Bordeaux  (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 Chateau Barde-Haut
Lush, bright and sensual, this featured sweet fruit, pure grapes, and loads of charm. It was utterly delicious. In my glass, it expanded and picked up weight, and it needed some. Poured from the bottle a couple of hours later, it seemed to have thinned dramatically, leaving me a little unsure as to whether what had been in the bottle needed more air, or had had too much. There was no time left to resolve that empirically. I can only say that what stayed in my glass showed beautifully. This is not the most structured, intense wine you will find, but it is easygoing, charming and delectable. 90 points.

1998 Chateau Haut Condissas
One evaluation issue here is that the wine, served from magnum, was decanted for several hours before we got to it. That may not have been a good idea, as it thinned and seemed painfully short on the finish by the end. It had a too obvious nose of new oak, with a new world scent to it at that, and there were times I thought the oak was cloaking the fruit flavor. It nonetheless had considerable charm and a fine, velvety texture. The finish just disappeared, though. Very nice, solidly drinking wine, but also a bit simple and short. 87 points.

1994 Chateau Pavie Maquin
Powerful and tannic, this also seems unbalanced and disjointed. Some suggested more cellaring, but I don't think the simple fruit here is ever going to catch up to the powerful tannins. The tannins and some brightness give this a lively feel, but underneath the fruit seems older than its ten years, and a bit stolid and flat. At this juncture, I'd say you're better off risking the tannins and dealing with the balance issues than you are in holding this much longer. 85 points.

1986 Chateau Pichon Lalande
This has been one of my favorite PLs in the last 20 years, and certainly one of the deepest and most powerful. This bottle shows succulent fruit, and a provides a great sensation of depth. There are tertiary nuances in sight, some cigar box and earthiness, but the fruit is still fresh and remarkable for its concentration. This wine is like a sleek cheetah preening in the sun.  It knows what it can do, it has all the speed and power you'd expect. Admire it.  Starting to drink well now, but more time wouldn't hurt, and it should last a long, long while. 96 points.

1989 Chateau L'Angelus
This was the ultimate fruit bomb young, when it drank well and was incredibly sexy. Cellaring has made it a complete wine. It shows sweet but elegant, medium weight, with a touch of lead pencil. It has thinned in the mid-palate, but it is still remarkably flavorful, even though it is showing tertiary nuances. With air, some tannins come out and the wine shows off some power. It puts on some weight. Still exotic, still sexy, but rather impeccably balanced now, this has aged gracefully. Drink now. 94 points.

1986 Chateau Cos d'Estournel
I haven't checked in on this massive beast in awhile, but this is superlative. Opening stern, with tannins on the end, this presents the impression of solemnity, great, brooding depth and effortless power. It was a bit closed, and it should have been decanted, but wasn't. It was opened about an hour before tasting. As the evening wore on, it did start to open, giving evidence that this wine is approachable now. It became gripping and lively, evolving beautifully, even if retained a touch of the stern, brooding character that it showed on opening. Remarkably concentrated, this is a wine that promises more if it continues to evolve. If it doesn't, it is still very impressive. 95 points.

1986 Chateau Talbot
This is more evolved than the Cos, above, as expected. It shows a touch of game on opening, and some mature, tertiary notes around the edges, but also sweet, tasty fruit. It has fine depth, more than Talbot normally shows (and that is a refrain that is common with successful 1986s...), and nice focus. It continues to develop in the glass nicely. Very nice performance. 94 points.

1995 Chateau Monbousquet
Delicious and sexy. Lush and voluptuous, this shows oodles of sweet fruit that rolls around your palate with a velvety texture. It seems deep as well, but the wine opens nicely, acquiring more balance with every passing minute. Delectable in fruit flavor, well balanced and sensually textured, this shows more focus with air. It gives some hints that it should be drunk on the younger side, as the mid-palate, while stuffed at the moment,  shows less grip with air. Very nice. 92 points.

2000 Chateau Olivier
Around $20, $23.50 exactly in my state. This opens young and grapey, with a touch of earthiness for distinction. It shows little depth. With air, some lively tannins pop out, ripe and unobtrusive. But with more air, the wine turns a bit tart and sharp, and the modest fruit has trouble keeping up with the structure of the wine. I liked this less and less as the evening wore on, and even at its modest price point, you can do better in Bordeaux in this vintage. (Try Cambon la Pelouse, or Lanessan, or Reignac, for instance...)  84 points.

[Return to Top]  

Burgundy  (except dessert/sparkling)
2002 Macon-Milly-Lamartine (Domaine des Heritiers du Comte Lafon)
Nice body, especially for Macon, with lots of minerals and seemingly some cream, and a bit of fleshy flamboyance. This is very young, of course, but it sure didn't remind me of your average or typical Macon, which may make some unhappy and others not. It seemed to have almost a hint of sauvignon blanc "in your face" character to it. Quite a wine--but if it doesn't acquire some grace with age, I predict it will polarize. 89 points.

1999 Nuits St. Georges "Les Pruliers" (Gouges)
Nice texture, a mid-weight body, and an all around pleasant attack make this enjoyable. It is not terribly flavorful or aromatic, but cool and refreshing, with decent body. It thinned a bit too fast with air, and seemed a touch short. Nice, but undistinguished. 88 points.

1995 Volnay "Clos des Chenes" (Caillot)
Earthy, very light in color, and thinning rapidly, I think this wine already seems to be losing it. It didn't start that way. It was always a bit too light in body, but seemed lively with some nice strawberry notes, and perhaps a touch of game. But that thinness came back to haunt it and it became unpleasantly thin and sharp as the evening wore on. Not much mid-palate or finish. 84 points.

