment it is right about where a lot of folks would insist it be. 92 points.

1993 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion
This was a stylish wine that seemed very much in line with what La Miss often does in terms of flavor and style, but for one thing--thinning fruit. On opening, it was rather nice, if not terribly intense, but continued aeration just made this wine too thin and too easy. It was  a bit short on the finish, too.  For all of that, it drank very well early on, showing some earthy notes and lead pencil.  86 points.

1993 Carruades de Lafite
Bright, supple tannins up front gave this an illusion of vigor, and in fairness, there was still fruit here, still some life and still some flavor. But the wine is drying out, particularly on the finish, and the fruit is fading. The fading is gradual and it is only gently oxidizing, but there's no question--this needs drinking. 83 points.

1993 Chateau Cheval Blanc
It was hard not to like the lushness, and apparent richness of this wine, at least when drunk next to a host of other '93s. It had a nice velvety texture and seemed relatively big, but there were few tannins in sight, and this is a wine that needs drinking. Sure enough, air did it no good, although the downslide was slow.  There's a touch of forest leaves around the edges, but not enough to interfere with the mouthfeel or nice first impression. 90 points.

1993 Chateau Latour

Uncharacteristically expansive for young Latour, this is fully open and laden with cassis in the mid-palate. The problem is that, while the flavors are classical, the wine is thin, and it keeps thinning. Now, keep in mind that you could've gotten this en primeur for $40 on release. From that perspective, this wasn't so shabby. Considering that they charge $100+ a bottle for off vintages these days, you might not feel so eager to buy off vintages.  88 points.

1993 Chateau Lafite Rothschild
This had a nice focus, a nice attack--a certain manner of delivering the wine to the mid-palate that I rather liked. But then it all sort of got confused. There was little follow-up, and the wine seemed curiously dull. There was also some roasted meat notes around the edges. Another so-so 1993. 88 points.

1993 Chateau Haut Brion
Rich, lush and riper than I expected, this to me was THE 1993 on this page. There were touches of gravel and lead pencil, but mostly there was a remarkable amount of fruit and size in the context of the vintage, and the wine had no problem coating your mouth and leaving a respectably long fruit finish.  The finish, perhaps, was a touch hot, but there wasn't a lot else to quibble with. Look at my rating for the 93 Blanc--this estate managed to deliver winners in 1993.  92 points.

1986 Chateau Margaux
This wine was double decanted for about four hours before serving, with the bottle left open.  With that treatment, it seemed ready to drink, rich for Margaux, but still elegant, and sporting a respectably long finish. I was told it was fiercely tannic on opening--but I wasn't there. The wine showed a host of tertiary notes, too, and little about it seemed primary. I wouldn't say it was faded or harmed, but it seemed a bit older than I would have expected given my last experience with the wine. For all of that, it delivered a lot of class, finesse and complexity.  Ultimately, though, this to me would fall into the very good, but not overwhelming category, which, given the first few tastes of this I had over the years, is a bit underwhelming. 92 points.

1996 Chateau Clos Fourtet
This wine is a bit one dimensional, but I had to love its exuberant fruit, its ripe, primary notes, and the tendency it had to keep delivering tons of flavor as it sat and aired. Cool and refreshing, it never became cloying or clumsy, even while insisting on giving you all those red fruit notes. Very nice. 89 points.

[Return to Top]  

Burgundy  (except dessert/sparkling)

1989 Puligny-Montrachet "Les Folatières" (Domaine d'Auvenay)
This is a great time to drink this--laced with lees nuances as its strongest flavor component, this shows off more than anything else its mouthwatering finish. The fruit has thinned a bit, or perhaps the wine's brightness has overtaken it, or become just a touch out of sync. Just a touch, though.  As it is, it seems sunny and sexy, and entirely delectable. But I would prefer to drink now. 92 points.

1998 Cote de Nuits Villages (B. Ambroise)
This has a modest classification, but shows extremely well. The opening moments are impressive, with soft, velvety texture coupled with flavorful cherry fruit. With air, the acids pop out and the wine becomes sharper and more aggressive.  It never loses its flavor or footing, though, and shows admirable depth for its classification. 88 points.

1988 Bonnes Mares (Comtes de Vogüé)
When I bought this way back when, largely because it was on sale, I never thought it would actually improve with age. Contrary to this Domaine's reputation, it seemed light and thin, but rather tasty. It was not highly regarded. This is my last bottle, and it showed well enough to make one person at the table say it needed five more years. Well, no. But, if anything, it seemed to have put on a bit of weight since my last tasting, and has held well. Still elegant, still bright, it retains what was always its best feature, pure and tasty cherry fruit, although these days with some aging strawberry on the edges. It is refreshing and cool, all the components beautifully integrated, and adds a respectable finish. Expectations matter---this was blown out by a merchant way back when for $29, and in that context it seems like an awfully nice surprise and great deal.  88 points.

1990 Richebourg (Mongeard-Mugneret)
This starts slow and gathers steam, but never quite makes you go "Wow. Richebourg." Stolid, and clunky at first, there are notes of tomato, and game. Acid is next, and it enlivens the wine a bit, but doesn't make it more fun. And then there are the substantial tannins on the end as it flexes some pure muscle. In the middle, there was a fairly solid, packed mid-palate. I was admiring this wine, but not really liking it. But it also had all the earmarks of something that would expand and develop with some patience. I poured a big dollop in my Riedel early and went back the Rieslings. And then, eventually, the wine showed up, and opened for business. The mid-palate became softer and rather sensual, and the tannins provided some intensity to go with it on the finish. Ultimately, I started liking this a fair bit--but I can't say I really swooned over it. I liked what was ultimately the easy drinking, but it seemed a bit too casual and routine for its class. This drinks pretty well now. 91 points.

1989 Pommard-Rugiens (Léjeune)
Lovely aromatics were a preview of this wine in every respect. If it started a bit clean, correct and simple, it opened fast, and became a ripe, velvety mouthful, bursting with lively raspberry notes. Every time I thought it was all flavor, more hints of structure would pop out.  Nice weight, superb mouthfeel--it seems to engulf your palate--great flavor. 92 points.

1996 "Les Cras" Vougeot (Bertagna)

Tight, and well structured, the price of admission here is nonetheless the exuberant fruit, starting with fresh raspberries and turning to black cherries on a smooth, creamy palate. The nose was a bit candied, but the wine's flavors were more in line. This is very aggressive in several respects, not quite ready, though close, and a little on the flamboyant side. 89 points.

