1997 Pinot Noir "Sonoma County" (Kistler)
Another beauty from Kistler. If only they'd stop wasting so much time on chardonnay!  The gorgeous plum-scented nose is powerful. The wine is still tight--all Kistler pinots seem to need cellaring--very focused and well structured. For all that, this is not an intellectual wine. The fruit is sweet and fragrant, the finish is round, smooth and long. Sexy and exotic. 91 points.

1995 Zinfandel "Jackass Vineyard" (Martinelli)
Jackass Hill always seems to me to be a more complete wine. JV seems to get the same "big wine" treatment, but develops a certain harshness that mars the overall picture. That said, the stuffing here is pretty fine. Thick, inky black, and raspberry tinged in the mid-palate, this shows great concentration, but rasps a little on the finish. I liked it better to start than at the end, but it was still pretty fine over all. 90 points.

1998 Pinot Noir (Domaine Drouhin)
Just as the Martinelli JV above always seems a step short of Jackass Hill, so the regular Drouhin from Oregon always is  a step short of the Laurene. Drunk with the Kistler above, this seemed brighter, but also too bright, and a touch tart and shrill. The Kistler doubled it in depth. Disjointed at the moment, this wine should benefit from a year or two of cellaring. Yet, I don't sense the solid mid-palate and flavorful fruit that I would have liked to have seen. If the pieces integrate well with cellaring, it may merit a better score. 87-90 points.

1992 Pinot Noir (Drouhin)
It was startling how good this was, and what fine shape it was in. Will the 1998, above, ever show this well?  On opening, it seemed to have a few autumnal notes and some stolid, clunky features. There was that pretty raspberry flavor on the finish, however, and considerable concentration. With air, it didn’t go downhill, as I feared, but kept getting better. It acquired some elegance and complexity, opened nicely and most of the autumnal qualities blew off.  Some 75 minutes after opening it was considerably better. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a heckuva performance for a nine-year old pinot from a relatively new winery. 90 points.

1996 Pinot Noir Reserve “Martinelli Vineyard” (Martinelli)
This winery produces a lot of flavorful, powerful pinot that often doesn’t seem very pinot-like. This is closer to varietally true. It is brighter than normal, though still deep and powerful. It develops beautifully with air and actually comes close to acquiring some elegance due to the brightness lurking in the background, although this will never be the epitome of elegant pinot noir. It retains the Martinelli flavor profile, with dark notes--coffee, perhaps-- it seems to me, and the wine never fails to deliver fruit. This has much more depth but lacks the complexity of the Drouhin, above, and although I rate them evenly in terms of score, the styles are very different. Depending on your tastes, you may have a decided preference. 90 points.

1995 Zinfandel (La Vina)
This zin from New Mexico does a nice job. The well integrated tannins give it some mid-palate grip and intensity. It has a decent finish, and an elegant, friendly demeanor. At age six, other than showing the restrained, muted fruit a lot of older zins do, there is no sign of deterioration, although it doesn't seem very "zinny" any more.  There is not much depth or power, but it doesn't seem watery either, and the fruit still has flavor. Served blind, it seemed to me to be a modest but useful St. Joseph, or something of the sort. All in all, I'm glad this was served to me blind. I rather liked it, granting that it lacked the depth to be really first rate. 85 points.

1997 Zinfandel (Moss Creek)
This opened somewhat disjointed, with sweet red berry fruit fighting the shards of acidity and tannin. With half an hour of breathing, it all came together, and was beautiful for the rest of the evening. The fruit suddenly seemed not only sweet, but sexy and voluptuous. On the whole, this was not only interesting, but delicious. I would predict this will be better in a year or two. 90+ points.

1996 Zinfandel "Duarte" (Turley)
A bit flamboyant on opening, with plum and dark chocolate nuances, this provided an interesting flavor profile. The weight and depth were excellent, but as the wine aired out, its balance seemed impressive, too. Except...it did seem too acidic at times, especially on the finish, which sometimes seemed a bit harsh. Good, not great Turley. 89 points.

1998 Zinfandel "Jackass Vineyard" (Martinelli)
As it shows today, it opens smoothly, but quickly becomes harsh and disjointed. It shows hot on the finish with acid and tannins battling each other relentlessly. There is some ripe, sweet fruit in the middle there, somewhere. Jackass Hill Vineyard remains one of my favorite zins year-in, year-out, but I have to say that I am not always as impressed by the Jackass Vineyard, which never seems to show as much depth or as well integrated. Disjointed now, it may improve with cellaring. 87-89 points.

1997 Petite Sirah (Behrens & Hitchcock)
There's an obtrusive amount of oak on opening, but the wine actually pulls together nicely. It is not as unbalanced as some B&H I have had purchased, although your first guess might still be that this is shiraz. The fruit is somewhat light and the wine rather tannic, so hopefully cellaring for another year or two will produce balance, not merely faded fruit. For all of its flaws, it still shows a reasonably nice finish, good fruit flavors and had a certain sex appeal. 89 points.

1993 Cabernet “Reserve Speciale” (Arrowwood)

This was simply beautiful, classical cabernet, with focus, elegance and brightness, but always intense and flavorful. 1993 is my least favorite vintage for the first half of the decade, but those that work do so by emphasizing the fruit and balancing other components. They aren’t huge wines as a rule.  Here, no problem.  The core seemed like essence of cabernet, cassis and blackberries. The wine never seemed big, but always seemed delicious. It developed perfectly for hours, acquired some velvet for texture. What’s not to like? It is drinking well now, but will continue to improve with cellaring over the next few years.  92 points.

1998 Zinfandel "Hayne" (Turley)

Grapey and big, this Hayne is somewhat unusual in that it does not seem as tannic and powerful as in past years. The very ripe, sweet fruit is there, but the underlying structure that usually accompanies it is not. By other peoples’ standards, this is a huge zin. By Hayne standards, it is remarkably accessible and fruit forward. 1998 was not a great zin vintage, and even the best makers fell short of their full potential in better years.  91 points.