[Return to Top]  

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
2002 Syrah (Rock Rabbit) QPR Winner
This $10 wine was a bit schizoid. When it opened, I was extremely impressed. It showed power and intensity, and seemed to scream that it was a Serious Wine. There was nice blueberry scented fruit underneath, too. It softened very quickly, though, and I've rarely seen tannins drop off a wine so fast. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, it was a completely different wine, showing soft, gentle and easy. The fruit was still nice and charming, but it was not as lively, and it turned into more of what you expect in a wine this inexpensive. It lost some distinctiveness and flattened a bit. Despite its youth--drink now, and drink young. I think it would be dangerous to cellar this. This is still a very good deal at this price range for early drinking, though.  85 points. NB: A couple of weeks later I had another bottle that showed rather better--I could see upping the score to 87 points. Bottom line: a bit simple, but delicious, fruity, easy, terrific for short term drinking.

2000 Cabernet (Buena Vista)
Simple, too bright, and too thin, this shows some liveliness and some velvet on the texture, but like too many 2000s, especially at the lower price levels, it seems a bit diluted and lacking in mid-palate concentration. Nice nose. Not much else. 83 points.

2000 Fumé Blanc To-Kalon Reserve (Robert Mondavi)
The nose is not quite as flamboyant as some Sauvignon Blancs, but this archetype wine from one of America's most famous vineyards nonetheless has typicity and that very familiar SB pungency that true fanciers adore. This shows some hints of maturity though, and while the wine is lively and bright, the mid-palate also has a certain burnished, round quality to it that is distinctive and classy, perhaps aided by the tiny amount of semillon that usually is found in this bottling. Nice performance--ready to roll. 88 points.

2000 Syrah "Saralee's Vineyard" (Arrowood)
Sweet, with nice balance, this shows good intensity and focused fruit, beautiful balance. I'm not sure there was enough depth or a distinguished finish, and it seemed a little reticent in some respects, and its evolution in the glass was so-so, not quite as much as I might want to see in a $30 plus wine (although it came into my region a LOT cheaper than that, and hence was an excellent deal in Pennsylvania).  On the whole, a very nice if not quite exciting presentation. 87 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Cuvée Michel Berthoud" (Arrowood)
The nose starts flat and muted, but the wine shows nice balance, some nice lees nuances, and a superb, lingering finish. It is otherwise unassuming, and weakened a bit too quickly with aeration. Coming into Pennsylvania with at only $17 or so, it is an excellent deal, though. 87 points.

1999 Cabernet Reserve (Clos du Bois) QPR Winner
Pungent and lively, this inexpensive (under $20) cab shows a nice attack, reasonable depth in its price range, and some vigor. There's a touch of herbs on the mid-palate, and a nice velvety texture. For the vintage and the price range, this is nicely done and very enjoyable for short to mid-term drinking. Ready now. 88 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Suscol Ranch" (Nickel & Nickel) 
Steely on the nose, this entry from the Far Niente group shows lively brightness, a nice attack, and generally excellent balance. It also shows an oddity, a slight citrus-y note on the finish that seems a bit out of place but not unpleasant. The oak is better integrated and the finish is quite nice with air. Best of all---dumped in my region for under $20. They obviously had trouble selling this at $30 plus, but at this price it should move nicely.  88 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Damaris Reserve" (Landmark)
Superb. Better yet, this came into my region for just $19.99. This opens with heavy lees notes in evidence, but is also shows fine depth and good acidity. It is almost piercing at times, but the fruit is equal to the task of balancing the other components, and it never seems shrill or thin. Powerful and pungent and solid in the mid-palate, it has a lot to offer and is a super deal in my region at least. 91 points.

2000 "Crane Creek Cuvée" (Lambert Bridge)
I gave a pretty good review last month to the basic Merlot from Lambert Bridge--but for the 2001. I liked that basic 01 merlot better than this 00 Bordeaux blend (70% Merlot, 23% Cabernet Sauvignon, 6% Cab Franc, 1% Malbec), even though this is twice the price. The 01 basic Merlot lacked depth, but was at least correct, and was only in the mid-$20s, whereas this is a poor value at nearly twice the price, nearly $50. The label says that this Cuvée is only made in good years, but with all due respect, 2000 wasn't a very good year for most, and plainly wasn't here. Served blind to a table of geeks, it pretty much drew identical comments: short on fruit, acid dominated, unbalanced, lacks charm, no particular depth. I also thought it had a bitter finish. The aromatics weren't bad, driven by oak, but that was about the only plus on this disappointment. I retasted this about a week later; it was perhaps not quite so tart, but tasted overly mature, and remained disturbingly thin for a four year old $50 bottle. 83 points. 

2000 Syrah (La Sirena)
Bright and with some intensity, this shows good focus and structure, but I wonder whether the fruit is holding up its own. It seems far too thin, too simple, too short. In short, rather ordinary. 86 points. 

2001 Cabernet (Steltzner)
Rich, ripe and dense, this powerful wine is packed with concentrated fruit. For all of its power, the it shows fairly supple tannins and a certain approachability that is admirable. There's also a fair hit of toasty oak that will annoy some, but this wine is mostly about dense, concentrated fruit.  You won't be using the word "elegance" next to this, but it sure is tasty.  92 points.

1998 Cabernet (Screaming Eagle)
In terms of nose and flavor profile, this is classic Eagle, something I always think of as having a sumptuous nose (often fueled by oak that will integrate later...), and a certain spicy profile. Screagle always seems a bit exotic. That's all here, but alas, this is thin and short. It has little depth, less finish. It is undistinguished in every way. At the price charged for this wine, it should've gone the way of the 2000--that is, declassified, sold off for bottling under another name. It's unimpressive as a $50 cab let alone as Screagle. 87 points.

1994 Cabernet Sauvignon "Herb Lamb Vineyard"  (Colgin)
I would call this wine one of the biggest disappointments and misjudgments in my tasting career. On release and for a year or two after, it seemed remarkable. Big, powerful, structured and deep, it seemed to be a monumental cab. I wasn't the only one who thought so. Sometimes, wine just fools you. My next taste was a few years later and I was very disturbed by (a) how much the wine had thinned, and (b) worse yet, how green and vegetal it seemed.  Two more bottles since, similar notes, and here we are again. The wine has thinned more, and has a bit of a Burgundian feel. But that overwhelming vegetal aroma and flavor is more than offputting at this point. Despite this wine's fame, I couldn't even finish the glass.  Marinated in pickle juice? Stirred with asparagus? Stemmy?  However you wish to describe it, it was downright unpleasant and for me pretty close to undrinkable. Some hated this as much as I did, a few others claimed to like it a bit more, but I saw no one raving about it. Only one person of 8 really seemed to like it. The vegetal comments were agreed on by everyone. I wonder how much worse the comments would've been if the wine had been blind. If it were served blind, I wonder if I would rate it this high. This seems to get worse with every passing year.  83 points.

