Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)

1995 Pinot Gris "Vielles Vignes" (Zind-Humbrecht)
Another ZH winner.   This rather typical style is rich, ripe, deep and more than a little off dry.  You know what I mean. It is also a fragrant wine that slides down your throat easily--a little too easily, maybe.  It is easy to like, utterly charming, and gone before you know it.  92 points.

1989 Gewurztraminer "Kitterle" (Schlumberger)
A golden color presaged a wine somewhat far along, and maybe too far?  But it was fine, at least in the short run. The sweetness and the age coalesced to produce a wine that seemed to have a nice hit of botrytis, but no more flamboyant sugary notes. It was starting to remind me of  low level Sauternes, but with lychees.  I was liking it, though.  The gewurz scents dominated the wine, and appropriately so, and the weight gave it a serious quality that went well with bigger foods.  With air, the fatigue evident in the wine took over, and it thinned a bit too much for my tastes. 87 points.

1997 Riesling "Brand" (Zind-Humbrecht)
Another beautiful ZH, this one accessible very early on. Crispy, but floral and fresh, with the sweetness moderating the acid, this wine shows beautifully.  The acid is penetrating enough to saturate your tongue, but the whole of the wine never seems unbalanced. Elegant, and medium bodied, this is lighter styled ZH.  It is pure charm and seduction.  91 points.

1983 Gewurztraminer "Hengst" Vendange Tardive (Zind-Humbrecht)
This is an artifact from the dark ages, before ZH brought Alsace back into the public eye, and before Olivier took over and began making wines in a more opulent, super-ripe style. Having been a fan of the winery long before the modern era, and having tasted brilliant Hengst dating back to 1976, I am pleased but not surprised to report that this IS Olivier's Daddy's wine, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Different, but very impressive.  At age 16, this wine is still in prime time shape. The sweetness has long since blown off, as tends to happen with VTs as they age. The wine still seems fat, with heavy lychee overtones and a touch of charcoal on the initial bouquet. What you get here that you don't get in a lot of the sweeter wines is the spice that gives gewurztraminer its name and some of its varietal character. As the wine warms up, your tongue literally tingles as the fruit lingers. The finish is amazingly  intense and very long. I drank some of this with barbecued ribs, and it held up well, almost as well as some big reds.  Over the years, I've drunk most of this up, but I'm glad I have some left. It's not an antique despite that label that says "1983," but still a super drinker. 92 points.

[Return to Top]

Australia (except dessert/sparkling)

1996 Shiraz "Wild Witch" (Trevor Jones)
This small production shiraz seems to me to be relatively modest and unenticing. Hype aside, Australia has lots of shiraz producers who can do this well, and frequently do better. Admittedly, it was not tasted in the most favorable of circumstances. But unless the wine is totally shut down,  or I was totally deceived by the context in which it was presented (after a lot of Port), it seems to lack intensity or depth, and the flavor is mostly what is left over from some new oak, although this wine is modestly oaked. Relatively restrained and reticent.  86-88 points.

1998 Chardonnay "Virgin" (Trevor Jones)
This medium-bodied wine shows some crispness and a nice melange of flavors, some pear and some nuts.  It opened nicely with air and became charming and friendly.  A nice chard, and will probably improve with twelve months of cellaring. 88-89 points.

1997 Shiraz "Rayner Vineyard" (Brokenwood)
In my first chance to try this wine in the USA after being "wowed" by it at the winery door in the Hunter Valley, I am relieved and happy to report--it's still awesome, dude. Given what passes for a tasting room experience, I was almost afraid to rate it too highly.  Now, I'm not backing off an inch.  Incredibly thick, unbelievably dense, this is a wine that will give Grange a run for its money, and frankly, seems bigger than recent Granges. Way cheaper--if you can find it--too.  (It runs $32 US at the winery door, but who knows what that translates into here, given the miniscule quantity exported.)  Despite its youth, the texture is soft and the tannins subtle, and it is approachable now. I'm betting it will close down, though. The wine is fairly heavily oaked, but the fruit is so dense and rich that you almost don't notice, the main effect of the oak being to soften the texture. Brokenwood is a spectacularly good winery, and if you get a chance try their entire lineup, including the even harder to find "Graveyard" Chardonnay and Shiraz. This Rayner, though, is simply another of the great, unknown Aussie wines I discovered Down Under this Spring.  Years to go, and I'd be even more excited if I knew this wine, and could really predict how it would age.  94-96 points. 

1991 Shiraz "Mt. Edelstone" (Henschke)
I have not had the 91 before, but I know this wine well, and am a little surprised at how poorly it showed. It was pretty good at first, though dominated by American oak. The heavy vanilla mixed with some plum fruit flavor, but the wine thinned out too fast, and annoying acid broke through.  I liked it less and less as the evening wore on. Typical bottle? It looked in good shape, but who knows....   87 points.

[Return to Top]

Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)
1994 L'Église-Clinet
The '94s can provide some great bargains, but there are some issues of astringency, especially in the Médoc, and some greenness.   Not here, although this wine benefited by decanting (I am presuming).  There is a nice tight core of herbal, velvet-textured fruit, and a reasonably good finish.  The wine is a pleasure to drink. To be sure, there are times when it seems just a touch light in the mid-palate, and a bit short on depth.  It thins a bit too much with air, but that may have been due to the presumed decanting. However, there are no astringencies, and the fruit is full of flavor and herbs.  A fine performance overall. Lotsa charm.  89 points.

