Home
Intro Bulletin
Board Tasting Notes
Articles Best
Buys Coups de Coeur
Search Contact
Philadelphia Wine
Wine Books Wine
Quotes Events
Basics Links
Photos Kudos
Wine audio
Tasting
Notes
September/October, 2001
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. NB:
If you are using Netscape, there will sometimes be some formatting issues, mostly
regarding the supposed failure to turn off bold lettering. It is not a big
deal, but if it bothers you, try Internet Explorer.
Alsace Australia
Bordeaux
Burgundy red and white
Calif./USA: Red
Dessert/Sparkling
Germany Italy
Loire
Rhone/South/SW France Spain
Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Muscat (Domaine Weinbach)
I was greatly disappointed by this
austere Muscat from Weinbach, from whom I had higher expectations. It
was served a bit too cold at first, but I let it get warmer, honest.
It didn't help much. The nose was subdued, and what else do you want
in Muscat? The austerity of the fruit was no great enticement either.
This is Muscat, you know, not trocken Mosel! 84 points.
1999 Riesling (H. Erhart) QPR Winner
By contrast with the well known Weinbach, this anonymous
producer in Ammerschwihr made a delightful, inexpensive, generic
Riesling that overachieved. Crisp, with good grip, it opened nicely
with air and warmth, showed some well balanced fruit and in general
presented a pleasing whole for an under $10 wine in a dry, honest
style. Nice job for its status and style. 85 points.
Australia (except dessert/sparkling)
1998
Cabernet (Greenock Creek)
This has a nice red berry
nose, with just a touch of oak-induced licorice on the finish. The
oak integrates fairly quickly, though, and while this is not
necessarily what a resident of Bordeaux or even Napa would call
typical cabernet, there was a lot here to like, good balance, nice
presentation. It will be interesting to see how this evolves, but I
suspect one to three years of cellaring will improve it. 90-92
points.
1998
Cabernet Reserve (Noon)
Some cab flavors poke
through the body of this wine, though they are leaning more to cherry
than cassis. I like the intensity on this wine, focused, with some
supporting, supple tannins. Good balance rounds out an all around
pleasing performance. This will likely be better in 2004 and how well
it develops in that time will determine its ultimate score. 90-92
points.
1998
Shiraz Reserve (Noon)
There's a big hit of intense
acid and menthol on the nose and on opening, but with about ten
minutes of air, this wine manages to pull together well.
Eventually, it shows nicely balanced, sweet fruit that was simply
delicious. It's not big and powerful, but sure is tasty and ripe.
This will show better in a year or two. When it calms down, will it
seem elegant and tasty, or just medium bodied and middle of the road?
88-90 points.
1999
Shiraz Reserve (Noon)
Inky black, this wine gives
all the hints of being a big, powerful monster. In some respects it
is. It is completely disjointed on opening. I took home the
leftovers, and it did come together sort of the next day. It still
showed too much acid, and now it showed a little too much sweet,
licorice from new American oak. It never got beyond medium bodied in
fruit, but it seemed to be backed by a lot of intense components. I
suspect no one will really know what this will do until it is a few
years down the road. It is a shiraz that demands cellaring. I also
suspect it won't turn into anything really remarkable, but will be a
reasonably pleasing wine. At least as they showed today, I like the
1998 better for its texture and integration. If the 1999 can
eventually match its balance, its intensity should allow it to
surpass the 1998. 89-91 points.
1996
Shiraz "Seven Acres" (Greenock Creek)
Medium bodied, with some
elegance, as GCs generally seem to deliver, this nonetheless is
marred by a big hit of new
American oak and the
resulting vanilla licorice in the middle--not quite to the syrupy
levels described in the d'Arenberg, below, but quite a lot. The wine
does a lot right, and is drinking well now, but it would be nice to
have a fighting chance to find the fruit. My last note on this
wine was in Australia, and the oak seemed not as noticeable, so it is
somewhat troubling that the oak is so obvious now. It might signal a
wine in which the oak is not integrating well, just starting to
dominate. In any event, it's a notch off what I had last time
around. 89 points.
1997
Shiraz "Seven Acres" (Greenock Creek)
It's hard to believe this is
the same wine as the 1996. When I was in Australia, a lot of
winemakers swore they were going to reduce the new American oak.
Suddenly...it's gone here. This wine is focused, and intense, it
shows grip and concentration, and its more neutral oak is well
integrated. This purposeful wine is a long way from the fruit
bomb style, and is of a type that may benefit considerably from
cellaring. Try this again in 2004-2006. 90+ points.
1998
Shiraz "Seven Acres" (Greenock Creek)
Softer, smoother and less
intense than the 1997, this Seven Acres is a bit too compact and too
easy going. I liked its round texture and flavors, but it hardly
seemed like a distinguished cult wine. Frankly, I generally find it
overrated (along with a lot of the others), but that's another story.
88 points.
1997
Old Vines Shiraz "Elmor's Ebeneezer" (Roehr)
This very rare wine seemed
like a pretty stereotypical shiraz to me. It's nice enough, and will
certainly please those who like the style. It's very sweet, not only
due to ripe fruit, but the overlay of new American oak, which also
imparts a licorice and in this case almost syrupy vanilla sweet
taste. The wine is very fruity and soft, and seems relatively
unstructured, though it is not really a big and powerful fruit bomb
type. It is medium bodied at best, actually. It's pleasant enough,
rather overoaked, and I suspect that there won't be much benefit to
cellaring it. Those who don't like the oak won't want to drink it at
all; those who don't mind will find it very enjoyable. 86-88 points.