1994 Cabernet Sauvignon "Eisele Vineyard" (Araujo)
While Colgin's star has sunk in 1994, Araujo's has risen. Some thought this was "too much" on release, but I've been a fan and cellaring has tamed the tannins, made it civilized and approachable. It's simply delicious, showing hints of chocolate and cassis, rich but elegant at the same time, not nearly as big as, say, a Harlan. Its balance now is impeccable, and the wine throws off consistent waves of flavor. With every moment open, it acquires more typicity and elegance, while not losing flavor. Lovely, as I've come to expect. I have predicted that this would overtake the 1995 Araujo eventually, and that time is now. 95 points.

1996 Estate Proprietary Wine (Harlan)
Bright, with supple but persistent tannins and sweet fruit, this wine opens slowly despite decanting for a ninety minutes or so, and then gets bigger. The fruit is delicious and held its own most of the time, but there was occasional concern that the tannins, which got harsher with air, would eventually overwhelm the fruit. I think this wine is ok, and quite good, but cellaring is required and we need to see where this goes. 93+ points.

1997 Estate Proprietary Wine (Harlan)
Some dissenters mocked this wine on release as too big, too rich, too everything---a freak show. I never thought that. It was just a wine that needed cellaring. Its concentration will allow to be fresh and tasty for its useful life, and it will acquire some balance and grace. It's on its way. Just delicious, this rich wine with touches of chocolate wows you initially with the succulent fruit and round texture. Next up is the realization that this has multiple layers, and great depth. Finally, after being decanted for a couple of hours and then in the glass for awhile, you get intense tannins, too. The finish is lingering and gripping.  This wine is not without structure or backbone, and it has many mysteries yet to reveal. It is utterly delectable, but it is not just a fruit bomb. I think this is going to get better and better. It's wonderful, and not at peak. At the moment, by the way, this really needs two hours of decanting. 98 points. 

1999 Cabernet "Hillside Select" (Shafer)
My only prior taste of this was at the winery, and those tastings are inevitably a bit rushed. I had the opportunity this time to taste it after having been double decanted for three hours, and what a big difference. The nice, correct, but somewhat muted wine I had before, expanded brilliantly, showed great depth and succulence, and was simply spectacular. This is about as rich as any HS I've had, and the core of fruit is like essence of cabernet and cassis. It has focus and structure, too. It's hard to say whether this is better wine than the 97 Harlan above. I may have to give the Harlan the long term nod, by a hair, but this week I think I preferred the Shafer.  97 points. 

1995 Pinot Noir "Cuvée Catherine" (Kistler)
It has a youthful, red berry nose with a touch of oak but mostly fruit. The wine is bright and has some tasty raspberry notes. And that's about all you can say. Disappointingly thin, this shows a bit too much acid and tannin for the fruit, which has really thinned too much for a wine of this caliber. Actually, it hardly seems to have any more weight these days than the 95 Sonoma Coasts. 86 points. 

1998 "Rouge" (Tablas Creek)
This was pretty much a disaster in the making when it opened, tart, thin, dominated by acid, and short on fruit and flavor. I will give it credit for improving briefly in the glass to the point where it was tasty and had flavor, but it remained short, simple and thin. The good news is that this is their entry level wine, not the specialty stuff. 85 points.

2000 "Panoplie" (Tablas Creek)
Powerful and intense, this is also lively, rich and tasty. It shows some toasty notes, probably oak, and also sweet fruit, that gives more flavorful notes every moment with air. This is a very nice wine that I enjoyed a lot, but it falls a little short of great or truly distinguished. Considering the $70+ price tag, which is more than 2001 Beaucastel, it's up to you whether this is good enough. 91 points.

2001 "Blend 541" (Core) QPR Winner
This is a new Rhone Ranger winery and the outlook is very promising. The wines are very low production and hard to get at the moment.  The winery is your best bet.  This is the first release, just 250 cases, and a 50% Mourvèdre,  40% Syrah and 10% Grenache blend.  About $24. This is big and tasty, with beautiful fruit flavor, tinged with succulent strawberry, turning to richer blueberries with air. I liked its initial presentation a lot, but with air it begins to seem a bit too bright, and a haze of fine tannins emerge. We had some time to sit with it, and it gave hints of regaining its balance, but obviously with a new winery you would like to see how things develop in the cellar. This will be for short to mid-term drinking. A year of cellaring would help, then I'd like to try it again to see if my predictions come true. It looks like a wine and winery on the right track. 88+ points.

2002 "Elevation Sensation" (Core)
Only 96 cases made, this blend of 65% mourvedre and 35% grenache from a new winery is pretty nice. It has a nice, cool, refreshing mouthfeel, nuanced by leather and strawberries on the finish. It is focused and bright, easy to drink, but a bit thin. It never put on enough weight to make me really convinced there was much depth here, but it is a very young, pre-release wine that may fool me.  At the moment, it is fun, but nothing more. Around $32.  86 points.

2002 "Hardcore" (Core) QPR Winner   
Another bottling from this new winery, this is a 120 case production and a blend of Mourvedre (55%), Grenache (25%)  and Cabernet Sauvignon (20%). About $27.  This was my favorite of the lineup, showing a red berry nose, intensity and power, along with a rich, mouthgripping feel on the palate. The fruit was sweet and delectable. For short to mid-term drinking this looks like the winery's boldest and best. I hate to give big scores to brand new wines, because there is no mental database helping you decide  how they will develop in the cellar, but I have to give this 90 points.