1990 La Conseillante
A pungent, powerful nose precedes the palate.  This is a wine that was in full flower on the nose.  The body of soft, velvety texture, and penetrating fruit showed well, but seemed a lot thinner than the last time I had this wine a couple of years back.     The nose was more powerful than the fruit.  With air, the wine took on some weight, and some notes of game and leather poked through, adding welcome distinction and character.  With presumed aeration or decanting, this seemed fully open and ready; but otherwise, your bottle may not show as well.  Round and supple, gentle in demeanor.  The finish persisted longer than I would have guessed from the elegance and finesse the wine displayed. This bore little resemblance to the fruit bomb I tasted on release, whether that fact is due to natural aging or decanting.  But the bottom line is still....beautiful. 90 points.

1989 Palmer
Soft and gentle, a bit too gentle after decanting or aeration awhile I presume,  this wine had an initial core of sweet fruit that faded way too quickly. It left me cold.  It thinned too soon, and was short on flavor.  This is relative, to be sure; it is a very good wine, assuming this to be a typical bottle, but underwhelming in light of its pedigree.  87 points.

1989 La Mission Haut Brion
Deep and concentrated, this La Mis shows controlled power.  The fruit is is particularly round and stays full on the palate from first taste to finish.  On opening, there are supple tannins and some gravel and earth.  With air, you get a bit of tobacco, and the tannins quickly fade.  I loved the rich, yet elegant texture on this  concentrated yet elegant wine.  93 points.

1986 Margaux
On pouring,  there were still some tannins.  The finish was astringent, even after what I presume was decanting.  I liked the evident signs of depth, but was ready to call this "unready." The fruit was a bit tight.   But ten minutes of aeration in the glass cured that.  Then this wine began to show what it has, and it has everything.  As the fruit began to open, the flavors became intense.  The fruit was remarkably sweet and pure, and the tannins resolved. I cannot offhand recall a Margaux that had sweeter, more flavorful fruit than this showed after aeration and resolution of the tannins.  Yes,  for pure flavor, although not necessarily concentration, that includes the 1982. This fruit just seems all sugar and sweetness when it finally opens. Now, the wine showed richness and depth, purity and focus, with the core of gorgeous fruit supported by increasingly supple tannins.  The nose was perfumed and intense.   There was some trademark Margaux elegance, but this was a forceful wine that never quit in any way.  Everything in place.  Just beautiful. The quality of the fruit is simply amazing.  This wine has never shown better since release, in my experience, and seems youthful, without obvious signs of age at all.  97 points.

1982 Grand Puy Lacoste
This was a startling surprise. How startling? Well, let's say that there were plenty of votes around the table, at which the 89 La Conseillante, 89 La Mission and 86 Margaux were served, for this wine as wine of the night.  I have had this before, and never has it showed so well.  Unbelievably lush, surprisingly rich and powerful, the texture of this wine was so soft that it seemed like crushed velvet. Yet, the depth of fruit was amazing underneath.  It was a gentle wine superficially, but lacked nothing.  With air, the fruit never thinned, but a hint of game appeared on the finish.  Call it a dollop of character to go with the remarkably deep, pure, sweet fruit.  This bottle was not quite as focused or intense as the Margaux, but far more voluptuous in texture.  One thing I am sure of: this bottle was perfectly stored.  Simply gorgeous.   95 points.

1989 Cheval Blanc
For the title of Sexiest wine in Bordeaux, this is always a contender. And here's a worthy entry. The nose is gorgeous and powerful, with hints of Provence.  The fruit is tightly wound and mouth coating, but it expands quickly in the glass, and like most Cheval Blancs, it is full of ripe fruit flavors.  This could use some decanting if opened now, but it is approachable.  And pretty sexy.  93 points.

1959 L'Angelus
This is a wine holding on, but a bit past its peak.  On opening, it has a fragrant bouquet, and the palate shows some persistence and attack. There are tannins still, but very supple ones that lose their grip quickly.  The fruit seems to have some flavor of  rhubarb, the overall impression is elegance.  With air, it fades some, and there are some notes of decay in the background.  This is no longer a prime time wine, but in a sense it has held very well. There remains a focused core and mid-palate; it has not yet disintegrated into oxidation and the smell of decaying leaves, but it really does not evolve well.  Its first half hour had some welcome intensity missing thereafter.   86 points.

1966 Léoville Las Cases
Unlike the L'Angelus, above, this is a prime time wine.  On opening it is powerful and pristine, forceful and dense.  It lacks a bit of pure flavor, but the fruit has a nice velvety texture.  The wine is not exactly a charmer; it is more thick and burly. It bristles with life, though, and after some aeration it settled down to display a bit of finesse and balance, although it showed no real improvement or development with air. Not a truly great wine, perhaps, but drinking very well now. Admirable for its texture and richness.  90 points.

1983 Pichon Lalande
I had this recently, and this bottle is another fine showing. This highly underrated wine has everything--lushness, purity, vigorous fruit, density and concentration.  It evolves well in the glass, and never misses a step. A Pichon Lalande beauty, and certainly one of the nicest '83s around at this point.  Outside of  a few wines from Margaux,  there is hardly anything I  have liked better in this vintage. This wine seems even better than the last bottle I had, showing a bit more depth and intensity. The bottle is utterly pristine and beautiful. The 1983 Medocs, I'm thinking, are very underrated, while the Margaux commune wines are very overrated in that year, at least at this point in their developments.  92 points.