1992 Meursault-Genevrières (Mestre-Michelot)
Whew. Drunk next to several big reds, it sometimes seemed like this had more power than any of them. Big and fleshy, the wine nonetheless finds the fruit a distraction, preferring to concentrate on heavy lees notes, and mouthclenching acidity. Fortuitiously, whether the wine cares or not, there is still plenty of fruit here, and it makes the mid-palate penetrating. This could be a controversial wine if opened today, with opinions dividing on whether it should be held to permit it to calm down, or whether the fruit is simply going to lose the war, so you may as well drink it now. For all of that, the way this wine grabbed your attention was pretty impressive, and after throwing you down in your chair, it delivered oodles of flavor. I'm a little shaken from the rollercoaster ride, but I've decided it was fun.   90 points.

1992 Chassagne-Montrachet "Chenevottes" (Marc Morey)
Soft and earthy, this wine seems to be fading a bit. It still has some brightness, but the fruit is gentle and slightly dull, dominated by lees notes and smoky nuances. Pleasant and subtle, this has many things to recommend it still, but needs to be drunk. 87 points.

1995 Meursault-Genevrières (Louis Latour)

This opens as a disjointed mess that evokes strong reaction. Laced with heavy nutty notes from the lees, it also is seemingly drenched in oak and butterscotch, and showing some oxidative notes as well.  I was a little surprised that it actually became drinkable, though, although no more than that. The oaky notes integrated with shocking rapidity as the wine aired out and warmed up. There was also some annoying oxidation, maybe even a touch of sherry, around the edges. I can't say this ever became fun to drink. It just became "not a total disaster." I'd also like to retaste: it looked pristine, but it acted damaged.  83 points.

1993 Clos Vougeot (Jadot)
Big, powerful and lush, this opens with firm tannins, but plenty of depth to support them. It develops a bit of a gamey demeanor, too, which, for this fruit bomb, I rather liked as a counterpoint to the big raspberry notes. I wasn't as pleased with the long term development, though. It flattened out a bit, showed some tomato notes, and lost some of its distinction and verve. Still, pretty good wine, and lots of layers to unfold. 90 points.

1993 Nuits St Georges 1er Cru (Faiveley)
Served from a 375ml, this showed pleasant and simple. It was lively on opening, flat a few minutes later. The flavors were muted and hard to pick up, despite some decent depth. This was not much better than an aging Cote de Nuits Village. 84 points. 

1996 Corton-Bressandes (Chandon de Briailles)
Cool, calm and collected, this elegant Corton showed impeccable balance, but not quite enough depth and lushness for Grand Cru. Cherry nuanced, the fruit delivered a fair share of flavor, and a touch of earthiness popped out, too. I liked its focus and finish, but I wasn't getting the distinction and depth a Grand Cru should deliver. More air did not show a wine putting on weight; in fact, I noticed some oxidative notes. I originally tasted this from barrel at the Domaine, and it seemed a heckuva lot richer then.  Lots of virtues, but not distinguished Grand Cru.  88 points. 

[Return to Top]  

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
1993 "Les Pavots" (Peter Michael)
This wine, after about 2 hours of decanting, seemed to lose its verve. It was soft, gentle and moderately tasty, but lacked any degree of intensity or depth. It seemed to be a pretty good Bordeaux imitation, surprising for Les Pavots, but maybe that was just a function of the fat disappearing with age and decanting. This showed in a mediocre fashion--a disappointment. 86 points.

1984 Cabernet (Togni)
Togni is famous, or infamous,  for the bell pepper notes its wines tend to show. So, too, here. But just as I learned to ignore brett, to a point, in a fabulous wine,  so, too, here.... For this is just a remarkable wine, rich, opulent, and dense in the mid-palate despite its age. It is not particularly heavy, but its showy voluptuousness and subtle power make it a prime time wine. After long decanting and being in the glass awhile more, it finally began to fade a bit--it is nearly 20 years old and from a vintage that was fruit forward--but this is a super performance. How you react to that bell pepper note is a personal style choice.  I wish it hadn't been there, or who knows how high this score would go. 93 points.

1974 Cabernet "Martha's Vineyard" (Heitz)
One of the most famous wines California has ever produced, this was pulled from Robert Parker's cellar, which generally means "impeccable storage." Even Parker reports bottle variations of late, as the wine starts to decline. But this bottle is superb on this day, even after decanting. There just that touch of eucalyptus, still there, but a bit faded now. The rest shows a solid mid-palate, and very supple tannins, very ripe, just a tingle. The wine seems relatively bright, and gets sweeter as it airs. Delicious, and the fruit caresses your tongue. 94 points.

1971 Cabernet "Eisele" (Ridge Vineyards)
This was, I'm told, the only "Eisele" Ridge ever made. 30+ years later, it is still a winner, although it needs to be drunk. I didn't like the opening nose, laced with oxidative notes that made me sure this wine was dying. The first taste was not so much fun either, even though it had been decanted. Yet, this wine shook off the bottle slumber, and showed powerful, dense fruit on the palate, becoming cleaner and more pristine with every moment, even though it was clearly a mature wine. As it came alive, there were bright strawberry notes. One person claimed "Rayas!" although that was a big exaggeration.  This wine showed more than I thought it could, or would, and perhaps the score shows some "beating expectations" bump, but it was a beauty. 91 points.

1994 Cabernet "Hillside Reserve" (Flora Springs)
Not pretty. After decanting, this was sharp and tart, seeming laced with Volatile Acidity, and a bit sour on the finish as a result. It never fleshed out in the glass, and there simply wasn't enough fruit to support the acidity. The ultimate verdict: no one wanted to drink this. There were some occasional, nice blueberry notes and flavor. It wasn't a total loss. But there were so many other wines to drink, why bother here...? 82 points.

1995 "Dalle Valle" (Maya)
Inky black in color, this seemed like it was going to be a big monster--but its balance was superb. Bright, flavorful, and medium bodied, this showed exquisite touch in all areas, and ultimately I couldn't help thinking just a bit of a particularly big Bourgueil I had had recently. As light on its feet as it was, it stayed persistent and flavorful. Curiously, though, I was a touch underwhelmed. It did everything right, but I missed the element or elements that would add a "Yes!!!!!"   90 points.

1992 Chardonnay Reserve (Chalone)
They don't make 'em this way any more---literally. At age 11, this was a great performance. Actually, it was a great performance at age five. Powerful and fresh, this wine seemed only five years old. The solid mid-palate showed fine depth, and the wine showed intensity and vibrancy as well. Youthful and exuberant still, this was loaded with flavor, restrained in oak, and beautifully crafted. Years of life left. 95 points.

2001 Pinot Noir (Navarro)
The good news is that this is only $14. The bad news is that is about what it is worth; it's no great steal. Simple, tending to be rather light, there is a touch of candied fruit here on the finish, and some brightness. The parts integrate fairly well with air, but as the flamboyance goes, you find there is not much left. The flavor flattens, the wine becomes bland and one-dimensional. Not unpleasant, but very unremarkable. Drink young, and that could mean now. 84 points.

