Australia (except dessert/sparkling)
1996 Grange (Penfold’s)
At this juncture in my wine tasting life, I can only say I have totally lost my taste for this type of wine—i.e, drenched in new American oak, so sweet and syrupy in the mid-palate due to the oak that it seems like pureed blueberries. If you can get past that style and the oak, there’s a lot here to like, some structure underneath, and sweet, lush fruit. It certainly found a lot of fans around the table, but to me it is out of balance and fails to allow the varietal to shine even a little. Your mileage may differ, but I just can’t bring myself to ignore the stylistic issues with wines like these any more. You know where I’m coming from, though, and adjust accordingly.  88 points.

[Return to Top]  

Bordeaux  (except dessert/sparkling)

I had the opportunity to taste a fair number of 2000 Bordeaux at Vin Expo, N.Y.  These were not ideal circumstances, as many of the wines had only been bottled in the last few months, and they were showing tight and austere, particularly those from the Left Bank. In a walk-around tasting without much time to spend on any one wine, it was particularly difficult to get a good fix on these wines at this youthful and awkward state; hence,  I am only publishing a few notes from the more accessible--or interesting-- wines, or those that I spent more time with.  I’m using broad ranges, too.  I would add that I got there early, and often got “first pours,” which are even tighter than normal, and many of the wines were a touch chilly. This wasn’t the best statement the Union des Grands Crus could have made for these wines, in other words.

2000 Chateau Lynch Bages
I got the first pour from one of the first bottles opened, and oh, baby, was this tight and powerful.  Very stern, very brooding, this showed pure power, one of the biggest Lynch Bages I have ever tasted young.  It was hard to get anything from it at first, but I swirled demonically, and eventually got touches of plum and cassis. It wasn't going to give me much though. This was tasted at Vin Expo along with a lot of other 2000 Bordeaux, and they as a rule were a bit hard and tight, recently bottled and shipped.  The austerity on the finish here was fairly typical for their showings, but the power, focus and concentration had this wine standing apart. I'm convinced this is the best Lynch Bages at least since 1989, and probably the best I've had. The Vin Expo experience, to be sure, was not conducive at this point in time to definitive conclusions, so let me use broad ranges.  94-97 points.

[Return to Top]  

Burgundy  (except dessert/sparkling)

1999 Nuits St. Georges (Forey Père et Fils)

Tight, bright and structured, this opens with a classic pinot nose of sharp red fruit, which follows onto the medium-bodied palate.  The raspberry notes remain a nice feature of the wine from start to finish, although it shows a bit too austere due to a tannic kick that will require a little cellaring. This is a bit short and a bit simple, nice enough, but straight ahead Burgundy. There is some potential to improve, but I don’t see enough intensity, depth of complexity to the fruit to become anything distinguished.  85 points.

1999 Gevrey-Chambertin “Vielles Vignes” (J.M. Guillon)

I was enjoying this quite a bit early on. It showed smoothly, with a velvety texture, and black cherries lurking underneath. It was a bit bretty, but not enough to be really annoying.  For awhile, it seemed to develop nicely, and it drank well, but as time went on—only a couple of hours—it seemed to flatten out, and even showed a touch sour on the finish.  This had some good points at times, but I wasn’t inspired to go buy any. In particular, its flaws began to outpace its virtues, a worrisome sign in a young wine.  83 points.

1990 Gevrey-Chambertin (Domaine Maume)

Broad and expansive, marked by strawberries, this wine seemed lively due to its acid and moderating tannins, but still showed a bit too much maturity in the mid-palate. There were moments when I rather liked the gentle fruit, but ultimately gentle became insipid, and flavors faded. 84 points.

1991 Chambolle-Musigny “Les Feusselottes” (Noellat)

Smooth, sensual and elegant, this wine outperformed my expectations, and drank rather well. It has little tannin to speak of, and seemed soft and gentle. Yet, it had plenty of flavor, touched by strawberries. There was a hint of game—brett?—on the finish, but only a little. It also finished brightly and refreshingly cool, with lingering fruit flavor. All that said, it was more than a touch short on depth and intensity, and it needs to be drunk now.  87 points.

1990 Vosne-Romanée (J.M. Mugneret)

Tasted from any glass, this was a problem. From the Impitoyable I had, it was a disaster. The nose was consumed with the worst possible bretty nuances, dirty sweatsocks, ripe underarms. It was simply disgusting. The palate wasn’t bad, but since it was very hard to drink while holding your nose, no one much bothered to do anything but dump it. The only redeeming feature was that it did not actually make me regurgitate my first course. Even those who are tolerant of funky wines will have a problem with this, notwithstanding a decent mid-palate. 60 points.

[Return to Top]  

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
1996 Pinot Noir "Sonoma Coast" (Williams-Selyem) QPR Winner  
Fully ready, and Burgundian in style, this pleasing WS is very classical. There are some earthy nuances, a touch of autumn leaves, a touch of strawberry, and a bright, elegant demeanor. While it could use a little more depth and finish, and while it is perhaps a little too mature for a relatively young wine, its major flaw, this lower level WS entrant shows some class and finesse.  Nicely done, for a relatively basic blend.  Those who enjoy mature Burgundy flavors will like it even more, although I would say this shows too old, and lacks a bit of the fresh fruit flavor that lovers of this producer have come to expect.  85 points.

1997 Syrah "Lytton Estate" (Ridge) QPR Winner  
Very nice performance....This opened a bit tight, not giving much flavor.  I managed to guess California syrah anyway when it was served to me blind, but it was close to being non-descript, albeit smooth and elegant, focused and precise. The oak smoothed it out and gave it a creamy texture, but with air, the oak integrated, and the wine also showed more and more syrah notes. It took a long while to get there, though, since for awhile the wine was just stolid and grapey, ungiving and simple. But with air--some hour and a half later--it became syrah, showed more structure underneath, too, and got sweeter. This is a wine with some subtlety, but it is very well crafted and balanced, and it sneaks up on you. 90 points.

1997 Alexis (Swanson)
Decanted for about an hour, this started out bright and moderately light, but with pleasing flavors tinged with blue fruit, and tannins on the end. It smoothed out with more air, and showed sweeter fruit on the finish.  Very elegant, balanced, and nicely textured, this wine did nothing to amaze me, but I enjoyed drinking it all the time.  Nicely built and tinged with fruit flavor all the time, it was always enjoyable to drink. 89 points.