PALMER vertical: 1970; 1975; 1978; 1983; 1986 and 1989
The older wines showed poorly and the Palmer vertical was a disappointment in my view.   The 1970 was browning around the edges, light and watery on the rim, this wine, perhaps just from this bottle, showed poorly. There were some gentle tomato notes, and considerable decay, although the oxidation was kept in bounds. The wine retained the weight for which it is known, and the oxidation created some extra sweetness to the fruit. Still, this wine is cracking up, at least as it shows here, and there wasn't a whole lot to like.  I haven't had this in some time, so I can't comment on its typicity, but it does seem to be in keeping with the drying out I notice in a lot of 1970s.  80 points.  The 1975 was a stereotype of its vintage. I've seen it show better. This bottle, though, was sturdy and intense, also monolithic and impenetrable. Air did not bring any charm, merely the oxidized notes that signaled some smells of decay.  I liked the weight on this better than the 1970, but the symptoms of decay were not much better. 83 points.  The 1978 showed good grip and focus, some hints of decay, and dried out with air.  Still, I liked it best of the three, and I have found a lot to like in the 1978s in the last few years.  The fruit was gentle and sweet and the mid-palate actually seemed a bit lively.  I was willing to drink this as a wine. The others were more curiosities with some virtues. 87 points.

The modern era began--and the fresh fruit started appearing--with the 1983. In its time, this was spectacular wine, big and brawny, with gorgeous velvety texture.  Everyone talked about 1983 was the Vintage of the Century for the Margaux commune wines. Yeah, welll......  The tannins fell off of the 1983s quickly and with the Margaux wines, the fruit moderated quickly too.  This once spectacular wine is still velvety, very charming, elegant--and light. Its gentle demeanor is pleasing, but it does not remind me any more of a star let alone spectacular wine.   Its texture, though, is very sensual and appealing, and I am a sucker for texture. 90 points.  P.s....Ironically, the 1983 Medocs are showing beautifully, and I think they were highly underrated. Try some Mouton, Gruaud, Pichon Lalande.  The 1986 was a wine I couldn't warm up to. Some oxidized fruit matched up with some ferocious, mouth drying tannins.  Nothing about this wine seemed terribly interesting.  Clunky, boring, hard. I might have preferred the older ones, decayed though they were.  83 points. The 1989 is a famous Palmer, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me either. I just had it recently--note right above--and gave it an 87 after long decanting.  This time there was no decanting, and that helped a lot, because the wine is too gentle to need that much air.  It opened quickly, had beautiful texture, was pure and friendly.  I liked the pristine fruit, but it was a very good not great wine, and lacked some intensity.   Some positives in terms of texture. 90 points.

LA MISSION HAUT BRION vertical: 1978; 1983; 1985; 1986; 1988; 1990; 1995; 1996
After the ho-hum Palmer set above, we dived into these. Another story.  Here's a great winery in fine form. This was a stunning vertical.  The 1978 was a beauty, typical of some of the fine '78s I've been stumbling across lately, to my surprise. Still a bit tight, with some considerable tannins on opening, the wine nonetheless has flavor to spare, with some gravel and tar, too.  It is a substantial wine with both balance and intensity. Not for the shy. 90 points. The 1982 was present, but corked, by the way. Unrated. The 1983 had grip, focus and intensity, but also simply great fruit flavors, and a long finish.   The purity of the blackberry tinged fruit made the core of the wine stand out.   Another great 1983. Delicious. 92 points. The 1985 La Mis was a softer, gentler sort. It doesn't have the focus or intensity of the 1983, but the texture is gorgeous, all soft and velvety. The fruit is thinner, but fully open and charming.  A beauty.  91 points. The 1986 was my favorite of the vertical, though not by much, and it is possible that one day the 1989 or 1990 will surpass it. Then again, maybe not.  This was a distinctive wine, showing just a touch of brett, game and fat. It was big and brawny, but the tannins were in control. It seemed fat and tinged with herbs. At times, it reminded me more of a Southern Rhone wine.   It had character, fruit, structure, distinction, and was drinking pretty well, by the way. 96 points.

The 1988 was a beauty of a 1988.  It has some of the trademark restraint and austerity of the vintage, but surprising amounts of flesh, too. The fruit seemed to have strawberry tinges on the finish, and plenty of sweetness.   In fast company, this lovely wine got a bit overlooked.  Still, it was pretty fine. 89 points. The 1989 then proceeded to blow it away. Round, big and fat, this wine put it all together, but is a bit unready to drink. The wine is well stuffed with fruit, has some hints of game on the back end, and also significant tannins that require some cellar time. This is a work in progress, but it is a stunning wine. 94-96 points. The 1990 was fabulous, too.  Call this a one-two punch anyone in Bordeaux would be proud of. The pure, black cherry fruit is tinged with just a hint of animal fat.The wine is big and intense, has grip and focus. As I have been finding lately, the 1990s seem more expansive and open than the 1989s, which is tighter and more tannic. As the fruit airs out, the layers unfold. It is gorgeous and seductive, more sensual than the '89 will ever be, but perhaps not quite as deep.  94 points.   The 1995, like a lot of wines in this very pricey, underperforming vintage, is very pleasing, soft and accessible, but seems to lack depth and concentration.   I did like the baby fat fruit, sweet and friendly, and the easy drinking. The pure cassis flavors were great. The wine is charming, but very good, not great. 90 points. The 1996 was last on the scorecard.  Harder than the 1995, with more considerable tannins and austerity, this finishes a bit astringent and is harder to evaluate. I think it will round nicely into form, but let's just say 90+.