1998
Grenache-Shiraz-Mourvedre "Ironstone Pressings" (d'Arenberg)
Drenched in that new
American oak to a degree where it develops that sweet, almost puréed,
syrupy vanilla-licorice flavor that these over-American-oaked wines
get when young, this seemed like syrupy young fruit and not much
else. The oak levels obscured the varietal. Served double-blind, no
one tasted any mourvedre, and most guessed shiraz, just because of
the way the oak tasted. For all of that, the wine does have lots of
flavor, after you dig through the oak, and good depth. But I
personally find this level of new American oak to be completely
unacceptable these days. Those who are more tolerant may like it
more. 88 points.
1988
Cabernet Bin 707 (Penfold's)
On a lot of these extremely
overoaked wines, I am a proponent of drinking them early. Here's why.
The fruit here is still there after some thirteen years. But instead
of showing like the Saddleback Cab 1987 reviewed elsewhere on this
page this month, it is now a wine utterly dominated by the
aggressive, new American oak. Without that overlay, the fruit might
have been enough to result in a maturing, but still pleasing wine.
But now it is mostly overwhelmed. 83 points.
1998 Shiraz (Oddfellows)
Served blind, it reminded me of Ironstone Pressings from d’Arenberg, or Clarendon Grenache. It was yet another Down Under wine with that sickly sweet, almost syrupy liqueur-styled fruit in the mid-palate. You could only say “chambord.” And quite a lot of it. There was some new oak licorice, too, and ripe raspberry fruit, but the overwhelming influence was of very sweet, over-the-top wine. I could call it port like, but it wasn’t heavy or tannic, just syrupy and sweet. Let’s stick with chambord. Scoring doesn’t help much as the wine is odd enough (aptly named!) that it will polarize tasters apart from any objective standards that one might use to evaluate it. 85 points.
Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)
1967 Chateau Mouton Rothschild
Well, it has gone gently……too gently. Totally spineless at this point, with no perceptible tannins, it shows rather light and undistinguished. The fruit simply has that soft, wet leaves nuance, also showing slightly sweet from oxidation and also a little pruney. Not wholly undrinkable but rather poor. 70 points.
1969 Chateau Latour
This shows surprisingly good weight and density—old, muscular Latour asserting itself. There are hints of tannin, but most have resolved. Yet, the fruit is not wholly gone, and while there are far too many off notes and signs of decay, this wine had a chance for awhile, if you drank it fast. 78 points.
1964 Chateau Pichon Lalande
Medium bodied at best, this shows some subtle cherry fruit, a little sweetness from maderization and touches of flavor here and there. If it lacks the concentration of the Latour, above, at least it has more and slightly purer flavors. It was rather spineless and unstructured, and you needed to drink it fast. 78 points.
1997
La Chapelle de la Mission Haut Brion
They call wines like this restaurant wines--off vintages, but
good performers, they are inexpensive, supple and early maturing. I
find this superlative for the vintage. In many aspects, it seems more
like Burgundy, supple, soft, very aromatic, with very sweet fruit and
little tannins to speak of. It won't keep; drink up. But
it sure is f-i-n-e! The soft supple texture is laced with
exuberant, youthful cherry fruit flavors that never quit. With air,
it acquires more typicity, but the fruit flavor never quits. The lack
of a backbone prevents me from rating it more highly, but for short
term drinking, this is delightful. 87 points.
Burgundy (red) (except dessert/sparkling)
1996 Bourgogne Rouge (Leroy)
I have to admit that I am not a big fan in most years of Leroy
Bourgogne Rouge. They are often just too powerful and too tannic for
the wines that they should be. They
often seem to have delusions of grandeur.
This is more successful and is drinking well at this point in
its life. It is still remarkably sturdy and big for a Bourgogne
Rouge, and the flavors are a little obscured.
If the wine lacks charm, one might also say in its defense
that it has plenty of life in it and is developing still, if slowly.
88 points.
1999
Nuits St. Georges 1er Cru "Jeunes Vignes Clos des Forets St.
Georges" (Domaine de l'Arlot) QPR Winner
This wine is from Arlot's highly regarded Clos des Forets
vineyard--but they bottled it as generic NSG 1er Cru because of the
youth of the vines. The nose on this wine was just
beautiful--heavily perfumed cherries, and bright raspberries filled
the glass. If you like the aromatics of Burgundy (and who doesn't?),
this was worth the price, around $28, just for the bouquet. If
only it had followed through on the palate. Now, I don't say that it
won't in the future. The wine was dreadfully tight, showing more
bright power than a young vines pinot noir has a right to have. It
needs at least three years in the cellar I think, in order to give
the tannins and acid a chance to integrate, and I suspect it might
show best between 2004 and 2006. Admittedly, I do have some concerns
on balance. There was a lot of tannin and acid for young vines fruit.
Will the nose be as fine and the fruit more savory when the tannins
resolve and the acid integrates? I think so, but there are some
questions here. For the price, it is well worth taking the small
chance. 87-89 points.
1999
Clos de Vougeot (Domaine Lamarche)
This opened with all the elegance and debonair demeanor you want
in Burgundy, but I was curious as to where the depth was for a young
grand cru. I liked the flavor, the bright, cheery demeanor, and the
focus, but there
always seemed to be some finish and depth missing. Oh, mind you, not
that the wine was bad, and it did improve with air. I particularly
enjoyed the purity of its flavors. But if it develops, I need to see
a bit more to be really impressed. 88-90 points.