2000 Zinfandel "Juveniles" (Turley)
This entry level Turley zin replaces the Old Vines at the bottom of the scale. That's OK in one sense--in good vintages the Old Vines was arguably undervalued simply because it was not a single vineyard denominated wine. So, in good vintages, maybe it is worth the extra $5 per bottle. The bigger question is whether this young vines bottling is worth the $20 that the superior Old Vines bottling used to command. You'd have to say that if you were used to getting the OV for $20, having to settle for this now at the same price is a little disappointing. Oh, even in this somewhat difficult vintage, it is not bad. It has a slight Burgundian nuance to it, light, sometimes ethereal. It is saved by forthright flavor, stawberries and a touch of almond. The fruit is sweet and fairly tasty. There is little depth, though, and it sometimes feels a touch hollow in the mid-palate, not exactly the blockbuster reputation zinfandel in general and Turley in particular has.  I guess in the grand scheme of things this isn't a bad wine--it's actually pretty pleasing with about 20 minutes of aeration--and $20 isn't a lot of money. I liked this better than the Chase "Hayne Vineyard" which runs $35, for instance. Still, if you're chasing after Turleys and wondering what the fuss is about, this wine won't reveal any answers.  As young as this is, it is pretty much ready to drink, with some reasonable aeration in the glass or a decanter. 85 points.

1997 Pinot Noir “Russian River Valley” (Rochioli)

Lovely. On opening, it seemed like a model Burgundian wine, bright, silky and just packed with enough fruit to coat your mouth, without seeming ponderous.  Then, it announced itself as clearly California, but it only got better. The bright blackberry notes dissolved into cherries and chocolate, and the fruit became more and more flavorful and velvety.  The wine retained its elegance, but it also exploded in the glass. The lingering finish laced with pure fruit flavor was delightful.  92 points.

1994 Syrah “Eisele” (Araujo)

I was looking forward to this a lot, having very much enjoyed more recent incarnations of this wine, but this seems to have matured too fast. It doesn’t taste old in a sense—no oxidation, none of that wet leaves aroma, no tertiary characteristic. But the flesh has fallen away from the fruit quickly, leaving little flavor. It seems flat and rather boring, and while not bad, did nothing for me at all at this stage. Maybe the score reflects my disappointment as well as reality. 84 points.

1996 Pinot Noir "Camp Meeting Ridge" (Kistler)
Ok. Let it be said: Kistler is the best pinot noir producer in the new world.  Well, that's my opinion anyway. The '96 vintage was particularly successful for them, too, giving us wines not only with flavor, but a tightly wound core that shows some backbone and structure. Poured alongside a bunch of nice to acceptable pinots, Lorings, Williams-Selyem, and others, this simply was in another class. It opens big--but calms down fast. It is not at clunky or overblown. It is intense, with piercing, cherry fruit flavor that never fails, and a long finish. The color is blacker than pinot usually is. The gradually emerging fruit becomes sweeter and shows some acid on the back, too. This is simply lovely pinot--focus, finish, flavor, depth.  I'd say it will improve with another three years of cellaring, too.   94+ points.

1996 Pinot Noir "Allen" (Williams-Selyem)
Kistler had no problem making a statement in 1996. One wonders why this famous producer had so many problems. The issue is mostly depth, although the wines seem to show too many tertiary nuances too young. The wines (see the Sonoma Coast, above) show some nice Burgundian notes. This could easily pass as Burgundy. Yet, for a prestige bottling from this famous producer, you have to wonder..."Where's the beef?"  All that said, there was a lot here to like, and the wine did not show as old as the Sonoma Coast bottling reviewed above. A bit too light,  but charmingly bright and cool, this wine is lively and has a touch of dried cherry flavors that is actually rather appealing. It develops some game nuances on the finish with aeration, and has a silky feel. For a $20 wine, it is actually pretty interesting---except of course it is not $20.  I was pleased to see that the next day, after being recorked and refrigerated, open for 3 hours before hitting the refrigerator,  it did not deteriorate at all--hadn't improved, but hadn't deteriorated at least. There's some good stuff here, but the wine underperforms. 87 points. 

2000 Pinot Noir "Garys' Vineyard" (Loring) and 2000 Pinot Noir "Clos Pepe" (Loring)
This new winery struck gold and won a lot of approval for these releases. I've had them closer to release, after long decanting. But this is the first time in awhile I've just had them on a table, with food, as a normal drinking wine. How did they do? Well, both wines opened like gangbusters, rich and full. To my shock, the Garys' then disappeared, becoming light, dull and showing nothing but tannin. The Clos Pepe at this moment was luscious, even showing some almost syrupy, ripe fruit in the middle that was amazing. OK...I've always liked the Garys' better, but the Clos Pepe was kicking its butt and showing richer than I've ever seen it. And then within about 30 minutes, the universe returned to normal. The Garys' kept evolving, picking up weight and flavor. There was more flesh every time I went back to it. The finish kept getting better. The once spectacular Clos Pepe went in the other direction, lost some fruit, lost some weight.  I wonder how these wines will age. The Clos Pepe slide was a little disturbing. The Garys' evolution was a bit promising--yet it has certainly calmed down a lot in a short time.  I tend to think these wines are to drink on the young side, although the Garys' seems to have closed down at the moment, and you'll certainly want to keep checking in on them as you get further out, like around 2006.  I liked them both, but I'm going to stick to my guns and say my original take on them is at the moment pretty similar: 90 points for Garys', 87 points for Clos Pepe. If anything, I'm inclined to downgrade the Clos Pepe in particular.

1998 Zinfandel “Hayne Vineyard” (Turley)

When initially tasted, this was ripe and tasty, but seemed too soft for Turley Hayne. It was still very good, but not up to par. A little cellaring has made it close to impressive, at the least a fine off vintage performance. If it does not remind one of the usual power this wine can produce, it does about everything else right. The mid-palate is so solid, but the impression is not weight but flavor. The fruit is gloriously ripe and sweet, tinged with caramel, and flavors linger on the finish.  This may not have quite the intensity of Hayne in a great vintage, but it’s completely delectable. 92 points.

1998 Petite Sirah “Hayne Vineyard” (Turley)
While the Zin, above, was tinged with caramel, this provided a bit more of a blue fruit nuance. It also had a bit more intensity and focus, though it had in common that tasty, delectable aspect. Lush, almost syrupy in the mid-palate at times, the wine had a core of fruit so velvety and opulent that it simply coated the mouth. Despite its flamboyance, it is very focused and gripping, too. 94 points.