2000 Syrah (Justin)
This has a nice focus and texture, and sweet red berry fruit (and not much of the blue notes I'd expect). It was gorgeous on the nose, but the palate didn't follow through, and perhaps led to some disappointment that the fruit was not as tasty as the fragrant, sexy nose promised. It also seemed a bit metallic on the finish. For all that, it was pleasant enough, and the texture was appealing. The key issue here is price. This runs about $17, at which point it is a wine to consider, not that it is a steal. 86 points.

1999 Zinfandel (Hayne)
Delicious, lively and bright, this manages to coat your mouth while still seeming vibrant and light on its feet. The caramel, overripe notes that a lot of big zins get is not present, but there is delectable raspberry fruit, and lots of it. It will surprise a lot of Turley critics how bright this wine is, actually. It needs air, and it needs another year of cellaring to knit together. I actually found the acid a bit jarring at times. Still, this rich, sensually textured wine, with flavorful, sweet fruit is another Turley winner. 92 points.

1996 Zinfandel "Jackass Vineyard" (Martinelli)
This opens with a flamboyant, kirsch-scented nose that I rather liked, and shows fine depth. But ultimately it seems a bit disjointed, the acid, tannin and brambly nature of the wine at war with one another. It also finishes a bit hot. There are some good things here, depth, and flavor, but ultimately the wine seemed coarse and a bit difficult to drink. It wholly lacked the refinement of the Turley, above, for one good contrast. 88 points.

The following four wines were tasted together at a winemaker dinner.

2000 Merlot "26th Anniversary" (Rutherford Hill)
In the context of the vintage, this mid to low-$20s priced Merlot is a very nice effort for the short term. It also has 8% Cabernet Franc, and 5% cabernet sauvignon and 1% petit verdot.   It starts out with that proverbial $1 million dollar nose, fragrant, crushed berries, hinting at a very concentrated wine. The palate is not as good. At first, the wine merely seems thin and tart, and the acid seems out of whack with its mid-palate. About 45 minutes of air changes that profile considerably, and this wine probably needed half an hour of decanting or so. As it aired out, it became soft and elegant, and the components integrated beautifully and I was beginning to like it more and more. This showed classic merlot notes,  not the big, flabby New World types you often see. This wine is plenty bright, and very elegant. With the aeration described, it was completely open, and kept getting softer through the evening. The wine does have some issues--depth and finish are modest, the wine softens too quickly, and  it lacks sufficient flesh.  It seems to have little upside for cellaring.  Oh, I'd say it will improve with a year's cellaring--but this is a wine to drink up in the near term. The aeration it got made it expansive and ready to roll. A little more flesh and depth could've made this a big winner instead of just a pleasing wine, but a lot of 2000s can say the same thing. If drunk young-ish, it will be more pleasing than the score. 85 points.

2001 Merlot (Rutherford Hill)
Credit the vintage, or credit a new winemaker attempting to put his mark on this property, but this is a  step up. In its price range, low to mid-$20s, this is a nice value and adds some distinction. There is an extra layer of flesh that the 2000 badly needed, but more importantly, exuberant flavors. The wine is flat out delicious. It retains some key style components of the 2000--bright, elegant, restrained. The depth and finish, while improved, are still no more than average, and the wine is a bit simple--but they are improved.  But the key component here that will make you sit up and take notice is certainly the ripe fruit flavor. While retaining elegance, brightness and balance at all times, the wine just transmits delectable fruit flavors all the time.  For a lot of folks, this will be a perfect dinner party wine, likely to make everyone happy, from the geeks to the neophytes. Bottled April 1, 2003.  88 points.

2000 Merlot Reserve (Rutherford Hill)
This Reserve wine clearly differentiates itself from the regulars. For one thing, it is 18.6% cabernet sauvignon and has pure power. Qualitatively, these days, too often, I'm not seeing much differentiation--the price doubles or triples (as it does here, around $70), but nothing much else happens. This is different--- burly Merlot, tannic, powerful, and sporting the depth I would've liked to see in the 2001 regular bottling to make it a complete wine.  Yet, in all honesty,  I actually like the charming 2001 regular better at the moment.  This is different, deeper and bigger--but "better" may be a matter of taste.  That answer will not be the same in five years, of course, when the regular is showing some age, and this is hitting stride. This winery emphasizes structure over the flabby fruit bomb style of merlot we often see, and you see that again here, perhaps even a bit of overkill. It is the tannins and the acid that hit you over the head first--but there are multiple layers of fruit here, too.  For all of its weight and density, this is not so charming to drink at the moment,  and needs at least three years of cellaring, possibly more.  It probably should have been decanted.  I suspect this is going to be on the austere side for most of its life,  but it does have a chance to improve dramatically with cellaring.  At least without decanting (although it was open a long time as the evening wore on, with mixed results),  it was hard to approach at the moment. 88+ points.

2001 Merlot Reserve (Rutherford Hill)
This is a barrel sample, and will not be bottled until September, and at least at the moment it seems to be the best bet for a complete wine of these four.  At least in this incarnation, it does not seem quite as burly and powerful as the 2000 reserve, but that is because  the fruit is so ripe and delicious, nuanced with blackberries and cherries. It is also deep, and the texture and flesh that some of the other wines lacked is all in place here. It's not just about the fruit, though--it's retains the charm and elegance of the 2001 regular bottling,  in distinct contrast to the brooding 2000 reserve. As it sits, it goes through several big changes, structure popping out and then receding again. Tannins assault the finish at some moments. The richness of this wine will make it a pleasure to drink. Both of the 2001s, this Reserve and the regular bottling, show more attention to fruit and flavor, without really sacrificing structure and balance.  The question will be whether it has the intensity to hold well for a decade or more, as a wine of this status and price ($70 or so) should. There is some creaminess from oak, but the oak usage is fairly restrained. Oak-a-phobes will dissent.  It seemed lively and chock full of very ripe fruit the next day, too, so I think the future is bright. (Actually, the wine was better on Day 3 than on Day 2--it slumped at the end of Day 2 and came back.)  As dark, flavorful and extracted as it is, the impression is always bright and elegant first. The hefty 15% alcohol reading will give some pause, but it seems to work well, and I maintain that if you drink the wine, not look at the numbers, you will find it retains its balance. It is clearly new world in demeanor, but under control.  90-92 points.

