Ezine On Wine, May/June Tasting Notes, 2002

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

Tasting Notes
May / June, 2002

Tasting Notes Contents Page

QPR Winner I give this award to wines that demonstrate an excellent quality to price ratio. They are sometimes more expensive than the wines featured in my Best Buys section (which is cut off at $15), so while every Best Buy is also a QPR Winner, not every QPR winner is an official Best Buy. QPR winners are simply wines that are great values for a relatively reasonable price.

Alsace Australia Austria Bordeaux Burgundy Calif./USA Chile
Dessert/Sparkling Germany Italy Loire Rhone/South/SW France

Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Gewurztraminer “Steingrubler” (Albert Mann)

This is just typical Mann—a very good thing. Moderately sweet, rather lush and deep, this perennial Best Buy, running a little over $20 for grand cru wine, almost always delivers the goods. No, it’s never the best, the deepest, the most profound, but it does about everything right, and it delivers flavor and body. With air you started to see a touch of that gewurz spice. This is perhaps a notch off the somewhat more intense 1998, but it is still very fine. 89 points.

1999 Riesling “Clos Hauserer” (Zind-Humbrecht)

Rather dry-ish and stern, this Clos Hauserer is showing some hidden power, but not much up front fruit. The relative austerity on this wine made me wonder if, at the moment, it was shut down, but it is certainly a different type of wine as showing now than the stereotypical ZH fruit bomb. That is just a stereotype, by the way. I have seen several 1999 ZHs running notches behind their 1998 counterparts, though. This is very hard to fully evaluate now. 88-90 points.

1996 Gewurztraminer “Zellenberg” (Tempé)
A slight, inoffensive wine, with modest body and signs of dilution at this stage in its life. It shows some varietal typicity and is pleasant enough. One taster commented that it was probably just a bit past prime, which is likely the case and explanation. About the only sign of life was a slight hit of acid on the finish, but the fruit was flat. It is certainly uninspiring at this juncture, without a single feature that is even average. 82 points.

1997 Gewurztraminer “Kessler” (Schlumberger)
This had some varietal typicity at least, some lychee nut nuances, what I like to call "gewurz fat." There was also a hit of sugar on the finish, which, however, did not dominate the mid-palate. This was a nice, middle of the road gewurz for easy drinking, but four square and undistinguished. 85 points.

1998 Gewurztraminer “Herrenweg de Turckheim” (Zind-Humbrecht) QPR Winner
This wine took the lychee nut nuance of the Schlumberger, above, and made it into a fetish. This was classic gewurz, with a muscular mid-palate. It had bite and very little sugar. If you want a dry-ish gewurz style....there was an awful lot of depth here for a lower level entry. Purchased for about $17. 91 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer “Herrenweg de Turckheim” (Zind-Humbrecht) QPR Winner

Put next to the 1998, this shows a huge contrast in two wines between vintages. The 1998 is all depth, spice and lychee, and dry. Its power reflects the fine 1998 vintage. This is more viscous, rather sweet, ripe, and expansive. It is less brooding, and shows some pepper and smoke on the back, and open, accessible fruit. It is cheerful and friendly. It drank well enough to be more enjoyable --tonight!--than its more heralded grand cru sibling, next. This one of the better “good QPR” entries from ZH, whose main flaw is that the wines are rather pricey. This is a totally different wine than the 1998, although of equal quality. Which you prefer is a stylistic choice—or depends on the food matchup. 90 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer “Hengst” (Zind-Humbrecht)

This is in my opinion ZH's best gewurz vineyard, usually producing the longest lived gewurzs in the stable, wines of focus that acquire the nice pepper notes with age, and hold well. Tonight, it's really tight, showing some underlying depth and ripeness, but also a certain brooding restraint. The finish is still super, very long, and very intense. The wine as a whole shows focus, precision, and intensity. Although it lacks the easy charm of the ready-to-drink 2000 Herrenweg at the moment, eventually, it will surpass it on class and breeding alone, and hold better. Still, I would say I have had better Hengst from ZH; this is a very good, not great one. 90-92 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer "Cuvée Alexandre-Harth Vielles Vignes” (Schoffit)
This was charming and showed very nicely if you don't mind that it hardly seemed like gewurz. Someone said it seemed like it was nuanced by pears, and I agree. It showed a rather flat, very restrained demeanor, with some sugar on the finish, drank very well and tasted great. If only it said pinot gris on the label. No spice, no lychee, no rose petal. Where’s the gewurz? 87 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer Reservée (Adam)
Flat, thin, dry, and utterly uninteresting, the only good thing you could say about this is that it was a cheap-ish wine, around $12. Too short, too little typicity for gewurz, absolutely nothing that would make you want to drink this wine. If you blended this with the Tempé, above, you might have enough depth and interest for one wine. Clean and correct, and not much else. 79 points.

1998 Gewurztraminer “Steingrubler” (Albert Mann) QPR Winner
In the year or so since I last reviewed this, it has done nothing but improve. Is there any better QPR in Alsace? Viscous, ripe, round, and moderately sweet, the wine has a long finish, and develops nicely with air. It improved beautifully in the glass, showing some welcome grip as it evolved, proving that the wine has years of cellaring potential left. At about $20 a bottle, there wasn't any better bargain on the evening, and the wine was a joy to drink. It perhaps lacks the intensity to be truly profound, but there is little else to quibble about. 92 points.

1999 Gewurztraminer “Furstenstum” (Albert Mann)
This was a step back from the gorgeous ’98 Steingrubler, above. Well, most '99s seem to be a step back from '98s, apart from the vineyard. After the superlative Steingrubler this seemed a bit flat. Alone, it would've shown nicely, with a medium body, some typical gewurz nuances, and a pleasing demeanor, but it lacked the depth, intensity and flavor of great gewurz, or great Mann. 88 points.