1996 Cabernet Franc "Première Etage" (Lang & Reed)
This oddball cab franc was delicious, but utterly atypical. How you feel about that will govern how you react to the wine. If served blind, I would have said it was closer to Turley Old Vines zinfandel than Loire cab franc. Very sweet, somewhat overripe, this wine emits flavor and goes down easy. There’s little standing in its way—not much tannin, certainly. The mid-palate depth is more than acceptable, but it is not really packed. There are some caramelized notes on the finish. Exotic, tasty and flamboyant—also darned weird. 89 points.

1995 Zinfandel “Dry Creek” (Rafanelli)

Sweet, gentle and charming, this sexy zin never becomes overbearing—nor seems overripe. At the same time, the cherry-nuanced fruit never stops delivering, and the mid-palate depth is excellent.  Nothing about this seems anything other than impeccably balanced, despite the incredible amount of flavor it casually delivers.  Fun, and a pleasure to drink. 91 points.

  [Return to Top]

California/USA (white) (except dessert/sparkling)
1994 Chardonnay "Hudson Vineyard" (Marcassin)
Opulent, dense and powerful, this chardonnay still shows ripe, full fruit at age 7, and tons of flavor. It also shows way too much oak and seems drenched in butterscotch. Oak-o-phobes will immediately protest, and they won't entirely be wrong, but there was still a lot this wine did right in terms of depth, quality of fruit, nose and finish. The sum of the parts did not make a magnificent whole because at this point in time the oak has come to dominate the whole. Most folks seemed willing to drink it, though. 90 points.

1995 Chardonnay "Hudson Vineyard" (Marcassin)
This shows somewhat like the 1994 above, but everything is more restrained. The fruit is thinner, the oak not quite as dominant (though still too prominent), and the concentration level less. This is a less opulent, "little brother" version of the 1994 Hudson. 88 points.

1997 Chardonnay "Belle Cote" (Peter Michael)
This opened spicy, showing mostly acid on the back. The heavy lees took over, and with air the wine developed a pretty, nutty aroma and flavor. The mid-palate was solid and reasonably well concentrated, though not overbearing. On the whole, very tasty and distinctive, though those that prefer brightness will look elsewhere. 90 points.

1999 Chardonnay “Red Shoulder” (Shafer)

Sprightly and solid, with some steely notes, this wine was also rather hot and acidic. Perhaps its youth caused it to show too disjointed, but it was difficult to see how this would come fully into balance. Still, Shafer has an excellent track record for improving with age, so let’s lay this down for a couple of years and then see how this goes. 86-88 points.

1991 Chardonnay “Unfiltered” (Newton)

Smokey and creamy, this shows mostly sweet oak with little fruit remaining underneath. The smoke is a characteristic I get when the fruit cracks up and starts to become a bit bitter. There was no bitterness here, but given the creamy oak which covered most aspects of the wine up, it would be hard to tell.  It improved slightly with air, but on the whole, this wine seems faded and unbalanced.  83 points.

[Return to Top]

Dessert/Sparkling 
1997 Vouvray “Cuvee Constance” (Huet)
When this opened, I thought it was rather light and unassuming. It didn’t take long for it to put on weight, pull together and dazzle. At first it was just an apricot nose and some alcohol. The acidity popped out. The fruit became juicy and succulent. It expanded in the glass. The finish was endless.  The air awoke its inner Vouvray. ;) As well as this showed, I have to think it will be better still in three to five. The passage of time may add weight and complexity to go with the elegance, charm and finish. This wine may have a big upside and it will be interesting to see where it goes. 91-94 points.

1998 Riesling Eiswein “Kreuznacher Narrenkappe” (Paul Anheuser)
A beautiful wine. Not cheap at nearly $40 per half, but worth every penny. Up front, there is a big hit of pure sweetness, raw sugar. That integrates quickly. The fruit is succulent, dripping with fresh flavors, and very ripe. The finish is penetrating and long, flavorful and memorable.  Not quite at peak, it is still delicious enough so that no one would pass it up now. 93 points.

1999 Rieslaner Beerenauslese “Prestige” (Fitz-Ritter)
At about $25 per half, this provides a lot of quality at a fair price for BA. Rich and thick, this shows great concentration, and a lot of character and complexity. There are pear notes on the mid-palate, and a hint of smokiness. The ripe fruit and the depth were superb. I will be interested to see how this evolves, because it just might move up a notch in score. 90+ points.

2000 Riesling Eiswein “Ockfener Bockstein” (Dr. Fischer)
At over $40, this thick eiswein wine is  not cheap, but you have to say “worth it.” It has terrific weight and concentration, notes of peach and apricot, and seems on the way to cling peaches in terms of viscosity at times.  There is zip on the end, as tends to be the case with eisweins, no matter how thick. The whole is a superbly crafted, very deep wine. Just scrumptious. 92-94 points.

1999 Mantelerhof Gruner Veltliner Eiswein
I loved the complexity of flavor and bouquet on this wine, scented alternately with mango, apricot and peach, with a dose of pepper and spice in the background. That said, I would’ve liked a little more viscosity and sweetness, and the wine lacked a bit of sex appeal that I often see (and love) in eisweins, seeming a bit stolid and restrained at times. Still, plenty here to like and talk about. 90 points.

1996 Erbacher Seigelsberg Riesling Eiswein (Baron Zu Knyphausen)
Thick, and mango-tinged, this is tangy, long and cheerful. I loved the beautiful, fragrant bouquet with a touch of vanilla. The wine was extremely sexy and very sweet. The finish was long and mouth-coating as it warmed up. Extremely appealing. 92 points.

