Alsace (except
dessert/sparkling)
1995 Muscat "Goldert" (Zind-Humbrecht)
This wine has entered a fully
mature phase, and should be drunk, but still seems lively to me. The
sweetness and opulence has blown off with age, but if you did not
have it young, you would be impelled to say it still seems fresh,
marked with the somewhat eccentric notes Muscat from this vineyard
tends to throw off. ZH Goldert Muscat is always a different beast,
steelier, more powerful, less perfumed. This is elegant and
refreshing, but a Muscat lover might wish for more of that glorious
bouquet. The "Goldert" always seems a bit more reticent in
that department. 89 points.
1998 Riesling
"Schlossberg Cuvée L'Inédit" (Weinbach)
This special, irregular bottling from Weinbach is always
something fine, but I wasn't as bowled over by this as I often am.
Still, this is never bad. It has precision and focus, to its credit,
and is rather dry on the finish. This is a certain nose to this that
hints of some botrytis--I could be wrong--although the wine has few
other late harvest indicators. It has a sturdy and somewhat brooding
mid-palate, with perhaps a hint of diesel on the nose, too.
Altogether, a lingering Riesling in a subdued style. 92 points.
2000 Pinot Gris "Clos
Windsbuhl" (Zind-Humbrecht)
This opens glorious and exuberant, yet at the
same time--oddly restrained as it is not rich and unctuous. I liked
the distinctive notes of peppers and spice, at times I might've
guessed a reticent gewurz, and also a nuance of pear--a sort of
drier, more restrained flavor component than peach or apricot. As it
aired, it did show a bit too much bitterness, and I couldn't help
thinking that I wouldn't mind a bit more sugar to balance it out.
Yes, that will puzzle some who think every ZH wine is incredibly
sweet (wrong!). 91 points.
1989 Gewurztraminer Selection des Grains Nobles Cuvée
"S" (Hugel)
This shows little gewurz character, and sometimes very late
harvest wines don't, as the sugar pretty much overwhelms everything,
not to mention the botrytis. But this does show young and fresh, with
beautiful balance, along with a reasonably unctuous mid-palate. All
of its medium bodied density seems to be in that core of syrup in the
middle. Very nice, if not quite earthshaking at this point in its
development, when it is no doubt more civilized than on release or
even a few years ago. 92 points.
1998 Gewurztraminer "Clos Windsbuhl"
(Zind-Humbrecht)
This is in many ways the epitome of gewurz. It
is opulent, dense and ripe, as you might expect from the greatest
producer's of gewurz in a fine vintage from a top vineyard. It is
also off dry, but I would suspect that if you read the statistics on
residual sugar, they would be higher than you think, for the fruit
and structure soak up a lot of the sugar and cloak it. In other
words, for all of its depth and opulence, it is a remarkably well
balanced wine that also shows underneath precision and focus, and
quintessential gewurz characteristics--it is chock full of lychees
and the pepper and spice overwhelm the sugar as the wine warms and
airs. A beautiful expression of the varietal, drinking well now,
although it is very youthful and fruity still. 95 points.
[Return
to Top]
Argentina (except
dessert/sparkling)
1999 Malbec (Tikal)
Argentina's signature wine, from
a winery that excels with it, is usually a good bet. Some thought
this was a bit too thin (and for sure, when you see the massive
bottle, you expect a powerful, thick wine..), but I thought it showed
quite well. Blueberry notes on the nose and palate were quite tasty,
and the wine projected a lively, bright demeanor, a bit light on its
feet. It seemed a touch hot at times, but mostly projected a sturdy,
Bordeaux feel. It evolved nicely with air and the fruit got sweeter,
the acid integrating nicely. The only problem was the lack of a
little depth in the mid-palate. Still, you could have a good time
with this. 89 points.
[Return
to Top]
Australia (except
dessert/sparkling)
2001 Shiraz "Adelaide Hills"
(Petaluma)
This is leaner, lower in alcohol,
and more focused
than stereotypical shiraz, which does not per se win you awards. The
question is, what are you substituting for depth, size and lush fruit? The
opening here is familiar, with some creamy oak notes tinged with
blueberry on the nose, but then the wine opens on the palate with too much
acid, and seems a bit tart. The
fruit took on a slight nuance of chocolate, some ripe tannins
appeared gradually, and there was some better integration of the oak
and acid. I rather liked how this evolved in the glass, and
the more it sat, the better the finish got. The chocolate took on
some bittersweet notes at times, too, which won't appeal to everyone.
The
mouthfeel here is more French than Australian, although the flavor is
New World all the way. Some will think this is a cool and refreshing
change; others will pine for more beef. I'd like to see
this improve in the cellar, and show some balance and true finesse,
though. It was a bit sharper the next day, but there was fruit there,
too, and I think how that resolves will remain an issue. 88 points.
2003 Riesling "Hanlin
Hill" (Petaluma) QPR Winner
This wine sells for about $14.50 in Australian
dollars on retail shelves there (that was the lowest price I saw;
some go up to $18 or so). I have not seen pricing here, but at
that lowest price, which translates to around $10 US, it is a fine deal if
you like this style of wine. By that, I mean that this is more or
less bone dry, steely and austere. The nose opens with classic
Riesling smells, and is varietally true. I liked the nose better than
anything else on this wine. There are plenty of lemons at
first, especially on the finish, along with the steel and what seems
to be a minerally note. The next day, there are some green
apple notes, too, and the body has held up well. If anything, it's
better on Day 3, an impressive performance for inexpensive
wine. I'm still not so
sure I like the austerity on the wine, though, although it has nice
depth and precision. It opened a bit as it warmed up, but this will likely
show better in a year or three. At the moment, it is rather forbidding.
88 points.
2002 Shiraz "Shotfire
Ridge" (Thorn-Clarke) QPR Winner
The price on this formerly good value wine is
fluctuating a lot, as a lot of praise has caused demand to soar. $20?
$25? Who knows...I am admittedly not a fan of very sweet, oaky shiraz
with lots of kirsch notes these days, and I was expecting more of the
same here. I was relieved to see that this is actually in pretty good
balance and, while very flavorful, is not over the top. There are
some dollops of what tastes like new American oak, a bit of mint, and
some kirsch nuances around the edges. But the mid-palate is solid and
correct, and there is also some brightness on the finish, which is
gripping and pretty respectable for a wine like this. Long on flavor,
but hardly without structure, this is pretty nice wine. 90 points.
[Return
to Top]
Austria (except
dessert/sparkling)
1999 Gruner Veltliner "Alte Reben" (Brundlmayer)
Spicy, and solid, even while
seeming light and sprightly, this opens nicely, and evolves well,
coming together and integrating its components. I'm sometimes
bothered by the austerity I see in a lot of Austrian rieslings, but
this projects a certain sunny quality to it that I liked. Ultimately,
it could have used a bit more depth or intensity, perhaps, but it was
a pleasure to drink with the right food matchup. 90 points.
2002 Riesling Smaragd
Ried Klaus (J. Jamek)
This pricey Austrian just doesn't
do it for me. I know a lot of folks like the style. Have at it.
True, it's very young, but it is very austere, a bit bitter on the
finish, sharp around the edges. There is a certain chalky taste in
the mid-palate. Maybe you'll say white pepper or minerals, but I
thought it was in between those--call it chalk. In fairness,
some people liked whatever you want to call that nuance, and this is
a very young wine that will no doubt evolve and improve with
cellaring. I'll be interested to see how it evolves. Still, I can
give credit for attentive winemaking, but I really don't like the
style. 88 points.