L'Angelus vertical: 1988; 1989; 1990; 1994; 1995; 1996
The 1988 showed some traces of oxidation around the edges, but the fruit was so sweet and so open for a 1988 that I hardly noticed. Surprisingly charming and flavorful.  88 points.  The 1989 is another matter. Rich, black berry fruit, dense and deep, wrapped around an amazing structure of supple tannins. The wine seems to have layers and layers, yet has finesse and elegance, too. Believe it or not, I have actually seen this show better with decanting. It has a long future ahead.   93-95 points. The 1990 is a stunningly complete wine. There are some hints of game and fat, and the wine is big, expansive and powerful. It has layer upon layer, perfectly flamboyant black fruit and enough tannins to age.  A big winner. 95 points.  The 1994 I thought was a great bargain. Soft and gentle, expansive and open, the wine was drinking well and seemed to go down easy, although it lack depth and intensity.  Drink now.  89 points. The 1995 is grapey and pulpy, rich and ripe, and promises to be another great wine. It is flamboyantly sweet at the moment, and although I predict this will be even better when it knits together, it is amazingly good now, too.  Decadent. 92-94 points.  And finally, the 1996, shows grip and intensity.  It is tightly wound, with a couple of layers of fruit supported by considerable tannins. The attack is solid, and it will be interesting to see how this develops.  At the moment, my score is restrained. 90+ points. I note the parallels between the 95/96 La Mis, above, and L'Angelus,   true to their vintage styles.

1990 La Conseillante
Purple black, seemingly open and not as deep as the 1989, this was a bit of an underwhelming wine. Oh, not that it was bad. I enjoyed its charm and expansiveness, but the explosive fruit and intensity I saw in some pretty awesome L'Angelus at the same event (see above) wasn't quite there.... Maybe a bit dumb?  91 points.

1989 Beauséjour-Duffau
This is a gorgeously structured wine that shows tight and tannic on opening. With a bit of air, though, it evolves remarkably and reveals incredibly sweet blackberry fruit. Sterness and sweetness, texture and tannin.  The wine has all the elements, and is not quite ready to drink.  I'd try it again around 2003.  This is a massive, powerful, concentrated wine. It just needs a little time and lushness.  93-95 points.

1953 Gruaud-Larose
Just a few years ago, this wine, then just having been recorked at Jordan Winery, was showing remarkable freshness and vigor, if a substantial dollop of brett. It seems to have faded considerably. On opening, it is almost Burgundian and delicate, gently sweet flavors, marred only by some meaty aspects (which at the outset were actually somewhat pleasing).  With air, the brightness faded, the meaty notes became displeasing barnyard.  It didn't last longer than an hour or so at peak. Then it kept fading and becoming more astringent, although it actually took on some weight.  This wine is still alive, but badly needs drinking.  85 points.

[Return to Top]

Burgundy (red) (except dessert/sparkling)
1978 Vosne-Romanée "Beaux-Monts" (Moillard)
This opened alarmingly musty, with some over-the-hill odors. Then, it became a fine example of its big and superlative vintage and showed staying power and muscle. With some air, the mustiness gradually blew off, cherries popped out, and yes, a bit of a tomato.  But the wine kept opening surprisingly, and impressively never gave up after several hours.  This is not charming or highly fruity pinot noir, but there are discernible fruit flavors and it has layer after layer of depth. Not a great wine at this point in its life, but still one capable of providing good drinking with richer food than would normally be matched with a Burg.  88 points.

1993 Corton-Perrières (Dubreuil-Fontaine)
For its status, this underperforms, and is a poster child for flaws of its vintage. The tannins are relatively supple, but they dominate the wine, which also seems to have some discernible acid.  The fruit flavors underlying are broad and subtle, more roasted tomato than raspberry, but they never quite escape the grasp of the wine's backbone.  The fruit just seems not to be as rich enough, ripe enough or intense enough to stand up to the other components of the wine.  83 points.

1996 Gevrey-Chambertin "Vielles Vignes" (Dominique Laurent)
This village wine is a flamboyant success that showed remarkably well despite recent transportation and its youth. Still, cellaring for awhile would be a much better idea than drinking it now.  On opening, it had a powerfully fragrant sweet raspberry nose, that followed through with intense, sweet, almost syrupy raspberry flavors.  Amazingly enough, the wine was at best medium bodied and elegant, despite its predominant fruity aspect. It was as if someone had just dumped chambord into the vat.  With air, the wine revealed some structure, some modest tannins, and the ability to integrate some of the fruit with the rest of the wine.  This is not the deepest, biggest, or most charming village wine I have had, but it is one of the most flamboyant and flavorful.  Cellar if for two to three years, however.  89-91 points, depending on how it cellars.

1990 Morey St. Denis "Les Sorbets" (B. Serveau)
Simply lovely. This is one of those wines you hit at a moment in time when it is drinking perfectly and firing on all burners. It opens round and smooth, and the texture is the first beautiful thing about it. It is medium bodied, which just seems perfect in this context, another element of the whole in symmetry.  With some air,  there comes fairly intense fruit flavors surrounding the sensual texture.  The finish is excellent and sweet.  If it lacks a bit of intensity and is not perhaps the deepest, longest Burg you'll ever drink, it is still absolutely delicious and completely charming.  Drink it now.  90 points.