1976 Niersteiner Brudersberg Riesling Beerenauslese (Freiherr Heyl Zu Herrensheim)
Diesel fumes and smoke at the outset follow through to fruit that has gone somewhat bitter. The depth is good, the power superb, but the flavors are off and I just didn’t find this wine very much fun to drink. There seemed to be an odd touch of mint on the finish, too, but I can’t say I much cared by then.  No doubt, some who are more forgiving of the ravages of age will like this better, giving it more credit for its fine concentration levels. 85 points.

1989 Niersteiner Oleberg Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese (Freiherr Heyl Zu Herrensheim)
This TBA shows very similarly to the BA above, except in two important respects. There is still some smoke and bitter herbs, but the fruit is not as bitter and more tolerable. On the other hand, this TBA seems no deeper than the much older 1976 BA. The weight was still good, although I was not thrilled with the entire presentation, the smoke, the charcoal, the bitter herbs. None of the elements destroyed the wine, but they marred my enjoyment of it. 87 points.

1996 Scheurebe Sekt Extra trocken (Bruder Dr. Becker)
I wish I could find more good to say about this. It did have a nice body and demeanor, a classical, mid to lightweight sparkler. But after that….It seemed tart, bitter, and shrill. It squealed. The green apples mingled with the bitter orange rinds and boiled grapefruit. The flavors were odd. I couldn’t find much to like about this wine at all, but those who can tolerate its flavor profile will enjoy it more. 79 points.

1992 Abalonga Auslese “Westhofener Steingrube” (Wittman)
This somewhat bizarre wine will delight those who like its flavor profile, but others might be horrified. It seems like a mint julep, or the jelly you get with lamb. It has only reasonable depth and is not as sweet as some auslesen, and the acid is fairly moderate as well. Fighting through all of its issues, I still found a moderately pleasing wine. But this sure didn’t make a case for Abalonga. The Wittman wines at upper pradikat levels are often selling for pretty pennies these day.  I’m not so sure I wouldn’t save my pennies for Riesling, though.  85 points.

1996 Sauvignon Blanc Vin d'Or (Eola Hills)
 Apricots and pears mingle together in this viscous wine that also has balancing acidity.  Most of all, though, it drips flavor. The fruit is so luscious, so ripe, that without seeming unduly sweet, it makes your mouth water. This Oregon winery manages to make great late harvest sauvigon blanc most every year, it seems. I've never had one I disliked. 92 points.

1977 Port (Taylor Fladgate)
The only problem with this port was that I did not have time to decant it. It received little air, which marred the presentation. That said, it is simply delicious, if somewhat closed, and powerfully structured. The depth of fruit is superb. The flavors are delightful, chocolate and caramel nuances mingling happily. The sweetness is restrained. It is hard to evaluate a port like this without decanting, so I am not going to bother to put a score on it. But let me say this: if you find it and can afford, buy it.

1986 Brut Rosé (Dom Ruinart)
Crisp and clean, this hardly resembled the Dom Ruinarts I've know and loved. I expect meat, game, even a little brett, and a lot more depth and power. Worse yet, this is 15-year-old vintage-dated champagne, which at this point carries a considerable price tag. It was very nice. I expected a lot more. 87 points.

1999 Huxelrebe "Weinheimer Kapellenberg Beerenauslese (Gysler)
This has to lose some points because it is a "for the moment" wine. That said, the moment is darned good. Beautifully balanced, sunny and cheerful, the mid-palate also shows succulent fruit that drips flavor. Goes down easy, drinks well. It will not remind you of the most profound BA you've ever had, but for $22 per 500ml, it is an early maturing beauty. 88 points.

1993 Tokaji 5 puts (Oremus)
From the owners of Vega Scilia, this Tokaji would have confounded me in a blind tasting. This is Tokaji? Hmmm. Weighty but well balanced, it has a long, gorgeous finish. But its structure shows off acid. While the mid-palate is nice, Tokaji has been deeper. There is not a trace of oxidation. New wave Tokaji, a whole new ball game. 89 points.

1983 Riesling “Late Harvest Cluster Select” (Navarro)

The color was a bit troublesome, dark amber. But the wine was simply amazing. The wine did have some of that deep, roasted apricot and/or orange-rind note indicative of some oxidation. But there wasn’t much. The weight and concentration were remarkable. The sugar was still so fresh and sweet that it seemed like too much. Then, it integrated nicely into the wine with air, acid popped out and it came into beautiful balance. The fruit was succulent and dripping flavor, too.  This has traditionally been one of America’s best known and most interesting late harvest wines. This performance shows why. 93 points.

1953 Sauternes (Doisy-Daene)

I’m of two minds with this wine. On the one hand, it has held remarkably well. It shows no major defects, no significant oxidation or decay. On the other hand, it has lost its sweetness and lushness, and there  is a somewhat annoying, bitter charcoal and smoke flavor to the finish. The fruit has clearly dried out some. This is the type of wine that gets a lot of extra credit for being old and having survived, but if it were young and showed this way no one would be excited. On the whole, it was an interesting experience, but not a great wine. 83 points.

1990 Vouvray “Goutte d’Or Moelleux” (Foreau—Domaine de Clos Naudin)

This very rare wine, made only once in a blue moon, is simply spectacular. Thick and concentrated, it brings to mind the clichéd descriptors of honeyed and syrupy. But what else can I say? There is just a bit of acid, which helps it, and the flavor profile is delicious—imagine sweet mangoes and apricots oozing juice on your plate. The mid-palate depth is amazing, and about the most I have ever seen in Vouvray. Could a vouvray do anything more than this? 100 points.