[Return
to Top]
Belgium (except
dessert/sparkling)
2002 "Cuvée Pur Sang" (Domaine Twee
Eiken)
This unusual wine is 90% Kerner, and 10%
Riesling. It was a real crowd pleaser. Very tropical, with notes of
pineapple at first and melon later, as it aired, it was bright,
lively ....and very tasty. It's only flaw, such as it is, is that it
is a "drink now" wine that has little potential to become
anything else, or I would rate it higher. For NOW though, it is
utterly charming and quite delicious and you will enjoy it more than
its score would indicate. Oh, one other thing....there
were only 60 bottles made. Sorry. ;) 87 points.
1999 Chardonnay "Cuvée
Goud" (Genoelseldere)
This seems a bit more "serious" than the Pur Sang
above, and has some gravitas, but loses some points for
a bit of overoaking, so the score is about the same. For all that,
while the oak is noticeable, I've seen a lot worse, including on some
grand cru white Burgundy. It is noticeable, but not that awful unless
you really, really hate oak. By the way, I guessed white Burgundy
blind, which is a testament to this wine. It has a solid mid-palate,
some notes that seem more leesy in nature than oaky, sometimes
hard to tell, and a good focused, mid-palate attack. It seems solid
and well made, and I doubt anyone would call this an oddball wine
from a minor area that normally doesn't make wine. Keep in mind, too,
it is already four years old, and fresh and pure, so it is not a
flash in the pan. Seemed like a white Burg to moi. 88 points.
[Return
to Top]
Bordeaux (except
dessert/sparkling)
2000 Chateau L'Angelus
For those who say 2000 Bordeaux are
drinking just fine now, no. Certainly not all of them. For those who consider Angelus a little
fruit bomb of opulence, and not much more---no, again. This mammoth
wine showed up in a decanter, sat in it all night long, and never
budged an inch. Served blind, I guessed 2000 Bordeaux, but couldn't
do much beyond that as it was so monolithic. Grapey and youthful in
color, it had plenty of tannins on the back and was tight as a drum.
At one point it seemed a bit bitter and I thought there might be some
heat damage, but that did blow off with air. This jam packed Angelus
will need another decade to show near its best, at least. It has
everything you might be looking for in a big time St. Emilion. The
only question I have is, how good... 94-96 points.
1983 Chateau Margaux
Decanted about an hour and a half
before getting to it, this wine was sublime when we did. Sweet in the
middle, it was elegant in demeanor, and sensual in texture, exuding
pure velvet. The nose was all violets, and cassis followed through
onto the palate. It was Margaux personified for awhile. That said,
although this was an aftermarket purchase perhaps not with tip top
provenance, it did become a bit ordinary by the end of the evening
some hours later, losing some flavor, but never that sensual texture.
94 points.
1986 Chateau Lagrange
Earthy and mouthgripping, this full bodied, and rather
opulent Lagrange stints on little. Its tannins are a little too
heavy, and there is a certain charbroiled note I didn't like. In
other respects, though it seems to be classic Bordeaux, with a touch
of flamboyance added. And helped along by those tannins, you won't be
tasting much else for awhile after. :) A few more years of cellaring
is advisable. 91 points.
1950 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion
Ok. I'd like this better if it had been served blind. I
jest. A little. Yet, on paper, this would seem to be a likely loser.
In person, it showed rather well. Deciding how well is the issue. It
is certainly mature, a bit sweet in the middle, without much
lushness. But it is cool and refreshing, if a bit gamey around the
edges, some of that charred character older wines can get, especially
if you suspect a touch of brett. It had good weight for its age, and
for all of its leanness and reticence, it held pretty well while
opening, and was never anything but reasonably enjoyable. Not a
revelation, but a very nice performance in context. Those who ogle
mature wine will like it better. 85 points.
NV Trilogie (Chateau Le Pin)
This unusual wine is a blend of vintages 1997, 1998 and
1999. It opens soft and easy, showing plenty of velvet and
sweet fruit, with an average finish. It is supple and charming, but
shows some astringency on the finish after aeration. It does a lot
well--but nothing exceptionally, and I don't think this wine is
intended to make A Big Statement. It is more like a pleasant cru
bourgeois. 88 points.
2000 Chateau Talbot
Fresh and pure, this medium bodied Talbot seems like classic cab,
bright, with sharp notes of cassis and raspberries, it is lively and
tasty. Also young, of course. It is nowhere near ready to drink, and
its components need some time to integrate. It will be interesting to
see how this evolves, but it looks like a charming, elegant Talbot in
the making. 89-91 points.
2000 Chateau Troplong-Mondot
Here's another 2K Bordeaux that belies reports of them all
seeming to be puppy friendly. In fact, this is a monster, inky black,
highly extracted and tight as a drum. The tannins are in charge at
the moment, and the wine is a bit hard and unfriendly. If I didn't
know the property, actually, and not having tasted this earlier, I'd
be a little concerned at the projection of power. As it is, I would
tentatively put this in a 90-92 point range, but it is really hard to
evaluate at the moment.
1982 Chateau Talbot
There were slight oxidized notes on this, and a mature, earthy
feel, with nuances of forest leaves. It was cool, and provided a
slight tingle, but also a bit of funk, perhaps some brett. The fruit
did evolve though, and I liked the lush, suppleness of its
mid-palate. From this bottle, this is a fully mature Talbot. Drink
up. 89 points.
1986 Chateau Talbot
A touch of brett, apparently, leads this off, but it also shows
elegance, surprising for this very powerful vintage. Smooth and
silky, and a bit earthy, this has a round feel to it, even though it
is not all that fruit driven. It manages to be a bit sexy without
being lush, perhaps because the fruit just plain tastes good. A very
nice Talbot, showing lots of finesse and character. 90 points.
2000 Chateau Calon Segur
Supple and friendly, this shows cherries and plums, and has a
soft, easily accessible demeanor, in contrast to the Troplong, for
instance, above. So much so that everyone looked up and
wondered if this could really be young Calon Segur. It's friendly and
pleasing, to be sure, very nice tasting, and fun, but I had to wonder
where the tannins were. It's not unusual for relatively new wines to
have a puppy fat dimension for awhile, before they close down, but
from this bottling, this seemed a little more supple and friendly
than I'd like. It was open awhile, but let's hope something more
shows with cellaring. 88-90 points.
2000 Les Carmes Haut Brion
Mouthfilling and opulent, this velvety Bordeaux presents
gorgeously ripe fruit, and a sensual texture. Laced with cherries,
the fruit is flavorful and the finish lingers. There is also a
tannic bite for structure and balance. This seems like essence of
Bordeaux at times, combining concentration with finesse, and I just
wonder how good it will get with cellaring. 92-94 points.
1982 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion
This unfolds slowly, after opening with a stinky nose. It
evolves and changes dramatically ever after. The mid-palate is easy
at first with supple tannins showing, but it doesn't stay that way.
In fact, it gets more aggressive and shows more youth and power as
the tannins pop out and the funk blows off. I can't say I was quite
bowled over by this, as there were moments when flavor and charm
seemed missing, but by the time I was done, it seemed to be
drinking rather nicely. 92 points.