1996 Chardonnay "Cuvée Cathleen" (Kistler)
Those who think Kistler leans too heavy on the oak will find some support for that thesis here. But there is also support for the contrary proposition: i.e., let it air out, let it sit, let it warm up. Suddenly, the bright wine that was all oak shows fruit, smooths out, and becomes cool and refreshing. The oak integrates and you can actually tell there is fruit there. And quite a lot of it, I might add. The oak-sensitive will still object to this wine, but it surprised me with its development, and it has plenty of stuffing to recommend it. 91 points.

1996 Merlot (Pride)
A whiff of vanilla from oak is your first introduction, and there was some concern about balance right off the bat. The palate told a very different story, though. If anything, this wine is now elegant and understated, moderately bright and lively, with cherry nuances. The components integrated beautifully, oak included, and the wine showed a certain gentle charm. It lacked intensity and depth, and was a touch short, though. Drink now. 87 points. 

2001 Zinfandel "Duarte" (Turley)
When I had this in March, it was a bit reticent and I hedged a bit, but now I think I can say it scores at the upper end of the range---nice stuff! Showing more open and powerful now, this rich and ripe  zin shows some brightness, and delivers flavor effortlessly and persistently, evolving all night long. This was approachable now, but in my view, better in a year or so. 90 points.

1999 Pinot Noir "Guadalupe Vineyard" (Ken Wright)
Delicious red berry notes open this soft, sensual wine up. It has an easy, laid back demeanor, with nothing particularly deep, intense or tannic. That's both the good and bad news. As tasty as the wine is, it also seems rather simple and inoffensive. It left me wanting more of everything, in most respects, even though it had its pleasures and virtues. 87 points.

1999 Zinfandel "Buchignani Ranch" (Ridge Vineyards)
Spicy and structured, this shows tannins mingled with sweet new oak at first. The oak, I found, was a bit intrusive, but to my surprise, and delight, it integrated rapidly, leaving a bit of cream on the texture as its main nunace, with the heavy vanilla notes and dill fading. This allowed the wine's structure and fruit to come to the fore. This is a thinking man's zin--built more like a Bordeaux, bright, firm and a touch astringent on the finish. There's plenty of chewy fruit, though, and there's a lot to like here. Those who favor their zins big and brawny will prefer another style. Style points aside, I would like a little more obvious fruit on my zins. But it's pretty good, and the style choice is yours...see below.  88 points.

2000 Zinfandel "Nervo Late Picked" (Ridge Vineyards)
If you didn't think the Buchignani, above, was your style of zin, this probably is what you wanted. Although Ridge tends to disparage this style, it still turns them out, while noting that they are late picked. Not that there is anything wrong with that.  This is big, rich and slightly overripe. It is heady, and tinged with caramel notes from the ripe fruit. It delivers flavor effortlessly, and endlessly, and is simply delicious. There's never a moment drinking this when your taste buds are not fully engaged. 90 points. 

2001 "The Stranger" (Red Car)
This wine evoked a lot of debate around the table, but not with respect to whether we liked it--but just why we didn't. The debate centered around certain nuances that were variously described as burnt rubber, burnt plastic, and bubblegum.  The wine is tightly wound and has a nice tannic bite on the finish, and it seems stuffed and stacked. The structure and concentration, in other words, seemed excellent. What we were having trouble getting past was that offputting note that made a lot of us simply dislike the wine, despite its many virtues. Cross your fingers---maybe it will blow off with age. It had a couple of hours of air, but no decanting. 86 points.

2000 Syrah "James Berry Vineyard Bone Rock"  (Saxum)
This big wine starts with an oaky nose, but is better balanced on the palate. There's also a touch of chambord on the nose, a nuance that we find more and more these days--but again, the palate is well balanced and integrated. The oak actually seems to integrate well as the wine airs out.  The fruit is deliciously sweet, nuanced with red berry notes and raspberries--the wine is rather bright around the edges and lively for all of its size. One flaw I did see was that the wine was a bit hot. This wasn't too disturbing, particularly as the wine aired out and the fruit sweetened. I also think for drinking now, decanting this would have helped. For those seeking some sort of context, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of folks in a blind tasting guessed Australian with this.  If you like big, exuberant wines with tons of flavor and a bit of flamboyance, this is your boy.  90 points.

[Return to Top]  

Dessert / Sparkling wines
1994 Muscat-Huxelrebe (Silvan Ridge)
And here you thought only Australians could be this bold with odd blends. This Oregon wine is sure off the beaten path in its vinification. The wine doesn't show much Huxelrebe influence. Or, perhaps more accurately, maybe the true purpose of the Huxelrebe is to mute the Muscat, so it doesn't seem quite like Muscat, either. This is tinged with slight pear nuances, and is light in body, without much sweetness at this point in its life. Off dry and pleasant, it is also simple and undistinguished. The best you can say is that it has no major defects. 81 points.

1997 Weisser Burgunder Eiswein "Biebelnheimer Rosenberg" (Schlossadler)
Disappointing for an eiswein, this is tinged with mild honeydew melon notes. It's very pleasant--and very simple. There's very little sweetness, and the wine lacks in both the viscosity and the acidity departments. Not that it is annoying to drink---if it said "spatlese" you'd probably be ok with it. That's damning with faint praise, however. For what eiswein should be, there's nothing to talk about here. 83 points.

1997 Coteaux du Layon "L'Anclaie" Beaulieu (Chateau Pierre Bise)
This little beauty is one of those wines that will drink well whenever you have it. It was great on release, showing very sweet, like a big, sloppy puppy. The baby fat days are now gradually disappearing, the sugar is not quite as dominant, and the wine is showing its muscle, structure, and most of all, botrytis these days.  The acidity is perfectly integrated into the deep mid-palate, and the wine becomes ever more penetrating with air. Drank great on release. Drinks great now. Will probably still drink great in 2017. I saved a little in the fridge for two days, and it became amazingly unctuous and thick with air.  93 points.

1985 Riesling Spatlese "Urziger Wurzgarten" (Benedict Loosen) AP 2-602-158-07-86
This opens with a fresh, heady nose, and sports vibrant acidity and a relatively thick mid-palate. With air, and we had it open quite awhile, you can sense some overly mature notes, a feeling that the wine should be drunk, although it shows no real problems now. The flavor is a bit muted, but the fine depth makes it a pleasure to drink. This was re-released from the winery recently. 88 points.

2002 Moscatel (Ochoa)
You may be thinking of Moscatel sherry---but, no. This is the unfortified, white wine version. It is off dry, not particularly unctuous, and not incredibly sweet. It lacks the body to hold up to any really sweet food, and is perhaps closer to an aperitif than a dessert wine. Pleasant, enjoyable, but very simple. 83 points.

1999 Sauternes (Suduiraut)
Now, this was a pleasant surprise. Sweet and rather unctuous for a Sauternes, it showed spice, apricots and ripe, voluptuous fruit--with tangy notes that kept you and it alive.  I'm not sure this is a Sauternes de garde, but it's pretty darned tasty and sexy now. 90 points.