1994 Gewurztraminer “Clos Windsbuhl” (Zind-Humbrecht)

Someone wondered prior to the tasting whether this wine was sliding, and I have to say, not only is it not sliding, but it is showing as well as it ever did. In the year or so since my last note on this wine, it really doesn’t seem to have budged much, but it is in a pretty good place. At this point in time, eight years of cellaring has given the wine more balance than the sugary demeanor it showed young, the finish is gorgeous and persistent, and the wine surprises me still by putting on more weight with air and developing impressively in the glass. The core is deep and tightly wound, and there are plenty of botrytis nuances—Clos Windsbuhl inevitably seems more like VT than regular. For a “regular” gewurz, try the “Hengst.” I can only say, this is a profound showing, and this is a far superior wine at this point in time to its earlier siblings from Clos Windsbuhl, a relatively new ZH acquisition dating only from the late ‘80s. The scary thing about this wine, considering gewurz is not the varietal you expect to age and cellar well, is that it still has room to improve, and even seemed a bit tight. 97 points.

1990 Gewurztraminer “Hengst” Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)

1994 Gewurztraminer “Hengst” Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)

Let’s take these two legendary Hengsts together. Arguments ensued quickly over which is better, and the reality is that, since my last note about a year back, both have held impeccably and show gorgeously. The 1990 is open, expansive, and drinking perfectly. It was exceptionally elegant and precise, focused and prim, losing its sugar but not completely dry. It is 100% ready and won’t improve further. It is so graceful, so elegant that it in a way it doesn’t seem like gewurz, a varietal known more for flamboyance. If anything, this is better than my last note. The 1994 is a deeper, more intense, more powerful, more botrytisized, and needs the extra cellaring the 1990 has. Its sweetness is restrained, but it is clearly sweeter and more opulent than the 1990, but it is also the proverbial iron fist in velvet glove. The 1990 is a more graceful, but fully ready and not quite as long or intense. They both show fine finishes, depth and flavor. A fair number of people, including me, subscribed to the theory that the '94 is better, but the '90 is drinking better at the moment. I give an edge to the '90 tonight as being simply more open, but with these two wines and the Clos Windsbuhl, above, we're getting some monumental, legendary gewurz. 97 points for the 1990; 97+ points for the 1994.

1990 Gewurztraminer “Rangen Vendange Tardive Clos Saint Theobald" (Schoffit)
Smokey, showing some odd notes, maybe caramelized peach, and a bouquet of shellac, i.e., some volatility I think, this wine was eccentric, but wound up showing quite well anyway. I liked the flavor nuances, and the burnished notes. It had some intensity and reasonable depth, and at this point was only moderately sweet. Different, but nice. 90 points.

[Return to Top]

Australia (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Shiraz “Filsell” (Grant Burge)
Thick and rich, this is a super value and a huge wine for the modest mid-20s price. It is stereotypical shiraz in many respects, but done very well. The thick mid-palate has syrupy blueberry notes, and has a fair hit of noticeable, new American oak. Although it was a bit much for my tastes, I didn’t feel it was too intrusive, and I think this wine is well made enough so that it will acquire some balance with a couple of years of age. It is, however, delicious now and you may find it hard to resist. There was also some welcome acid in the back. 89-91 points.

2000 Garnacha Old Vines (Burge Family)

Sweet, grapey and rather succulent, this seems tinged with fairly simple, even slightly candied, strawberry fruit, and perhaps a touch thin in the mid-palate. The component parts didn’t quite knit together. On the other hand, it’s young—very young. I liked how it evolved with air, becoming a bit more typical, and showing some class and structure, not just simple minded fruit that had one taster wondering if there was some residual sugar. I think this wine will actually develop well with even a year of cellaring; two might be perfect. It will never have the depth or intensity to be great wine. 88 points.

1998 Cabernet Langhorne Creek (Annvers)

This wine is taking no prisoners at the moment, and is hard to peg as cabernet. Ignoring that, it shows pretty well. Sweet, jammy, blueberry fruit is in the mid-palate, and there is plenty of sweet, obvious oak up front. It has excellent depth, but is not unduly thick or clunky. What is surprising is that the wine actually shows some balance, and structure. Tannins pop out with air. This is something that I suspect will come into fine balance with cellaring. It is also something that is approachable now but may close down. I suspect another three years of cellaring (maybe five?) and this will actually some elegance and refinement—but it will never lose that overt, tasty flavor. I hope. 90-92 points.

1998 "The Steading" (Torbreck)

Of moderate weight and rather elegant, this was a wine that defied Aussie stereotypes. But in return for elegance and restraint, it didn't deliver all that much of interest, at least not to me. It shows balance, but not much depth. It shows as a nice, pleasing, reasonably flavorful wine, but not necessarily a super premium that people would fight over. The finish is moderate. On the positive side, the only thing that marks it as a non-Rhone is a light mint nuance on the nose, light enough so that you have to think twice about it. For a nice Cotes du Rhone, it's pretty good. 88 points.

[Return to Top]

Austria (except dessert/sparkling)
1987 Gruner Veltliner “Wieden” (Salomon) QPR Winner
A touch of caramel and vanilla bean are the hints of age on this wine, which is mellow and only slightly oxidizing. I liked its gentle character. There is still a certain austerity to the wine, and whether you like the style is of course your choice. It sported a decent finish and weight, and considering it was only $140 a case, it was pretty fairly priced. 84-86 points.

2001 Gruner Veltliner “Im Weingebirge Smaragd” (Nikolaihof)

Just under $400 a case, this is a fine gruner, but may tax your patience in terms of bang for the buck. Fairly round and ripe and full, this reminded me of a rich pinot gris. I like the burnished gold feel to it, and touch of minerals underneath. The bone dry styling may be not be for you, but for many the most important issue will be whether the price is worth it. 88-90 points.

2001 Riesling “Privat” (Nigl)

At about $450 a case, it’s hard to consider this a bargain, but it’s pretty nice wine. It’s plump for Austrian Riesling, though still a bit steely and stern. It sports a fine, lingering finish and the fruit and acid are penetrating. It shows nice depth, although it also shows a touch tart, which hopefully will integrate as the wine cellars. 87-90 points.