1986 Chateau Gruaud Larose
This was a remarkable and rather surprising performance, because
the wine showed so sweet, easy and friendly. It was surprisingly
accessible, given the vintage's Darth Vader reputation for tannin,
and also Gruaud's tendency to make powerful wines. I loved the sweet
cassis notes in the mid-palate, which was solid, but not thick, and
the wine seemed fresh, friendly and accessible at every step. Oh, and
also rather delicious and hard to put down. It actually got to the
point where I might've liked a bit more intensity, but a wine this
pure and pristine at age 17 cannot be dissed. 95 points.
1989 Chateau Monbrison
This is a pretty nice performance by a fourteen year old cru
bourgeois. Showing good depth, some cassis and elegance, this is
denser than you might expect from a Margaux commune cru bourgeois at
this age. It shows nice structure as well as sweet fruit. All is not
perfect, though. It did show a hint of forest leaves around the
edges, and the next day it the fruit dried out too much and left more
acid than flavor. So, it is time to drink up. Still, for dinner
tonight, a very pleasing, middle of the road bottle. 88 points.
1975 Chateau Petrus
This opens a bit musty and showing a bit too much oxidation
around the edges. Happily, all of that blew off with aeration in the
glass. In keeping with this vintage, this wine is a bit intense and
austere, with little lushness, although happily, again, the tannins
were not astringent or overbearing, but a bit gritty, at least in the time I had to
watch this air out. Still, I liked how this developed, showing a
certain rounded mid-palate focus and a certain silky mouthfeel. It
broods a bit too much, and I did not like its austerity, even though
it had many admirable traits, including the sense of tremendous depth
lurking below. But I wonder how many people would taste this blind, and move
along quickly without having much interest in it. Perhaps it
would improve with more cellaring, some thought. Perhaps it
will. But I'm not sure what they're looking for is ever going to show up.
92 points.
2000 Chateau Cheval Blanc
This seemed to me mostly reticent and rather hard to judge at the
moment. The wine started out with one of the most amazing noses I've
ever had on a Bordeaux, as if someone took a handful of blueberries
and crushed them in front of your nose. The palate was locked down
tighter, though, showing elegance and muted fruit, although there was
a core of sweetness poking through occasionally, and not much
else. In the time I had with this, a couple of hours, it was
hard to dig down, and the wine seemed to reveal nothing about
underlying layers, or showed much power. It was not tight in
terms of seeming intense; only in terms of being muted. I hesitate to
say anything under the circumstances, but it seemed to me most likely
to fall along the lines of 93-95 points.
1986 Chateau Rausan-Segla
This had too many notes of oxidation, and I suspected the very
sweet red berry notes in the middle were as much due to that as to
the quality of fruit. It has some intensity still, and a medium body,
but having recently had pristine and powerful 1986s, like, say the
Gruaud, this seems to lag far behind, and show too much age in some
respects. An average showing, despite admirable depth and
a certain sexy sweetness. 90
points.
[Return
to Top]
Burgundy (except
dessert/sparkling)
1997 Hautes Cotes de Nuit Blanc (B. Ambroise)
QPR Winner
A steely nose starts this modestly
priced Burg off. And everything is is great after that, too, almost
mocking this wine's modest status, age and vintage. It is bright on
the finish, and in between it shows some oak and cream, plenty of
depth for its class and lots of flavor. It is sexy and distinctive,
too. I hesitate to rate this so highly, especially because wines like
this, i.e., from so modest an appellation, tend not to hold well, but
hey, call 'em as you see them. 90 points.
1997 Pouilly-Fuissé "Clos des Petits-Croux"
(Domaine Guffens-Heyen)
It starts a bit too sharp, but I had a feeling it wouldn't stay
that way. It was quickly followed by heavy lees notes, and a slight
note of steel. Although it seemed fairly austere and not terribly
concentrated at times, it also showed a touch of cream and plenty of
fruit at times. More importantly, it kept changing and evolving
for as long as I had it. This is a pretty special bottling, and I
doubt it is their best vintage, but by the time I had none left, I
liked it a lot. 91 points.
1997 Meursault-Narvaux (Domaine d'Auvenay)
Somewhat bitter, almost astringent in feel, this seemed dominated
by a disjointed mix of oak and acid, flat in flavor. It has good
weight, and in the mid palate there was a nuance some called
"butter popcorn" that I rather liked. Still, this
ultimately seemed to be a wine that I felt I should admire, but could
not enjoy. 87 points.
1990 Corton (Meo-Camuzet)
Very ripe, very deep, and with great flavor, this dense, powerfully
built wine seemed to me just what I wanted from a big time producer
in Corton in this vintage. There were cranberry notes in the middle,
and the primary fruit is long gone, but it was sweet enough and
exuberant enough, that its depth and power were merely the supporting
players, not the whole show, as with the Rousseau, below. Burly, with
some astringency on the end, but still attractive Corton. 93 points.
1990 Chambertin Clos de Beze (A. Rousseau)
This wine added more structure than even the big, powerful Corton,
above. I might say--a little too much, maybe. Very powerful, this is
even deeper than the Corton, I think, and also sports
occasionally aggressive tannins, and perhaps a touch of brett.
The problem I see here is the balance....the fruit seems to be drying
out, and is a bit overwhelmed by the structure. It finishes a
touch sour, too. Despite its admirable qualities, the lack of much
flavor, or at least good flavor, leaves me a bit cold. 89
points.
California/USA (except dessert/sparkling)
2002 Charbono (Foley)
Weird wine, often unpleasant, I wonder if this will cure some of
its defects with cellaring? Some perhaps, but I suspect not all. It
is very clearly youthful in color, highly extracted. The nose is
roasted marshmallows, indicative perhaps of questionable oak
treatment. On the palate this turns into something that finishes a
bit bitter, and has little other flavor, seeming a bit flat, if
grapey. I know this is a VERY young wine, but it was such a chore to
drink, I find it hard to believe it will turn into anything
interesting. I hope I'm wrong. 83-85 points. NB: About
ten months later, I came on this again, and it was showing much
better, calmer, fruitier, more charming. The finish was still
bitter, and the wine was still simple---but it was pleasing,
drinkable wine. The second bottle was rated at 87 points. I
can't say whether the variance was a matter of my being fooled
by bottle shock or the like on a very new release, or just an
off bottle. Anyway you look at it--not great wine, though.
1996 "Reserve" (Von Strasser)
If you think all Cal cabs are big fruit bombs by
definition, this and the next three wines demonstrate otherwise. Not
that they are shy of fruit or flavor. Sweet cassis in the middle here
is delicious, but the wine is impeccably balanced and evolves well in
the glass, integrating its components seamlessly. It has excellent
focus. It is a bit herbal, perhaps from the high percentage of petit
verdot (65%), and there is a touch of bell pepper. I would've liked
just a touch more depth, but it was hard to resist the charm here.
This still relatively primary, but drinks well, and I think I'd
rather have it on the young side than hold it a long while. It is no
immediate danger over the next few years, particularly considering
how primary it still is, but when the sweet fruit starts to fade, I'm
not sure there is enough depth and backbone to make this still
interesting. The wine will surely be alive in five years, but will
you still care? Err on the side of caution. 90 points.