[Return to Top]

Burgundy (white) (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Macon-Cléssé "Cuvée Tradition" (Domaine de la Bongran)
Not being a great Macon fan, I approached this with a ho-hum attitude. That was a mistake! No one would guess "Macon" on this wine.  It is amazingly thick and rich for Macon, powerful and pure. It is odd to use the word "unctuous" for chardonnary, but....here it is.   The bouquet is persistent and pristine, and there are just hints of hazelnut.  This didn't get much lees contact, I suspect.   More than anything else, it is very ripe, very rich, very pure chardonnay.  So let's call this one of the best Macons I have had. Drinking well now.  90 points.

1989, 1991, 1994 & 1995 Le Montrachet (R. Lamy-Pillot)
The importer proudly poured these little known wines from Lamy, and he should be proud. They are all very different, too, especially at their various stages of development.  The 1989 is probably best for current drinking, though just barely. This is in many respects a subtle wine. The weight is solid, and the wine is stolid. There is little obvious about it, but it seems brawny and powerful nonetheless.   I personally would have preferred to relieve the austerity a bit, but the texture of the wine made up for it; almost unctuous for a chardonnay, remarkably thick and lingering, with just enough almond flavor to hold my attention.  Old fashioned wine. 92 points.  The 1991 was my pick for most underrated. Certainly, it is about as good as any 1991 white burg I have had (exception: Michel Niellon's Batards....). I liked its style better than the 1989, though admittedly it does not quite have the sheer depth and power. It opens more gently and with some charm, and the flavors are obviously tinged with lees, the welcome nutty aspect I like in white burgs so much.  In some respects, this is not as good a wine as the 1989--depth, concentration, for instance-- but I enjoyed its overt  flavor profile more nonetheless. 91 points. The 1994 is terrific for the vintage, which I generally find a bit watery and diluted among the whites. The sharp edges are rounded off, but the wine is lively, with some nuttiness on the finish.  Pleasing, and medium bodied.  88 points.  The 1995 has the brightness and liveliness of the 1994, but is more unresolved and disjointed, and also a bit sweeter and more unctuous. This wine just needs some cellaring to let the acid integrate with the rest of the fruit.  90-92 points.

1991 Puligny-Montrachet "Les Folatières" (Domaine Leflaive)
Medium bodied, this wine showed some hints of lees and flavor on the finish, but seemed to me to be curiously flat and dull in the mid-palate.  Others liked it more than I; I thought it seemed too routine for its pedigree. Not a bad wine, just a bit restrained and boring.  87 points.

1996 Meursault (Chateau de Meursault)
For the vintage, this seemed rather underwhelming.  It's crisp and a touch lemony, and could use a little time to integrate its components into a whole. Yet, it is also a bit light and inoffensive, and I don't know that there will be a whole lot of fruit if you hold it long.  This runs about $30, so we're not talking about a super prestige wine, but it was still too light, and lacked intensity for my tastes.  Thirty bucks ain't chicken feed.  85 points.

1997 Chablis "vielles vignes" (E. Boileau) QPR Winner 
This inexpensive Chablis is by no means the deepest, most intense, most concentrated or longest wine you'll find. It is a bit light, and lacks some depth. But it is an excellent value in its style and for the money and fills a certain niche in life very well.  Crisp and steely at the moment, in some senses it is prototypical young Chablis.  The initial impression is dominated by acid. With air, some sweet fruit comes out, and the finish is surprisingly long.  I don't think this will be a long ager, but investing a year in cellaring will bring the acid completely in balance, and give you a light, but friendly and charming Chablis at a fair price (around $20). It does not have even the weight of the 1996 Chateau de Meursault above. But it is also 1/3d cheaper and has lots more charm.  This, by the way, for those of you who need something Sancerre-like in the summer --but don't want to go the sauvignon blanc route--is an excellent choice for that niche.  87-88 points, depending on the integration of acid with fruit in a year or so of cellaring.

1991 Santenay Blanc "Le Bievaux" (Olivier Pere et Fils) QPR Winner 
Opens bright, with a touch of oak and quickly integrating acid.  The sweet fruit burbles up. The texture is round and almost velvety, and the weight is excellent. I'm guessing a middle of the road French wine, maybe a top level Macon or an intense village Puligny, when this is served blind, but it is unfamiliar in other aspects. Taking the bag off was a bit of a shock. A eight-year old white Santenay in prime shape, this sweet, this voluptuous (relatively speaking)?  Wow.  The only catch is that I don't know if this wine is available in the USA, it having been opened for me by someone who bought it in France.  89 points. 

[Return to Top]

California / USA (Red) (except dessert/sparkling)
1991 Cabernet "Reserve" (Beringer)
As the evening wore on, I liked this better and better.  There is little harshness, and the tannins there are supple and ripe. The wine is smooth and shows bright, forward cassis flavors, and some jam, too.  The demeanor is surprisingly gentle and the wine seems to be drinking beautifully now, yet it held effortlessly all evening, and by the end, I rather liked it better still.  Plenty of easy charm and flavor, with finesse and elegance, too. Not a blockbuster, but keeps sneaking up on you. Suddenly, you realize you are liking it a lot.   91 points.