1999 Vidal Ice Wine (King’s Court Estate Winery)

Nice and thick, this has a little musk to it, but not much. The fruit seems more like a cross between pear and apricot. The mid-palate weight is very nice, and the wine is deliciously sweet. If not distinctive, this was still excellent and lush. It suffered a lot being drunk next to the Vouvray, above. But what wouldn’t? 90 points

NV Sparkling Saumur "Cuvée de la Chevalerie" (La Chevalerie)

This inexpensive sparkler provides a nice, rich, toasty mouthfeel. There’s some cream and vanilla on the back end, and those looking for that chardonnay taste will wind up feeling out of sorts. The wine mingles the vanilla with acid and cream, and is quite pleasing. It’s a great value, too, for cheap sparklers. So, can you adapt to no chardonnay? No pinot noir? The $10-ish cost may make it worth your while.  85 points.

1996 Bonnezeaux (Chateau de Fesles)

Lush and long, with apricots and mangoes, this big, rich wine was, to me, completely satisfying. Here, there was some vanilla, there, some citrus, in the back some acid. The whole wound up being a complex, long dessert wine from a great producer. NB: I liked the 1997 even better.  93 points.

1995 Port “Quinta da Vargellas” (Taylor Fladgate)

This single Quinta is a bit disjointed at the moment. Not having been decanted for very long, it showed mostly tannin and pure power, with the grapey, young fruit lurking underneath. The color was appropriately inky. Gradually, a little bit of sweet fruit popped up. All you can say is, this is way too young, and needs five years of cellaring.  88-90 points.

[Return to Top]

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 Riesling Spatlese “Kreuznacher Kroetnepfuhl” halbtrocken (Paul Anheuser)
This has excellent weight, and manages to avoid any overbearing acidity. There is some predictable grip from the acid, though. Yet, it seems rather stolid and boring, a bit clunky. It lacks zest. Apart from the concentration level, it is fairly routine wine. I will say this: a lot of 98s seem stolid and tight. It might improve at this point because they are often so dense. 87+ points.

1999 Riesling Spatlese “Kreuznacher Kroetenpfuhl” halbtrocken (Paul Anheuser)
The 1999 version of the same wine above….this is not as concentrated or as deep, but seems livelier and zestier. The lack of depth compared to the 1998 was annoying, but the bright demeanor was more pleasing. If one could combine the attributes of both of these wines, it would make some awesome spatlese. 86 points.

1999 Riesling “Schlossboeckelheimer Koenigsfels” Kabinett (Paul Anheuser) QPR Winner
This refreshing little Kabinett was a touch shy on depth, but was lively, airy, refreshing and charming. It was fun to drink, and at a mere $10 or so, a very fine value, and a nice summer wine. 87 points.

1999 Riesling Spatlese “Kreuznacher Kahlenberg” (Paul Anheuser) QPR Winner
This zesty spatlese was laced with lemons on the finish, but the big hit of sugar up front balanced everything out nicely. The finish was gripping and reasonably long.  With a few months to a year in the cellar, this will pull together nicely. Nicely wrought in all respects, and at a little over $10 a terrific value. 89-90 points.

2000 Chardonnay Spatlese Trocken “Duerkheimer Spielberg” (Fitz-Ritter) QPR Winner
This tastes a bit like a Macon, and at about $12 is an excellent buy. There is a bit of steel, some Chablis scent on the nose. But the acid is well integrated, and the finish is not as hard or ungiving. This is not a fat, buttery chard, if that’s what you’re looking for. But for pure, pristine fruit with little or no oak, it provides a nice solid core of fruit, and good weight. 85 points.

2000 Riesling Kabinett “Duerkheimer Hochbenn” (Fitz-Ritter) QPR Winner
This Kabinett is lively and elegant, and reasonably bright. The dominant impression, though, is how sweet it is for a Kabinett. Everything melds together quickly, though, and the ultimate impression simply becomes that the wine is delicious. Easy drinking, and I suspect, early maturing, this is always going to taste great during its useful lifetime. This is particularly amazing at under $10. 87 points.

1999 Riesling Auslese “Ockfener Bockstein” (Dr. Fischer)
This Auslese seems just peachy in terms of flavor profile. The acid hammers the fruit into your tongue, but is never overbearing. The finish seems at least reasonable. I am not sure, though, that this wine had quite as much depth as I expected.  It sure seemed sweet, sunny and flavorful, though. 89 points.

1996 Scharzhofberger Riesling Qba (Reichsgraf von Kesselstatt)
This pricey ($16) QBA almost manages to justify its price, as it shows exceptional depth for a QBA.  The steely pears note on the nose is refreshing. The wine finishes crisp, but with very balanced acidity as it evolves on the tongue. The finish shows surprisingly flavorful fruit. This is dry, solid in the mid-palate and holding impressively with age, though it certainly seems to lack some pizazz. 87 points.

1997 Riesling Kabinett (J.J. Prum)
This generic Kabinett is actually Bernkastler Badstube, so I am told, and this bottling is a Valckenberg exclusive. There is just a touch of residual sugar, enough to balance the green apples and acid beautifully. The body is solid in the mid-palate for this style and age of wine, although, while it improved with some air,  it thinned a bit too much with a lot of air. The components are well integrated, and the mouth-coating, racy finish is pleasing. Elegant, well done, but not monumental wine. The first fifteen minutes was far better than the next fifteen. 87 points.

1996 Braunneberger-Juffer-Sonnenuhr Riesling Spatlese (Wwe. Dr. Thanisch)
This wine never showed me much. The nose was petrol, and there were few bright, citrus elements. The depth seemed more than acceptable, and the finish was reasonable. The wine always seemed a bit stolid and one-dimensional though. Good, not great. I wonder if age will improve it, or simply demonstrate its middle-of-the-road demeanor. 87 points.

1988 Herrenberg Auslese (Maximin Grunhaus)
Surprisingly dry-ish, this is nonetheless very ripe and packed with fruit. The finish here is pure fruit, mingling with some spicy acidity that is rather muted and a touch of mild sweetness. The wine is mouth-gripping in concentration, showing wonderful depth and complexity, and very refreshing. There seems to be a touch of caramel on the palate. I liked this very much but I am not sure I would want it to age much more. 91 points.