1993 Cabernet (Abreu)
Sweet and young, this shows some tertiary notes as it evolves in
the glass, but it sure opened tight, youthful and penetrating, with a
super finish. It flattened out a bit with air, but it also evolved
and changed rather consistently. In current demeanor, it had a sort
of Bordeaux feel to it. I liked the sweet fruit in the middle. For
all of its good performance, I say this is ready and drink in the
next few years for best results. 92 points.
1993 Cabernet "Lamb Vineyard" (Fisher)
Served blind, this wasn't Bordeaux, I was pretty sure, if for no
other reason than the somewhat larger bottle size. But I
"guessed" Bordeaux anyway, as this mature wine sure seemed
to lean in that direction. Nicely focused, with some sweet fruit on
the finish, this also shows some briars and brambles, some grip, and
some soft tannins. The fruit improved with air for awhile. As it
stands now, this is lively and still vibrant, but there are tertiary
notes, and the fruit is thinning a bit. Drink now and over the next
few years for best results, in my view, and now is probably best. I
liked the earthy notes on the wine, the mature, but fresh, fruit a
lot. 90 points.
1988 Cabernet (Forman)
It sports a nice color, and drinks well for a short while. It's
soft, but there is some vibrancy underlying it. But the flavor has
flattened, and eventually it not only flattened, but left. It faded
fairly fast. If drunk fast, it wouldn't be too bad, perhaps being
that stereotypical luncheon claret, but in my view there isn't really
that much here to excited about any more. It's nice that it is still
alive and drinkable. 84 points.
1999 Cabernet "Beckstoffer" (Behrens & Hitchcock)
The fruit here is very sweet and rather hedonistic, and it is
surrounded by soft, supple, very ripe tannins. For all of the sex
appeal, this is well balanced, surely better balanced than some of
the oak drenched monsters this producer put out at times in the past.
There is some toasty oak, and I'd guess that is the source of
the wine's touch of caramel, different, but nowhere near as
intrusive as new American oak and its heavy vanilla and dill overlays
that over the top oak treatment can produce. In fact, it just seems a
bit different, but relatively restrained, in fact, not all that deep.
Rather likeable in many respects. 90 points.
2000 Petit Verdot (Behrens & Hitchcock)
It is not easy to find wines entitled "Petit Verdot,"
but here you go. I rather disliked it a lot. Bright, and perhaps too
bright, there seems to be almost a sour note on the end. I
suspected a touch of volatile acidity, but possibly not. It has
little depth, and is very simple, plain wine. It comes in a pretty
bottle from a cult producer, though. 82 points.
2001 White Zinfandel (Sutter Home)
Light in color, and off dry in the finish, if a bit too sweet,
this had me thinking at first that, well, it wasn't too
bad. After all, this is the stereotypical wine to bash, right?
The weight was nice, and a lot of pinks have a similar demeanor. It
didn't take long, though, for that finish to become completely
disreputable. Not only sweet--I could live with that--but candied,
with a touch of syrup. It became more and more annoying as it warmed up
and aired out, too. I couldn't even a finish a glass. I can
truly say now that if you mush have a pink, there are lots of ways to
trade up that don't involve subjecting yourself to cherry syrup with
alcohol. 78 points.
2001 Zinfandel "O.V.O.C. (old vines, old clones) (Alderbrook)
The first nuance was cream and vanilla, from the oak, but
the oak here integrates remarkably well, while softening the texture
and providing some sex appeal. Perhaps that is because the wine is
only partly blended in new American oak. It becomes a nuance, you
suspect it, but it's not overwhelming. The mid-palate is solid,
delivering flavor all the time, but shows good balance. If you
dislike the cut-em-with-a-knife styles, this will not show that
way. As it airs out, you get some briars and brambles, and
finally some very supple, modest tannin. This was decanted, and it
took a good 45 minutes for the structure to show through. As it aired
out even more, I was impressed with the integration of the oak, and
the wine even showed a bit of an earthy quality at times. Hedonistic,
but not devoid of structure or distinction, if you give it enough
air. Trying it again the next day showed an acceptable but not
inspiring performance, the oak better integrated, but the fruit a bit
too muted and showing a touch of tartness. Still, this is zin, not a
thirty year wine intended for long cellaring. Nice job. 90 points.
1999 Cabernet (Harlan Estate)
Decanted for a couple of hours before we got to it, this young
Harlan showed rather atypically---soft, generous, easy. It was also
seductive and charming, but do you remember the days when Harlan made
wines with power, as vins de garde? Is there a change here, or is
just a vintage issue? Not that the wine is bad. I thought the oak
treatment was a bit heavy handed and too creamy and with too much
vanillin, but I have seen Harlan absorb and integrate its oak before.
It was tasty and in fact rather delectable. I couldn't say I didn't
enjoy it. But for $200+ a bottle, it did sort of leave me
wondering....is that all there is? I could have enjoyed a little more
intensity, a little more SERIOUSness. 91 points.
1994 Cabernet "Anniversary" (La Jota)
You could say that this is just what you want from California.
Big, but not crazy. Ripe, but balanced. Rich, but classy and able to
evolve with age. This sexpot throws off waves of black cherry fruit
rather constantly, but everything about it is well integrated. At
nearly age 10, it seems young and exuberant, although completely
approachable. This rich wine just rolls up all the adjectives
into one ball: hedonistic, yet well balanced and structured. This
is much more open and expansive, and less intense, than the last time
I had it. 96 points.
2001 Syrah "Maximus--Blackjack Ranch Vineyard"
(Blackjack)
Hard and bitter on opening, this was not only not impressive, but
actually unpleasant. With long aeration, it opened a bit, and some of
the hardness disappeared, but I never quite saw all the bitterness go
away on the finish, even while some fruit popped up in the
mid-palate. It stayed fairly astringent, too. This is medium bodied
at best, nothing especially distinctive, but otherwise well
constructed. However, I think you'd better hope four or five
years of cellaring brings this around. I have my doubts, but
maybe it's just a young wine phase. 83-85 points.
1997 "Alexis" (Swanson)
I didn't like this as much on release, but it has developed
gracefully and well. There is a touch of cocoa on the nose, nice
structure, and bursts of flavor on the finish, along with some spicy
notes. It never lacks for flavor, but is elegant and nicely
constructed. It is still a bit tight and needs more time, I'd say
three years would be about right before trying again. 89 points.
1996 Petite Sirah (Rockland)
This opens elegant and easy, with an initial hit of toasty oak,
but the gripping finish gives you some idea there is more there to
like. It evolves nicely, and some two hours later it was, if
anything, drinking better than when it opened. In between, it
acquired more flavor and a little lushness, at least, as it open and
expanded in the glass. All that said, this has never been a wine I've
found to be spectacular. It's always good, though. 89 points.
2000 Syrah (Justin) QPR Winner
Someone reminded me that I disliked this $17
wine when I first had it. In looking that up, I can say--blame the
other bottle. It was either too young, or off. In any event, this
shows a lot better. It is, like most Justin wines, not exactly what
you call varietally true or typical. Served blind, we guessed syrah
by default, just because we couldn't think of anything else it was.
But it certainly didn't scream "syrah!" and Rhone-y notes
were generally absent. On first taste it seemed solid and voluptuous,
i.e., plenty of fruit, but still firm. It was a touch bright on the
finish, and seemed a bit mouthgripping, actually. I didn't so much
like the way this evolved though. A couple of hours later it seemed a
bit sharp, and I missed some of the initial roundness and density.