2002 "M5" (Margerum)
This is a syrah/mourvedre/grenache blend that shows nice grip and depth, liveliness and excellent flavor. It is a bit too bright at first, but regroups. There seems to be a hint of menthol on the finish. Cool, calm, collected and tasty, let's see how this develops with some cellaring. It needs a little more harmony and complexity. 88+ points.

1995 Cabernet "Napa" (Corison)
This seems to be trademark Corison, in both good and bad respects. It is classic cab, laced with cassis, smelling of violets, with a soft, sensual, velvety texture. It is sweet and tasty, and at first immensely appealing. It aims for elegance. It also finishes a bit short, it develops not at all in the glass, and as it airs out, its depth becomes more questionable. Here's a winery with a fetish for balance and elegance. There also needs to be some development, finish and depth, still. For immediate drinking, often lovely, but a brick short of distinguished. 89 points.

1995 Cabernet "Private Reserve" (Beringer)
This opens with a take-no-prisoners rush of acidity and fine tannins, but the tasty, raspberry fruit fights through anyway. The acidity laces the succulent fruit onto the tongue, and the finish is penetrating, bright and sweet. With air, it evolves nicely in the glass, and comes together more. What this wine will never be is lush and sensual--but what's here is delicious and lively, intense and sweet. 91 points.

1997 Cabernet (Phoenix Vineyards)
This was the debut release of this winery, at around $35, and it is a real nice performance. This is about 13% cab franc, the rest cab sauvignon. Bright and a bit racy, it is more 1995 in demeanor than 1997, showing sweet fruit wrapped around a lively structure. The strawberry notes are delectable, and there's a powerful bouquet of red berries to open with. As it develops, it shows some earthy notes for welcome complexity. The oak has well integrated but provides just a hint of cream as the wine air out.  It has little depth after awhile, nor much complexity, and it eventually begins to fade a bit. Not a great wine, but for a debut release at this juncture, interesting and enjoyable. 88 points.

2000 Cabernet (Gamble Nelson)
Pleasant, correct, and like too many 2000s, a bit simple, and lacking concentration or finish. It also seems a tad overoaked, although in this vintage that may also mean under-fruited. Too simple, too short for a wine selling for over $30. 84 points.

2000 Syrah "Relentless" (Shafer)
Very sweet and grapey, with almost a core of "essence of syrah" fruit in the middle, this is delectable and very flavorful. It is not particularly thick or powerful, but it has a friendly brightness to it that gives it some liveliness, and ripe tannins for structure. Very enjoyable, but in better vintages, maybe a little more depth would make it sensational. I hesitate to give this 90 points, which is my first inclination, for fear it will thin too fast in the cellar, but if I'm wrong, it's a star. So, let's say 89+ points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Loring Wine Company)
I liked this on release, but it is pretty close to cracking up, which is not a good performance for a wine pushing $40 or so in just four years. The color is so light now it is see through, and the wine shows more acid than fruit. The finish seems a bit candied, almost a last gasp of through. It is generally boring and insipid at this point. If you've got 'em, drink up. 83 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Pisoni" (Siduri)

If the 2000 Loring, above, is thinning and cracking, this is showing nothing but pure power and may need more time. Sweet fruit, and perhaps overly toasty oak, assault you at the start. It is heady and seems a bit tightly wound, and perhaps a bit harsh and alcoholic. It still evolves nicely with air, and shows some more interesting fruit, as well as fine depth. There is perhaps a bit too much power here, but also tons of fruit.  89 points.

1988 Cabernet (Philip Togni)
Served blind, this wine caused many to guess Bordeaux, moi included. One thing no one guessed was that it was a 1988 Cal cab. It opened a bit on the thin side, but very nicely, showing tobacco and leather. It seemed pleasant and well balanced. I was guessing a good cru bourgeois from the early 90s or late 80s. It was very focused, a bit stern, showing some austerity, with tannins outpacing fruit a little. That trend, worrisome but controlled at first, got worse with time.  As it aired, it showed a bit hollow eventually on the mid-palate. For awhile, though, there were plenty of things to appreciate, and it is hard to believe this showed as well as it did from this vintage (for my money, one of the worst in California over the last 25 years), sixteen years later.  The tendency of this wine to keep losing fruit as it aired has to drop the final score, though. 86 points.

1993 Cabernet "Backus Vineyard" (Joseph Phelps)
Lively and elegant, tasty and structured, this shows rather well at this point in its life. There's a touch of eucaplyptus on the nose, but the palate is classic and restrained. That restraint is part of the problem: the wine evolves nicely, but never shows much flavor or finish. It is correct all the time, and sunny, but while the components integrate well with air, the fruit seems a tad flat, and the wine a bit simple. This is a relative note--it's still pretty nice even if the development in the glass stalls.  89 points.

2002 Merlot (Behrens & Hitchcock)
Bleh. Fairly big and toasty, this wine's downfall is its sickly sweet, candied finish. It tastes artificial, and it was not so pleasant to drink. With air, I'll admit that that nuance integrated some and calmed down. So, maybe cellaring will give this very young wine a chance. As it stood, it was a long way from classic Merlot, though, verging on parody. The good news: excellent depth and concentration. Too bad that had to be spoiled.  84+ points.

2001 Cabernet Franc (Crocker Starr)
Grapey, with zip and spice, I was almost expecting this to show a little spritz when it calmed down. It has a kirsch nose, but is otherwise rather thin and unexciting. The fruit is sweet, but perhaps a bit too sweet. I was disliking this a lot. I will admit it came around some with air, as the sweet, thin fruit integrated and put on a little weight, so its development helped save it. I think it is still rather odd and unexceptional. 86 points.