2001 Riesling “Zobinger Heiligstein Alte Reben” (Brundlmayer)

At about $460 a case, this also wouldn’t win QPR awards. There were a lot of things I disliked in this wine. The mineral notes up front seemed to become bitter on the finish, and there was this burnt orange rind nuance I disliked, too, on the finish. The weight and concentration was very good, but I could not get used to the flavor profile on this wine. Your mileage may differ. 85-88 points.

1999 St. Laurent (Brundlmayer)

At about $205 a case, this was an interesting wine, though not cheap for its quality level, a theme that seems to repeat itself with a lot of Austrian wines on this page. St. Laurent is the varietal, a pinot noir relative. It showed some pleasing cherry notes in a light to medium bodied wine, some acid on the back and some grapey fruit, perhaps a little along the lines of non-carbonic maceration produced gamay. This is pretty pleasing; if it were $12, it would make a great, light summer quaffer. At closer to $18, it’s not a great value. 83-85 points.

1999 Cecile (Pinot Noir) (Brundlmayer)

Rather flavorful, and chock full of cherry notes on the palate and bouquet, this is a nice step up on the St. Laurent, above. It finishes a bit flat in flavor, but relatively long, and has a certain elegance in its medium to light bodied core. It seems very pinot-ish, if a little simple. It is on the crisp side, and the flavors turn to raspberry. The acid gives it a certain racy character. It is, unfortunately, about $400 a case, which is perhaps its biggest problem. 84-86 points.

1999 Dechant (Pinot Noir/Merlot) (Brundlmayer)

Soft, light and round, this shows cherries and plum nuances, and is quite tasty. It is rather light and hardly profound. At $260 a case, the wine seems reasonable next to some of the other Austrian reds, but it is still fairly pricey for the quality level and lighter style. Pleasing, enjoyable, but not really distinguished, it is a shame many folks will not even try this wine due to its price—and may not buy it again if they do. 84-86 points.

1999 Anselm (Zweigelt/St. Laurent) (Brundlmayer)

Coming in at about $400 a case, another problematical price, but another nice wine. This has a bit more depth and power than the other reds on this page, showing some tannins with smooth, ripe fruit. However, the flavor profile is a bit odder, showing some plums and darker fruit, some earthiness, perhaps even a touch of foxy notes. Again, a wine with many virtues, but a price that seems unrealistic for what it is. I personally preferred the cleaner flavors of the other reds on this page. 83-85 points.

Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)
1983 Chateau Margaux
The nose on this was off-putting, a sort of dirty sweatsocks smell. It moderated with time, but never quite blew off. It was decanted, but served soon after. Once past that nose, the wine was spectacular. The fruit was sweet and ripe, showing pure cassis notes. I loved the pristine, ripe fruit, and as always with Margaux, it was the epitome of elegance. As showing from this bottle, this is ready and delicious, but I wonder if that nose would blow off. 92 points.

This showed fairly well for a half hour, if you could ignore its lightness. It showed some pleasing, sweet fruit, and some tobacco notes. But within an hour, it faded badly. Never deep or distinguished to begin with, it began to show what it lacked all too clearly, i.e., a mid-palate. It was short, light and unassuming. Not bad, exactly, but pretty poor for 1^st growth Bordeaux. 84 points. Just a few days later, I had a chance to taste another bottle, and while I didn't have a chance to sit with it through the evening, it was far more powerful and pristine. Could be ...88-90 points. I would tend to discount the first bottle.

The following five wines were tasted at a large tasting, and therefore ranges are used rather than scores:

Simply charming. Yes, this wine lacks some depth, and the finish is decent, not exceptional. But it has some grip to go with the elegance, it is flavorful and rather sexy. It is also drinking pretty well now. For great Margaux, this isn’t it. And at the price they want these days for off vintage 1^st growths, why bother? But if someone brings this to the table in the near future, you can still enjoy yourself a lot, and it while it loses points for long term appeal, it is utterly delicious at the moment. 88-89 points.

1999 Alter Ego (Chateau Palmer)
This did not show as particularly impressive. It opens with a big show of structure and intensity, but you’re left wondering where the fruit is to support. It’s pleasant and pure, but seems simply too light for all that intensity. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong as it cellars. 84-87 points.

This is already approachable now, but is just a touch too tannic. Give it another couple of years, and you won’t regret having it grace your dinner table. It will never be a distinguished wine, but what it has, it does very well. I liked the sweet, pristine fruit very much, and it had a respectable finish, too. The problem with big names is weak vintages is that their cost is often out of line with the vintage quality. But that doesn’t mean the wine is per se bad. Sometimes it only means that for maximum enjoyment it should be drunk nearer term. 87-90 points.

There’s a hint of char and brett up front, but that did not dominate or ruin the wine. The fine depth and solidity of the mid-palate was frankly surprising. The wine seems like somewhat older, but rather good Bordeaux. I rather liked how this showed. This is a good time to drink, and for the next couple of years, but I would not hold this for long term storage. 87-89 points.

Classic Mouton, even in an off vintage. It’s a little on the light side, but it hardly seems hollow. If it is not distinguished, it is very pleasing. There are some cedar and cassis notes, a familiar touch of lead pencil underneath, and it is drinking rather well now. I enjoyed this quite a bit and appreciated the round fruit, and smooth texture to go with the complex nose. For drinking in the relatively short term, this is pretty pleasing. 88-90 points.

Dense, concentrated and powerful, this is a completely different wine than the one I had a couple of months ago from a bottle I had that was obviously a bit off. Despite being double decanted an hour or so in advance, it was brooding somewhat on opening. It showed cool and smooth, with cedar nuances and a lovely lingering finish that I loved. It is youthful and packed, and very intense. This may be the most powerful Lynch Bages I’ve had, one of its best ever performances, and it was surely one of the finest bargains in the vintage. 95 points.