1996 Merlot (Pahlmeyer)
This is a wine that is simply gorgeous.  While it may not necessarily be the choice of Francophile Pomerol fanatics, it is certainly an American Merlot that, in this style, is about as good as it gets. Rich and voluptuous, with a velvety texture, the wine shows ripe, sweet fruit, with raw grapey overlays.  It takes just a little air for it to shed its initial tannins, and then it is drinking perfectly. Every sip is juicy and exudes flavor. The phrase "fruit driven" was probably invented for this.  Yet, it is not just forward fruit. It is concentrated and weighty, too.  Lest you have too much concern for its near future, I should also note that it held effortlessly open for several hours and never did anything but improve in the glass. 92 points.

1992 Syrah (Swanson)
On release, I thought this was one of the best American syrahs then-existing that I had tasted.  It is still drinking well,  and can still be held, but the clock is ticking, and you can note the effects of time now. I would recommend drinking it.  The bottle was pristine, and I am pretty sure it is reasonably representative. Interestingly enough, I also had the 1992 Edmunds St. Johns "Durrell" Syrah recently, and that is another candidate for a great American syrah in many minds, although it was in a lighter, more elegant style.  From the same vintage, it showed fatigue, too, and more than the Swanson. Maybe it's a vintage thing. Anyway, consider this a prime target for drinking. On opening, the wine shows rich and velvety, with multiple layers of fruit and supple tannins that blow off quickly. They are refined and the wine seems intense.  It is still a beauty, chock full of flavor.  One flaw it shows now that it didn't several years ago, though, is that it no longer improves much with air.  When it is open for a long while, it actually fades  at the end of the evening whereas once it just seemed to reveal new layers of fruit. For the first couple of hours, though, the richness and texture, the beautiful supple and velvety quality of the fruit,  were still remarkable,  and most of us do finish up within a couple of hours, right?  The fading some three hours later did not really detract much from the refined and persistent attack the wine had for much of the night. Still a winner but showing signs that it has hit peak and will start sliding. 90 points.

1996 Petite Sirah (Rockland)
This has been what I call American's greatest unknown wine, considering both the varietal and the winery.  The winemaker is Mark Aubert, formerly of Peter Michael, who makes the wines from his father's small vineyard.  The wine is a flamboyant chameleon that shows ripe and sweet young, but ages well.  On opening, this wine seemed a tad closed, and I think it will shut down soon.  The fragrant bouquet was all the wine had for awhile.  It smelled of freshly crushed blueberries, and attacked your nose. The palate was more reticent, tight, hard, and a bit disjointed, with some sweet fruit in places, and nothing much in the mid-palate.  It took a couple of hours to fully open up. When it did, the wine became more supple and sweeter, and the fruit flavors began to acquire the sweetness and consistent attack that the nose promised. For all of its flamboyantly sweet flavor profile, the wine is medium bodied, not nearly as weighty, say, as the Swanson above.  But it is sure is chock full of sweet fruit flavors. This has a long course of development ahead.  90-92 points. 

1996 Pinot Noir (Beaux Freres)
On release, I thought this was a magnificent wine, with all the lush flavor of the 1992, and the elegance of the 1993.  This bottle shows less well.  I've also noticed, though, that these wines require some time and cellaring, and they tend to go through a funky period of a few years. This shows medium bodied, a bit tight and hard on opening. When it opens, it never takes on much weight, but the purity of the fruit flavor shines through and the wine begins to develop a bit of velvety texture. It seems curiously reticent for Beaux Freres, though. If I had not had the opportunity to taste this immediately on release, I'd be thinking that this was a minor release. As it is, I would say the wine is in an awkward stage of development, and should not be tried for another year.  

1996 Pinot Noir "Belles Soeurs" (Beaux Freres)
The comparison with the '96 Belles Soeurs goes about as predicted. While the BF is tight and a bit closed, the BS is gentle, expansive, soft and velvety. The fruit is fully open and sweet, tinged with strawberry. It does not show anything like the depth of the BF, but it is SO open, it seems like a perfect time to catch it. Some stores are selling this, unfortunately, for about the same price as the BF. At that point, it is no contest. The BF has more of everything. Yet this is an extremely appealing wine now, ready and in perfect shape. The texture is gorgeous.  For early drinking.  89 points.

1992 Pinot Noir (Coturri)
The masters of weird wine do it again. The good news: this pinot, which shows a lot like their zins, is amazingly sweet, heavily tinged with raspberries. Nice fruit. The rest is bizarre. The wine seems spritzy, and it doesn't blow off. One taster thought there was some volatile acidity.  I thought rather that was the showing from the spritz and the disjointed aspects of the wine. This wine has some good points but there is so much that is so eccentric about it, that the ultimate conclusion is this: it would have been nice if they applied some restraint and created something special instead of something zany.  83 points.

 N.B. The following Californians, through the Bryant Family, were all drunk together at one wild and crazy event. Given the circumstances in which they were drunk,  even more unscientific than usual, I have tended to use point score ranges in most instances.

1977 Cabernet (Mayacamas)
There were two bottles of this and they showed rather differently. The first bottle reeked of oxidation and bottle stink when it was opened, the scents of decaying fruit.  The better bottle was sturdy and powerful, and the fruit showed density and concentration.  What it lacked was any flavor or charm. An hour or two later, someone shoved another glass of it in front of me and proclaimed that it had opened and was showing better. To the contrary, while it had indeed opened, it was now starting to show more like the first bottle, with evident decay on the fruit and some oxidized smells. This, I would conclude, is a wine that is better drunk now rather than cellared longer, even granting that without cellaring it will tend to be somewhat hard and charmless. The balance isn't there, and the flavor isn't there.  84 points.