1999
Charmes-Chambertin (Gallois)
Sexy and seductive, this lush, rich and powerful wine is,
surprisingly, fully open. Some speculated that it would close down,
and I'd probably have to agree. At the moment, it projects tasty
black cherry fruit, and a sensual, velvety texture. I liked
everything about it, the only question being whether it would close
down and become a cellar candidate, or it was merely a precocious,
mid-term wine. 90-92 points.
1999
Volnay "Santenots" (N. Potel)
It starts rather tight, with supple tannins, and then gradually
evolves. It shows elegant, with medium body, and good brightness, and
develops flavor gradually. I thought it was rather worrisome in
terms of depth at first, but it did seem to put on weight in the
glass. A lot depends on the evolution of this very young wine, and
the integration of its components. 88-90 points.
Burgundy (white) (except dessert/sparkling)
1995 Chablis 1er Cru Mont-de-Milieu (Domaine Pinson)
How horrible can Chablis be?
Dude. Try this. First,
it has no typicity whatsoever. It
is unusually sweet, and
reeks of Welch’s grape juice. It is hard to believe that this is
Chardonnay, let alone 1er Cru Chablis.
For this disgrace, they should be reported to the authorities
for ruining the reputation of Chablis.
Of course, it doesn't taste too bad if you don't think of it as
chardonnay, let alone Burgundy. Or, maybe think of it as a chardonnay
to which the cassis is pre-added. 75 points.
California/USA
(red) (except
dessert/sparkling)
1997
Dionysus (Horton)
I
am ashamed to say that I recommended this once and rated it rather
highly. I swear, and others have independently agreed, that is
showed very well on release. When tasted at the winery in Virginia,
it seemed nicely structured and ripe and interesting. On opening, it
was highly acidic and the fruit had thinned badly in just a couple of
years. With a bit of air, some fruit popped out and the acidity
moderated, but the strong bitter coffee notes became more
pronounced--and more bitter. With a little more air, the wine became
more or less undrinkable. Disappointed is not the right word.
Horrified? Mea culpa. 75 points.
1996
Cabernet (Snowden)
Tannic at the outset, with a
beautiful cassis nose, this opened nicely with air, and show good,
classic cab flavors, and a nice, focused core of fruit. It's my first
experience with this winery, and it can be hard to predict where
things will go, but I would say that this would be drinking nicely at
or near peak in about two years to four, when it will be a pretty
cab. 88-90 points.
1995
Insignia (Joseph Phelps)
Classical cab. This is a not
a big bruiser, but it is perfectly balanced, subtly well structured
and laced with classic cassis flavors. It opened nicely with air, and
evolved well and fairly quickly. Mid-weight, like a '95s, it still
has enough stuffing coupled with its attack to make it a premium
wine. 90 points.
1991
Insignia (Joseph Phelps)
Rich, fruity and youthful,
this Insignia does not have quite the pure power of some '91s, but it
so pristine and young, it hardly seems to have aged at all. It is
still a touch grapey, featuring ripe, sweet fruit. It has held
impeccably, and while it seems fruit-dominated, a wine with no
structure cannot last for ten years this well. I liked the velvety
texture, too. Great flavors from an exuberant wine that can be
cellared more or less indefinitely at this point. 94 points.
1991
Cabernet Private Reserve (Beringer)
This wasn't too shabby the
last time I had it. This time...it's even better. I've said it
before, but how good was the 1991 vintage for Cal cab? In my opinion,
the best Napa vintage ever and not too shabby in a few places outside
of Napa, either. This formidable wine, shows perfect balance, but
more mature than the Insignia, above. With air, supple cherry fruit
pops out. The finish is lingering and flavorful. There is a certain
brightness and subtle intensity to this wine that drives home all of
its points. Yet, its ultimate presentation is one of graceful
maturity. This is a very different wine than the Insignia, but
which I prefer would simply depend on my mood. 94 points.
1987
Cabernet Reserve (Sterling)
This medium bodied cab is
doing some good things. It is gentle, with a precise core of fruit in
the middle. The cab flavors are clearly delineated and varietally
true, and ever more pleasing because the wine is so open and
expansive. It's not particularly long or distinctive, and this
is not the most heralded Cal Cab in the world, but nearly 15 years
out, it presents a very pleasing performance and shows a charming
demeanor. 87 points.
1987
Cabernet (Saddleback)
There is a touch of American
oak up front, but the wine at this point in its life shows nice
balance and good integration of components. The fruit is maturing and
thinning somewhat, but it is expansive and pristine, and shows enough
concentration to be more than just pleasing. 90 points.
1978
Cabernet Reserve (E.&J. Gallo)
Yep, Gallo over twenty years old--and
not bad. This doesn't seem old in a sense. There are no wet leaves,
no oxidation. In that sense, the wine has held brilliantly. It does
seem a bit stolid and one dimensional, though. Its restraint leaves
the fruit a bit muted, even though it has excellent weight still,
some brambles and briars. It's neither particularly long, nor
particularly distinctive, and it would have been nice to have some
more fruit flavor, but the gestalt here is of a still living
wine with good depth and no decay. 87 points.