1998 Kallstadter Steinacker Scheurebe Spatlese (Koehler-Ruprecht) QPR Winner
The 1999 will be the last vintage for this wine. Judging from this bottling, that’s a shame, which I say even as a Scheurebe-hater. For one thing, the first thing most seem to say about the best Scheurebes is that they don’t taste like Scheurebe. So, too, here. This is solidly made, with a smooth mouthfeel and fine depth. The balance is superb, with the acidity and minerals being moderated just enough by residual sugar, slight though it is. No one would guess this was Scheurebe blind, though. 89 points.

1996 Hochheimer Kirchenstuck Riesling Spatlese (Franz Kunstler)
Zesty and racy, this seems bright, tinged with grapefruits and light at first.  It picks up some weight with air and some sweetness pops through, and is welcome.  Elegant and refreshing, this provided an interesting contrast to the 1998, below. 89 points.

1998 Hochheimer Kirchenstuck Riesling Spatlese (Franz Kunstler)
I am told that this actually has more acid than the 1996, which seems hard to believe. But perception is altered by the balance of components. The fruit here seems deeper,  and the wine projects more power, but it is not as zesty—at least not yet, not without more age. I liked its mid-palate concentration, and I think it will be interesting to see how this ages. It could become a real star. 89-91 points.

1998 Erdner Treppchen Riesling Spatlese (J. J. Christoffel) QPR Winner
As with the 96/98 Kunstler pairing above, this contrast of 98 and 99 shows a big, deep 98 against a sprightlier wine, this time a brighter 99. This 1998 shows a lot of zesty acidity, though, tons of charm and plenty of potential to go with its very fine mid-palate. This is a winner. 90+ points.

1999 Erdner Treppchen Riesling Spatlese (J.J.Christoffel) QPR Winner
Sprightly, and pleasingly tinged with pears on the nose and palate, this wine seems cheery, elegant and fun. I would have liked to have seen more depth, but it did improve with air and picked up a little weight. The color was remarkable—almost completely pale and seemingly devoid of color. It could have been water from the color. But it tasted real good. 88 points.

1989 Riesling Auslese "Ebernburger Schlossberg"  (Rapp)
This has thinned with age, showing more minerals than sweetness or body. The predominant impression is lemons. Yet, as the wine airs, the acidity seems pleasing and fun. Not to say I wouldn't like more fruit, but the finish still made my mouth water a bit.  To me, this is at the limit of its useful life and should be drunk now. 87 points.

1998 Riesling Spatlese "Niederhauser Kertz" (Mathern) QPR Winner
Solidly built, though not particularly zesty, sweet or long,  this wine likes to show off its mid-palate depth and concentration. More interesting, here, however, is that it shows mineral nuances with subtle strawberry flavors. This is not Mosel racy or elegant, but with enough air some acid finally becomes noticeable. Overall, a distinctive, interesting wine that may need three years of cellaring to come into some kind of  form.   I note that it took two days on the vacu vin and then a couple hours of aeration for the wine to finally open fully.  About $15.   AP 7 750 043 13 99.  88-90 points.

1990 Riesling Auslese “Piesporter Goldtropfchen” (Ruescher-Haart)

Just beautiful,  and just what you want for prime-time wine drunk at a perfect moment. Spicy and sunny, this manages to be bright without the acidity being obvious. Everything, from the acid to the sugar, integrates perfectly into the fruit.  The balance is not only impeccable, but remarkable. Nice depth, succulent fruit and a long finish made it a Riesling to remember. 92 points.

1995 Riesling Auslese "Brauneberger Juffer-Sonnenuhr" (Fritz Haag)
Relatively light, and relatively dry, coming in at just 7% alcohol, this is pleasing and very bright, but the lack of depth and intensity of fruit mars the presentation.  Too much lemons, not enough fruit. For all of that, it is a friendly, cheerful wine that makes for good summer sippin'. Of course, for riesling auslese you might be expecting more.  Fuder 06;  AP 2 577 050 6 96.  85 points.

1997 Riesling Spatlese "Haardter Herenletten" (Muller-Catoir)
It is medium in weight, but subtly intense. The fruit becomes mouth-coating as it warms, and though it seems not sweet at all, the ripe fruit on the finish gives it a certain sweetness anyway, just from pure, ripe fruit. Impeccably balanced and long, this is elegant riesling with a solid mid-palate. AP 5174 079 1898. 91 points.

1998 Riesling Kabinett "Wehlener Sonnenuhr" (Kerpen) QPR Winner
This is exactly what I want in a fine Mosel Kabinett. Sunny and bright, but without any overbearing acidity, the wine seems delicate, yet flavorful, light (8%), yet not watery. It exudes charm, and there is a touch of balancing sweetness on the respectable finish that makes it just perfect. Debonair and easy-going, a perfect wine for the summer for sure. Best of all: about $15.  89 points.   

1933 Riesling Feine Spatlese “Altenbamberger Roth.” (Jung)
This ancient Riesling was recorked in 1988. I don’t know to what extent it was topped off, but it held amazingly well. As tends to be the case, this gets extra credit for being in such fine shape, even though so old. If it were a 1990 and tasted like this, you’d be unimpressed. For a 1933,  one has to say that though there are some signs of age, the wine has held brilliantly. It shows slight oxidation and some mushrooms, signs of aging wine.  With more air, it actually became fruitier and improved. The wine changed rapidly and constantly, and it always seemed to zig and zag. Sometimes there was some bacon fat and bitterness. Sometimes, it seemed like a fairly normal, if modestly fruity Riesling. It was a bit flat and boring, but I don’t think anyone would guess that this wine was this old. In the grand scheme of things, 84 points. But give it extra credit for its age!