2001 Cabernet Sauvignon "Stag's Leap District" (Chimney Rock)
This is a peculiar wine and circumstance, in a sense. I recently had the 2000 Reserve of this, and liked it about as well, which is a very rare event in contrasting most watery 00s with the fine 01s.  But note that this is not the reserve and the depth is at least decent here, probably better than the 2000 reserve,  although still only adequate and deliberately, I suspect, restrained. The wine seems a bit too alcoholic, and a bit too obviously oaky, so the restraint for which they aim would be helpful in other areas besides depth, too. Still, this has a lot of good points. It opens showing little but sweet oak and seems way too thin, but as I expected, air brings out better depth and integration of components. It has very refined tannins, and little intensity, making it rather simple. With air, finally, the touted blackberry nuances of which the label speaks pop out, and the wine finally shows a little charm and becomes enjoyable.  I actually liked this better the next day, which speaks fairly well for it, although it never showed much of distinction, while always being a pleasant drink. Its easy, approachable, "drink now" performance for a cab in the mid $40s from a fine vintage is not always what you want to see. Can this develop with cellaring? Or just barely hold?  Its biggest flaw was always that it seemed rather heady, a bit too alcoholic for its body and depth, even though I couldn't say it was hot, exactly. The label says 14.1%, which is not terribly notable these days, but it sure seemed to go to my head quickly.  89 points.

[Return to Top]  

Dessert / Sparkling wines
1996 Chardonnay Eiswein (Valckenberg) 
This opens with some mouth puckering acidity typical of many eisweins, but that's not all there is by a long shot. It is thick and unctuous, starting with grapefruit, but quickly turning to mango, or maybe papaya. The flavor profile is unusual in that respect, and not everyone liked it. I did. Lusciously sweet, and respectably deep and thick, this will seem a bit eccentric to some, but I thought it was pretty well done. 92 points.

2001 Riesling Eiswein "Ockfener Bockstein" (St-Urbanshof)
This opens with a big rush of sugar, plus some ZING and ZEST, and it gets thicker and more unctuous as it warms. Deep and lush, it also has some focus and brightness, with well integrated, not jarring, acidity. It provides stunning waves of flavor, plus touches of diesel and minerals. It is succulent and delectable, and just lovely.   95 points.

2000 Scheurebe No. 9 (Kracher)
Another beauty from Kracher, who excels at these stickies.  This opens with a steely nose and some minerals on the bouquet, but nothing much else is subtle here. Instead, this is pure decadence. Very sweet and sugary, it is syrupy and rich, almost like cling peach canning syrup. But it has some intensity and a great finish, too. Delicious, succulent, and perhaps too thick for some. 94 points.

1970 Port "Boberg Library Reserve" (KWV)
This was $25 when it was released into the USA in the mid to early '90s, almost 25 years old and amazingly good. Rich, sweet and youthful, no one could believe how old it was, or that it was from South Africa. Time has shown it taking on some occasional tawny characteristics, more nuttiness, for instance, a lighter color, but it still rich and sweet, even if the palate fruit is leavened by intensity and tawny characteristics. It is also bright and lively. Holding well, the wine sports fresh caramel and nuts, none of which seems in danger of dying. 90 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer Late Harvest "Vista Verde Vineyard" (Williams Selyem)
Tropical fruits mingle appealing in this well structured, vibrant wine. It doesn't seem very gewurz-y, to be sure, but it is mouth-coating and delicious. The trademark here is structure more than syrup, though, and this wine shows lots of acid and a penetrating finish. Redolent of pineapples, it is actually more flavorful the next day, which also sees it pick it some weight and lushness. Very nice. Drinks well now, but can hold a few years. 92 points.

1985 Huxelrebe Beerenauslese "Weinheimer Kappellenberg (Gysler)
Odd, off and bitter, this has strange flavors and is rather funky and offputting. For all that, the wine does not seem overtly damaged or dead, and still shows a rich mouthfeel. But something is wrong here, and the odd flavor notes turn off everyone in sight. 79 points.

2001 Riesling Beerenauslese "Brauneberger Juffer-Sonnenuhr" (Paulinshof)
Sugary and bright, this sports a great finish, but there is not much in the way of unctuousness, nor much body. For a BA, this is relatively unimpressive, even if it drinks well and is tasty. 88 points.

NV Port Solera "Fine" (Buller)
Another Aussie "port," that you can ogle and suckle on. Nutty and laced with caramel, this is sweet and heady, and mouthwateringly good. It packs a punch--the alcohol is a bit obvious. But every drop is laced with flavor, and this is a big crowd pleaser. 92 points. 

1993 Zinfandel "Essence" (Ridge Vineyards)
This wine, gone out of production, has acquired such grace with age. It still tastes like puréed raspberries, but elegant and fetching. There is a burst of brightness on the finish, a nice, lively attack and a touch of earthiness as it airs out more. This is focused, not heavy or thick. Just delicious. 94 points. 

2001 Welschriesling Trockenbeerenauslese (Zull)
Hard, a little bitter and sharp on the finish, this Austrian TBA won't remind anyone used to Germans of TBA. It doesn't seem too sweet, or too syrupy, or much like TBA as most have come to know them. It's a different animal. It is pretty deep and dense, and that much makes sense. Its color is a bit dark--could be skin contact, but it does taste a bit older than you would think it would. It was hard to warm up to this austere, stern taskmaster of a TBA. Maybe you'll like this style better. 86 points.

1994 Late Harvest Riesling (Beringer)
Ripe, rich and laced with pure apricot essence, this has always been one of California's richest, sweetest, most unctuous dessert wines. It used to be cheap, alas. That aside, this syrupy wine is surprisingly bright around the edges and shows good acidity to go with the palate gripping fruit. 95 points. 

NV Sherry "La Cilla" PX (Barbadillo)
This classy sherry, priced in the mid-20s, is a 180 year old solera. It has a rich, pungent nose, and a sweet, thick mid-palate, that, however, is nicely balanced. Creamy and sweet, it is a pleasure to drink. 93 points.

1998 Riesling Eiswein "Kallstadter Saumagen" (Kohler-Ruprecht)
Some, who prefer laser like acidity and more focus, may think this is too much. Oh, it's not over the top in terms of weight or syrupy qualities, but boy does it ever show sweet. Sugar, sugar and more sugar. The folks across the room were diabetics and needed a shot just because we uncorked the wine. Well, just kidding. Succulent and sweet, this seems to be drinking beautifully, pristine fruit mingling with endless waves of sugar driven flavor. There's a great finish, too. An amazing amount of fun to drink and drinking beautifully now. 93 points.