1999 Petite Sirah (Behrens & Hitchcock)
This youthful PS is nuanced by sweet, raspberry fruit, a velvety texture, and youthful, grapey nuances. It is well supported by a tannic backbone that gives it some grip and intensity and holds promise for the future. It is noticeable for showing little new oak, and in the past I’ve criticized B&H for being over-the-top in that regard; perhaps the style is evolving. The astringent tannins, mouth-drying on the finish, require this to be cellared for at least three years, and I might go up to 2004 before wanting to try it again. I suspect it will be closer to the upper end of my score and that its balance is actually very good, but I would like to see those tannins ameliorate a bit. 89-91 points.
1994 Cabernet (Arns)
Elegant and flavorful, with some brightness on the finish, this opened soft, restrained and subtle. My first thought was Bordeaux. It didn’t seem deep or powerful, but it had ….suave. With air, I was surprised to see it put on weight, acquire depth, and tannins popped out, too. This should have been decanted, and eventually it seemed actually to close down a bit in the glass. Interesting, reasonably impressive, and I’d like to try it again with decanting. 90+ points.
1993 Old Telegram (Bonny Doon)
When young, this was a massive wine, tannic and powerful, thick and ripe. Some eight years later, it is showing well, but has slipped a notch. The tannins have moderated. The fruit seems very Rhone-y, and the texture velvety. After about ten minutes of air, it opened nicely, and provided some easy drinking and overt flavors. It didn’t hold well through the evening, though, and the flavors muted, the acid rose. This is a wine that is still very drinkable and showing reasonably well, but also on the downslide. So, drink up. 85 points.
1975 Cabernet (Beaulieu)
This is merely the regular Napa bottling, and it has held very well for what it is. There are nice, clean cherry fruit nuances. The fruit is subtle and gentle, but the wine shows some soft tannins still. There’s actually a finish, too. Nice job, for what it is. This is a wine that is more than an intellectual experience, although just barely. 80 points.
1990 Pinot Noir “RD” (Kalin)
Thick, deep and bright, the only problem here is that this wine shows some wet forest notes of decaying, oxidizing fruit. It’s a big problem, regrettably, because there is a lot here that this wine does well. Its mid-palate concentration is superb. But it has lost all primary fruit flavors. Those who like old Burgundy may like it more. 84 points.
1997
Cabernet "Harmonie" (Blackjack Ranch)
Elegant, with a pleasing core of tightly wound sweet fruit, this
opened nicely over the course of the evening, but never seemed to me
to go anywhere special. It acquired balance, but not real
distinction. That said, it still drank well, its components
integrated nicely, and the purity of the fruit made it a pleasure to
drink. 88 points
1997
Cabernet (Paoletti)
After a bit of tightness and some supple, tingly tannins, this
dissolved into a charming, lush and sweet wine that I liked a lot.
The rich, ripe, chocolately fruit was delicious. The wine showed
gently, but still well structured. It was never overbearing,
and always charming. With air, it showed some exotic, sexy and
sensual qualities, too. As the evening wore on, this simply got more
and more delicious. 91 points.
1996
Against the Wall Syrah (Sine Qua Non)
The obligatory comments came, namely, that this was a monster,
etc., etc. Well, it sure ain't shy. But other than a bit of heat on
the finish, this seemed relatively well balanced if a bit flamboyant.
The fruit was sweet, charming and delicious, and balanced by some
acid at the back end. There was a certain syrupy quality in the
mid-palate, but the wine never seemed heavy or overpowering. With
air, it developed a smooth, sensual texture that melded well with the
sweet fruit. I liked this very much, although like most cult wines, I
would have to say that if you can't get it from the winery, it
probably isn't worth buying at auction prices. This is drinking
well now, although breathing helped. It is in no danger of dying, and
will improve with further cellaring, too. 90 points.
1998
Zinfandel "Louisa & Guiseppe" (Martinelli)
Not only is this bottling a better deal
than the Jackass, but I'm beginning to think that I actually like it
better in most vintages. That said, this was a couple of notches
below the 1997 and a little disappointing. There were some
notes of very ripe fruit, but the depth of the wine was missing, the
texture was a little more acidic, a little less fruity. The
pleasingly flamboyant opening faded fast, and I liked it a lot less
as it aired out. 86 points.
1996
Zinfandel "Aida" (Turley)
This has always been a memorable Turley, and one that clearly has
benefited from four years of cellaring, something most zins can't
say. There are hints of chocolate and mint on opening, but this wine
is beautifully balanced. You notice some components, the lush fruit,
the acid in back, and flavor, but with twenty minutes of air, it all
pulls together wonderfully to create a ripe, round, velvety zin. The
intense, focused attack in the early going becomes more soothing. The
flavors never quit. I like drinking this wine now, although I
think it might actually improve with one to two years more of
cellaring. A bit exotic, completely delicious. 92 points.
1997 Cabernet "Harvest Moon Vineyard" (River Run) QPR Winner
Inky black, this wine caused musings on the identify of the prankster who dumped the Mont Blanc ink cannister into it. But no, all that color was wine. There was a touch of licorice up front, and the wine showed good balance. With air, it evolved and opened, becoming a bit lusher and riper. I liked the supple, very ripe tannins for support. Served blind, though, this struck me as a cool climate, relatively restrained Australian shiraz. Say, a Bannockburn. I don't know that I would call this classic cab in its flavor profile, but it was pleasing, and tasty, and the way cab pricing in California is running these days, around $25 is an excellent value. 89 points.