In contrast to the ‘89 Lynch Bages, and it is perhaps a typical contrast one sees repeated in the ‘89 vs. ‘90 vintage fairly often, the 1990 is less brooding, less dense, but lusher, and sweeter, still showing primary cassis flavors. It may not be quite as deep as the 1989, but is arguably more charming, and with air it continually evolves and develops in the glass. I think I give the nod to the 1989, but not by much, and this has perhaps a greater chance to have its score improve with age. 93 points.

A bit aggressive now, it still drank beautifully. I loved the cassis notes of the delectable primary fruit in the mid-palate. It is soft, but not hollow, and elegant, but not thin. It was sweet up front, in the middle and on the lovely finish. As young as it was, it was very approachable, even though, after long aeration, considerable tannins emerged. This is a wine that will shut down and then probably not be approachable again until about 2007, when, I predict, it will show beautifully. 90 points.

Simply fabulous. I reported on this a month or so back, but that was in the middle of a big tasting where, as you know, things can get rather frantic. It showed as one of my top three wines of the night matched against first growths then. It seems even better now, given that I had a chance to sit with it all evening. Simply fabulous, if I may repeat, and that sums it up. What doesn’t this wine have? It has all the depth of the 1989 Lynch, above, and then some, perhaps. It has more flavor, and is riper, lusher fruit. A long finish. A beautiful, sensual texture. It is approachable, but well structured. Yum. 97 points.

It’s been awhile since I have had this perennial favorite in a peer group setting. Despite heavy competition, it held its own and still shows like the thoroughbred that it is. Again delineating the difference in ‘89s and ‘90s, this is even sweeter and lusher than the ’89 Pichon Baron, but not quite as powerful or deep. Although it is close on all counts. I thought this had greater viscosity than the 1989, and its mid-palate core of sweet, intense, concentrated fruit, concentrated cassis call it, that seems to be the essence of what youthful Bordeaux is all about is simply gorgeous. At age twelve, it drinks well, yet seems SO fresh and young. With air, too, it showed the ability to evolve beautifully and take on classical characteristics, without ever losing the sweetness or lushness. Very sexy. 95 points.

This opened a bit subdued, but that didn’t last long. What seemed to be a nice, pleasant, medium-bodied wine, eventually exploded in the glass. Opened last, after the Pichon Barons and Lynch Bages above, this wine declared its pedigree aggressively. The core of sweet cassis fruit was every bit as impressive as on the 1990 Pichon Baron. The wine didn’t seem as dense as the ‘89s, but was perhaps the most focused and precise of the group. It kept getting better all night, and I went from liking it to loving it. 95 points.

I really like this estate, for its distinctive right bank wines. They always show excellent depth, a solid mid-palate, and so, too, here. And they are always a bit distinctive, showing touches of game, earth and leather. So, too, here. This '95 is drinking very well. It is thick, but very approachable, lush and delicious. I don't know that this will make great old bones, but for mid-term drinking it lacks little. It was a wine I wanted to keep going back to all night long. 93 points.

Well! The person who brought this loved the 1996 so much that he thought this would be a steal at $20. Uh, not. The wine is young, grapey and simple. That I could live with for what it is. But it is also herbal, bordering on vegetal, and lacks any grip or intensity whatsoever. It seems to have a nuance of bubblegum, almost as if it had a touch of carbonic maceration. Whatever this was supposed to be, it hardly seemed like classic Bordeaux. Rather than a fine second wine, it seemed like a generic Bordeaux Superieure, undistinguished by depth or flavor. The “off” flavors were the big problem; I could have forgiven issues of depth, and intensity. 80 points.

From this bottle, this seems a bit further along than I would have expected, fruit a bit thinner and showing some tertiary, mature notes. But it drinks well, perhaps because of that. I liked its charm, and its broad, open and expansive demeanor. It had relatively little depth and only an average finish, though, and would face some pretty tough competition among other ‘89s. 88 points.

This has held nicely, and this is a fine time to drink it. Classic Pauillac, with notes of cassis, this elegant Forts shows a medium body, at best, pristine fruit, and just the beginnings of some tertiary nuances. I’ve never quite agreed with Latour’s stand on this wine, i.e., that it is the equivalent of a second growth, as the wine often lacks depth and intensity and finish compared to a second growth. So, too, here. But it is always a “true” to its appellation wine that shows grace and charm, and is a pleasure to drink. 90 points.

A lime note up front gives way to a sturdy white Bordeaux with bracing acidity and steely notes. There’s a touch of grassiness, and a lively aspect I liked, with a firm mid-palate. This style of wine is not for everyone, and some might say Bordeaux blanc is an acquired taste, but this is a nice representative. 90 points.

Bright, and medium bodied at best, this shows a touch of grapey fruit, a touch of acid and a light, charming, but relatively undistinguished demeanor. For those complaining that everything that comes from Monbousquet is over the top, try this. You may find it rather under the top, and very underwhelming. A pleasant drink, not much more. 85 points.

Burgundy (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Clos Vougeot (Jadot)
Smooth, and nuanced by black cherry notes, this wine showed some tannins in the back and a reasonably solid mid-palate. For Grand Cru, it was a bit underwhelming, though. Cellaring will obviously help it knit together, but I doubt this will ever show the depth and finish you would really want from a Grand Cru. 86-88 points.

1999 Beaune “Clos de la Mousse” (Bouchard)
Delicious now, and very flavorful, this cherry wine has a soft texture, and ripe, easy going fruit. You might think it’s a bit too easy for a young wine, of course, and you might be right. Still, it just plain tastes so good at the moment, that it is hard to begrudge its probable fate as a short to mid-term Burg. 86-88 points.

1999 Volnay “En Champans” (Monthelie-Douhairet)

This turns a bit flat on the finish, but the wine is soft and ripe, and shows refinement and finesse. Medium bodied, pleasing and elegant, this is a producer I feel can sometimes be unfairly but totally overlooked. Some of their ‘88 1er crus are still drinking well. This seems a bit too soft, though, to be a real vin de garde. About $425 per case. 86-88 points.