1998 Riesling Kabinett "Piesporter Goldtropfchen" (Reichsgraf von Kesselstatt) QPR Winner
This is a beautiful, solidly built, distinctive Kabinett. Another dense 1998!  I like the hints of smoke and petrol that added character. The acidity rammed home a very nice finish for a kab, and made the wine zesty. The mid-palate depth is superb and held up to the acidity levels without problem. I this kab will age and cellar well. It lingers, too, and drinks well now also. It shows off very fine concentration levels and even broods a bit. It will be interesting to see exactly how long this ages. Around $18 and worth every penny.  90+ points.

1997 Riesling Spatlese "Urziger Wurzgarten" (J.J. Christoffel)
AP 2 602 041 08 98. Simply gorgeous. The acidity on this wine makes your mouth water, but the sweetness beautifully balances it out. The finish is long, the wine elegant and pristine. The purity of fruit makes it seem like bottled sunshine, and the wine seems complex, tinged with first pears, then minerals, then lime. A very fine Spatlese in every conceivable respect.  92 points.

1999 Dornfelder "Weisenheimer Hasenzehe" QbA Trocken (Neckerauer)

A dead ringer for a light, frothy Beaujolais, this wine is pleasant enough as a summer red. It seemed a bit spicy, which added some character, but its primary characteristic clearly was the bubble gum grapey notes characteristic of wines that have carbonic maceration. I’d be surprised if there was none here. Inoffensive, with no mid-palate depth, it would still be a nice crowd-pleasing party wine, especially in the summer. 82 points.

  [Return to Top]

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Merlot Lamaione (Frescobaldi)
This high-end ($50-ish) merlot delivers the goods. Served blind, I guessed Italian merlot.  Worth the bucks? Well, these days, what is? Still. It opens attractively with a nice, red berry nose. The first palate impression is of red cherries, with well integrated acid on the back. With air, it continually put on weight, showing excellent concentration, and ripe, expansive fruit. The finish was respectably long and flavorful.  Solid stuff. 92 points.

1997 Rosso Fili di Seta (Pertimali)
Round, fleshy, supple and bright, this cab/sangiovese Tuscan shows dark chocolate overtones supported by tingly tannins on the finish. In the glass, however, it fails to expand. It shows some sweet fruit, but the wine eventually seems good, not special, perhaps just a bit flat with air.  I liked it, but wouldn’t run out and buy it unless the price were around $20 or less. 87 points.

1990 Le Pergole Torte (Monte Vertine)
Sweet and gentle on opening, this also seemed a bit bitter on the finish. The cherry notes up front were very pleasing, but the lack of intensity coupled with the slight bitterness on the finish marred the whole. This is still a nice wine at age 11, but from this bottle, I’d say I’d prefer to drink it now. 88 points.

1993 Ornellaia
Wow. That’s not a quality comment, but a demeanor comment. Served blind, this convinced people it was Bordeaux.  Further, it seemed to have a touch of oxidation and broadness, that forest leaves quality that older Bordeaux get.  The texture provided little velvet.  I was thinking maybe 1983 La Mission? Well, well. Solidly built,  but not particularly charming, and seemingly tasting a bit older than it was, this wine nonetheless seemed to provide pretty nice drinking in an unspectacular, somewhat straightforward way. I liked it for its depth and flavors; I just wasn’t quite excited about it. 90 points.

1997 Solaia
Exuberant, bright fruit up front provided a sexy opening. But the mid-palate took no prisoners. Deep, ripe, rich and concentrated, the wine fired on all burners from the outset. Served blind with other Antinori Tuscans, I was sure this was the Solaia. A special wine, it covered all the bases, structure, balance, depth, finish. It will be fun to watch it evolve. 95 points.

1997 Guado al Tasso (Tenuta Belvedere-Antinori)
I liked this a lot, but the flavor profile sure didn’t seem very Tuscan. It opened with hints of menthol, vanilla and eucalyptus. It wasn’t thick or dense, but the flamboyant sweet fruit up front made it seem fruit forward. Ultimately, it seemed a bit disjointed, with a touch of bitter herbs on the finish. Flashy, exotic, interesting, but ultimately a brick short by my tastes. 89 points.

1995 Pian delle Vigne Brunello di Montalcino (Antinori)
Supple, gentle, mellow and fully open, this wine was pleasing and sensual, though not especially deep or thick in the mid-palate. Everyone who tasted it liked it for its friendly demeanor, and fully open fruit. It certainly seems about as ready as it will be. It went down easy. The question I have is whether there shouldn’t, perhaps, be a bit more depth and intensity for a wine of this level. 90 points.

1997 Vino Nobile Reserva (Dei)
When I first tasted this at the winery, I thought the combination of depth and structure were amazing. This is not your father's Vino Nobile. It drew a bit of awe from the winemaker and the owner's parents, too. It wholly outclassed a superlative Sancta Christina. Now, newly arrived in bottle, I had a chance to try this again, and I am just about as impressed. This clearly needs cellaring for some time, as the tannins give the wine a kick and intensity. But there is never a sense that the fruit is being overwhelmed. The powerful bouquet tells you that will never happen. The acid, tannins and fruit combine for a mouth-gripping, very long finish. The depth is remarkable for this classification. I liked the flavor nuances, tinged with almonds, too. It is hard to tell how good this will be; for that, check in a few years from now and see how the tannins resolve. But it is certainly about the best Vino Nobile I have ever had, and who knows...maybe I'm underrating it. 91-94 points.

1990 Recioto di Amarone Valpolicella (Bertani)
On opening, this seemed tight and focused, but with bright, sweet fruit in the background. It kept getting more and more appealing, and the core of fruit, especially sweet on the finish, became wrapped in a nice velvety texture. (Always something I love and look for...) The fruit showed great depth and concentration, and it kept gaining weight with air.  As Amarone goes--sometimes "over the top"--this was restrained, though with long aeration it did start to show some of those raisiny, very sweet notes.  Close enough to normal without sacrificing typicity, this is an Amarone I think this would be a good "starter" Amarone, something to convince newbies that it's worth a try. 90 points.