1984 Chateau Yquem
This opened decently and was pleasant, if rather simple, for awhile. As it sat and aired, the fruit that was left thinned badly, and all there seemed to be left was oak and vanilla notes, some hints of botrytis. All structure, no fruit. Not much depth, power or finish. This is mediocre Sauternes at this point, never mind Yquem. Served from a half bottle.  83 points.

[Return to Top]  

Germany(except dessert/sparkling)
2002 Riesling Kabinett "Graacher Himmelreich" (J.J. Prum)
Acid dominated at the start, a bit austere and smokey, with a touch of bitterness on the finish, this wine found me a bit disappointed, and wondering when I was going to get a lot more. Maybe it will come around, and show better with time, as it is very young, but at the moment all I could say is that this had decent depth. 86 points.

2002 Riesling Spatlese "Forster Jesuitgarten" (Basserman-Jordan)
This has no more weight than the Prum Kabinett, above, it seems, and it is not terribly impressive for spatlese. In fact, although it becomes a bit spicy with air and shows some liveliness and a nice, bright finish, it seems short at times, even though the texture seems a bit oily, or velvety. Not bad, but nothing special. 86 points. 

2001 Riesling "Red Slate" (Heyl zu Herrensheim)
This trocken could be used as Exhibit "A," as to why many people think trockens are often problematical. Made at spatlese weight, it simply lacks the fruit and concentration to support its mouth puckering acidity. Its austerity is unpleasant, and there are few redeeming notes to it. Words like "shrill" come to mind, and the finish is rather bitter. 80 points.

2002 Riesling Kabinett "Scharzhofberger" (Reichsgraf von Kesselstatt)
A whiff of petrol up front starts this off. The wine is round and has a nice mouthfeel, with a bright finish, tinged with a little of that petrol. It is also laced with lemons and the finish lingers nicely.  A lovely Kabinett, likely to improve with some cellaring, but drinkable now.  88 points.

2002 Riesling Spatlese "Rudesheimer Berg Rottland" (Johannishof--Eser)
Lovely. There's a rush of sugar up front, and this is surely of Auslese weight. The sweetness is beautifully integrated with acid, and it seems succulent and delicious. It lacks a bit of intensity, but has enough liveliness to be enjoyable as well as delicious.  Very approachable and tasty now. 91 points. 

2002 Riesling Auslese "Herrenberg" (Maximim Grunhaus)
Well delineated and precise, this has a heavy whiff of petrol, and plenty of acid. The sugar is muted, but there's enough there to mitigate any shrillness. Although the focused laser beam of acidity is the first impression, the fruit, sugar and acid dissolve nicely on the tongue. Intense and carefully balanced, this will strike some as rather austere for Auslese, even though it is elegant and impeccable in many respects. This might merit a higher score, but I'd like to see how it develops with cellaring. 89+ points. 

2002 Estate Riesling (St-Urbanshof) QPR Winner   
A very nice generic riesling. It is a blend of two vineyards, and widely available with some 12,000 cases in production. It opens with a peachy nose, followed by some stones and steel. There's a little sugar on the nose, too, but the wine is impeccably balanced, with just enough acid, just enough sugar, just enough fruit. It is easy and pleasing, a bit simple and stolid. There is a slight hint of bitterness on the finish. I think this will be a well priced crowd pleaser for early consumption. (I do not have current pricing, but would guess it to be under $12.)  86 points.

2003 Riesling Kabinett "Ockfener Bockstein"(St-Urbanshof)
A lot of young rieslings show heavy whiffs of petrol or sulphur, and here there's a whiff, though not too heavy. The winemaker believed it was more the product of using wild yeast than anything else. Be that as it may, it is well integrated here and moderates quickly. This is bright and lively, though not particularly intense. It opens dry-ish, but gets a touch sweeter with air and a bit lusher. It is elegant, but still as fat or fatter, and with a finer finish than the Piesporter Kab, below. This legally qualifies as spatlese, at least, but has an elegant Kab feel to it. This has a chance of improving in the cellar, too. 87 points.

2003 Riesling Spatlese "Ockfener Bockstein"(St-Urbanshof)
The key distinctions between the ripe kab above and this spatlese is a sense of being fatter--but especially a much finer finish. The finish here is superlative and complex, with a medley smokey minerals, apple and some darker red fruit nuance that is hard to identify. Plus, there is that nice, round mouthfeel to go with the acid and intensity. Nicely done. 89 points.

2001 Riesling Auslese "Ockfener Bockstein"(St-Urbanshof)
This is beautiful and impressive in its intensity and focus, showing nice delineation and structure. It dissolves into stones and minerals. It's not overly sweet, and there's a bit of a mouth pucker on the lemon-lime finish. Elegantly wrought, the wine has acid that melds nicely with the fruit and sugar to drive the finish home. Lively and delightful. 93 points.

2003 Riesling Kabinett "Piesporter Goldtropchen"(St-Urbanshof)
This opens with a heavy whiff of petrol, and seems easy and light, a bit too simple. It is legally spatlese in weight, though, and not surprisingly it picks up some weight with air. The finish is a bit plain, short and dry-ish, with some smokey notes. This needs to show me a little in the cellar, but it wasn't showing much today. 85 points.

2003 Riesling Spatlese "Piesporter Goldtropchen"(St-Urbanshof)
Not particularly vibrant, this is imbued with other fine qualities, starting with delectable hits of sugar up front, preceded by a bit of diesel fuel on the nose and some minerals on the palate. It has a certain lushness to it, and seriousness, and is fat on the finish. Delicious, but a bit lacking in intensity at the moment. I think this will improve in the cellar, and could merit a better score. I think the Ocfener Bockstein, however, above, is always going to seem zestier and more interesting than this wine in 2003. 88 points.