2000 Gevrey-Chambertin (Denis Mortet)

Flavorful and focused, this young wine is tight and tough at the moment. It shows intensity, clear red fruit in a bright demeanor, and plenty of depth for a village wine. This will need a few years in the cellar to show its best. The question here is whether the harder notes of the wine will become more harmonious and allow the fruit to show better. I’d bet yes. About $500 a case. 88-90 points.

1999 Vougeot “Les Cras” (Domaine Bertagna)

Soft, friendly and charming, perhaps a bit too soft for a young wine selling for $650 a case, this shows delectable cherry notes up front, some acid in back. It is not the deepest, most profound wine you will ever see, but it has charm to spare and just plain tastes great. I suspect this will drink well young, and not necessarily be your first choice in long term cellaring. It seemed to show rather well now, although it will no doubt improve. 87-89 points.

1999 Vosne-Romanée “Beaux-Monts” (Domaine Bertagna)

This Beaux Monts is a nice step up from the Les Cras, above. It feels more tightly wound, which a young, fine Burg, at $650 a case should. It has more focus, and more obvious structure, from the acid on the finish to a touch of tannins popping up. This needs some cellaring to really strut its stuff, at which time it should be a well balanced, cool customer. I’m not sure at $650 a case it is such a good value, but that’s your choice. 89-91 points.

1999 Chambolle-Musigny “Les Plantes” (Domaine Bertagna)

Yes, another $650 per case 1er cru. I would have to say again, I like the wine. I enjoyed it. I know it will improve. But I’m having a hard time seeing a lot of value here at that price. The wine is rather light, not as intense as the Beaux-Monts, above, and fairly open. Like all the others though, it shows pure, pristine and delectable fruit flavors, cherries at first, then raspberries as the acid kicks in. It’s pleasing wine, but I wonder if it will develop well enough to be deemed “A” material. 87-89 points.

1999 Clos St. Denis (Domaine Bertagna)

Elegant and classy, this wine showed some fine breeding and light perfume. It wasn’t showing a lot of depth, and seemed a bit closed. The fruit was a bit muted at this time, as a result, I think. I liked the finesse on this wine, and I suspect it will be extremely charming, very elegant in about 2005-2008. Whether it puts on some weight and shows enough distinction to merit its $1050 a case price tag is another issue, but this is a very classy wine. For 2/3^rdsof the price, you might find the 1er crus, as expensive as they are, offer more bang for the buck. 90-92 points.

1999 Chambertin (Domaine Bertagna)

In this lineup, here is the wine that is showing some teeth at this point in time. Very tightly wound, with tannins up front, the finish is long, and the wine projects good weight and density. It is still well balanced, though. The mid-palate concentration is good, not amazing, but this is a wine with all the pieces in play; it just needs another five years in the cellar or so. About $1300 a case, a nice wine, certainly, but a questionable value. 91-93 points.

California/USA (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Chardonnay "Gauer Ranch" (Marcassin)
This shows rather elegantly in weight. Its prominent feature is its flavor profile, featuring heavy lees notes, some touches of vanilla from oak and a fine finish. Air and warmth made it better, as its components integrated. Flavorful, relatively well delineated for a bottling that has a reputation as a monster, and very tasty. 92 points.

1988 Cabernet "Alexander Valley" (Silver Oak)
This wine from a dubious vintage has little redeeming features about it at this point. It doesn't taste bad, but all the licorice, dill and vanilla is from the oak, not the fruit, which has faded and thinned. There is nothing left here but oak, actually, and the wine otherwise seems a bit light. True, some people like that taste of new American oak, but don't you want at least a little fruit with it? 79 points.

Elegant and nicely structured, this wine is not heavy, but not hollow either. Still round and showing some intensity, the fruit seems youthful, even fairly aggressive, and tinged with strawberry notes. I suspect the principal concession to a decade of age is that it is less dense than in its youth. This was the debut vintage of Cinq Cepages, a wine that sold for less than $15. It is a marvelous performance, and the sweet fruit is very attractive. 91 points.

Served blind, this old reliable was pleasing and enjoyable, but it never really sang. It was elegant, and there was that telltale tinge of American oak—just a nuance, and one that will fade with age. It was double decanted, and it was a good two hours or so before I actually tasted it. After that decanting, it seemed a bit too light for young Monte Bello. True, it went through a stage where acid and supple tannins took over, but when that stage ended, the fruit had not picked up weight, intensity or depth. The finish was respectably long, but the wine never really seemed to show much that was distinguished or interesting. For Monte Bello, a disappointment. An awkward stage? Decanted too long (which would be odd for young Monte Bello…)? At the moment I can only say, 88+ points.

You can only say that this wine is gone. It was perfectly stored, and the cork was clean and perfect. No seepage. Not that I expected much. It actually showed good weight and depth, but it had gone to prunes. It had turned, and started the path to vinegar. Taste, dump, move on. I give it some credit for depth, but you still wouldn’t want to drink it. 65 points.

This meritage blend showed beautifully, start to finish. Decanted, it was still thick and rich on opening, opulent, lush, sweet and deep. There was some welcome acidity on the finish. With air, the wine surprised me for its ability to show more balance and classicism. This is usually one of the poster boys for fruit bombs, and it certainly was fruit forward, but it showed more balance and elegance than I expected. There is something in this Pavots for everyone, and it has a potential to improve. 94+ points.

The following were from a large tasting, and ranges are used rather than scores. When the ranges stop, we're back to normal.

Completely disjointed at the moment, this medium bodied meritage shows fairly harsh tannins, bright acid, and sweet fruit, but never together. I do question whether it really has the depth required for a top flight cab/meritage. I’ve liked every Rudd that I have had, but I would like just a bit more depth in most of them. This in many respects has more of a Bordeaux than a California feel. The wine is built to cellar, and the fruit is a little restrained. Will that equation work, and will balance be acquired? Inquiring minds want to know. 89-91 points.