Still, at this price point, this isn't a bad buy. 88 points.
[Return
to Top]
Dessert
/ Sparkling wines
2001 Torrontés
Santa Julia Tardio (Zuccardi)
This unusual grape from South America seemed to me to
deliver a pleasing, distinctive wine, more along the lines of an
aperitif than a dessert wine, given that it lacked the body, sugar
and unctuousness to be a true dessert wine. I spent some time
pondering what this reminded me of, and I had trouble coming up with
anything. In terms of calling it distinctive, I would say
gewurztraminer is a good analogy, but it tastes nothing like gewurz.
There was a medley of exuberant fruit flavors, orange blossom to
pineapple, all fairly light and lively, with a nice bouquet. I expect
you'll love this or hate it. I liked it. 88 points.
1998 Tokay Pinot Gris Selection des
Grains Nobles (Schoffit)
If the Santa Julia Tardio, above, is more of an
aperitif---no, this is a real dessert wine. Thick, rich, and syrupy,
it nonetheless showed some lively notes as it aired out, and warmed
up. Apricots oozed around the tongue, laced with little bursts of
acid. This is drinking very well now, and I really don't like holding
my pinot gris too long, although this has a ways to go, so don't
hesitate to crack one of these hard to find beauties if you found
any. 94 points.
1994 Port (Warre's)
I keep expecting ports like this to close down. A lot of the '94s
were just so sweet, approachable and sexy on release, a lot of folks
kept digging in. I wonder if they'll have any left for cellaring.
It's been awhile, so I thought I'd check on this. Surprise. Still
young, primary, soft and approachable, if you felt guilty over
drinking a nine year old good vintage, true vintage port--well, why?
This was served from a 375ml. I wonder, will it shut down? Will it be
vin de garde? I probably won't have any left. It tastes too good now,
with soft tannins, velvety texture and sweet fruit. 92 points.
1995 Coteaux du Layon "Beaulieu Les
Rouannières" (Pierre Bise)
QPR Winner
This unusual wine was in fermentation, I'm told, for
twenty four months, more or less forgotten about. We actually
decanted it. It is essence of apricots, so rich and opulent, yet
still a little bright on the finish. Also on the finish, however, is
a big, big hit of sugar, and I might add...that finish lingers and
lingers, delivering new waves of flavor, it seems, on a regular
basis. This wine may be a fluke, but it is awfully impressive. 96
points.
1994 Gewurztraminer "Rangen
Selection des Grains Nobles Clos Saint Théobald" (Schoffit)
Rich and unctuous, this is very
sweet and opulent, laced with botrytis, and redolent of apricots. It
is very late harvest. For all of its power, there is balance, some
shards of brightness break through, and with age, it has thinned some
and acquired its balance and some focus. Very nice. 93 points.
1977 Port (Quarles Harris)
Tannic and youthful, intense and pristine, this
good value Port, shows a lot of flavor, but not so much depth. At
this point, it seems to require more cellaring, but I have to wonder
if the depth of fruit is sufficient to meet the power of its tannins.
For that reason, I would tend to risk drinking this younger, and
suffering through some tannin, rather than socking it away for
another ten to fifteen years, as its tannic demeanor would seem to
require. As it aired out more, it became a bit hot, too. There's a
lot here to like, but I question the balance of this wine for the
long haul. 87 points.
NV Blancs de Blanc Champagne "Montre-Cul"
(Delot et Fils)
The amusing name of this wine comes from the pickers
looking up at each other, so I understand. The wine itself is pretty
nice. A touch tart on the end, it is medium bodied, fairly big in the
middle for a NV, with plenty of flavor and a nice finish, but just a
little toast. Pleasing, well balanced, a very nice NV. 88
points.
2000 Chardonnay #7 "Nouvelle
Vague" Trockenbeerenauslese (A. Kracher)
A monumental TBA. Thick and unctous, redolent of puréed
apricots, this gives off a dark, burnished feel. It does not open
easily, but when it does, there is round, apricot fruit, with a touch
of plum--that dark note. Really thick and sugary on the finish, it is
wonderfully opulent and long. Delicious. 97 points.
1975 Chateau Yquem
I couldn't call this great, but I enjoyed every sip.
There is a fresh, focused core of sweetness in the center that was
very attractive. It is surrounded by a modest body, precise rather
than powerful, or incredibly deep. Yet, everything is place, and
harmonious, soft and easy, and for its age, it is fresh and pure. If
you are looking for that magical Yquem experience--it won't be here.
But if you forget that, this is a very nice wine. 91 points.
NV Chardonnay Champagne "Premium Extra Dry"
(Barefoot Cellars)
This is only extra dry, which in Champagne parlance
means it is not quite as dry, and is charmat method, not method
champenoise. There is little evident sugar as
such, though, and the wine projects lime notes that are not
altogether pleasant. It sometimes seems as if it is a subtle Kir
royale, just kissed with a 100th of an ounce of chambord--although
it is drier than Kir Royale, and in fact nothing is added. Or,
maybe as if some hybrid varietal was included, although the label
says otherwise. I
confess I didn't like the presentation or flavor of this wine very
much. It did have decent depth, a pretty respectable
finish, and nice mouthfeel for its status, but no toast or
focus, substituting instead that shrill, limey note. For those
looking for some, pleasant easy drinking wine with sugar, it isn't
that either--there ain't that
much and most will think it's pretty dry. 78 points.
NV Chardonnay Champagne "Brut Cuvée"
(Barefoot Cellars)
This has a lot in common with the slightly sweeter Extra Dry
above--except the lime notes are gone, and some bitterness is
substituted on the finish. Although this is a little more pleasant,
I actually like the creamier mouthfeel on the Extra Dry better. The flavors are not altogether
pleasing here either, though,
and the wine retains that odd nuance I can't quite describe, but it
isn't particularly enjoyable or inviting. Its best use might be as
a base for cassis, frankly. There are cheap sparklers,
like Cava, which are undistinguished but fun. This is a bit of a
chore, as well as simple. 79 points.
NV Sherry "Commandaria Centurion" (Ekol)
This is a special bottling of a Cypriot sherry. And it's pretty
darned good. There is a dark note that seems a bit different than any
sherry nose I've had. It is perhaps the one thing that makes you
think it's something different. I'm not sure how else to describe--plummy?
Not that it is offputting, in fact it is very nice. Once past that
nuance, the rest is...sherry. It is not PX or even Lustau Moscatel
sweet and opulent, but it is just one step down and moderately rich,
with some brightness around the edges. This focuses on intensity as
much as sugar and density. Very nice. 92 points.
1994 Sparkling Wine "Classic Cuvée" (Nyetimber)
English sparkler..and it's pretty good, if a bit simple and
routine. Fresh, tasty and dry, it shows medium bodied at best, and I
think I would've guessed "champagne" if served blind. It
would be a modest champagne, to be sure, a nice little non-vintage
not going for pure power like, say, a Pol Roger. Still, this is a
pretty respectable performance, and holding beautifully. It might not raise an eyebrow in
Reims, but for an English bubbly this old, it does a fine job. 87 points.