1992 Riesling Beerenauslese "Bopparder Hamm Ohlenberg" (Adolph Weingart)
A heavy whiff of petrol opens this up, and while that goes away, alas, so does the wine. Soft, and losing some sweetness, this seems too simple, too old, and too laid back for BA. It's also a bit short, though pleasant. 82 points.

2000 Riesling Eiswein "Bechtolsheimer Homberg" (Bretz)
At about $25 a half, this is a pretty good value for Eiswein, although rarely great. In this vintage, the color is already turning amber, and the wine shows full maturity. Suffused with apricots and spicy note, it is simply delicious at the moment, but seems older than it should, and lacking the ability to hold.  SO, drink up--it's plenty delicious now. 90 points.

1975 Chateau d'Arche
The good news is that this showed better than I predicted. It seems fresh in the sense of being free from obvious decay--and was obviously very well stored. It is spicy, with some apricots still noticeable in the flavors, and rather refreshing. It is drying out some, and the fruit lacks vibrancy and lushness. It also finishes a bit bitter, a bit harsh. On the whole though, you could do worse drinking this and it's a pretty good performance, all things considered. 85 points. 

1998 Oro (La Spinetta)
This didn't strike me much as dessert wine, lacking both the necessary sweetness and body. More importantly though, it was a wine that had volatile acidity seemingly running rampant, with heavy notes of lanolin and nail polish and shellac. For all of that, some liked it, deeming it exotic and interesting. I don't generally find VA as offputting on dessert wines as table wines, but it was a bit too much here for me. Ultimately, I didn't much like this at all. 83 points.

1988 Chateau Lafaurie-Peyraguey
Easy, clean and pure, this now-expansive Sauternes shows rich flavors together with spice and only a hint of vanilla, to create a pleasing whole. It was hard not to admire the gentle charm here, but whenever you thought it would become too easy, a little tingle, a little bit of spice, popped out. Drinking beautifully. 90 points.

2002 Vidal  (Tomasello)
This New Jersey winery is made with frozen grapes, like eiswein, but it is a bit presumptuous to call this off-dry, simple wine "eiswein." Certainly, no fan of German or even Canadian eiswein would have their expectations met. The wine has decent weight, but not enough sweetness or unctuousness, nor for that matter, any zesty acidity. It throws off some mild pear flavors, turning a bit foxy or meaty on the finish. In fairness--this is only $11. Still,  it's not of much interest. 79 points.

1999 Riesling Beerenauslese "Haardter Burgergarten" (Muller-Catoir)
This wine has improved considerably since I tasted it on release. As tends to happen with young, powerful, very late picked wines, this has put on weight and become more unctuous. Absolutely delicious, sprightly, bright and sweet, it shows beautiful balance, pure, pristine pineapple notes, and plenty of focus. For all of its unctuous fruit, it has focus, too, and elegance. 94 points.

[Return to Top]  

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Riesling Spatlese "Wehlener Sonnenuhr" (Studert-Prum)
Medium bodied at best, this straightforward wine was making me think of bad thoughts. Surely, it's possible for a young spatlese from this vintage to show more depth or intensity, or both? (See the note on the Prum, below). Still, I rather liked the gentle, off-dry notes, and the wine, while modestly endowed had a certain charm. It helped my disposition a lot to learn that this was only $12.50--about what it's worth. It would've made me much more churlish if it turned out to be a $23 wine. Drink now. 85 points.

2001 Spatburgunder "Rudesheimer Berg Schlossberg" Trocken (Kesseler)
Nobody pays much attention to German reds, and that's not necessarily wrong-headed. There are occasionally some nice ones, often overpriced for what they are. As a group, they tend to be a bit light, a bit simple. Like this one. On the light side, with a straight ahead performance, this wine strikes me as somewhat mechanically touching the bases, but not trying to excel at any point. Modest in body, finish, and short on flavor, in the right atmosphere, it might make a pleasing picnic wine, or a nice, light summer red, but no more. Drink now. 83 points.

1994 Spatlese "Graacher Himmelreich" (J.J. Prum)
This is one of those wines that reminds you of an archer shooting an arrow from a crossbow. Zing! Go the shards of acidity assaulting your palate!  Racy, with a mouthwatering and flavorful finish, this wine projects intensity all the time. The fruit struggles to keep up, and just manages. This is a good time to drink this--the acidity is gripping, but not quite overbearing. The fruit is maturing, but has not lost its vibrancy or ability to absorb the acid. However, the fruit is aging here a heckuva lot faster than is appropriate considering how intense the acid is. At this point in time, this wine works, and works well. Call this just a warning:  I'm not sure I'd hold it for a long time more, though, even if that means drinking it while the acid is a bit more prominent than your tastebuds would prefer. 90 points.

2002 Riesling Kabinett "Rudesheimer Klosterlay" (Leitz)
I think this wine is in one of those stages where, with every passing month, you may find that it seems to be something completely different. In this incarnation, some early sweetness was blown away by mouthgripping acidity and intensity. Yet, as it warmed and aired out, the sugar fought back, balanced out the acid, and this became a wine that I was liking a lot. It never lost its intensity--let's be clear there. But I saw the fruit fight for its life and win, and as the fruit boogied across my tongue, the acid drove it home with a firm little "bing!" Good stuff. Impressive, powerful Kabinett. 90 points.

1998 Riesling Spatlese "Rauenthaler Wulfen" (Strum and Sohn)
I was surprised at how mature this tasted for a relatively young Spatlese, showing dried apricots and a touch of forest leaves. There was excellent weight for its class, but it was hard to get past the fact that it seemed ten years older than it should, whatever its other virtues.  82 points.

1989 Riesling Auslese "Urziger Wurzgarten" (Merkelbach)
For my money, this is drinking about as well as it can now, time to drink up. The wine is gentle and graceful, round and soft. The flavors show some tertiary notes, little intensity, little sweetness. The acidity is muted. The wine is hardly over the hill--yet. Its gentle charm, in fact, is quite appealing. But hold this a bit longer and you may find the nuances of decay beginning to take over. 87 points.

2001 Riesling Spatlese "Mulheimer Helenkloster" (M. Richter)
Exuberant and intense, this wine does not show much weight, but projects lots of sugar, thankfully, since it dissolves the shards of acid streaking across your tongue. The finish lingers and is oh-so sweet. For all the lack of depth, this just project flavor constantly.  The question is whether enough of it comes from the fruit and not the sugar.  Still, particularly from now to 2008 or so, this should be cheerful, sunny wine. 90 points.