1999
Belles Soeurs Pinot Noir "Yamhill County" (Beaux Freres)
I think this has the chance to show exceptionally well, but I was
surprised at how big and hard it seemed, given the normal Belles
Soeurs personality. At the outset, it gives off crushed raspberries,
but soon it becomes rather austere, bright and hard. There is a
lot of fruit underneath though. I think this has an excellent
chance to come together into something very nice with about three
years (at least) of cellaring. At least from this bottle, though, it
badly needed that three years of cellaring. I do worry a little
about the perceptible acid. but this is a very young, disjointed wine
at the moment. 88+ points.
1999
Pinot Noir "Mt Jefferson" (Cristom) QPR Winner
There
is nice balance here, lots of black cherries and sweet fruit.
With air, the bright, acidic structure one finds in a lot of pinots
pops, out with some tannins. This needs a year or two in the
cellar--but when it comes together it should be an attractive,
flavorful, fairly priced (mid-20s) pinot. 86-88 points.
1999
Pinot Noir "Shea Vineyard" (Shea)
Soft, pleasant and lush, this wine lacked a bit of intensity. It
was round and sweet, but showed little depth or distinction. Almost
ready now, it should cellar nicely for a few years, but may not
improve much beyond the next twelve months. 85 points.
1999
Pinot Noir "Les Dijonnais" (Brick House)
Powerful, but elegant, this shows impeccable balance, some
bright, cheery fruit, and great cherry aromatics, along with a touch
of game. I liked the way this wine presented itself in most respects,
particularly its focus and intensity, but it clearly needs some more
time in the cellar. Try it again in two to three years, and probably
best around 2005. How the components come together will tell the
story with this wine. 88-90 points.
1996 Rieslaner Beerenauslese "Ungsteiner
Bettelhaus" (Kurt Darting) QPR Winner
Another beautiful '96 Darting. This opens with lots of acid
(surprise....), then the sugar comes out and rounds things off
nicely. There's a touch of syrup in the viscous nature of the
wine, notes of apricot and mangoes, and superb, lingering finish,
driven home by the zesty acidity. Very classy, rich and ripe. As fine
BA goes, this was also about $25 for a 500ml, which is a pretty nice
deal. 91 points.
1986 Champagne Brut Rosé (Dom Ruinart)
This certainly has to be about the most distinctive champagne on
the market. Even their non-vintage is just different. It shows meaty,
gamey, almost a little bretty. Oh, yeah, there is toast, too. See, I
told you we were talking about Champagne, not Chateauneuf. The depth
is very good, as is the length. The fruit is pristine. The last
bottle I had was a bit more restrained. An excellent wine and
performance. 92 points.
1983 Port (Taylor Fladgate) QPR Winner
I have had other bottles of this that were showing more tannins,
but this seemed open and pretty much ready to roll, if a bit grapey
(it was decanted for about three hours). Ripe, voluptuous and
flavorful, this is most everything you want a port to be. With the
relative bargain that 1983s in general are, this seems to taste twice
as good. 92 points.
1989 Riesling Beerenauslese “Forster Marieugarten” (F. Kimich)
This seemed tasty, tangy and enjoyable, but modest and a bit underwhelming for a BA. Marked by botrytis, the wine easily showed it was late harvest. There were typical apricot nuances from older, maturing Riesling. The sweetness had moderated, and the depth and concentration were just average. Pleasant enough, but nothing to write home about. 87 points.
1984 Chateau d’Yquem
A decent finish, a hit of botrytis, a lot of caramel….for Yquem, there is too little weight, depth and fruit, and with air, the wine becomes thinner and more bitter. It still drinks well up to a point, and is pleasant enough if it were not supposed to be a major Sauternes let alone Yquem. 83 points.
1988 Late Harvest White Zinfandel (Santino)
Uh, I actually liked this. The residual sugar was amazing and covered up any defects. The wine had little structure, but it was lively, viscous and sinfully sweet. I felt like I was eating up pie with a pound of whipped cream. It started sweet, the middle was sweet, and the finish with sweet. There were some strawberry notes and nuances. It tasted rather good, if rather odd. It has held perfectly. No, it won’t be to everyone’s taste. 88 points.
1982 Quinta da Cotto Colheita (Champalimaud)
Smooth, fragrant and silky, this Colheita is LBV sweet and grapey, gentle and flavorful. It has some structure, but mostly goes down easy, tastes great. This is not a complicated port, but a gentle charmer. 88 points.
Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
1990 Riesling Auslese
"Bernkasteler Badstube" (Kerpen)
High acidity up front melds into a pleasing, ripe, off dry
whole with just a little air. There are hints of maturity around the
edges, but the viscosity, sugar and acidity pull together into a
thoroughly pleasing gestalt. I liked the oily, velvety texture of the
very ripe fruit a lot, and the finish was satisfyingly long. 90
points.
1996 Riesling Spatlese "Durkheimer Michelsberg" (Kurt Darting) QPR Winner
A superlative Spatlese from Darting! Bracing acidity opens this wine, but the fruit is so rich and ripe that the mid-palate absorbs and handles the acidity without problem. This wine is intense, focused and very precise. There is also plenty of fruit here, and considerable mid-palate concentration. After the lemons, there are pears and an occasional hint of something sweeter. Finely wrought, and in its own way every bit as good as the BA from Darting reviewed in "Dessert Wines" this month. 91 points.
1991 Riesling QbA “Oberhauser Brucke” (Donnhoff)
This has held exceptionally well. At age ten, it shows not a hint of age. It opens nicely with air, and the acid still is lively and provides it with a good stiff backbone. There is excellent depth for this class of wine, and it could easily pass for something better. There was also a fine, dry, but mouth coating oily finish. A superior QbA. 89 points.