1970 Port (Warres)
The flavor comes on the end here, finally, after you fight the
tannins. The depth is average, but the wine is fresh and youthful,
and that is a good sign for the fruit, which really needs to balance
the tannins out. This needs more cellaring still, and frankly I
worried a little about its balance, whether there was sufficient
depth of fruit to handle the tannins. But for all that, I rather
enjoyed it at times. See what you think in another five years
minimum, maybe closer to ten. I predict there will be a point where
the fruit here loses to the tannin, unless you like 'em very, very
mature, with fading fruit, but there will also be a point where this
should drink nicely. 89 points.
1976 Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese "Wehlener
Sonnenuhr"(S.A. Prum)
Although not syrupy, in fact very lively, this is incredibly
sweet and rich. Someone called the flavor "reduced
apricots," which is a great way to describe this. Although
mature, it is in fine shape and utterly delicious, although the sugar
overwhelms most of the fruit. The dark amber color gave me some
concern at first, but the wine seemed fine, if rather mature. The
sugar makes you drool a little... 92 points.
1975 Riesling Eiswein "Wehlener Sonnenuhr"(J.J. Prum)
Succulent and refreshing, this Eiswein shows flavor to spare,
and is very bright still. This projects a certain youthful air to it,
and seems charming and sunny, too. It finishes a bit drier than its
mid-palate would have you suspect. Delectable. 90 points.
[Return
to Top]
Germany (except
dessert/sparkling)
1992 Riesling Auslese ** "Wehlener
Sonnenuhr" (Kerpen)
This two star wine shows mature and tertiary notes, but one
thing it doesn't show is any sign of thinning fruit. Massive, deep
and powerful, this wine rolls layers of fruit over your tongue. It is
more burnished than lively, a concession to age and vintage, but its
depth and concentration levels are a marvel to behold, and even
better to taste. 94 points.
1995 Riesling Auslese "Brauneberger-Juffer-Sonnenuhr"
(Fritz Haag)
Everyone else seemed to like this a LOT, but even though I
brought it from my cellar, I was not completely convinced. Not that
it's bad. It opened lemony and rather light, a little too light,
actually, with enough sugar to moderate the acidity levels. I was
pleased with the development with aeration, as the acid integrated
well and the wine delivered its sugar and flavor more effortlessly,
and without clashes. Ultimately, I enjoyed it a lot, but there always
seemed to be something missing, whether a touch more intensity, or
something that might feel a bit more solid. Still, a lot here to live
and savor. 90 points.
2002 Riesling Spatlese "Rudesheimer Berg Rottland" (Johannishof)
Charming and friendly, this easygoing young Riesling is in the
puppy fat stage, you know--where it slobbers all over you. It opens
sweet and lush, with good viscosity. It rolls around your mouth and
delivers flavor so effortlessly that it brings a smile to the lips
that touch the wine. There isn't much backbone evident yet, though,
although with a couple of hours of air the wine finally began to hint
that it could deliver some acid. Very nice, and so much fun, I
wouldn't worry too much about its future at the moment. Live for the
present. 89+ points.
1921 Riesling Auslese Cabinet "Rauenthaler Huhnerberg"
Naturrein (Staatsweinguter)
This Cabinet, an old fashioned term for "reserve,"
was an old treasure, but alas gilded, not gold. It was dried out and
austere, seemingly astringent on the finish, and hot. There were fino
sherry notes, meaning oxidized, nutty and maderization setting in. It
also finished bitter. Basically, there was no fruit here to speak of,
and nothing pleasant. Dead on arrival. Served from a half bottle. 50
points.
1953 Riesling Spatlese "Durkheimer Michelsberg" (Vier
Jahreszeiten)
Purchased from the winery just a few years ago, this shows
amazingly light, pure color for its age. Looking at it, you would
have to think it was less than 10 years old! That was its best
feature, though. The wine shows some toast, and little riesling
characteristics. Serve it blind, and I might've guessed pinot gris,
as more than one taster commented. It seemed big and full bodied, but
without much flavor. It did show hints of life and liveliness in some
acid tingle, but the fruit is drying and and a big flat. This is not
dead, but it is dull and simple. It's still hard to believe the color
is so light and young looking. 80 points.
2001 Riesling Auslese "Leiwener Laurentiuslay" (St.
Urbans-Hof)
This wine is distinctive and different. You may not like the
difference, but it's an unusual experience. It opens with a heavy
petrol nose, one of the heaviest I've encountered. It tastes dry and
fairly austere, to the point where I thought it was a halbtrocken. It
is suffused with dark fruit notes, plum, for instance, and minerals.
It seems thick and very ripe. It opens tight as a drum, and expands
slowly, but this is a brooding wine that has little in the way of
sweet or sunny characteristics that you might normally find in young
Auslese. I suspect this will be a love it or hate wine. 89 points.
1990 Riesling Auslese "Wehelener Sonnenuhr Goldkap" A.P. No. 2 582 038 1491 Fuder 14
(Meulenhof)
Young and fresh, this is off dry and bright, and lively. As I was
looking at my notes, though, each characteristic I identified was
followed by "not too much..." This wine is very middle of
the road, in other words. You might call it good balance. I would
also call it a failure to really distinguish itself. It does nothing
wrong. But nothing exceptionally well, either. It is ripe but not
lush. It is bright in the middle, but not intense. It has a certain
tingly quality from the acid, but it is muted a bit. The fruit is
nice, but deep or complex. I couldn't call it easy; but not profound
either. Middle of the road. 87 points.
1989 Riesling Auslese "Abtsberg"No. 24 (Maximin Grunhaus)
Very unusual in its demeanor, this provided a a veriety of
interesting characteristics. It opened spicy, with almost a mint
julep nuance. It finished precise, a touch off dry, with a nice hit
of acid. The mint integrated a bit after awhile, but the spice stayed
pronounced. Very tasty, a bit offbeat, this showed freshness and
focus. After a couple of hours open, it did fade, however. 91 points.
1959 Riesling Feinste Auslese "Eitelsbacher
Karthauserhofberg Burgberg" Fuder No. 64 (Karthauser
Hof)
This Goldkap, or feinste Auslese, wa offputting. It seemed a
bit foxy, as well as flat. The flavors it through off were off.
I wondered how a riesling could show so much animalistic notes, and I
wondered facetiously if someone marinated a dead rat in the vat.
Either way, this wasn't much fun, despite its concentrated
mid-palate. Plus, it took me almost as long to write the name down as
to write the note. 60 points.
[Return
to Top]
Italy (except
dessert/sparkling)
2001 "Pin" Monferrato Rosso (La Spinetta)
Rich and ripe, but very structured,
too, this wine exudes easy power, sort of a like a top athlete who
doesn't have to preen---but just knows he's got something extra.
Tight and ungiving at the moment, the power here is mostly what you
notice, the layers don't unfold, the nose is hard to find. To have a
chance, this wine needed long decanting, and it got none. This is a
blend of cabernet, Barbera and Nebbiolo. Please. Don't kill your
babies. Let this sleep for five years, at least. Hard to evaluate at
the moment, but I'd say, 90-92 points.
1999 "Granato" Teroldego
Rotaliano (Foradori)
Sexy and a bit exotic, this needs a year or two more of
cellaring, perhaps, but shows plenty of good stuff now. It's
mouthfilling and refreshingly cool. In the middle, there is a sweet
dollop of blueberry fruit. Nice balance, flavor, a fragrant blueberry
nose, and a certain offbeat note make this a very interesting and
enjoyable wine. A bit pricey around $40-$45, but what isn't? 90
points.