1997 Barbera d'Asti "Braida" (Bologna)
Not long back, I reported on another super-pricey, over $50,  high end Barbera. Conclusion: who are they kidding? This is a notch better, but I don't think I'll ever call it a good buy.  This has a good depth for Barbera (though ordinary by the standards of other wines...),  and is bright,  and elegant. With air, it became smooth and very flavorful. There was a period of time about 20 minutes after opening when I was liking this a lot. More air didn't help, though, and the acid seemed to  take over the wine and dominate it. It never entirely lost its ability to be interesting, but I could think of better ways to spend my wine budget. As a supposedly ultimate statement for Barbera, it doesn't quite prove the point.  89 points.

1996 Chardonnay Langhe “Fossati Roscaleto (Voerzio)

Shrill, odd and atypical, this hardly seemed like chardonnay at all. It was hard to identify the flavors. One thing that was sure was that it was not white Burgundy or California chardonnay. The body was relatively light, the finish a bit short. There was little to recommend this wine other than absence of glaring defects. If typicity issues don’t concern you, you might like it a bit better. 80 points.

1996 Lacryma Christi del Vesuvio (Mastroberardino)
A bit harsh on release, the tannins and acid here have dissolved (well, mostly)  into the mid-palate. It is only medium-bodied--at best--but the cherry-nuanced fruit is open and attactive. The acid is still a little higher than one would like and the concentration level not as deep, but this has become with age a pleasing wine, fulfilling the limited promise it had. Also, considering that it got released in my area for about half of list price, it tastes even better! Under $20 normally.  86 points.

[Return to Top]

Loire (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Pouilly-Fumé (Domaine des Berthiers--P. Cotat) QPR Winner
Excellent depth and mid-palate concentration, laced with acid on the finish, came together in a very interesting PF that I liked a lot. Flavorful, yet full of zest,  I liked the weight and the quality of fruit. Pristine, ripe, reasonably long and very well balanced.  I don't this will age particularly well, and it is already drinking nicely now, but it is real nice for the short term.  Under $15 with any decent discount.  90 points.

1996 Bourgueil "Fiefs de Louys" Vielles Vignes (Druet)
I had this about the time of release, and it was massive and very, very tannic. Also very pricey, two or three times the price nice Bourgueil often gets. Still, it remains one of the best of its type I've had. Today, the tannins have moderated, and the wine is fully open. The velvety texture in sensual, and the cherry flavors never quit. In fact, for as long as this wine was open, it seemed to me to keep improving, showing excellent depth and a very nice finish. The fruit was sweeter and more flavorful at the end of the night than the beginning, which, after hours of being open, was some performance for Bourgueil. My scores are relative. This is for Bourgueil, not Pichon Lalande, but it would win lots of fans in tougher competition than it had.  94 points.

1989 Chinon "Clos de l'Echo" (Couly-Dutheil)
Loire cab franc does way better in aging than it is given credit for, probably because so many of them are so inexpensive and soft on release. So, this was a bit of a disappointment. I cannot say if it was a particular bottle problem (I tend to think so, though) or typical. From this bottle, the nice raspberry flavors lasted a few minutes and then the wine began to turn, showing oxidation, volatile acidity and prunes. It wasn't long before I didn't want any. Assuming an off bottle, let's not rate this, but if you have a stash, check another soon.

1995 Chinon " Vielles Vignes" (Joguet)
Here was another Chinon I was rather looking forward to that did not quite deliver. Again, I suspect an off bottle. The texture was nice, all crushed velvet. There was superb depth. But there was also some wet leaves, forest floor aroma that I associate with overly old fruit--or damaged wine. In a 1995 Joguet, it seems hard to see how that can be naturally. It has to be a bottle defect. But if you're holdin' 'em, it never hurts to check if you've got them in quantity. No rating as the possibility of a somewhat damage bottle would seem high.

1999 Bourgueil "Clos Senechal" (Breton) QPR Winner
Grapey and light, this even seems to have a hint of carbonic maceration--maybe partial whole berry fermentation? There's not much depth, but the cherry fruit is pleasing. It's a great summery red, but also a stereotypical example of a red Loire--light, easy, soft. In any event, taken for what it is, for immediate consumption, it is very pleasant. 84 points.

1999 Sancerre Rosé (Chavignol--F. Cotat) 
Just a very slight blush tells you this is not a white wine. It's delicious though! For what this is, the finish is excellent, the fruit seems laced with cassis, and the wine is refreshing and crisp, too. Summer blushes are highly underrated. Here's one to try.  Remember, my scores are relative between regions/varietals. This is just great blush!  90 points.

1995 Saumur Champigny "Marginale" (Germain--Domaine des Roches Neuves)
Other than the Fiefs de Louys, above, this would easily be my pick for best red Loire on this page. It's a delicious cabernet franc in all respects. In perfect shape, and fully open, this wine is sensual in texture. It exudes cherry flavors, gives off a few violets, and goes down easy. Maybe a bit too easy.....but you'll find that out the next day. Elegant, balanced, charming. 90 points.

1997 Muscadet Sur Lie "Cuvée Buster" (Domaine La Pepière--Marc Ollivier) QPR Winner
I'm told that this wine is only around $10, which makes it a steel. It hardly resembles any Muscadet I've encountered. It seems more ripe, too big. If served blind, I would have had to say sauvignon blanc. There are some grassy notes, and crisp refreshing aspects, but I kept thinking that this had a couple of layers of depth that most Muscadet never sees. 89 points.

1998 Vouvray "Cuvée Tradition" (Pinon) QPR Winner
Dryish but fruity, this inexpensive ($12 to $14-ish) Vouvray is just peachy. Well, maybe pears would be a better descriptor. There's some acid on the back for a good attack, but in the between the wine has plenty of mid-palate depth for its price range. Charming, and quite a value for short to mid-term drinking (cellaring it for a couple of years shouldn't hurt!). 89 points.