1997 Riesling Auslese "Urziger Wurzgarten" (J.J. Christoffel)
I'm beginning to sound like a broken record--but I have to say again, this being another example, that we need to remember to treat white wines from top producers with respect, whether this JJC Auslese, or a Zind-Humbrecht, or a Huet. That means, don't assume the wine is a complete wine on release, even if it is sweet and easy. They have structure. They may need aeration. Case in point: This Auslese is relatively austere and tending to dry-ish. On opening, it was tight and modest, the long finish being the only hint that there was more underneath. An hour later, the wine developed a mouthgripping acidity, and the finish seemed endless. This is what I call neutral acidity by the way--it displays its power, but not flavors--you don't get much if any of that lemony, citrusy nuance acidity can deliver.  The longer it sat, the better it got, putting on weight and becoming fierce and impressive. In fact, it became so fierce, that I did begin to wonder whether for the long haul the fruit will keep up with the acid. All I can say today is that it kept developing and improving for as long as I had it. 93 points.

[Return to Top]  

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Brunello di Montalcino (Uccelliera)
Earthy and sweet at the same time, this wine was a pleasure to drink. Its fruit flavor never quit, but at the same time, it had character, a bright cheery note, and a touch of distinction. That was the good news, and there was plenty of it. The wine, given its $50 price tag, was perhaps a bit shy in the mid-palate; it could use a touch more depth. Still, this was certainly a pleasure to drink, suave and pleasing. The price is a bit hard to swallow, but that's up to you. It's a close call, but I think it just manages 90 points.

1995 Valpolicella Superiore "Vigneto di Monte Lodoletta" (Dal Forno)
This is a big wine in one respect--it is bursting with flavor. In other respects, it is restrained, almost a bit reticent.  I loved the ripe fruit, and the initial tingle of the ripe tannins, although there was just a touch of astringency on the finish. That went away with air, and the wine calmed down nicely. Perhaps too nicely.  As the wine aired, it became elegant, never quite losing its ability to keep throwing off flavor, but not becoming particularly intense or exciting. Very good--a lot less than awesome. 90 points.

1993 Sodole (Strozzi)
In every tasting, there seems to be at least wine that leaves me on the fence. This one, here. I'd say this is ready to drink, and it shows earthy notes, and at times, a full, but gentle mouthfeel. It's just a little bright around the edges, but that and the fruit fades a touch with lots of air. Ultimately, this seemed pleasant and mouthfilling, but a bit simple, and perhaps, aging a bit too quickly. Tonight, I decided I liked it, though. A few years down the road will be a different answer, I suspect. 88 points.

1989 Barolo "Cerequio" (R. Voerzio)
This opened reticent, but didn't stay that way.  The tannins popped out, and they made the wine aggressive at times, tangy at others. The fruit is penetrating and cool, with the wine showing more muscle than flavor. As it aired and became more and more tannic, it also became less and less approachable.  I had to admire the muscle, and at least before the tannins took over, there was a time when this drank very well. For all of its power, there isn't much weight here. I wonder what this would have looked like with about three hours of decanting. Hopefully, there's a good answer in there. 90 points. 

[Return to Top]  

New Zealand (except dessert/sparkling)
2002 Sauvignon Blanc (Cloudy Bay)
In some respects, this constitutes the trademark New Zealand wine in the minds of many. A little grass, a little lime, a little lemon, lots of acid....This is young, exuberant, and just a bit disjointed at the moment, with the acid coming on a tad too strong. Still, it's accessible and should settle down with a few months of cellaring--wines like this come around quickly. I'm not sure I like this as much as some past vintages, but it is a bit hard to evaluate at the moment. 88+ points.

[Return to Top]  

Rhone/South/SW France (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Chateauneuf du Pape "Cuvée Reservée" (Pegau)
This is pretty much it. "It" being "What you Want from Chateauneuf." And at pretty fair prices. Focused, powerful, deep, and intense. But beautiful flavors, strawberry and game. It has super length, persistent flavor, and the structure is such that it should age effortlessly for a decade and easily for another. It is oddly approachable now, but rather tight. This is a wine you should look to drink closer to age 10, though, if you don't want to commit infanticide. A beauty. We'll see eventually how good it gets. 95 points.

1999 Vin de Pays de l'Herault (Grange des Peres)
A disappointment for a wine in this region selling in the mid-forties. It has some nice blueberry notes, and some velvet to the texture, but despite decanting, this never shows much of interest. It is exuberant, but lacks the depth to match its acid. The sweet fruit nuances are very nice, but the wine is always a bit too sharp, and the balance is not where I'd like it to be. It has its merits--but I'm not impressed. An old trick: freeze the wine (after removing a bit of juice--if not, the cork will explode out...). That sometimes makes a palpable difference in lowering the perceptible acidity. It might be a lot nicer that way. 86 points.

1994 Hermitage "La Chapelle" (Paul Jaboulet Ainé)
This has always been an underwhelming La Chapelle, but it has provided good short to mid-term drinking. The wine is completely ready now, shows medium bodied at best, and on the light side, with a beautiful violet and blueberry nose, and some cream on the texture. We opened this a couple of hours ahead of time, but did not decant, and with that aeration time, it was smooth and ready, perhaps even showing some thinness. I do not think this needs more than a touch of air to shake off the bottle slumber. It's a bit compact and showing some age. Drink up. 87 points.

2001 Vin de Pays du Gard Cabernet-Syrah (Mas de Guiot) 
This bargain wine is a Kacher import and is pretty nice, but not without some issues. The good news--hey, around $11. You can live with this wine that has the same rating is almost the same as the La Chapelle, above. But the prices are really different. This opens with a glorious nose, oak driven, but also young, exuberant blue fruit. I was expecting something special. The first taste started brilliantly, creamy, rich and flavorful. But the burn going down was downright unpleasant, maybe too bright, maybe a too hot. But serious burn to the point where it was hard to drink. I let about four ounces air out in a glass for an hour--and it was a different wine. The annoying aspects had muted or vanished. What was left was a good, solid cheapie--but also missing was some of the swagger that made me initially hopeful. I'd be interested to see what happens to this with 8 to 12 months of cellaring. It might come into better balance. In the meantime, half an hour of decanting wouldn't hurt even though tannins are nominal. 86 points.

2002 Bandol Rosé (Pradeaux)
This young Bandol opens almost unctuously. The palate seems so rich, so thick....yet as it usually the case with Bandol rosés, the wine is very well balanced, and becomes something that delivers effortlessly as it airs. It seems brighter and livelier, too, with air, as the acid etches the edges of the wine.  If anything, the acid was a bit too much on the finish, but ....Very nice. 91 points.