1990 "Maya" (Dalle Valle)
So many cult wines, so little value!  That's one conclusion from this week's notes.(The good news is that the average quality level is high, and no one will think these folks are churning out junk for high prices; which doesn't necessarily make the high prices worthwhile.....)  Even though many of them were wonderful, there is little they can do to meet the expectations created by current auction prices.  This wine underperforms a bit, in addition. Oh,  it is very nice, very well made, very good. Is that enough at these prices, assuming anything can be enough? The price it commands and the lust for acquisition it  inspires in collectors is unjustified by what's in this bottle. I could enjoy something like a 1990 Haut Marbuzet more, and for less money.  The good news--this is an elegant wine, not quite ready to drink. The tannins and cassis fight for prominence, and the wine seems focused and bright.  It will knit together nicely and provide a pleasing, medium-bodied drinking experience. If it were an ordinary wine, you would be very happy. It's not, though, and it leaves a lot of expectations unfulfilled. 89-90 points.

1993 & 1994 Cabernet "Hillside Select" (Shafer)
Time has been kind to Doug Shafer in a lot of ways.  His wines keep getting better and gain more prestige. These particular bottlings have improved tremendously since I first tasted them. I'm impressed.  The 1993 is inky black, sweet and lush, and there is a voluptuous core of jammy fruit in the mid-palate that is particularly stunning. I was liking it a lot, and did not have as much chance as I would have liked to check on its development with air because then came the 1994.  The style was similar, but the 1994 had more grip and intensity, the focus and flavors seemed sharper, and more finely crafted. It was not as ready to drink, and will open more with more cellaring.  Two super wines.  90-92 points for the 1993.  92-94 points for the 1994.

1990 & 1994 Cabernet (Togni)
One of Togni's claims to fame centers around the respect shown his wines by Europeans in European tastings involving Californians and Bordeaux.  It is easy to see why from these two wines. Both are rather Bordeaux-like, in excellent balance, with a blend of flavors and well-knit components.  The tannins on each are supple, and the on the 1990 they are dissipating quickly.  Both wines show some individuality for their producer in their herbal flavors at the core. There doesn't seem to be much obvious black fruit. The distinction between the two is mostly depth and concentration, with the 1994 being bigger and lusher and deeper.  Two very appealing wines.  1990: 90-92 points.  1994:  92-94 points.

1994 & 1995 Cabernet  (Colgin)
Two bottlings from one of the most sought after producers in California, and they showed pretty spectacularly. Think they're worth $400 a bottle? Or $1200 a bottle? Me neither.  But no wine can meet expectations like that, and it is not entirely fair to view it that way.   I give the nod to the 1994, although they are pretty close.  The 1994 opened incredibly sweet, with excellent balance nonetheless and intense cherry flavors on the finish.  It showed some lushness with air, and expanded nicely as I held it in the glass. It seemed to me to be utterly satisfying on all fronts. Someone commented that it would not age well.   Well, we'll see.  It will certainly hold for a reasonable amount of time. If fifty years is the test of its greatness, I probably won't be here anyway to test it.   The 1995 is softer and lusher in terms of fruit and depth, but the tannins seem a bit more severe, with some mouth-drying dustiness on the finish. The flavor intensity is not quite as great, and the balance is not quite as good. But all that is nit-picking. It's darned fine wine.  For the 1994, 93-95 points.  For the 1995, 90-92 points.

1992, 1994 & 1995 Cabernet (Harlan Estate)
Harlan is getting some flack these days because no one in California is more aggressively pricing their wines, or promoting themselves more fervently as a First Growth. To understand this strategy you have to know that much of the current 1855 Bordeaux classification was based on the prices wines attained. Harlan Estate is determined to position itself at the top through prices, which might strike you as a fairly obnoxious posture.  Yet, while all of their wines have been very good, I have yet to find any of them as interesting as Colgin, Araujo, Monte Bello, or any number of other famous Cal cab types. Harlan goes for power, and sometimes they seem a bit one dimensional and clunky, although I wonder if these wines, in contrast to the prevailing style of easy accessibility, need more time to show well.  The 1992 is herbal and somewhat vegetal, too, I thought. The fruit is not as dense, but there is plenty of tannin.  The 1994 and 1995 do not show the same flavor profiles, and indeed they do not seem to show much flavor at all, appearing a bit dull.  I would like to try these again after an hour or two of decanting.  Both are big and hard, with considerable mouth drying tannins on the finish, and both are weighty and powerful.   The 1995 is a bit softer and more elegant, relatively speaking.  Neither is showing exceptionally well.  I think these two wines could not be fairly evaluated at this stage without more air than the I had time to give them.  For the 1992, 88-89 points. For the 1994, 1995, judgment reserved.  If I had to guess, they would be A- type grades, 90-91 points,  but I really want to retaste them under better circumstances.

1995 Cabernet (Seavey)
Amidst the high priced wines that are the object of collectors' lust and affections, comes Seavey--and holds it own!  The wine is big and lush, with a beautiful velvety texture, marred only by dusty tannins on the finish.  The mouth feel is exceptionally though and the fruit is easy to get a handle on.  If it develops well and comes into balance, call it a beauty.  90-92 points.