1982 Siegerrebe Auslese “Dorsheimer Trollberg” (Dr. J. Hofer Schlossmuhle)
This didn’t stay in top form very long, but for awhile it was pleasant enough drinking. A bit exotic, it seemed tinged with mango and peach, light, but charming. It eventually turned flabby with air, and there was no supporting acidity. Still, a fun, harmless drink. 82 points.
Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1995
Brunello di Montalcino "Vigna di Pianrosso" (Ciacci
Piccolomini)
When I last had this wine, it was at a restaurant in Siena. Since
then, it has put on some weight and improved. It is still the elegant
charmer with a lot of finesse, rather than a big brute. But tannins
have popped out, the wine has opened up, and the fruit is
mouthwateringly sweet and more succulent. It lacks the depth of
a truly great wine, but the increasingly expansive and open flavors
make it simply delicious. 90 points.
1995
Il Carbonaione (Podere Poggio Scaletta)
Fruity, and unusually sweet, especially on the finish, this is
medium-bodied at best. Still, it was so exuberant and charming at
first that it was hard to dislike. Then, with air, some big, old
fashioned, astringent tannins popped out. They not only overtook the
fruit, they obliterated it. The wine never really recovered.
Cellaring is required, and will improve this, but I suspect it will
always have some balance problems. 87 points.
1989
Barolo (L. Einaudi)
Chocolatey notes suffuse a big, rich, deep wine, but then big
time problems start to emerge. Prunes. Volatile acidity. Something
went wrong here big time, whether with the winemaking or just this
bottle. Too bad, because it had all the signs of spectacular.
Instead, it was close to undrinkable. 75 points.
1997
Barolo "Carobric" (P. Scavino)
There's only one thing wrong with this wine: it needs about a
decade of age. Spicy, intense and powerful, it shows acid up front
and mouth drying tannins in the back. In the middle, though, there's
a lot of very fine fruit. This wine is really hard to evaluate now,
as it is disjointed and tannic. With all the air it got, it really
needed a couple of hours formal decanting to even have a shot, which
it didn't get. But I can say all the components seem to be in place
for a super wine. Check back around 2010. 90-94 points.
1990
Brunello di Montalcino "Campogiovanni" (San Felice)
I liked the way this opened, smooth, with an intense attack.
There was a bit too much acid for my taste, but the fruit was
flavorful, if thinning. Air did not help, though, and the wine slid
downhill consistently. By the middle of the evening, it was mostly
acid with hints of fruit flavor and I didn't want to drink it any
more. It had its moments, but not enough of them. 83 points.
1998
"Pin" (La Spinetta)
This eccentric wine showed black cherry fruit up front, coupled
with mouth drying tannins on the back. Surprisingly, the tannins
moderated fairly quickly with air, and the wine began to show more
fruit flavor, some texture and some brightness. This really needs
about five years of cellaring, I think, but there is some stuff here
for a pleasing, if very offbeat wine. 88-90 points.
The last time I had this, I loved its concentration level but was a little concerned about a flavor profile that seemed a touch vegetal, with a hint here and there of asparagus. On this showing, the concentration level remained, but the flavors seemed more normal. The wine kept evolving all night long, the brightness, the tannins and the increasingly sweet fruit mingling and coming into balance. The fruit became more and more delicious, and gradually answered the questions I had about this wine. Rich, structured, powerful and succulent, it seems to have it all. Time will tell how good it gets. 93-95 points.
2000 Moscato
d'Asti "Vignailoi di S. Stefano" (Ceretto)
I liked this Moscato a lot. Often, they are too sweet, too
cloying. This is drier, and just a touch pétillant, as the French
say. The flavors are a bit muted compared to some, but it seems more
like real wine, too, while still being refreshing, easygoing and
tasty. 90 points.
1993 Salice Salentino “Donna Lisa Riserva” (Leone de Castris)
Medium bodied, with some bright elegance, and a touch of licorice that seemed to come from mild, new American oak, this wine struck everyone as very pleasing when served blind—and probably Australian, almost certainly New World. Well, wrong. The oak integrated well, the wine showed charm and drank easy. The texture remained bright, rarely showing much velvet. On the whole, I rather liked it, although it lacked some depth. In a “Best Buy” price range, roughly $16, it is a pretty good value, too. 87 points.
1999 Sorriso Vino da Tavola (Scavino)
This chard/sauv blanc blend shows steely and tight, and to me never showed much else. There was some acid on the back, little if any oak, and modest flavors. This seemed to combine the dry neutrality of Chablis with the intensity of sauvignon blanc, but I’m not sure it fully succeeded with either. Some are more forgiving of this style, but I frankly found it a bit of a chore to drink. 85 points.
1997 Corale (Paolo Scavino)
This blend of nebbiolo and barbera was just ducky. The fruit up front was lush, and the wine was very focused. It showed bright on the back end, and some astringency on the finish, but with air, the sweet fruit took over and made a statement. This may not be the most profound wine you'll meet, but it has structure, flavor and texture. It's pretty good. It will drink better in about two to three years, I think. 90 points.