2002 Vin de pays des Cotes du Tarn "Les Rials _Loin de l'Oeil (Domaine de la Chanade)
I liked the 2001 version of this better, although it was if anything a bit lighter. But I enjoyed the pear notes that are missing here. And while the 2001 had a hint of grass, this is little but. It is as if it is all sauvignon blanc instead of Loin de l'Oeil, an obscure varietal. If you like that style of wine, you'll disagree with me, and perhaps even like this better, for its greater intensity. It's more of a food wine than an aperitif. I personally liked the 2001 iteration better in style. 82 points.

2000 Coteaux du Languedoc Pic St Loup "Vielles Vignes" (Chateau de Lancyre)
This familiar bargain wine is a winner again in my view in 2000. I think I retain a slight preference for the 1998 version of this, which seemed a bit more intense, but also a bit gamier, but it's hard to argue with what's here. This wine is impeccably balanced, nuanced by a touch of earth and game, bright, but with acidity well integrated. It has some intensity, tons of flavor, a nice finish. Typical pricing is around $13, but in my region this was on sale for a fabulous $8.99.  Drink now. 88 points.

1990 Hermitage "Le Gréal" (Sorrel)
This opened simple, and a bit thin, but air cured half of those problems. With air, the flavors evolved beautifully, and the fruit gave off waves of exuberant and delicious cherry notes. It had a respectable finish, too, and showed some tannins underneath with continued aeration for intensity. It did, however, lack some flesh. It always seemed to need a bit more density in the mid-palate, a little more concentration. Still, it was hard to dislike this very charming Hermitage. 89 points.

2001 Counoise Vin de Pays du Gard "Vignoble de la Ramière" (Domaine Montpertuis)
This is a rare beast....a Counoise standing on its own. Normally, it is a blending grape for Chateauneuf, used heavily by Beaucastel in particular. On its own? Served blind, I was sure it was syrah at first. After it had half an hour of air, I was sure it was mourvedre. No way I was going to guess Counoise, so thankfully the bag came off. Apart from guessing games, this had little to recommend it. Heavy on gamey notes, it had little body or fruit, and seemed too thin to support the bacon fat aromas and flavors thrown off constantly. Simple, a bit dusty, and a bit gamey, it was a little better than just a curiosity--but not by much. 81 points.

1998 Minervois La Livinière "Pic St Martin" (Domaine de Cantaussel)
On my first taste of this wine on release, I was seriously underwhelmed. Maybe a bad bottle? More likely, completely closed, although it showed little sign of that. Now, it is simply delicious, ripe, primary, seeming like new bottled wine, bursting with flavor, and having just enough tannin for support. It seems pure and pristine, crushed blueberries all around. Despite its intense flavor and a solid mid-palate for a wine in this class (around $20), it is impeccably balanced, and even a bit bright. It's been a pleasure to watch its development in the cellar. 90 points.

[Return to Top]  

Spain (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Garnacha (Artazuri) QPR Winner
This little cheapie is lovely, and it's only $8.  It has been compared it to a Chateauneuf, but I'd say more Cotes du Rhone.  It has a touch of game, and it is a very French-styled grenache after it gets significant aeration and calms down. Structured and bright, it opens a bit tight but gradually puts on a bit of weight and develops a lot of sweet fruit and flavor.  The wine seems a bit on the thin side, though--not quite Chateauneuf material. Otherwise, it makes no missteps, and is classic Rhone, although it sweetened a lot with air.   Except it's from Spain.  Unlike a lot of grenache from outside of the Rhone, which often show very sweet and flamboyantly, this has character and style, and is expressive and elegant. I would like a bit more depth, but, hey. Eight bucks. My thanks to Robert Parker for turning me onto this. I hope I'm doing the same favor for you. 88 points.

2000 Gotim Bru (Castell del Remei) QPR Winner
At $11.50 this is another super Spanish wine bargain--and it supplies the depth the Artazuri is missing.   A blend of tempranillo, merlot and cabernet, it claims to be matured in new oak for ten months--but it tastes like a lot more. The nose is very sweet--all licorice and vanilla from oak--and the palate follows through with loads of toasty oak. The oak type is not quite the intrusive, minty style as that used on, say, Penfold's; but it is not exactly neutral either, and for oak-a-phobes, it is too heavy. Still, while the oak treatment  is on the heavy side, it is not overwhelming. It mars but does not destroy the wine.   But for that, this would be a way  superior wine to the Artazuri above. It has more depth, better texture, and a longer finish. Its smooth, rich feel is sexy, and while the wine seems "full" it is not heavy in fact.  It will be interesting to see if this oak integrates with another year or two of age.  As it is now, for my taste, there are some balance issues with the oak treatment.  I feel guilty rating this wine so low--by all means, try it yourself, see what you think. There's a lot that is fabulous going on here at a very modest price. Call the "plus" here hopeful. 89+ points.

1985 Rioja "Ygay Gran Reserva" (Marques de Murietta)
Very bright, and temporarily sweet (could that be from oxidation?), this mid-weight wine seems to have seen better days. Assuming that this is a representative bottle, it was unimpressive tonight, disjointed, a bit sour, showing some volatile acidity, and not much fun to drink. 80 points.

1990 Blanco Seco Vina Ardanza (La Rioja Alta)
Thoroughly over the hill, this heavily oxidized wine was exhibiting strong sherry notes, and was well on the way to maderization. It had a nice, big mid-palate, if you care. I didn't. 75 points.

NV Cava "Brut Reserva" (Sumarroca) QPR Winner
This cute little Cava is all of $10. It's clean and crisp--but it goes a step or two further than that. It is certainly dry, but there is enough fruit there to give it a certain roundness to the palate. There's nothing here that feels tart or acidic, as if they forgot to put the fruit in, which is often the feeling you get with cheap sparkling wines. It is not big, but that round mouthfeel projects a certain sense of depth.  It evolved well as it warmed, too, showing some nice apple notes. Yes, a bit simple, but an awfully nice sparkler to chill down for just $10. Drink on release. 86 points.

2002 Palomino (A. Barbadillo) QPR Winner
This white wine claims to be the only table wine produced entirely from the Palomino grape--the one used for fino sherries, and the like. It's certainly unusual. I struggled to find analogies through the evening. I thought it opened with a bit of a chalky taste, turning to milk or cream as it warmed up.  Maybe a nuance of what mango would taste like if it weren't sweet, but dry? I didn't like this much to start, but I was really pleased with its evolution, and it shows fabulous weight and density for its humble status. That might be what, you say? Just $7.   I think this wine will have ardent fans at this price, and also some who won't like it at all. It's different. But it is exceptionally well made for this price level. If you like its style, you'll flip for what you get for the money. 85 points.