2002 Erbaluce di Caluso (Ferrando)
This producer
makes a variety of interesting and different wines, imported by
Rosenthal. This one is a white, and when served blind pretty much
confused everyone present. We couldn't even come up with many good
analogies. A muted sauvignon blanc blended with other varietal like
chardonnay? Well, ok, then. It is what it is. Its components
integrate quickly, and it is mid-weight at best. There are no sharp
edges, although it drinks very well as a straight ahead, dry wine.
There is little distinctive, here, but also nothing off. Always
pleasant, never great. 86 points.
1997 Barolo "Vigna Mandorlo" (Giacosa
Fratelli)
Very bright and modest on opening, this seemed too thin and
simple to be impressive, although it was smooth and elegant, so much
so it was hard to believe this was a young Barolo. It had a bit
of a pruney nose, too, and while it was nice, it seemed mediocre at
best. What a difference some air makes. It picked up weight
with air, the acidity integrated well, the nose became leathery and
interesting, showing earth and truffles, too. The mid-palate picked
up some chocolately notes, and the wine now seemed lively and
flavorful. Oh, this is not perhaps great Barolo---it still lacks some
depth and intensity. But I came to enjoy its sensual approach a lot.
90 points.
1997 Sammarco (Castello dei Rampola)
This bottling has been responsible for some of the more
tannic wines I've had--and so, too, here. Double decanted about four
hours before we got to it, this was still a brute, kicking sand in
our faces. Once past the pure power, and astringency, it showed some
flavor and some earthy notes, but the big issue with this wine will
always be whether the tannins will come into balance. I think they
will, but plan on not touching it for at least five years, and ten
might be more advisable. 90-92 points.
1999 Rosso "Villa Fidelia" IGT
(Sportoletti)
This charming wine is pure hedonism. I forgive it for
not reminding me much of merlot, which comprises about 2/3rds of the
Bordeaux blend. Sharp and sweet at the same time, it is redolent of
raspberries on the nose, which follows through on the palate. Very
young, it is nonetheless supple, with ripe tannins, and well
balanced. But the big point here is clearly the great waves of flavor
that wash over your palate. It expands in volume in the glass.
This wine is pure pleasure. Not that there is anything wrong with
that. If it develops well with more cellaring, it might merit a
higher score. 94+ points.
1996 Carignano del Sulcis (Terre Brune--Santadi)
This medium bodied wine from Sardinia is hearty and a
bit coarse at times on the heady finish. It finished bitter, too,
especially when first opened. The second day saw some flavor
improvement, a touch of chocolate raspberry, perhaps, but also a
bit of heat. It is not terribly flattering to taste on its
own, although to its credit, I liked it much better on Day 2 than
on Day 1. It's also a bit pricey, in my region selling for
over $20. I'd be kinder if it were a $9.99 special, but it's
not. 84 points.
1989 Barolo
Riserva "Collina Rionda Di Serralunga" (Giacosa)
Both this and the Barbaresco below were served together and
were double decanted for about 2 and a half hours before getting
to them. They are both monumental wines that show how ripe
nebbiolo can get, and how great it can be. It also shames lesser
nebbiolo, but that's another rant. This started off slow,
showing that grim, brooding nebbiolo demeanor big wines can
have, some almonds, and muted flavor. Another big Barolo to
admire, not sure where it's going? Well, no. With continued
breathing in the glass, it evolved into something different, and
special. The wine became almost voluptuous, hard to believe
after its stern, initial demeanor. Instead of mere
intensity, it showed chocolately roundness on the palate, which,
by the way, was remarkably dense and concentrated. The more it
sat, the more flavor it showed, along with some spice. More air
brought out more tannins, too, leading me to think that this is
a wine that will outlive many people. Tour de force Barolo. 100
points.
1990 Barbaresco Riserva "Santa Stefano" (Giacosa)
Rich, opulent and mouthfilling, your first reaction has to
be---they can make Barbaresco like THIS? More, please. The roundness
and flavor this delivered from the outset were remarkable, and the
seductive lushness of fruit is something rarely seen from nebbiolo.
For all of that opulent beginning, there is plenty of structure
underneath, and powerful tannins lurk. The wine also had a nice spicy
note to it. If it is not quite as dense as the Barolo above, it is,
if anything, lusher. A great producer in top form. 96 points.
[Return
to Top]
Loire (except
dessert/sparkling)
2000 Saumur (Chateau du Hureau--Vatan)
This is bone dry, and 100% chenin
blanc. Despite being bone dry, it is filled with botrytis. It
is moutwatering, bright on the end, laced with a little petrol, it
seemed, a certain dark, burnished note. Underneath is some orange
peel, and there is plenty underneath. Interesting and unusual. 92
points.
Rhone/South/SW
France (except
dessert/sparkling)
2000 Chateauneuf du Pape
Reserve (Roger Perrin)
Special and spectacular, this exotic CDP will not be to
everyone's taste, I suspect, but those who like will fall in love. It
opens with that nose of kirsch we see in a lot of wines these days,
and it is a bit atypical and disconcerting, a bit flamboyant,
more than a little exotic. The wine is sweet, rich, and remarkably
concentrated, with beautiful texture and underlying structure, too.
The focus is on hedonism, and it is a rich mouthful. The question is
whether it is too exotic, and for some it will be. Yet, as it aired
out and sat, it acquired balance, too, and generally showed
beautifully. I found it real hard to dislike, and actually, wished I
had some. Despite improving with aeration, this was double decanted
for about eight hours or so before we got to it. 94+ points.
2001 Chateauneuf du Pape "La Reine
des Bois" Chateauneuf du Pape (Domaine de la Mordorée)
Highly extracted, remarkably dense, this is big, deep and flavorful. And simply
incredible. Powerful and concentrated, it is still not ponderous. It
has some burly structure for intensity, along with that rich fruit.
When you drink this monumental wine, it gives you an idea---how good
Chateauneuf can be. Decanted for several hours. 98 points.
1978 Hermitage "La Chapelle" (Jaboulet)
There is a bit of cherry, and a lot of game. It is
quintessential syrah at times, cool, refreshing, and lively, if a bit
short and not very deep. As it sits, though, the game, perhaps brett,
gets worse and worse, to the point where it is simply drenched in
bacon fat. I like a little. I can take more. But this was getting to
be a bit much. There was a lot here to like, but I ultimately turned
my nose up at this wine--or at least aside, where I couldn't smell it
any more. Decanted--and perhaps it shouldn't have been. 87 points.
1985 Chateauneuf du Pape "Cuvée
Reservée" (Domaine Pegau)
Not a bad performance, but not a great one either. The
best news is that it seems fresh and clean, but also seems thinning,
and a bit short and simple, without much flavor. I was pleased to
note that with air, it actually improved for awhile, and some nuances
of what I might call chocolate came out. I liked it a bit better
after some breathing, but then still more air had a predictable
effect on this thinning wine. It didn't crack up, but it did fade. To
be sure, that was hours later, so, a pretty nice performance still,
but nothing to write home about. I am advised that there was only
Pegau bottling this year, although one may find labels with both
"Laurence" and "Reserve" written, apparently only
distinguishing the point of sale. 85 points.