2001 Riesling Auslese "Piesporter Goldtropchen"(St-Urbanshof)
A big whiff of diesel up front, followed by charcoal and minerals gets this off to an interesting, if stern, start. The sugar is obvious, too, but it's not too sweet, and it gains weight with air. It shows nice focus and depth, an elegant, lingering finish, and a velvety mouthfeel. It does seem a bit bland at times, not as vivacious as one might hope. Still, very good. 91 points.

2001 Riesling Kabinett "Erdener Treppchen" (Meulenhof) QPR Winner   
I loved this on release, and was a little worried at my first taste here. This intense Kab has shut down for business. It was all acid, tart and shrill--hardly the type of wine I'd love. I recorked it and refrigerated it. Day 2 showed the acid calming down some, and there was some evidence of fruit reemerging. But it was still just ok. Day 3 finally showed the wine waking up, with its components, especially the acid, finally becoming more muted and the fruit coming to the fore. It was as good or better on Day 4, too, with a little sweetness poking out. Not bad for a Kabinett, huh? This realistically needs to be cellared for a year or two at this juncture. I'm not sure it will ever be quite as charming as it was on release, but when it acquires some balance again, it will be a formidable kab again, and it was just...$10.50. 89 points.

1992 Riesling Auslese ** "Zeltinger Sonnenuhr" (Selbach-Oster)
As first opened, this was marvelous. The texture was almost oily, the wine clung to your tongue so well. It was a beautiful blend of acid, moderate sugar and deep fruit.  Here's the kicker: I accidentally left a 1/2 bottle of this (it was a 375ml) uncorked and just standing on the kitchen counter for 3 days. It was still very nice, showing nice acid, well delineated and flavorful fruit. Had I not seen what it was like on opening, I would've thought nothing of it, it was that fresh. This is a fine achievement in any vintage but in this one it is particularly remarkable at this age and under these circumstances. 95 points.

1994 Riesling Spatlese "Erdener Treppchen" (Ehlen)
This opens in a rather thrilling fashion, and I found myself liking it a lot. The rush of acidity was heavy, but exciting and balanced nicely by fruit and well integrated sugar. There was a bit of mouth pucker at the end, and that was this wine's undoing as it aired out and warmed out. As the fruit developed, it thinned a bit, and the acidity took over a bit too much, ultimately making the wine a touch tart. Still, there was a lot here to like, even if I'd say "drink up," don't hold, no matter how aggressive you think it is at the moment. The fruit will not match the acidity--so knock it back while there still is some. 88 points.

1992 Riesling Spatlese "Zeltinger Himmelreich" (Selbach-Oster)
This opens up with a rush of gripping acidity that you might compare to astringent tannins on old fashioned Barolo. Like a boxer absorbing a blow, you have to take that first punch and fight back. It's dense and gripping, and what else...will there be enough fruit? It is surprising how fast this comes around after that first acid blitz. By the end of the evening it is even showing a lot of mature notes, and the fruit is nowhere near as attention getting as the acid attack. The acid lingers now mostly on the finish. This evolved nicely, but the fruit was not as interesting as the structure, and is struggling to keep up. 88 points.

[Return to Top]  

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Barbera "Marun" (Correggia) 
Ripe raspberries, and luscious fruit lead this wine off.  I could not identify it as Barbera served blind, and that may offend typicity freaks. But the fruit was so ripe and tasty, it was hard to object. At this point in its life, it has thinned a touch, and is not particularly long or deep. Still, very delectable, hedonistic wine, if a touch simple, too. 89 points.

[Return to Top]  

Rhone/South/Southwest (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Saint Joseph "Les Lauves" (Jean-Luc Colombo)
Weak, thin and diluted, this seems to lack concentration. It also comes complete with some odd, blueberry notes that seem artificial. From every perspective, this is a wine that seems to be a failure, having nothing in particular to recommend it, having no distinction, despite a good producer and vintage. Expectations were higher for this.  Just not...getting the job done. It's drinkable. You can't say too much more. 80 points.

1998 Gigondas (Les Pallières)
This opens well, but finishes poorly. It opens with a rush of grenache that is rather nice, but the warring components of the wine, i.e., the acid and alcohol, quickly overwhelm the fruit. It seems a bit hot and heady, and too bright, but in its favor, the fruit flavors keep poking through, even if they are not deep or lush. This has more merit than some might think, but it is still a simple wine that is a bit too disjointed. 85 points.

2001 Grange des Pères
This is hardly a cheap bottle these days, around $50, but it hardly seems distinguished, which makes this a very poor buy. It opened with lots of game and garrigue, that bacon fat nuance some love (and others detest). There was little else there. The fruit was of average depth, and there seemed to be little structure. The wine was flat, a bit flabby and a bit dull. We had it open a long while, and while hints of liveliness poked through, this never seemed to have anything like the depth, finish and concentration you would expect on a pricey and rather well known bottle.  I could excuse this if it were a $12 Languedoc, but at this price, there's no excuse. 85 points.

1994 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Vieux Telegraphe)
This old favorite is holding nicely.  I had read some suggestions that it was losing it, but I don't think so at all. In fact, it seems rather lovely. Lushly textured, it shows great structure on the end, and more tannins than I recall, but it is surrounded by sweet fruit, and has a gentle demeanor nonetheless. Gentle, but lively, and the wine seems interesting and refreshing, too. 90 points.

1998 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Beaucastel)
It's been awhile since I had this, and it has only improved with cellaring. The soft, sweet fruit bomb shows more power and structure now, but remains rich, ripe and sweet. The tannins are ripe, the texture velvety, and this gives every indication of being a great Beaucastel--I wasn't positive on first taste, although it was certainly charming. In the '90s to the present, I'd rank this third, perhaps, after the 2001 and the 1990. The extra couple of years of cellaring have helped this immensely, and while it is approachable now, it has not yet peaked, and probably won't for another two to three years. 94+ points. 