Sharp and lively, this elegant pinot noir has the fruit to go with its structure. Elegant on the one hand, well balanced on the other, and showing delectable raspberry-nuanced fruit, this has everything going for it, but I would like a little more depth and a longer finish. It is not their best wine, obviously, but it is a fine performance for the RRV, and should develop a sensual, silky texture, too. 89-91 points.

This powerful Cab has backbone to spare—tannins, some acid, and in general, great structure. The fruit is a little harder to get at the moment, but after a minute or so, there is clearly quite a bit there. This should become a very focused, very intense cab, but you may not want to touch any until at least 2005. 89-91 points.

There’s a bit of a “sauvage” note here, with some gamey nuances on the nose. The mid-palate has some nice cherry notes, but the wine is just too light to take too seriously. Call it a generic Beaune, or something like that. At the right price, around $15, this would be a real nice house pinot, but I’ve seen it on the shelves as high as $26.00. At that price, I’d pass. 84-86 points.

1999 Pinot Noir Reserve (Ponzi)
Whatever the generic 2000 pinot lacks, the ‘99 delivers a lot of bang. Very intense, with some tannins obvious up front, this wine shows acid in the back, too, lovely fruit, and a very respectable finish. Some of the tannins were a bit mouth-drying at this point, which I always distrust in pinot noir, wondering if the tannins will overwhelm the fruit. However, I see a lot of stuffing here, and think this has a nice, bright future. 89-92 points.

This wine begins a trio of 1998 cabs from Clos du Val that show remarkably well in the context of this vintage. The way cab prices go in California these days, they are affordable, and their quality level is very high. The powerful Stag’s Leap District wine is bright and a bit disjointed at the moment, showing supple tannins on the finish, and acid in the back. The fruit is sharp and gives off red berry flavors, but nothing is well knit together. This is the most precise, and brightest of the three wines, and perhaps also the lightest. It will eventually become elegant and flavorful, and I think charming, and may have just a Burgundian hint to it, although by that I don’t mean to imply this is anywhere near the weight of most pinots. Personally, I would prefer more depth, but many will find a lot here to like a lot. Needs a couple of years of cellaring, at the least. 88-90 points.

The Napa, which is a blend of 60% Stag’s Leap fruit and 30% Rutherford fruit, is easier to evaluate at the moment. It’s a mouthfilling wine. The fruit is tight, but ripe, rich and round, and completely open, and I loved the chocolately nuances on the finish. This is not as focused as the Stag’s Leap, but I liked its depth and flavor profile more. For around $25, it’s a very good deal. Approachable now. 89-91 points.

1998 Cabernet Sauvignon “Rutherford” (Clos du Val)
The Rutherford is another success, and the rarest of the three. Which do I like better? I don’t know. The Napa perhaps wins in pure depth. The Rutherford is trademark Napa cab, though. No chocolate here. Just pure cassis. Like the Stag’s Leap, it is a bit brighter, perhaps midway between the Stag's Leap and the Napa. I liked the classical flavors on this wine, and its depth was still excellent. I suspect this will unfold a bit better than the Napa as time goes on. Approachable now, it will certainly be better in two to three years. 90-92 points.

This Gallo estate bottling is a very different animal than the single vineyard Sonomas like the delicious Frei vineyard. This is big and powerful, chock full of tannins, even a little astringent. Yet, underneath, the fruit is still soft, supple and approachable. Built for longer aging, this retains a lot of the advantages of the Frei/Barelli bottlings, but it adds a lot more structure. It is rather impressive, but I have to say, at a fraction of the price, the Frei holds its own nicely, too. 90-92 points.

This regular bottling is very nice. It’s a little light, as you’d expect, but it has some grip and intensity, and more merlot notes than its 11% merlot content would let you infer. The fruit is soft and round, but the cab has intensity, too. Great depth would make it special. As it is, it is a nice regular bottling. 87-89 points.

1999 Merlot (Shafer)
In a large room filled with 99 cabs, meritages and merlots, although mostly not reserve bottlings, I thought this was the best one there. This is simply beautiful. Very approachable at the moment, it is lush, deep, ripe and sumptuous. The opulent fruit throws off waves of flavor, blackberries and cherries. It has some backbone, too, and as new world merlot goes, this stands a chance of being pretty special. 91-93 points.

This, to my mind, was one of the first great Rhone clones produced in the USA. (Another would be the ‘92s from Edmunds St. John). It is still drinking superbly. In fact, on opening it seems rather youthful, and lively. The only difference now between this wine and the way it showed young is that it is cool and elegant, rather than massive and powerful. The finish is still beautiful, and with air the varietal takes on flavor nuances tinged with blueberry and a little meat. Still beautiful after all these years, though I have dropped the score a bit. 92 points.

1993 Syrah (Swanson)
In Swanson's superlative 92-94 trilogy, the 93 always seemed the weakest, though still excellent. The last bottle I had was superb. This shows even better. With age, it has actually picked up weight. It retains its elegance and purity of flavor, the finish seems even better. This wine has developed gorgeously in the cellar. 92 points.

If anything, this ’94, compared to the ’92, is more powerful, deeper and richer. Although just two years younger, it shows even more depth. Maybe that’s just the way these respective vintages worked out. The fruit here is sweeter, the wine a bit burlier and richer. I loved not only its solid mid-palate, but its intensity. A fine performance from a prime time wine. 94 points.

Smooth, and rather elegant, this had a cool, calm and collected demeanor, which still threw off lots of varietally true flavors. Medium bodied, with a pleasing finish, it drank well, and showed good fruit in a restrained, calm fashion. It was a well balanced, well made wine; I just couldn’t find much to truly distinguish it. 89 points.

This basic Pinot from Sanford is simply delicious. Elegant, and silky, with beautiful balance, it screams pinot right away. It is fruit forward and very flavorful, with overt and obvious raspberry notes. But it's not just a fruit bomb, and it's always elegant. This won't age long, and it's not exactly deep or profound, but it's a fine value at roughly $20 and very tasty. 89 points.