1999 Cabernet "Howell Mountain" (Ilona)
This pricey new wine, around $65, is pretty good. As with most California premium wine today, there seems to be some delusion of grandeur in terms of pricing, but what else is new? Bright and elegant, nicely balanced, it is already drinking well, showing nice red fruit notes, and moderately good depth. I don't know that I would be interested in paying $65 for it, though. 89 points.

1999 Zinfandel (Outpost)
Delicious and succulent, this seemed to me like a well balanced zin with very ripe fruit, but a well balanced core of fruit, not massive, not lean. There was a burning hit of acid on the back end, on the way down, but the more the wine sat in the glass, the more delicious it became, tinged with nuts and caramel.  A very nice zin that provides succulent depth without being overbearing in any way. Yeah, it has a touch of that sur-maturité that is so in vogue these days, but it was pretty tasty.  91 points.

1999 Switchback Ridge "Peterson Vineyard" 

This cabernet--although it tastes like it has a big hit of Merlot--wine is an immensely pleasing charmer that just makes everyone around smile. It may not win the most points for profundity, depth or ageworthy characteristics, but it is one of those wines that is just...likable. It opens slow, showing some traces of new oak on the nose, and modest but sweet fruit.  There is a chocolate nuance that keeps getting stronger from the merlot content. As it sits, it keeps getting better and better, gaining weight and depth, no longer seeming thin, ultimately even gaining some richness and opulence...and lotsa chocolate, a touch of mint. Nice, lush, velvety texture develops and makes it more pleasing still. This is a bit simple, but it is more than a little charming and delectable. 90 points.

[Return to Top]  

Dessert/Sparkling
The Clairette, Canadian Ice Wines, and 2000 Sauternes were tasted at Vin Expo in New York:

NV Clairette de Die “Lou-Lou” (Jaillance) QPR Winner  

I was thoroughly enchanted with this sparkling wine, intended to retail for around $15, before any discounts. Die is not too far from the Lyons, in case you’re wondering. This wine is not yet imported here, but will be, and is mostly Muscat. If they can market this wine well enough to get people to try it—they will have a huge success, I think. This is identifiably Muscat on the nose; it could hardly be anything else. It is off dry and refreshing, but never close to cloying or as sweet as, say, a typical Moscato. It seemed to have some crispness and solidity to it, but the nose and the flavor in the mid-palate will make this a crowd pleaser, especially great in the summer.  Nothing profound, but a heckuva lot of fun for a reasonable price.  Drink on release, get it fresh.  It loses points considering its ability to age, etc, but for short term, party fun, this could be immensely pleasing. 86 points.

2000 Riesling Ice Wine (Gehringer Brothers)

I was liking the lineup of these Canadian ice wines a lot, though not liking the prices so much. This one runs about $45 a half. You’ll have to decide if it is worth it. This is very sweet, and simply delicious.  I loved its succulent fruit, and it delivered waves of flavor effortlessly while maintaining some balance. It seems relatively low in acid, but not entirely devoid of it. Very nice, very enjoyable. 92 points.

2000 Riesling Ice Wine (Lang)

Ok. How do you like ‘em?  It is hard to believe, but this is even sweeter and more intense than the Gehringer, above.  It is definitely declaring an assault on TBA-style, and taking no prisoners. I slightly preferred the focus and balance on the Gehringer, but which you prefer is mostly a matter of taste. 92 points.

1999 Ehrensfelser Ice Wine (Gehringer Brothers)

This actually goes up in price, though the varietal is not as noble, hitting $50 per half. It is tinged with all sorts of exotic notes, papaya, mango, and pineapple, but is drier than the Riesling.  It is well balanced, fragrant and tasty, but also a bit simple.  Those hybrid grapes make some good wines, but I have yet to see any that challenge Riesling. 89 points.

2000 Cabernet Franc Ice Wine (Gehringer Brothers)

The price now climbs to $60 per half, and really, that’s WAY too much. Maybe $60 Canadian would be more like it, and even that would be pricey. Still, this is a fun wine. There aren’t many red ice wine type concoctions (Austrian Willi Opitz makes a red TBA…)  This tastes like puréed cherries, and the finish seems to be Mom’s preserves. It is surprisingly lighter than the whites, though, and while it is a lot of fun, at this price level, I’d be looking for a lot more intensity, finish and complexity, and I wasn’t getting any of the three.  88 points.  

1990 Vouvray "La Coulée d'Or Tris de Nobles Grains" (Bourillon Dorléans)

Off dry, better as an aperitif, this nonetheless projects lots of charm. It has a little of everything, spice, botrytis, almonds, citrus fruit. Elegant, focused, and bright, it finishes sweet and is very tasty.  It lacks the weight to really function as a dessert wine, though, but just try sippin' it by itself.  89 points.

1990 Monbazillac Crème de Tête (Chateau Les Hébras)

Ultimately, this was pretty close to stunning. It sure got off to a slow start. It seemed a bit too old, a bit oxidized, laced with familiar notes of oxidizing fruit, like roasted apricots and stewed peaches.   A few minutes of air witnessed a real change—the wine became completely different. Suddenly, the fruit seemed fresher, the sugar seemed natural, not just oxidized, and the wine was pristine and delicious. Elegant, persistent, focused and intense, this became just dandy. 92 points.

1989 Zinfandel “Late Harvest” (Sky)

Interesting, but a little odd, and underwhelming. This is drying out, and certainly has lost most of its sweetness, though a touch remains. It was a little spicy and entertaining in spots, but also dull and simple.  Although it had its moments, at this point in its life, it seemed to work well neither as a late harvest wine, nor a table wine. 80 points.

1948 Maury Doré Grenache (Volontat)
Well. I wasn't expecting much from this, but way wrong was moi. There was a touch of apple cider up front, but that was just an interesting nuance. Nothing about this wine was even remotely over the hill, even if the color was a bit brown. Lively, rather bright, nuanced by apples and a touch of lavender, this seemed fresh, elegant, impeccably balanced and delicious. It is merely medium sweet--not to be matched with big, rich dessert wines, and medium bodied, neither thin, nor heavy. I had a lot of fun with this. 94 points.

NV Tawny Port "Rare" (d'Arenberg)

I love Aussie tawnies, but this seems a long way removed from the best stuff. It has the nice little caramel and nutty nuances, but it seems a bit too acidic, and rather hot. It has routine depth. In short, nothing special. 85 points.