1998
Saffredi (Fattoria Le Pupille)
This very sexy, very seductive wine is simply delicious. I’m not sure how much structure it has—no matter how long it stood open, it was hard to find any tannins. But as the lush fruit rolled over your tongue, it was also hard to care. There was a touch of mint, a hint of blueberry. Mostly, there was a solid, seductive wine. How well will this age? It’s drinking just fine now, and seems deep and solid, albeit with little supporting backbone. My guess is that you should make this a short to mid-term wine and err on the side of safety. Drink up certainly no later than 2008, and if you’re holding it that long, check back frequently. With fine modern storage conditions, few wines just fall apart these days, but you might find the things that attracted you to it no longer there. Maybe I'm wrong; but it would be a shame to waste a wine this delicious. 90 points.
Loire (except dessert/sparkling)
1970
Vouvray Moelleux (Domaine Le Peu de la Moriette—Pichot)
This, the second bottle of my stash, showed beautifully. Served blind, no one guessed anything older than 1990! It was demi-sec, flavorful and deep. With air, it developed some caramel and botrytis notes, along with touches of lively acidity. The richness and flavor at this age made it lovely, and beautiful. 92 points.
1999
Bourgeuil (Domaine Les Pins)
Light and elegant,
this has a nice spicy tingle to it, and some sweet fruit, with well
integrated cherry notes. Still, it is a bit too inoffensive at times,
and this appellation can certainly be something more, if not deeper,
at least more exuberant. 84 points.
Rhone/South/Southwest
France (except
dessert/sparkling)
1999
Grenache Vin de Pays des Pyrenees Orientales (The Fifteen)
QPR Winner
This $10 quaffer shows a strong influence from the importer, Hand
Picked Selections. The cork is synthetic and branded only with the
importer's name, and there is no identification of the estate other
than "The Fifteen." The back of the label says
"red dessert wine" and it sure is NOT dessert wine. Well,
whatever. It is a nicely crafted, bargain grenache. On opening it
shows a bit tight, and it rewards aeration by acquiring a nicer
texture and some leather and game notes. The angular qualities
disappear fast. Make no mistake about it, although this is medium
bodied at best, it is a well balanced wine, neither a fruit bomb nor
a cellar candidate. The key, though, is flavorful grenache fruit,
laced with strawberry and quite tasty. At $10, this is a serious
bargain! Its only real downfall is that it will not likely extremely
well, though it has the structure for mid-term drinking. Drink now and for two
to four years more at max to retain flavor, unless
stored really cold. 87 points.
1993
Bandol “Cuvee Fontanieu” (Bastide Blanche)
Served blind, it made me think “Beaucastel” due to the scents
of game and animal fat from the mourvedre. This didn’t have the
depth, intensity or power of Beaucastel, though.
It did show ripe and fruity, youthful and friendly, and I
liked it a lot. There
were hints of garrigue and raspberries, a nice velvety texture. It
showed well, drank well, and seems fully ready to roll, too.
90 points.
1989 Chateauneuf du Pape “Selection Reflets” (Chante Perdrix)
Rich, meaty and ripe, this superlative, youthful, softly textured, and very unready CdP is super. The fruit is flavorful, nuanced by strawberries, and the mid-palate is deep and concentrated. With air, the wine does not turn thin. Instead, supporting tannins pop out and it becomes more powerful. This wine is still unready; it not only has a long way to go, but will be improving for many years. It is approachable now, but really needs a couple of hours decanting if opened to show its best. 92 points.
1998 Rasteau Cotes du Rhone (Domaine Court de Mautens—Bressy)
I liked the pure, red berry Grenache flavors on this wine, but you have to give your immediate attention to the powerful tannins that make this wine a mistake to open at the moment. Tight and forbidding, it did not come really close to integrating or settling down while I had it in the glass for some hours. Cellar this for at least five years and see how it is doing in 2006. I am not entirely convinced its balance will be acceptable then, but you have to let the tannins moderate. 88-90 points.
1998
Pecharmant (Chateau La Renaudie) QPR Winner
This fine little estate in Pecharmant has little exported to the
USA. Too bad. In fact, the entire appellation of Pecharmant, which is
a part of Bergerac, is usually a great value, with overachieving
wines that are $10 and under. This is about $6.50 at the winery door.
This is a bit hard at the moment--a cheap wine that actually needs
some cellaring!--but the fruit is there under the austere, somewhat
tannic robe at the moment. Give this about three years, and come
back. You'll find a pretty nice wine for $6.50. 84-86 points.
1999 Pecharmant (Chateau La Renaudie) QPR Winner
The nose on this wine is just gorgeous, fragrant with framboise and utterly appealing. That said, while this is far more approachable than the sturdy 98, above, it lacks the depth and concentration. It is already ready to drink, and while the fruit is delicious, it is a bit thin. For now, it is very appealing, very tasty, and after all, we're talking $6. 84 points.
1998
Pecharmant (Clos Montlabanie)
QPR Winner
Fruity, with a cherry nose, this wine is saved from the mundane
by a hint of game, or sauvage elements. It drank well through the
night and like the other Pecharmants, was dirt cheap.
1998
Bergerac (Chateau de Panisseau) QPR Winner
Fruity, smooth and rather sweet, this Bergerac shows charming
features, but not structure. It's a bit bright, though, and has a
nice, lingering oily finish. With air, some underlying tannins pop
out, and they are most welcome. On the whole, a fine performance for
an inexpensive wine that probably would not break $10 retail,
assuming it is imported here. 86 points.