This extremely rare white Turley is a blend of roussane (80%) and viognier—but served blind, it had such a heavy lees overtone and seemed so Burgundian, that I guessed white Burgundy. Shame on me? Maybe not. After the bag came off, it still seemed rather Burgundian. It had that heavy lees, a touch of hazelnuts, and the big smokey notes some such wines can get. All that aside, it evolved beautifully in the glass, and had a lingering, intense finish, together with nice body and balance—except perhaps that the lees notes were rather dominant. This is a fine effort from a red wine specialist, interesting, and distinctive. 92 points.

This by reputation in the old days was one of California’s longest lived, sternest Chards. This incarnation finds it open, friendly—and rather sweet. The nose seemed a bit floral, and it was more like Mt. Eden chardonnay, than anything stern or powerful, or likely to live a long time. But ignoring what some expected, it was pretty tasty, and very well received. Some wondered if there was some residual sugar in the wine, but be that as it may, it went down easy, maintained fine balance, and, if not terribly complicated, left a smile on most faces. Don’t expect it to be Burgundy and you’ll be happy with it. 89 points.

Heavily dominated by vanilla notes at first, from new oak, this wine seemed all vanilla, with some acid in the back. Yet, it integrated well and improved dramatically with air. The body had solidity, but was not heavy, and the lees notes and acid came out to balance the oak as the wine warmed. The oak never quite fully integrated, but it did become more of a nuance than a dominating feature. It was hard to dislike this wine at the end. 91 points.

This projected an earthy nose on opening, and seemed far more interesting and balanced than the Hyde, above, next to which it was drunk. It was not as heavily oaked, and showed a beautiful finish. As the wine evolved, I wasn’t quite as happy. It seemed to develop chalky notes—more than just minerals. The flavors flattened out, the acid became a bit too prominent. Normally, I’d expect premium wine to get better as it warms, not worse. This still performed well, and some still seemed to prefer it to the Hyde. 90 points.

This wine served next to the 97 Kistler Hudson, showed more depth, better finish. It just seemed to have a bit more class. More heavily lees influence, it also showed a trace of mango on the finish, which was appropriately long. The mid-palate was solid, but the wine never seemed overblown or overbearing. 93 points.

Without question, the most impressive thing about this wine is the enormous bottle. Gee. Does it really get better reviews because the bottle seems more suitable as a magnum receptacle? But the good news is that the wine is pretty nice, and it grew on me as it sat in the glass. Yes, very California, but that's not a bad thing. Soft and approachable, with jammy, sweet fruit in the middle, this nicely textured wine offers up plummy flavors and ripe fruit. There is a welcome hit of acid in the back, and for all of the concentration of fruit in the mid-palate, this doesn't really seem heavy or monolithic at all. You may prefer more intensity or austerity, but this presents itself very well. I'd like to see how this develops, but I think it's going to be pretty nice. 90-92 points.

This old estate, now taken over by Turley, is a very different animal than its new owner. A lot thinner for one thing. More interested in high acid for another. Certainly, more along the lines of graceful and charming. Eventually. It opens acidic and a bit astringent; both blow off fairly fast. At one point, I thought the wine would become tart. Instead, the grapey, youthful fruit overwhelmed the acidity. Hmmm. Something good going on here... As it smoothed out with air, it became a reasonably pleasing, mid-weight wine with little of distinction, but nothing terribly wrong. I enjoyed it, and put it aside, recorked. A few hours later I came back to a wine whose grapey, youthful nuance had taken over. All components integrated, and the wine showed velvet and sweet fruit, with some licorice and nicely integrated oak, a marked improvement. This is not awe inspiring zin, but judging from the comments some have made, you would think it was gar-bage. Not exactly. 89 points.

Served blind, this drew an interesting range of guesses. Dark black color. Heavy American oak nuances. Thick mid-palate. I guessed Australian Shiraz, as did many others. Someone guessed Australian Grenache. Everyone was shocked to find out what it was, and few were humiliated by their guesses, which seemed right in line with how the wine presented itself. Drenched in new American oak, the wine seemed nothing at all like its big brother. A lot of 1997s are very jammy in the middle, thick and very ripe, this one included. However, this also seems almost syrupy, port like, and with the addition of the American oak, seems to have a blueberry jam component in the mid-palate. The wine had many virtues and improved with air. It was rather deep, had a nice finish, a lot of flavor. But it was also extremely eccentric and not likely to amuse someone looking for classic California meritage. How you feel about the many controversial components here, which are fighting issues to some, will determine how you react to this well made, but rather different wine. I personally was more than a little skeptical of wanting to buy it. 88-90 points.

Chile (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Founder’s Reserve (Don Maximiano)
This prestige Chilean bottling flopped badly. Let’s put it this way. There were seven tasters. Half didn’t want to taste it after smelling it. The rest took a taste and dumped it. The nose was bretty, going quickly over to that disgusting used sweatsocks smell wines can get. It was medium bodied and a bit candied. Nothing there was making me get past the nose, which followed through onto the palate. I don’t know if this was typical for this wine, but this was just awful. 70 points.

Dessert/Sparkling
1998 Riesling Late Harvest (Tim Adams)
I really like the way this has developed with a year or two of cellaring. It picked up a little weight, but it still seems sprightly, lively and exuberant. The finish is literally mouthwatering, as the succulent fruit meets the acidity. The wine does taste like it got a bit of oak on it, but it seemed in perfect balance to me. Delicious. 92 points.

Rather disappointing, if for no other reason than the nose seemed to be classic Yquem, and promised a lot. The mid-palate was too hollow for Yquem, though, and the finish too short. It was too light, lacked too much intensity and concentration. For all of that, it still tasted pretty fine, but if you know Yquem, a lot seemed missing. 85-88 points.