[Return to Top]  

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
1989 Riesling Auslese "Abstberg" (Maximin Grunhaus)
Just off dry (older Grunhausers seem to lose sweetness fast..), this shows a nice hit of acidity up front, that seems to work its way through the layers of the wine, like a hot knife through a thick stick of butter, until it gets to the end--and then it grabs you. But there is no mouth searing here, despite the power, and the acidity integrates more and more into the wine. It develops a smooth, buttery feel, and some mature nuances. If it never seems really special, it always seems interesting. 90 points.

1990 Riesling Auslese "Graacher Domprobst" (Willi Schaefer)
A.P. 2-583-154-0591. This should be a collectors' item---the vineyard name is actually mispelled on the label!  The wine wasn't so interesting either.  Light, and all acid at first, albeit gentle acid, it was hard to find much fruit in this wine. Pleasant, and unassuming, this seemed all too underwhelming for 1990 Auslese, and far too simple. Call me thoroughly unimpressed. 84 points.

2001 Riesling Auslese "Graacher Domprobst" (Willi Schaefer)
The 2001 version of this wine left me unimpressed, too, but it was a lot more fun. It shows sweet on the finish, and the sugar kept getting more apparent. Yet, here, too, the wine seemed altogether too light for very young Auslese, although I loved the mouthgripping finish. The fruit and sugar made it delectable, and it got more flavorful with air, but I kept waiting for some evidence of a little more viscosity somewhere, as so many wines in this vintage show.  It's perhaps unfair to compare it to the Christoffel Urz Wurz Spatlese or Auslese, but it seemed to be about one-third the depth. Still, it is a very elegant, charming wine that drinks nicely, even if it seems underwhelming at times. Hopefully, it will flesh out with cellaring.  89+ points.

1997 Riesling Kabinett "Herrenberg" A.P. 3-536-014-2-98 (Maximin Grunhaus)

There were some recent discussion on fruit forward 2001 Germans with supposedly too little acidity. It's not really unusual to have young grapey wines that close up later and hide their structure early.  I had the good luck to come back to this beauty this week.  I had it on release--fruit bomb city, sweet, clearly spatlese in all legal senses.  It was soft, lush, easy, showing little acid. On Sunday, I opened and poured a glass. Hard, austere, a bit lemony. It's finally opening tonight, Wednesday,  integrating, becoming wine, showing a touch of diesel,  and thoroughly gripping but well integrated acidity. Remarkably dense for a Kabinett, remarkably powerful--and bearing no resemblance to its early fruit bomb demeanor--it is superlative and intense. I thought at the time that it one of the most enjoyable Kabinetts I've had. Still is. Plenty of life left. 92 points.

1994 Riesling Auslese "Wehlener Sonnenuhr" (Selbach-Oster)

What a beauty. The acidity seems piercing, but it is more like a bell sounding in the night--it is clear, it is noticeable. But it hardly overwhelms the whole. In fact, it seems like the wine is actually gentle in its fruit, the acidity moderated by sweetness, and a soft core of fruit in its prime. I do tend to think the acid will eventually overwhelm the fruit, but at the moment, this is drinking brilliantly.  93 points.

1999 Riesling Auslese * "Urziger Wurzgarten" (J.J. Christoffel)

In a vintage where a lot of wines showed a touch flabby, JJC prevailed--even the '99 Spatlese has developed a backbone. This is a beautiful wine. It opens a bit hard, but it doesn't take long for it to wake up. Acid, yes. Mouthpuckering power at times---but it integrates so well, so quickly.....soon, you're rolling the fruit around in your mouth, looking to suck every last morsel of flavor out of it.  With more air--although the wine vanished fast enough that I didn't get much in the way of refills--the fruit reveals itself to be a tad thinner than you might expect.  That said, this is a great performance for this vintage, but it does not compare to what this estate accomplished in greater years, and, yes, I'm daydreaming of that fine lineup of 2001s. 91 points.

 [Return to Top]  

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 Barbera d’Asti “Pomorosso” (Luigi Coppo)

Sexy, and sweet, this is not your typical Barbera---it is not quite as bright, and has a fair dollop of oak.  This is definitely new wave Barbera, and purists may not appreciate it. However, it has a nice blueberry note, and lush, ripe fruit. It may not make Barbera purists happy, but for those just looking for a good wine—it’s pretty delicious. 89 points.

1997 Sancta Catharina (Dei)
Stern and tannic, this Super Tuscan from Dei seems to have closed down since I last I had it.  There is pure muscle underneath, and little of the New Wave sex appeal these wines seem to project.  Lots of air begins to soften the wine, and it has plenty of fruit lurking underneath, but the primary impression is brooding and tight. It is also very, very deep.  I hope this is just a phase--at this point, I wonder if this wine will fulfill its promise, although I'd still bet on it.  It certainly needs some more cellaring, for sure.  90+ points.

1999 Montiano (Falesco)
I was a bit disappointed by this premium bottling. Those who say there is not enough bang for the buck when you step up to Montiano from the low level Merlot would seem vindicated here. That hasn't been what I've seen in other vintages. This finishes astringent, and there is plenty of tannin, but the general demeanor is rather laid back, lush but focused, medium bodied, with just a touch of game. The wine seems to lack some depth, getting most of its power from tannins. Closing down? Will it put on some weight? It certainly should be a very elegant, lovely wine with a few more years time, but at close to $50 it may not provide the bang for the buck a premium wine promises if it does not flesh out in the cellar.  Around $25-$30.  90 points.

2001 Tenuta Albrizzi (Cantine due Palme) QPR Winner
This wine, from Apulia, is made from 50% cabernet and 50% Primitivo. This inexpensive, roughly $10 wine, provides a lot of value. It opens smooth, although finishes a bit hard. It is, after all, very young. It is well balanced though, and shows nice plum flavors and a smooth feel if not much depth at first. It improved nicely with air and became very pleasant. By the end of the evening it was drinking beautifully, and I think it should be consumed young-ish, although it will not fall apart in a couple of years.  I'd want to drink it within five years; if it goes longer than that, I'd like to keep checking in regularly.  But for its limited aging profile, for which it loses some points, it's a lovely wine and great value. 86 points. 