1999
Bergerac (Chateau des Eyssards) QPR Winner
Nice,
solid little wine with hints of cassis and lots of chocolate. It
opens nicely in the glass, seems sturdy, yet fully ready. I think
this could even be cellared a few years with the wine improving. It
has hints of intensity and focus. Probably close to $10 in the
US and considering the vintage, a fine performance. 87 points.
1999
Bergerac (Julien de Savignac)
Tasty, if one dimensional, this shows some brightness, but too
much thinness in the mid palate. It's pleasant enough, but
unexceptional, and does nothing to ovecome the sometimes difficult
conditions in 1999. 83 points.
1998
Lussac St. Emilion (Chateau La Claymont) QPR Winner
Supple tannins combine with bright,
chocolately notes to meld into a pretty pleasing drink. It has enough
subtle intensity to open nicely in the glass and evolve through the
evening. Not terribly distinguished, but for under $10, a good value.
Drink now. 86 points.
1999
Cahors (Chateau du Cedre) QPR Winner
Of all the appellations just outside of
Bordeaux, I think I would have to pick Cahors for the highest quality
level, producing often serious wines at very modest prices. Here's a
good example. Blackberry tinged fruit is the first impression. It is
lush and bright on the finish, something not always so easy to
achieve. There is a good attack and some real intensity in the
mid-palate, and the finish has some grip and length. It is a solid
little wine that opens beautifully all night long, forever evolving,
showing cassis notes. The one complaint I might have is some
bitterness in flavor, but with air that mostly blows off, being
replaced by the cassis. 88 points.
1996
Pecharmant (Domaine de Bertranoux) QPR Winner
Sweet, thick and laced with cassis, it
shows some tannins still and some bright intensity. I loved the pure
blackberry fruit flavor. It developed beautifully with air
too.....smoothed out, became spicy and elegant, never losing the
flavor. Excellent flavor and depth, and I loved the purity of the
fruit. It also smoothed out with air, becoming elegant and charming,
and a bit spicy. Yum. Dirt cheap. Sadly, I don't know that it is
imported. 88 points.
1988
Chateauneuf du Pape (Beaucastel)
This opened up sweet, gentle and harmonious. It literally oozed
fruit. And it was spectacular. I don't think I've ever quite seen a
Beaucastel with this personality before. Whatever it was, I was
liking it a lot. Imagine a strawberry, cut open, fully ripe, oozing
juice onto the table on a hot summer day. Well. Then, reality
intruded. It was terrific for half an hour. Very good for an hour.
And then the wine pretty much slid downhill and cracked up, becoming
bland, boring and flavorless. The first time I went back to it in
this condition I thought I tried the wrong wine, and had to repour
some. But no...it had really slid downhill that far, that fast. Let's
call this a compromise score. 88 points.
1995 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Cuvée Prestige Tête de Cru" (Cabrières) QPR Winner
This has a nice, lush texture, and nice, supple, ripe tannins supporting the fruit. It’s not quite ready to drink, but it’s approachable. It will likely be better in a couple of years, though. I liked the spicy strawberry notes. With air, it picked up a little bacon fat. For what is basically a $20 Chateauneuf, this is a very pleasing wine and an excellent value. 88 points.
1994
Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Vieux Télègraphe)
This
opened somewhat curiously. It didn’t seem tight, just a bit too
reserved, and a little
light. Had age dimmed the exuberance of this wine, leaving it with
nothing? Actually, it seems to have shut down a bit. It was not
aggressive on opening, just a bit dull. With air, it put on weight
consistently, showed good focus, developed flavor, and came into
balance. The flavors had nuances of tar, tobacco and leather, with a
little brightness in the mid-palate. The tannins are mild and supple.
It remains a very charming, but rapidly changing VT.
I would either cellar this for a couple of years now, or give
it a lot of air. Its
development in the glass suggested to me a closing, not fading wine.
90 points.
1995
Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Vieux Télègraphe)
By contrast with the 1994, this is wholly disjointed at the moment. I tasted it after it had been open for nearly an hour, and it was still sharp, like a piece of a jagged glass, with the acid, tannin and fruit fighting for dominance. Mostly, the acid seemed to be winning. It took another hour for the parts to start to integrate, and I’m not sure they ever wholly did, although it did get to a point where I began to enjoy the wine and see a future for it. It never had anything approaching the crushed velvet texture of the ’94, although at times it seemed to be about as deep. I would have to say that this needs to be held for three years before trying it again. 88 points.
1998 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Vieux Télègraphe)
We expected a brutal, young wine, but that was not quite what showed up. As between the 94, 95 and this, the 1998 had the most depth and most structure. It opened and evolved all night. Although approachable, it also had some supple but too noticeable tannins and some youthful tightness that called out for cellaring. I would expect this to shut down some, too. Give this wine a chance to evolve, and think about it again no sooner than 2004, preferably 2006-2008. 90-92 points.
Spain (except
dessert/sparkling)
1996
Priorat “Gran Clos de F.M. Fuentes” (Fuentes)
This opens with a haze of sweet tannins, but it doesn’t take long for the sweet tannins to integrate. The fruit shows increasing flavor and it becomes ripe and delicious, more or less blossoming quickly in the glass. There were Grenache notes and later some vanilla. At first, I thought it was cabernet, although I don’t think there was any cabernet in it. As it continued to air, the tannins and some acid asserted themselves and made it clear that this wine would benefit a lot from a few years more cellaring. On the whole, this was a very pleasing wine. 90 points.
This site
designed and created in content and in form
by Mark Squires, copyright © 2001, all rights reserved.