1992 Riesling Beerenauslese “Mussbacher Eselshaut” (Muller-Catoir)
Delicious, yet reasonably restrained. Big, powerful, thick and unctuous? Well, no. But the peach and apricot nuances were delicious, and the wine had flavors that were pure, pristine and memorable. The sweetness was subtle, but the best part of this wine was surely its fine, lingering and very long finish that allowed those pristine fruit flavors to remain on your tongue. Not particularly powerful, but rather delectable. 92 points.

Orange rind and apricot nuanced, this reasonably thick wine has a nice hit of acid on the back, and an interesting coffee aroma. No, there was no coffee at the table yet. As a BA it is pretty nice, and reasonably rich. As a TBA, though, it seems a bit underwhelming in the mid-palate and its viscosity. Tasty and enjoyable, but undistinguished, this is a wine that probably won’t justify its price or pradikat, but you’ll like drinking it if someone else brings it. 88 points.

1985 Riesling Beerenauslese “Erdener Treppchen” Ch Berres (Peter Nicolay)

It was hard not to be impressed with this distinctive Riesling, all of 17 years old and in prime time. It had an odd opening, a bit of a dusty texture, perhaps bread crumbs would be more apt. But the orange fruit notes dissolved into its still vibrant core of acidity, and there was enough residual sugar to make the wine succulent, refreshing and sweet on finish. Juicy, and often mouthwatering, this was a pleasure to drink, and in pristine condition. 92 points.

2000 Muscat Canelli "Windsor Oak Vineyard" (Williams Selyem)
This medium sweet dessert wine is pricey, around $30 per half, but lovely. Fresh, pure and lively, it has touches of that Muscat bouquet, and a solid, but not ponderous, mid-palate. Pristine and tasty, with notes of pear, this is probably best enjoyed by itself rather than as a food accompaniment. It's not a particularly good value, actually, it's significantly overpriced, but if you get past the price, it's pretty nice. 90 points.

Very sugary on the finish, it is nonetheless very bright as well, and rather chunky in the mid-palate. For all of its sweetness and brightness, and for all of its good points, the dominant feature of this wine to me at the moment was that chunky mid-palate. Chunky, but not particularly viscous or syrupy, just heavy. I couldn’t quite warm up to this, although it was certainly very good. It was more something I wanted to admire from afar. I did like the vanilla bean notes on the finish, too, though, and perhaps this will show better with a couple of years of cellaring. 90+ points.

Simply scrumptious. In a TBA style, this wine has it all--flavor, balance, depth, finish. I loved the very sweet first attack, but that's not all there was. The fruit flavors, mango and apricot, were clearly delineated, and there was a certain elegance and brightness to this despite its viscosity. The balance was excellent. And the finish was long. I'm still thinking about those apricots. The only thing this could use is a bit more age. Watch it continue to develop with another three to five in the cellar. 95 points.

This showed drying fruit, a heavy amber tone, and tons of oxidation. It is what you often get when a very sweet, very ripe wine starts to oxidize. You can't really kill this wine, although it reaches a point where it is unrecognizable as gewurz, and perhaps even as “normal” wine. Yet, even if it tastes of nothing but sugar and burnt apricots, it still has a certain succulence. It isn't gewurz any more. It's perhaps not technically what it is supposed to be any more, but it still has something interesting about it, something juicy and tasty. Technically, you have to concede it’s over the hill, but it’s still fun to drink. How do you score that? Call this a compromise. 86 points.

1997 Gewurztraminer Vendange Tardive (Navarro)
This shows no age, unlike the 1987, but something's really wrong. It's all alcohol, with a hint of sherry. The alcohol reading was in fact 15.1, but good gewurz can handle that. The wine seems to have turned, though it shows no evidence of damage. No one will touch it, even though it seems utterly pristine. It is more like eau de vie than wine. Hopefully, this is a bad bottle, and some others said they had had better. I give it credit for some depth. From this bottle, 55 points. Needs to be retasted.

1976 Gewurztraminer Trockenbeerenauslese "Urziger Wurzgarten"(Dr. Loosen)
This was pretty much shot. The fruit has dried out, there is little viscosity, and the wine is not sweet at all. There are hints that a wine is there, but no one wastes much time on this. The irony of gewurz from Urz Wurz (spice wine from spice garden vineyard) is not lost, but what seemed like a cute idea pretty much fails. The wine is mostly gone, devoid of interest, although it is has a certain pleasant feel to it, i.e., avoiding the repugnant notes some dead wines get. It is simply devoid of flavor and viscosity. 70 points.

1994 Gewurztraminer "Frank Johnson Vineyard" Select Late Harvest (Chateau St. Jean)
This seems more like table wine, and shows no gewurz characteristics at all. It doesn’t seem damaged, just too thin, not sweet enough, too flat, too boring. As a late harvest wine, it fails completely, though it is not undrinkable or annoying. 79 points.

1995 Trockenbeerenauslese (Lang)
This is a middle of the road TBA, nice, not fantastic, viscous, but not really concentrated, sweet, but not overly so. In the rather grim dessert wine flight, though, a little spice, apricots and viscosity went a long way. 90 points.

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 Riesling Spatlese “Koberner Weisenberg” (Von Schleinitz)

This flows over the palate with a rush of well integrated acidity that leaves your mouth watering—literally and figuratively. It tastes darned fine. The crispness rounds out with air and warmth, though. The wine shows almost dry, but it is not tart, and becomes more and mellow with air, showing admirable balance. It lacks great depth, but it is an intense little beauty. 89 points.

Soft and long, this mellow and mature Riesling never seems to be anything other than charming and gentle. Yet, it persists. It features that burnished, maturing wine feel that Riesling gets, and the acid is mellow, too. Yet, it still coats the mouth and grips the tastebuds. The finish is superb. This shows relatively dry, and the Auslese designation at this point mostly means ripe, round, lush fruit. As with most von Schubert wines, there is focus and precision, too. Very satisfying, but I would, perhaps prefer the fruit to show just a bit younger. Some questioned whether this was a typical, perfectly stored bottle. If not, I'd love to taste one! 91 points.