2001 "Canonico"  Salento Negroamaro IGT   (Cantine due Palme) QPR Winner

This "negroamaro" is a typical varietal in Apulia--and this shows great. If the Albrizzi, above, from this winery was a deal, this is a steal at $10. If it is not quite as focused, it is lusher, and deeper. You have to like the mouthfeel immediately, soft, velvety and sensual. The flavors remind me a bit of fine Valpolicella. It opens bright, but the rough edges smooth out immediately, and again, this is a wine to drink on the young side. After some air, this shows beautiful integration of components. It is a bit grapey and a bit simple, but very tasty. It's certainly a huge value. 87 points.

1998 San Martino Bolgheri Superiore (Cipriani)

This Super Tuscan was rather disappointing. Medium bodied at best, it is a pretty straightforward quaffer. It does show some nice intensity in attack from tannins, but the fruit seems bland, and the flavors muted. The wine is very "middle of the road."  It is too straightforward, and seems to expend little effort in being distinguished in any way.  85 points.

1997 Barbera d'Asti "Costamiole" (Prunotto)
A bit rustic, this is a pretty traditional Barbera that I liked a lot. It's a touch tannic, a touch bright. But the acid that often overtakes these wines is well under control. It has a big mouthfilling hit of fruit in the mid-palate, and the wine is open, flavorful and expansive, improving steadily as it airs.  Very nice. 88 points.

1998 Sassoalloro (Biondi-Santi)

Pretty pricey, and utterly uninspiring. Why bother? Someone at the table muttered, "Most overrated producer in Italy."  Rather tannic, old style, old fashioned, this seems leathery, a bit weedy, and a bit short on flavor and style. The fruit does coat your mouth nicely--but there is nothing here to taste.  Insipid, so-so. Given its $30-ish price, one might say it is not the most overpriced wine in the world, but it's still a lot to pay when you can have the lighter but tastier "Canonico," above for about $10.  84 points.

1995 Amarone Classico (Masi)
Pleasant enough--but uninspiring.  This Amarone is far too civilized, too restrained, too subtle. If I wanted this, I'd drink Valpolicella. Soft, plummy, tasty enough, it just lacks intensity, depth, any of the flamboyance or power I'd like to see. It finishes short. 85 points.

2000 Primitivo Salento  (Cantine due Palme)  QPR Winner

Grapey on opening, this wine has a nice kick in intensity nonetheless. It flavors though are a little odd, with some horsey notes, but also some blue fruit notes.  Yet, it all comes together quickly and well,  the initial funk blows off, and the wine has fine depth in an under $15 price range. VERY nice, rather powerful, and a pretty good, bright finish to boot. This shows beautifully ripe fruit--maybe even a touch overripe, in true zin style. :) It was even better the next day.  89 points.

2000 Rosso Regaleali (Tasca d'Almerita) QPR Winner  
Grapey and young, this is nuanced by some tasty cherry notes. It is fresh and soft, but neither inoffensive nor hollow. It even has some grip. This is under $15, probably closer to $10, and provides a lot of easygoing charm for that money. It is one of the trademark Sicilian wines you see, placed in many restaurants in Rome, for instance, and it is for good reason. This doesn't have a ton of depth, but I loved it every time I had it.  It is about as charming as it is possible for Sicilian wine to get. 88 points.

1999 Terre d'Agala Rosso (Duca di Salaparuta) QPR Winner  
Bright, with tingly tannins and raspberry notes, this wine opens a bit sharp, but develops fairly well. It picks up weight with air and then shows more solidly in the mid-palate. It changes completely and some earthy notes pop out, as the raspberries change to sweeter cherry nuances. I give this a lot of credit for coming together well. Another fine value in an under $15 range, but it does not quite have the same mid-palate of some of the other fine wines, even if shows a lot of charm and elegance. 86 points.

1998 Nero d'Avola "Don Antonio" (Morgante)
This premium nero is from one of the few Sicilian wineries that has raised some American consciousness. This shows power, depth and balance, too. It is mouthfilling and ripe, rich and focused, nuanced by plums. I liked its excellent finish, and while sweet, it is also bright, and does not at all seem clunky. Excellent depth, about as big as nero d'avola gets.  I also have a note below on the '99, which lacks the pure power and showiness of this wine, but in its own way is arguably as good.  I also tasted briefly the 2000, which showed more like a less vigorous version of the 1999. No note, however, because I only had a brief taste and did not get a good read on the 2000.  91 points.

2000 NOÀ (Cusumao)
This wine, from the Trapani (Northwest) area is entirely different than most of the Sicilian wines we see, which tend to be centered around the Etna region, or not too far away in the Southeast or East-central of the island. This comes in a premium package and is intended to make a statement. I'm not sure it makes the right one, but it certainly has its good points.  It is a blend of cabernet-merlot-nero d'avola. It is also huge. With 14.5% percent alcohol, and dense fruit, almost syrupy in the mid-palate, it is hard at first to figure out where this wine is going. Then, I began liking the chocolately nuances. For awhile, it began to develop, became sweeter on the finish, and was a bit interesting. I could see getting through dinner and liking this, especially for its depth and richness. Ultimately, however, I did not like its continued development, and it became ever more stolid and one-dimensional. It seemed to crack in spots, and seemed a bit, well, clunky. Nice try, but it could use a little work. 85 points.

1999 Merlot (Planeta)
If the NOÀ was big, this wine,  from another Sicilian winery trying to make a statement (and also a wine that is fairly well known in the USA) goes even further, hitting 15% alcohol. In and of itself, of course, that is not a bad sign. The question is balance. Ultimately, the NOÀ did not have enough.  But while this was harder to warm up to at first, it ultimately succeeded a bit more with air. It is very dark, and there are plenty of dusty tannins on the finish. It seems a bit odd for merlot, a touch of smoke here, lots of rusticity, some density, a lot of tannin. Yet, with air--a lot of air, actually---it started to come around and regain some balance. I am not entirely sure I always liked what I saw in this wine, but I would love to taste it in about five years, at which time it will either be showing exceptionally well or crashing into flames and burning. 87+ points.

2001 Coste all'Ombra Bianco (Tenuta di Budonetto)
This is a sauvignon blanc/chardonnay blend, and it seemed like a blend, not really being easily identifiable as either. I rather liked this a lot. I thought it was beautifully balanced, showing a touch of spice and acid, and also some very ripe mango notes on the fruit. It had flavor and structure, and a sort of a Villa Mt. Eden, easygoing style. I think this is a crowd pleaser in most places at most times. 88 points.