1996 Hermitage "La Chapelle" (Jaboulet)
Gamey, medium bodied and bright, there are dried cherry notes for
fruit flavor,
and not much else. The wine is utterly drenched in bacon fat, I might
even say "rotting meat," to the
point where it becomes rather offputting not merely interesting, and
it also finishes a bit sour, perhaps indicating some volatile
acidity. There were moments when I found things here I liked, but as
it sat, I was not only not impressed, but thought this was downright
unpleasant and got worse. It was hard work to drink this wine. I personally wanted no more, which says it all, considering that
this is one of my favorite Northern Rhone estates. Although
those bacon fat nuances are not unusual in syrah, particularly as it
ages, there was more than a nuance here, and it took on some
particularly funky notes. I find this level of
intrusion unusual for young La Chapelle. The depth is rather routine for La Chapelle, too. Those who can
fight through the flavor problems will be happier. 84 points.
1997 Hermitage "La Chapelle" (Jaboulet)
There is beautiful sweet fruit here, and this seems open and
expansive. It is everything the awkward and unpleasant '96, above, is
not. All it lacks is some more depth. The '90 would sneer at this
wine, and the '96 too for that matter. Still...I loved the fruit flavor, delivering what it had easily
and persistently. With air, there were some notes of game, a touch of
bacon fat, and
garrigue for complexity and distinction. The problem is that the wine
seemed a bit light, lacking depth, a bit short. I was pleased to see
some tannins finally pop out for structure, and I would've liked a chance to have
sat with this wine for a day or more to see what happened. Those
tannins popping out after aeration could be a sign of more going on
underneath--or a sign that the attractive, but gentle fruit won't last for the long
haul, which would be my guess. At the moment, there is a lot
here to like, but it is a little compact for its famous label. 88+
points.
1999 Mas de Daumas Gassac Blanc
I loved the variety of things happening with this wine--all at
once. If the descriptors seem contradictory, that's because this wine
put on a different face every time I looked up. It opened spicy and
peppery, and I was wondering if it was perhaps an exotic pinot gris
or restrained gewurz. But there were no lychees. The palate had a
good focus, and precision. But as against the exotic notes and
liveliness it showed, there was also some cream and certain
smoothness. Its depth was modest, but it never seemed thin. As it
opened, there were some honeyed notes, and there was a touch of
flamboyance. To go with the precision. The liveliness. The cream. The
smoothness. Lotsa stuff going on here. I ran out of room on my note
page. Even if this does not quite blow you away--it could use a bit
more depth and length--it is a lot of fun to drink. 90 points.
1988, 1989, 1990 Mas de Daumas Gassac QPR Winner
This mini-vertical of some top vintage MDG shows what a great
estate this is--and also why it is one of the great values in wine.
The 1998 cost only about $20 a bottle on release. Yet, from top
vintages, these are wines that play with Big Boys. By the way, I'm
still not sure what I liked best, and continue to debate it. Let's
start with the 1988. This was the tortoise in the group, very
tight, very earthy, and a touch astringent on the finish. It was the
least attractive on opening, and I thought there was some chance the
fruit here was drying...and dying. Air did this a world of good, and it became a
different wine. Suddenly, sweet fruit popped out of
nowhere...I assume from the core of the wine, but maybe someone put
something in my glass. :) That's how amazing the turnaround seemed to
me. Still, fruit alone was not how this wine presented itself, and if
it had a flaw, it brooded a bit too much, and you wonder how its
further evolution will go. Speaking of fruit...the 1989 was the sweetest of the three, with puréed
essence of fruit in the mid-palate. It lacked the brooding structure
of the 1988 (which some might say is a good thing, and others will
find regrettable). Pristine, light on its feet and very elegant, this
was the most flamboyant of the three, and the most elegant in terms
of structure. That core of sweet fruit was hard to forget, though. The 1990
showed remarkable power, as with the 1988, but also tons of sweet
fruit, as with the 1989. It was
cool, and bright around the edges, while retaining a certain
opulence. In a way, this seemed to be what you'd get if you crossed
the '88 and '89, and for awhile it seemed like the perfect synthesis
of the two. I was about to give this my clear nod for the best of the
three, but for the fact that I really didn't like the way it
developed with air--while at the same time, the 89 got sweeter and
the 88 came into better balance. True, still more air might have
answered the question raised, and I'm betting in that direction, but I had no more time with it.
On the whole, though, which you like here is mostly a
matter of taste. They all have some demerits, and lots of pluses, and
I could virtually rate them the same after adding up their merits and
demerits, albeit for very different
reasons. The '88 has the biggest future risks in my view,
although you'll like it a lot at the moment if you give it just a
little air. On another day, I might reverse these scores, so read the
notes and don't get too excited with the minor difference in numbers
or even the relative ranking in this instance. ;)
For the 1988: 93 points. For the 1989: 92 points. For the 1990,
93+ points.
2001 Chateauneuf du Pape "Reservée" (Domaine Pegau)
In about ten years, Chateauneuf lovers will have a great time
lining up Pegau 98-01, and arguing about the virtues of each vintage.
There are so many fine wines here, and they still have so many
secrets to tell, that I'm not sure I'd want to go on record as to
which I prefer. Other than the 1999, which clearly trails, they could
flip flop as time goes by. At the moment, I'd put this '01 slightly
behind the '00, but the '00 benefits from that extra year in the
bottle at the moment, too. I'd probably put the '98 third, but again,
if you are tasting it now, the '98 is pretty much closing up. This
Pegau is powerful and intense, and a bit toasty on the finish. It
sports a lot of mature flavor characteristics off the bat--throwing
off lots of bacon fat, and game. But it is hard, a bit harsh at the
moment, and tightly wound, as you'd expect from a young CdP intended
to age. The finish is simply mouthgripping. This has a great future,
and if you missed the '00, buy a lot. If you didn't miss the '00--buy
a lot anyway. 93-95 points.
2001 Chateauneuf du Pape (Beaucastel)
This looks like a fine Beaucastel in the making. It opens grapey
and exuberant, with lots of sweet fruit. It is not as lush as the
surprisingly approachable 1998 was at a similar stage, but it has as
much pure flavor. The finish is mouthwateringly sweet, in fact, and
very persistent. There is evidence of formidable structure
underneath, and I'd expect this wine to close down hard in the near
future. Very focused, bright and firm, great fruit---looks like a
winner. But you'll probably be happier to start drinking it around
2009, by which time it should settle down a bit. 92-94 points.
[Return
to Top]
Spain (except
dessert/sparkling)
QPR Winner
2002 Garnacha Las Rocas (Bodega San
Alejandro)
This wine, 60% grenache, 40%
syrah, runs a startling $10 or so, and is might fine at that price.
It shows beautiful balance and focus, lots of grenache-varietally
true notes, and some velvet for texture. I liked its mouthfeel a lot,
actually, and it finished a bit bright to give it some liveliness.
Despite its youth and initial focus, it eventually expanded in the
glass and delivered a bit more flavor. I was much more impressed two
hours later than I was when it was poured--which is a nice compliment
in a $10 wine. 89 points.
[Return
to Top]
QPR Winner I give this award to wines that
demonstrate an excellent quality to price ratio. They are sometimes more
expensive than the wines featured in my Best Buys section (which is cut
off at $15), so while every Best Buy is also a QPR Winner, not every QPR
winner is an official Best Buy. QPR winners are simply wines that are
great values for a relatively reasonable
price.
This site
designed and created in content and in form
by Mark Squires, copyright ©
2003, all rights reserved.
Notes