2002 Verdejo (Blanco Nieva) QPR Winner
This Rueda wine distills the essence of summer, and for $10, you can stock up. Now, you have to like Verdejo. It has those grassy notes you can smell from three feet away that make you think "sauvignon blanc." If you like that, you're in business here, because with one sip of this, you'll feel like moseying out to the porch, setting your old bones down, and admiring the stars on a warm, clear night. Bright, with touches of green apple as it warms, this is sunny, yet has some intensity, and is wonderfully fragrant.  It's a bit on the light side and airy--not meant as an insult--and full of charm. Despite being easy and rather light (think pinot grigio in weight), there's a certain oily character to the finish that shows you there is fruit and at least one layer to unfold. Drink on release.  This wine has modest aspirations in the sense it is not supposed to be Montrachet--but it achieves its objectives exceptionally well, which is how I rate things like this. It lacks the weight of the Sauvignon Blanc, below, for instance. But this is exactly what it should be.  89 points.

2002 Muscat (Sumarroca) QPR Winner
This is another wine that will be polarize, but it is more familiar than Palomino. It has a typical Muscat-y bouquet, sort of distilled perfume, and a lemon-line tang. On opening, I thought it was a bit too austere in flavor, and most of what I got was acid. As it warmed up, I warmed up to it as well. I couldn't help thinking, as I drank this, that it would be a lot more interesting with just a touch of residual sugar. Even so, for $10, this Penedes Muscat is a super buy, and those that like it will be ardent admirers. Those who like the style will think this is seriously underrated. 85 points.

2002 Garnacha Rosé (Ochoa) QPR Winner
Another fine bargain at just $9.  This Navarra winery had a couple of super buys in the lineup here.  This Rosé opened with almost a candied strawberry nose that convinced me that I was going to hate it. On the palate, though, it was fruity, but dry, and beautifully balanced. It's a bit simple, but most pinks are. It drinks well cold, and seems fresh, pure and refreshing--the real obligation of a pink. At $9, it's a wine you can't really go wrong with. 85 points.

2002 Albarino (As Laxas) 
Somewhat reticent, this wine shows good weight, a thicker mid-palate than a Verdejo, and more muted flavors and bouquets than a Muscat or Sauvignon Blanc. It has lovely balance, and an easygoing charm to it. While I liked its mouthfeel, I might have also liked a little more intensity in such a young wine. Still, I think this would be a great shellfish match, and for those who dislike the flamboyant aspects of wines like Verdejo or Sauvignon Blanc, it's a more reliable, easier to follow choice. At $16, though, it is not as much of a bargain, although it is fairly priced. 87 points.

2002 Sauvignon Blanc (Blanco Nieva) QPR Winner
As I took my first sip of this, I couldn't help thinking it was Verdejo on steroids. This is incredibly pungent, and everything about the wine hits you over the head. It's mouthgripping on the finish, shows remarkable depth and concentration, some shards of acid, and pure power. This is not an unbalanced wine, though. It may show better in a year or so, actually. The multiple layers of fruit are amazing, not just in general, but especially when you look at the price tag....just $11.  You have to like sauvignon blanc--this one sure isn't shy. But what a package for the price! Those who like SB should be running out the door to grab their summer supply.  And maybe next summer's supply, too.  90 points. 

2001 Tempranillo (Sumarroca) QPR Winner
For $10, this straight ahead Penedes wine shows a bit simple, but does nothing really wrong. There is structure--and the tannins announce themselves with a bit of drying on the finish--and reasonable weight, and some velvet on the texture. Sturdy, middle of the road, but well done, and without any defects, this makes a better than average house wine. 85 points.

1999 Tempranillo (Ochoa) QPR Winner
This $13 Navarra wine was, I thought, a terrific buy. Maybe nothing else red in this lineup delivered as much for so little money. The first attraction was the fragrant nose, tinged a bit with oak. On the palate, the oak is well integrated, and not intrusive, except perhaps for oak-o-phobes. You know who you are. The wine is lovely and sweet, with ripe tannins for some liveliness and intensity. It evolves well in the glass. Smooth, but gripping, it is still most notable for its tasty fruit. And there's plenty of it. Nice depth for the price. I'm tempted to rate this higher, but I'm a little conservative with wines I haven't seen evolve in the cellar. 89 points.

1995 Rioja Reserva (M. Merino)
The values skidded to a halt with this wine. Despite being at about $30, I can only say, this wine pleased me far less than the Ochoa, above. It is overoaked--or perhaps, underfruited is a better description. It has some virtues--some ripeness, some smoothness on the palate. But there is not enough fruit to absorb the oak. Simple, unbalanced, overpriced. 84 points.

1994 Rioja Reserva (M. Merino)
What a difference a year makes. The 1994 here is terrific. Still a bit pricey at $30. But very fine. There is a hit of oak here, too, but the difference with this wine is several extra layers of fruit. Here, the oak is a reasonable nuance, not the whole wine. The fruit is ripe and voluptuous, with just a hint of anise at the end. Sweet and delicious, it was hard to stop drinking this. And if you thought it was too fruity up front, no worries---with air, it became more typical Rioja, acquired typicity. Nice job. Drink now. 90 points.

1999 Selección (Estancia Piedra) QPR Winner
This Toro wine is all Tempranillo, and runs around $19. It is gripping and powerful. The fruit is very sweet, tinged with anise. This is highly extracted and very dark. The thick, rich mid-palate is multi-layered and deep, seeming like pure fruit concentrate. This wine is not at peak yet, and will continue to improve with a few years of cellaring. It is approachable now, and delicious, but I'm betting it will improve. 90+ points.

2000 Cabernet Sauvignon (Son Bordils)
I don't think I've ever seen a Mallorca wine before, but now I want to see more. At $27, this isn't the runaway steal that some of the wines in this section are, but it is certainly fairly priced. It shows beautiful balance, fine structure. I loved its intensity first, its fruit second. It is powerful and seductive, showing big flavors, but plenty of support underneath. A good cellaring wine, but not unapproachable now. 91 points. 

2000 Negre (Son Bordils) QPR Winner
This is a kitchen sink wine, and you need to be near this kitchen. It consists of 50% merlot, 35% manto negro, and 5% each of cabernet sauvigon, cabernet franc and syrah. May I say...stop thinking about it, just drink it.  I was served two versions of this, one that had the cork pulled about two hours before we got to it, and one that was opened the prior day. I liked the one opened the prior day better. It showed some earthy notes, spice and a touch of steel. The newly opened wine was brighter, more astringent, and hard to drink, I thought, without serious decanting. This had fine depth, and great character, and showed the ability to evolve beautifully over time. Better to cellar than drink at the moment. A steal at around $20. 92 points.

[Return to Top]  

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. 

This site designed and created in content and in form
by Mark Squires, copyright © 2003,  all rights reserved.