2000 Harmonium (Firriato)
All nero d'avola, this is another Sicilian winery attempting to make a statement, with impressive packaging and a back label that even has some English on it. They have international marketing in mind. It was very nice, too. Inky black, with a big first attack of acid and fruit, it was a medium weight wine that showed some of that Chambord character I noted in the Gulfi Baroni, below,  and Neroibleo. I liked the ripe fruit, the prominent flavor, and the velvet on the texture, and the balance was far better than on some of the really big wines here like the NOÀ.   There is excellent material here, and the sweet fruit mingled nicely with the acid. 90 points.

2000 Rosso (Avignonesi) QPR Winner  . 
This lovely Rosso has body and flavor, and a nice velvety texture. While not overpowering, it leaves the impression of richness, in a gentle way. Very pleasing, utterly charming, laced with cherries.  88 points.

2000 Neroibleo (Gulfi) QPR Winner 
The amazing thing about this wine is that it has a price point in Italy of about $7. For sure, it is a bit simple and really should be drunk young in my opinion. But this supple, fruity wine is a for-sure crowd pleaser at a great price. The grapey notes initially remind me of Beaujolais, but there is no carbonic maceration, and the flavor profile is different, rich, opulent and chock full of strawberries. It is flashy and has touch of Chambord, something I noticed in a lot of riper nero d'avolas, including from other estates. This has to lose points for what I suspect is its limited aging ability, but it is a lot of fun at a great price if caught young. NB: Probably closer to $15 in the USA, but still worth it IF drunk young.  You will note that my rating on this is not much different than the more highly touted crus, below.  All I can say is this: the Neroibleo does what it should about as well as possible while some aspects of the Maccari and the Bufaleffi made me less sure as to whether their flaws, or if you prefer, distinctive points, outweighed the virtues of greater complexity and depth. 87 points.

2001 Neroibleo (Gulfi) QPR Winner 
Tasted from barrel at the winery, his inky black wine showed lots of red berry notes, excellent intensity and ripe, ripe fruit. There were even some nice tannins on the finish for structure. I have no experience with this wine, and this is a barrel sample, but I think I give a slight edge to the 2000 at the moment. We will see when it is bottled, but you cannot go wrong at the price. 86-87 points.

2000/2001 Nerobufaleffi (Gulfi)
Bufaleffi is one of the winery's principal vineyards, and they have the custom of naming the wine for the varietal (nero d'avola) plus the vineyard. This was their major offering that I liked least. Your mileage may vary. I first had the 2001 from barrel and the odor of sulphur or diesel, or both, was overwhelming and offputting. We are not just talking about a whiff of diesel like in a German Mosel. The wine lacked the charm and flavor of the cheaper Ibelo (the crus should run about $17 in Italy from this winery, probably a bit more in the USA). It was a bit straightforward and stolid. I wondered about brett, but I don't think that was it. Then, I had the chance to taste the 2000 from bottle, which was quite instructive. The diesel aromas were only a nuance now....they had not blown completely off, though. The wine was nicely balanced, and with air, it came together nicely and began to show more fruit flavor. It did not develop much more, though. Ultimately, I still did not much like that diesel nuance, perhaps now reduced to being called "smokey." But I don't want smoke pit aromas this strong. The wine is certainly different amongst their crus. Your mileage may differ, but I am more interested in the others. For the 2001--80-83 points. For the 2000--83-85 points.

2000/2001 Neromaccari (Gulfi)
This vineyard is not far from Bufaleffi, in the Pachino area not too far from Ragusa, in that arc in Southeastern Sicily eventually heading up to the Etna area. Yet, it shows completely differently. This is to me the most elegant of their crus, with almost Burgundian notes. The 2001 from barrel was I thought a shade less interesting, again, than the 2000 from bottle. Maybe that is a function of the vintage, maybe of the stage of development for the barrel samples I was getting. In any event, The 2001 showed a gorgeous strawberry nose, but also showed a bit disjointed with acid fighting the fruit. I think this will come together beautifully, but it needs some time in the bottle to settle down. The 2000 Neromaccari was what I would hope the 2001 would become. The 2000 was cool, refreshing, focused and nicely balanced. As between their new cru Baroni, which was quite flamboyant, and their rather distinctive Bufaleffi, this falls in between, showing perhaps the best balance, and clean and correct. The brightness lent a blackberry nuance to the wine, and I really liked the persistent, lingering finish. I would tend to drink this young-ish. For the 2001, 85-87 points. For the 2000: 87 points.

2001 Nerobaroni (Gulfi) QPR Winner 
This wine is not yet commercially available, but that will change soon. It is their newest "cru." It was easily my favorite from what was shown. Raised in barrique, it did show some traces of oak. But the fruit flavor was glorious and exotic. If the Neroibleo had a touch of that Chambord nuance I mentioned, this wine seemed to have several gallons dumped in the barrique. It was dripping with gorgeous fruit flavors, and while not heavy, the unctuous mid-palate had more than adequate stuffing to avoid just being a fruit bomb. There was acid on the back, too, and the wine was actually mouth-gripping on the finish. In flavor, it reminded me a bit of a Ridge Grenache. It also had some similarity to its sibling Neroibleo, but I think this outpaced in depth. This may be a bit flamboyant for some, but I predict it will actually show elegantly when bottled, and it will win a lot of fans for the winery and for Sicilian wine. 90-91 points.

2001 Valcanziria Bianco (Gulfi) QPR Winner
This is one of Gulfi's two white wines, and at FIVE friggin' dollars in Italy it is a simply AMAZING value. It has a chardonnay feel, but a bit more body than most, and an oily texture that reminds me more of a Rhone at times. It is what it is. ...that would be balanced, harmonious and elegant, yet never hollow, and rather flavorful. It is not perhaps stunning, and may finish a bit short, but gosh, $5 for this??? Send the winery some extra money! You may feel guilty at paying so little. Of course, it will cost probably double or so in the USA, so you will be sending someone some extra money.  Drink young, and it has to lose some points for that, but don't misunderstand how much most folks will like this at that price when it is in its prime. 86 points.

 [Return to Top]  

Rhone/South/SouthWest France (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 Chateauneuf du Pape "Cadettes" (La Nerthe)

Incredibly tight and hard, this wine is 7 to 10 years away from being approachable. Big, powerful and dense, it sat in the glass--and didn't budge. It seems nicely balanced. It is just totally shut down. I let it sit in the glass for nearly two hours, and only then could I just about taste some fruit, getting a touch of game, some strawberries. It never came close to opening, but it sure does seem like a super wine with everything in place. Given its current "shut tighter than Fort Knox" status, there is no point scoring it; just call it an "A" level wine that will be superb around 2010. 