1999 Menetou-Salon (Chateau de Maupas--Jolivet)
Pure, unadulterated urine. Cat pee, to be precise. Sigh. I have actually seen some people drink wines like this, and claim to like them. I find it hard to focus on anything other than the aroma. The fruit wasn't bad, but not much could hold up to that bouquet, which was a shame, because there was decent fruit here. The aromas of grass and urine waft above this wine effortlessly it seems if you are even within a yard. But maybe you like that. 84 points.

1999 Sancerre "Cuvée les Coutes" (Reverdy) QPR Winner
As compared to the Maupas, above, this wine showed some grass on the finish, but never quite descended to urine. In between there was nice mid-palate fruit, with lively, crisp acid, and some steel. Sancerre is not my favorite style of wine, but this one did  a lot of things right, and it would have taken a grinch to dislike it.  $18 list price,  maybe under $16 with discounts if you buy a case of something at the right places. Classical, refreshing Sancerre. 90 points.

1999 Sancerre "Clos de la Néore" (Vatan)
I liked the balance on this very ripe Sancerre a lot. The nose was muted, and there was hardly a hint of the descriptors that often go with sauvignon blanc--grass, or more extremely, cat pee. It seemed more like chardonnay in some respects. It lacks a bit of zing and zest, but it was style that grew on me as I drank it. It won't necessarily make fans of those who grew up drinking more typical things like the Reverdy, above, unless it opens and becomes zestier with age. I rate them equally, but the styles are radically different.  I do think this has a bit of room for improvement with a little time, though. 88-90 points.

[Return to Top]

Rhone/South/Southwest France (except dessert/sparkling)
1990 Cote Rotie (Jamet)
Not my favorite producer—too bretty, too often—Jamet nonetheless produced an exceptional wine here. Yep, there is the trademark gout et nez de merde.  But the fruit underneath is beautiful, ripe, sweet strawberry, and the concentration level is superb. It picked up weight with air, and showed even more depth with time. I liked the opulent texture, too. This kept improving for as long as I had it in the glass. 93 points.

1988 Cote Rotie (Jamet)
Ah, yes. Jamet. If the 1990 above has noticeable brett, a bit too much for some, the 1988 was pretty much disgusting. Which was a shame since the depth of fruit was superb, the bright raspberries underneath were tasty…but, oh, the brett. Any score here is more or less meaningless because your reaction to this wine, at least as it shows from this bottle,  has to depend on your brett tolerance. Call this a compromise, then.  NB: brett gets worse with poor storage or heat exposure, so bottle variations are common. 88 points to me as this passed my brett limits, but the brett tolerant might well say 95.

1991 Cote Rotie (Jamet)
This opened muted and reserved, and seemed like straight-ahead, unexceptional Cote Rotie. That changed. With air, this bright, well balanced wine picked up some much needed depth. Added to the delicious red berry fruit that had already been its centerpiece, it became lively and flamboyant, interesting and fun.  With more air still, though, the wine thinned a bit. While the 1990 kept improving, this began to lose some of the flamboyance and fruit. A very good wine, but in a very different style (cleaner, fruitier, less weighty) than the two above, and not as ageworthy in my view.  Some will greatly prefer this wine to the prior two, but in fairness, but for the brett issue, it isn’t as good.  90 points.

1988 Cote Rotie "La Mouline" (Guigal)
Burly, powerful, and deep, this wine opens gorgeously, showing off its mid-palate concentration level. Then, your attention turns to the velvety texture. As the wine airs out, the dark berry flavors creep out, and the fruit becomes sweeter. There's a bit of pepper popping up for character.  The nose becomes more typically syrah. From start to finish, this 13 year old seems youthful, dense and concentrated. It hits most all the bases, needing either just a bit more aeration or a little more cellaring to allow the fruit to throw off a bit more flavor. 94+ points.

1997 Coteaux du Tricastin (Chateau La Decelle)
Light and bretty, this is a Southern Rhone wine that can be likened to a generic Cotes du Rhone. The good news is that the fruit is tinged with red berries and flavorful, and the texture has velvet and a pleasing mouthfeel. The combination of a light body and a fair does of brett is a bit much to take though. 82 points.

1989 Chateauneuf du Pape “Reserve” (Rayas)

This is simply amazing Chateauneuf. Sadly, it is about ten years away from entering its peak range of drinkability. I’m afraid we committed infanticide. Double decanted for an hour before drinking, it then stood in a glass for a long time thereafter. Some three hours later, as I knocked back the last drop, it seemed to start to open. The tannins are considerable and will provide structure for aging. They will never overwhelm the fruit, however, as they are ripe and bright. Up front, there were strawberries, in the middle, black raspberries. When if finally opened a little, the fruit seemed amazingly dense and concentrated, and very sweet. When dealing with wines like this, obviously legends in the making but a long way from really opening, it is hard to say just how good they will be. You can say you will never be less than excited. 97-100 points.

1994 St. Joseph (Rochevine) QPR Winner
Lush, round and smooth, this exudes blueberry flavor, but shows off solid depth, too. The smoothness in part comes from a dose of oak which rounds off the edges, but it did not seem intrusive to me. The wine shows off a lot of depth for St. Joseph, and it is holding perfectly. Delicious and pristine. About $18 in current releases.  89 points.

1990 Chateauneuf du Pape "Chaupin"  (Domaine de la Janasse) QPR Winner
I've followed this wine closely since release. It is still in perfect shape. A bit of game adds some distinction. The rest is pure, strawberry-laced fruit, with impeccable balance and pristine flavors. Medium-bodied at best, its only concession to age is some evidence of thinning fruit. Complex, flavorful and excellent. This has always been a reasonably priced CdP, so it was a fine value, too.  90 points.

[Return to Top]

This site designed and created in content and in form
by Mark Squires, copyright © 2001,  all rights reserved.