1990 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Beaucastel)
Until the 2001 came along, this was my pick for the best Beau in the last fifteen years or so. It is aging beautifully, and is fully ready to drink. It does not have the depth or power it had in its youth, but its fruit is amazingly sweet, and the wine has a certain harmony and elegance that has to be tasted to be appreciated, along with a sensual texture. Its finish is long and persistent, and very flavorful, nuanced with strawberries. There are some trademark gamey notes...  95 points.

1998 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Cuvée  La Cote Ronde" (Paul Autard)
Served from magnum, this wine seems hard and tannin, very unready, and hard to evaluate. Its steely demeanor is mitigated some with air--eventually--when it slowly evolves and shows a great, gripping finish. The finish can only be described as "saturating." The flavor pokes through slowly, but this, especially from magnum, is vin de garde, and needs some considerable cellaring. From a mag, at least, I wouldn't touch this again for five years.  95 points.

1998 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Cuvée  Chaupin" (Domaine de la Janasse)
Always a sleeper, this estate has produced another winner here. If their wines never seem quite as deep, quite as profound, quite as complex as some others, one thing they always are is utterly delicious, impeccably balanced and very ripe and approachable. Which is what we have here. The sweet strawberry/rhubarb fruit is delectable and the wine seems to drink nicely now, although it is fresh and young. 92 points. 

2001 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "La Crau" (Vieux Telegraphe)
A hallmark of this vintage seems to be backbone--the wines have structure and bite, and I rather like that. The tannins here are a bit hard to take, though, a bit dusty and rustic, and the wine never seems to open or evolve. There's not a hint of charm in sight. This was very hard to deal with tonight. Hopefully, it's just a phase, for there seemed to be a lot of stuff here, but for now, I can only say 90+ points.

1994 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Reine des Bois" (Mordorée)
This was a decent but not great vintage in Chateauneuf, and this wine, while thoroughly pleasant, never reaches the heights of things like the 2001. There's a sweet, chocolately nose, but the fruit is not as dense as the bouquet promises. The fruit is sweet, though, and flavorful, surrounded by lively, soft tannins that almost give it a spicy note. Very tasty, but sometimes seeming a bit thin, too. Ready to drink.   89 points.

1994 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Barbe Rac" (Chapoutier)
This presents a beautiful medley of flavors that scream "grenache," and there are times when it seems someone just crushed some fresh strawberries. The wine is bright, but seems a bit too soft, with little backbone, even though it seems lively enough. As it airs, it gets softer still. At age ten, this is ready to roll, and perhaps does not fulfill some of the promise of its youth. Its price tag certainly makes it a so-so buy in this vintage at this time. 89 points.

1990 Hermitage "la Sizeranne" (Chapoutier)
This has not always been my favorite bottling from Chapoutier, but I was very pleased to see this, at age fourteen, doing superbly.  There is some barnyard and bacon fat. The wine has good depth and flavor, and often seems downright succulent. There's a nice finish to top it off. Hearty and mouthfilling. 91 points.

2003 Rosé (Mas de Gourgonnier)
Light and airy, this shows dry,  more structured than fruity, and in fact, there seems to be relatively little fruit. There is a bit more fruit on the finish, especially as it warms up a bit. Easy and bit bland. This is rather simple, but at the same time, it is clean and refreshing and for a lot of picnic fare would be a great choice. 85 points.

2001 Plan de Pegau (Pegau)
Given how great a vintage 2001 is in general and for Pegau in particular, you might have a secret little gem here. I at least assume there is a lot of 01 juice in here, but note that this is a non-vintage wine, though it rather deceptively  looks otherwise. The importer says that this is a "blend of wines from Costieres de Nimes (Laurence's husband's Mark Fincham's vineyard) and from the original 'Plan Pegau' vineyards outside of Chateauneuf (and sometimes lots of actual Pegau Chateauneuf that don't make the cut). Between blending across regions, blending across vintages and including table grapes this can never be anything but a Vin de Table - which in France means it cannot carry a vintage date. My bottlings for the U.S. always carry a Lot # that indicates the primary vintage in the bottle." But this opens disturbingly simple, thin and a bit sharp. Some air brings it into balance and it shows nice flavor, little if any depth. Thankfully, it was a bit closed, as its better performance the next day demonstrated, when it picked up weight and showed some lively characteristics. Drink now. About $10, and nice value once it opened, but not that secret little gem you might have wished for. 85 points.



[Return to Top]  

Spain (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 A Capella (Gratallops)
This well priced Priorat, in the low to mid $20s, a blend of carinena and garnacha,  has its merits, but is not totally convincing. It opens with a haze of ripe tannins, and several bursts of acid. With some air, nice cherry notes pop out that I enjoyed, but the finish is austere and acidic. The acid and tannins never quite integrate with the fruit, and this lacks some charm as a result. It usually presents itself as being too bright, reminiscent of a very acidic red Burgundy. It was better the next day in terms of acid, but also a bit dusty, not superlative. This is going to need a couple of years of cellar time, and it would be nice to see some graceful integration of its components. I'm not overly hopeful, but it will merit the "+" if it does. It is just as likely to see the score go down. 83+ points.

1998 Finca Dofi (Palacios)
Delicious and bright, this well known wine gets bigger and livelier as it opens, showing sweet cherries and a great, flavorful finish. Persistent, lingering and mouth gripping, this wine never quits. Charming and elegant, too. 92 points. 

2000 6 Vinyes de Laurona
A blend of mostly grenache and carignan, this is intense and sweet, with a powerful attack, and plenty of tannins hiding underneath. Very focused, very penetrating, it is also ripe and delectable. Excellent. 92 points.

1998 Cabrida (Capcanes)
This was double decanted some five hours before we got to it, and I had plenty of time to check back over the course of the evening. It was brutally tannic. True, sometimes decanting can backfire--but as noted, it was open for long after that, too.  I would like to say it opened slowly, but it never did, actually. This much astringent tannin on a wine that is already six years old and not necessarily intended for 20 years in the cellar is troubling. The tannins are dusty and obscure the fruit, which occasionally pops through, but not often. At the moment, I have to say this is unbalanced, and it is too unbalanced to come around well. 84 points. 

[Return to Top]