The Skalli wines and the Madirans poured at Vin Expo in New York: 

1999 Vin de Pays d'Oc Syrah (R. Skalli) QPR Winner  
Skalli is the name behind the Fortant de France brand. Now, with these varietal wines, he is attempting a step up, while still mining the affordable "QPR" range of wines. This should sell for no more than $10 or so.  As between this, and the simple Merlot, and the bright cabernet I tasted, this seemed to be the easy winner.  It showed very nice structure for this price category, with hints of a tannic backbone that gave the wine some intensity.  With a bit of air, it showed some syrah typicity, some notes of game, and some ripe fruit. It is nicely balanced, and drinks easily, a fine quaffer. For sure, in this price range, as a mass market syrah from the Languedoc, it is neither deep, complex nor long, but it does a lot of nice things for $10, aimed at short to mid-term drinking.  85 points.

2000 Coteaux du Languedoc (Domaine des Silène Peyrals)

This is also part of the Skalli stable, and another step up, selling for around $20. Skalli acquired it in 2000.  This is a Rhone-style blend, dominated by syrah, producing 30,000 bottles. While this Domaine-labeled wine added a little more finesse and class than the basic syrah, above, it was also a bit more disjointed, and needs a year or two of cellaring to come around. It showed cool elegance, syrah typicity, and some ability to develop in the cellar, which is the only real advantage it seemed to have over the basic syrah. When all is said and done, this is a better wine that the $10 syrah just because of its ability to improve with age--but I'm not sure at comparable drinking times, i.e, when both wines are at peak, that you will like this enough more to justify doubling the price. 86-88 points.

1996 Madiran "Vielles Vignes" (Boucassé)
This powerfully wrought Madiran from the owners of Chateau Montus is very tight and brooding at the moment. It opens with a hit of acid, not fruit, and seems ungenerous and spiteful. Some air opens it a little, although it remains a bit astringent,  and there are touch of game and bacon fat on the back. This wine was too tight, and never opened in the time that I had to spend with it.  I can only say, check back in about three years, maybe five, and it should be drinking beautifully.  88-90 points.

1999 Madiran (Boucassé)
This 1999 regular bottling bore no resemblance to the 1996 Vielles Vignes, above. It was still tight, but not as hard, and not as harsh. The astringency was only on the finish, more befitting a young wine, than a real powerhouse. The finish was a bit shorter, too. This should probably be at peak at almost the same time as the '96 VV, actually, and while it may never show the depth, there may be moments when it is far more charming. If the 1996 VV does not integrate its powerful components better than it has to date, this may actually turn out to be more pleasing. 87-89 points. 

1995 Madiran (Montus)
Soft and supple, this seemed like a gentle summer breeze after the brooding Boucassés, above. The sweet, ripe fruit was charming and the texture lush. This seemed pretty much ready to drink, and perhaps a bit simple, but very pleasing for its delectable sweet fruit. 88 points.

1995 Madiran "XL" (Montus)
Sometimes you wonder how much the regular bottling suffers when you see a specialty cuveé like this. I can only say, this XL bottling made me lose interest in the regular '95 Montus real fast. It puts it all together.  It gives you the Boucassé power, and the Montus texture and suppleness. It is deep and long, flavorful and beautifully structured. Bright and elegant, it also seems twice as concentrated as the regular bottling.  Simply, this is a wine that shows how fine Madiran can be, although it no longer fulfills the regional purpose of providing fine, inexpensive wines. (I couldn't get an exact price--but expect it to be over $50.)  91-94 points.

1999 Madiran (Montus)
The regular '99 Montus is a bit more successful to my mind than the Boucassé '99.  Supple, sweet, ripe and full of exuberant primary fruit flavor, this shows beautiful balance, depth, elegance, velvety texture and gamey nuances around the edges for personality. If this shows well a few years from now, as I suspect, it will be a real beauty, always more on the elegant than powerful side, but nonetheless utterly charming. 90 points.

2000 Madiran (Montus)

This is a beauty in the making, but at the moment it is a bit raw and disjointed. Bright, red berry fruit seeps from every drop, and the back end has grip and provides focus. The sweet fruit hiding around every corner provides a promise of fine things to come. Check back in about three years, and this may be really interesting. 89-91 points.

The following tasted together at Citronelle, Washington, D.C.

1999 Hermitage Blanc (Chave)
Pristine and well mannered, this young wine developed slowly, but surely. Restrained at first, with a slightly oily presence on the palate, this eventually showed some youthful exuberance, and started to flesh out--though it took awhile. I loved the way it opened and put on weight, but it is slightly more compact than the biggest vintages, though still very fine. 90 points.

1999 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Beaucastel)
This is a very good, but fairly restrained Beaucastel.  It opens brightly, with surprisingly overt fruit flavors, pleasing raspberry notes, and seemingly quite sweet. The relatively high acid in this wine takes over, though, and the fruit takes a bit of a backseat. Very focused, very precise, this lacks the depth of the biggest Beaucastels, but when its components integrate, it should be a beauty, if always a couple of steps short of stunning. It is not exactly, hollow, though--don't misunderstand. I enjoyed the core of tightly wound fruit.  90+ points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Le Calice de Saint Pierre" (Domaine des Pères de l'Église)
The bright raspberry attack on this wine reminded me a lot of the '99 Beaucastel at first. The wine has a fairly high Mourvedre content,  and takes on a bit of a smoked meat note on the finish. The fruit also becomes a bit more overt, and it shows ultimately as nice, smooth, and gradually softening wine that does a lot of nice things. It could use a bit more intensity and depth. 88 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Beaurenard) QPR Winner
This regular bottling of Beaurenard is a deal. At about $25, this wine shows superb depth and luscious, deep fruit. I love the sweet fruit flavors that came burbling up, and the texture. All that said, the wine has some one-dimensional aspects to it. It never projects much in the way of intensity, or discloses much structure. Still, for about $25, this is a very enjoyable wine that delivers a lot opulent, ripe fruit for the money. 91 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Boisrenard" (Beaurenard)
The difference between this upper level bottling from Beaurenard and the regular is considerable--in terms of price, i.e, about double, or $47. The style is different, too. This certainly has more refinement, and better structure. There are moments when it actually seems to have less depth, but I think this is an illusion generated by the more prominent structural components, i.e., acid and tannin. I really liked this wine's refined intensity, and it's bright, focused attack.  93 points. 

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Clos du Mont-Olivet)
Sharp, gamey and bright, this remains true to the style of this estate, which has not always been my favorite. The relatively light fruit is layered with bacon fat nuances, and a pronounced strawberry flavor.  This wine always seems to be cut into layers, with nothing ever quite coming together. Smoky, and sauvage, it is a bit too modest in depth.  87 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Cuvée de Papet" (Clos du Mont-Olivet)
This upper level bottling, as seems to be the custom, doubles the price of the regular Mont-Olivet, above. One wonders if they--or we--would do better ditching this special bottling and concentrating on turning out one fine wine for a reasonable price.  This is a beauty, though. There's a fair amount of barnyard, but here it is integrated into a ripe core of fruit, whereas the regular bottling seems a bit too light, almost hollow in places. I liked the smooth mouthfeel a lot, and the bacon fat was better balanced here. Very nice, but perhaps too pricey at $40. 90 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Paul Autard)
This seems pretty much ready to roll now. And that's not a good thing. It has a bretty nose, but a pleasant enough palate, seems light and rather modest in every respect, and a touch simple. It's enjoyable enough as a quaffer, but one wonders again whether the attention paid to the pricier cuvée detracts from the regular bottling. At least it's relatively cheap at about $20, and perhaps not such a bad value at that price.  85 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Cuvée de la Ronde" (Paul Autard)
One good thing you can say about this pricier Autard cuvée is that it is not double the price of the regular bottling. This was recently available for $30.  It is not what I'd call exceptional, though. There are plenty of bacon fat nuances, but also sweet fruit, and  lots of acid.  I rather liked the texture, but for a special bottling, there wasn't much depth, or much intensity. This, frankly, is what the regular bottling should have tasted like. 89 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Domaine de la Janasse) QPR Winner
This may not be the best CDP on this page---but it sure delivers the most bang for the buck. This is just the regular bottling.  I just loved this wine, loved how it evolved, and loved how it began. The fruit is simply gorgeous, raspberry scented and fragrant. The core of fruit is dense and ripe, smooth and round. The concentration level at this price point of $28 was terrific. As it aired out, the fruit took on a smoother, fleshier aspect that coated your mouth. This is a big time beauty that outperforms bottlings a lot more expensive. 94 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape  (Vieux Télegraphe)
The real deal.  I'm very, very impressed. Let's put it that way. Incredibly sweet fruit--that's the first impression. It seems like young Cal cab at first. The extraction level is high, the fruit looks like somebody poured ink into the glass. Opulent and rich, flavorful and sweet, this wine has still more: the powerful structural underpinnings promise a long life, and graceful evolution. This looks to be one of the wines that will show well almost any time you look at it.  VERY sexy.  About $45.  95 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Beaucastel)
For Beaucastel, this is an unusually opulent fruit bomb. Unctuous, ripe and rich, the wine sports a superb finish too. If it is not quite as sweet as the Vieux Telegraphe, above, it is equally concentrated, and equally accessible.  The smooth, cool texture hid many layers underneath --and they were all pretty fine. Old time Beau fans may wonder where the sternness  is--but this wine seems pretty fine to me.  About $45. 94 points.

1994 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Gardine-Brunel)
Although this eventually got to the point where it had some interest, flavor and charm, it opened kinda scary, all tannins, acid, and no fruit. The components finally integrated with a lot of air, but what was left was a dainty, light-ish wine, with nice cherry notes and little depth. This was not unpleasant to drink, but a big disappointment considering how it showed young. Simple, not bad. Some might argue for more cellaring based on the tannin levels, but the fact is.....there ain't enough fruit here to support more cellaring. Drink up. 83 points.

1998 Cornas (Voge)
The first taste is sweet blueberries, but it doesn't take long for the wine's structural components to assert themselves. This shows pure power, ultimately, loads of tannins, excellent depth, and a fair bit of acid, too. It entered yet another stage, and the acid and tannins moderated a bit, but that fruit never again asserted itself during the long dinner at which this open. There is a lot going on here in this very tight wine, but I would say (a) it badly needs cellaring and (b) I'm not sure the fruit will ever completely balance with the rest of the components. In any event, it is rather difficult to judge now and not much fun to drink.  88-91 points.

[Return to Top]  

Spain (except dessert/sparkling)

2000 Neonato (Marques de Murrieta)

This simple wine is Murrieta’s low level entry. It should be a crowd pleaser in some senses, but there’s not much here for a serious wine person. Bright, and light, with a hollow mid-palate, it shows some pleasant cherry notes and drinks easy. It does have some charm and elegance, and it’s cheap. For certain party settings, it may go down well, but I think most of us should be able to do a lot better. 80 points.

1994 Rioja Reserva Especiale Castillo Ygay (Marques de Murrieta)

Smooth, elegant and utterly charming, this wine throws off gentle, red berry notes, cherries and strawberries.  It is bright and relatively light, showing little depth, but it is elegant enough and tasty enough so that it is hard to begrudge it much, although it seems to have thinned a bit too much for its age.  This is well short of excellent, but very pleasing in many respects. 87 points.

1996 Rioja Reserva “Dalmau” Ygay (Marques de Murrieta)

I see the 1994 selling for the mid-40s on Wine Searcher, but the list on this 1996 is said to be $80.  That’s a bit much. Still, this is lovely wine. Take the 1994 Ygay, above, and add depth and power, flesh and lush texture, i.e, give the 1994 everything it does not have, and this velvety, flavorful wine is what you get. For all of its beauty, it still seems to lack a bit of intensity, and the price seems a bit out of whack for what it is in the bottle, not that that circumstance is unique to this winery these days. 91 points.

2000 Numanthia

This heralded,  small production, and slightly pricey new wave Spanish wine is super. On tasting it the impression I get is all cassis, and I'm quite sure I'd guess cabernet if served blind. I had the same impression when I tasted the 1999. How can this be all tempranillo (from the Toro appellation), which, as I understand it, it is? This ain't your father's copy of Rioja, that's for sure. This wine shows lots of power, some tannin on opening, but it is well balanced, lively and flavorful. The attack is persistent, and while the wine is neither thick nor terribly deep, it is sexy, structured, a little brooding and chock full of flavorful fruit. I'd still like to know how much cabernet goes into it! 92+ points.

[Return to Top]  

This site designed and created in content and in form
by Mark Squires, copyright © 2002,  all rights reserved.