1993 Cabernet (Abreu)
I loved the flavor profile of this wine, heavy on cassis, bright and lively.   The wine is also tightly wound and needs some time and some air.  It is the best showing I have seen at this stage of its life for an Abreu wine (which struck me as a bit disjointed and a bit acidic not too long after release). I am not sure the depth of the wine is particularly noteworthy, but when it rounds into shape, it will do nothing but provide pleasurable drinking. 90-91 points.

1994 Insignia (Phelps)
Step back from the boutique cult wineries for just a second.  It might be appropriate to remember that the old folks can do some pretty good things, too!   This is simply gorgeous.  I was wowed by this wine on release, and then thought it went dumb. From this bottling at least, it's ba-a-a-a-ck. All the way and then some. In fact, it has never shown better, and seems even better than a bottle I had not too long ago.  With very sweet, rich fruit, lush texture and expansive tendencies, the wine opened quickly and gorgeously.  The whole picture was amazing, but I can't forget the waves of sweet fruit that captured my taste buds. Never been better, and far more flamboyant than the way this wine usually shows.  This showed even better than the fine bottle I had last month, a bit further along perhaps, and with stiffer competition.   94-96 points.

1991 Monte Bello (Ridge)
Velvety and lush, inky black still, this Monte Bello is about as good as it gets.  The mid-palate has a core of ultra-sweet, very intense and concentrated fruit. The finish shows some vanilla from oak, which I could have lived without,  but the whole is dominated by concentrated, fully open fruit flavors, not oak. I was not the only one awed by this wine, and it had a lot of votes for wine of the night paired against the Araujos, Colgins and Harlans of the world.  95-97 points.

1996 Pavots (Peter Michael)
This is way too young, obviously. On opening the wine is rather disjointed, with bright tannins and very sweet fruit vying for the upper hand. There are some dusty tannins on the finish, but the fruit hangs right there in balance--as it gets air it becomes sweeter still, almost sugary, with cherry overtones.  It will be interesting to see how this wine knits together. Classic it ain't; a lot of fun it will be. 91-93 points.

1994 & 1995 Cabernet "Eisele" (Araujo)
Two beautiful wines find this estate justifying its reputation. To me, this is what it is all about. If you don't have an allocation , too bad; I wouldn't pay $350 a bottle at auction. But if you do, they are earning their increasingly high price levels at the winery door.  The 1994 is tight and a bit crisp, and very intense. With air, the tannins popped out, and despite the sweet fruit, the wine started seeming a bit austere and hard.  But I think that is a matter of its depth and its desperate need for some more cellaring. If, or rather when, this knits together, it should be a fine wine, but I rather doubt it will ever be as charming as the 1995. The 1995 has it all together.   The core of fruit is sweeter and denser, it is in perfect balance, and the tannins are more supple. It seems to be a more complete wine which misses nothing, touches every base, and by the way, tastes delicious, too. For the very good, but not awe-inspiring 1994, 90-92 points.  For the 1995, very good and awe inspiring, 95-97 points.

1992, 1994 & 1995 Cabernet (Bryant Family)
This winery has lots of fans, and there are certainly some good reasons why.   The fruit is sweet and lush, he wines tend to show good texture and balance.   There's a lot to like.  I also find they are somewhat odd, with rhubarb flavors on the fruit. They don't remind me much of cabs. The 1992 is unimpressive, a bit acidic, with average fruit. Pleasant, no more.  The 1994 doubles its intensity levels and sweetness. IF you can live with the rhubarb, and maybe you'll prefer it, the amount of sweet lush fruit is pretty impressive. Personally, I find it rather eccentric.  The 1995 is more elegant and not as deep, a bit sweeter still, perhaps, and more open. The texture is not as lush, and the wine seems a bit more focused if not as deep as the 1994.   For the 1992, 88-89 points.  For the 1994 and the 1995, different but equal, 90-92 points. If you like rhubarb, you may like them better than I.

End of peer group Cal cab tasting 

1992 Cabernet "Eisele" (Araujo)
Araujo is now one of California's greatest producers, and I've tasted some of their product that seems to rank with about the best the state has ever produced. Not so the 1992. Oh, the wine has good grip and weight, and bright flavors in the middle. It finishes at first with some dusty tannins.  With air, there is a burst of sweet fruit, and the wine is very pleasing. The tannins start to resolve. But the wine never really goes anywhere important, and it seems restrained and modest compared to the most monumental Araujos. Very nice. Not great. 89 points.

1995 Pinot Noir "Allen Vineyard" (Gary Farrell)
Farrell pinot is very popular in some quarters, but I've never quite warmed up to them. Here's another example. The wine is tighter and dense, with some bitter cherry and herb flavors on the mid-palate and finish. The wine never really opens, broadens or becomes supple and expansive but stays tense and herbal. It has a lot to recommend it in its concentration of fruit, but it is a bit too stern and a bit too bitter for my tastes. It seems to be a wine that demands that I give it respect without much unbridled pleasure in return.  89 points.

1993 Zinfandel "Geyserville" (Ridge)
This was a beauty, but it shows some signs of fading.  The impression now is all of oak, the heavy American stuff in which Ridge loves to drench its zins.  The fruit underneath has thinned. The flavors are mostly from the oak. It still is fairly steady, by no means dead, but this would be a good time to drink it --before it slides further and loses its balance.  88 points.

1990 Cabernet (Arrowood)
Faded glory. I never thought this wine would be a long ager, and I was right.  I don't really care. In its short-lived prime, it was  a sexy and seductive wine that had a sensual velvet texture, and pristine, flavorful black fruit in perfect balance and harmony with its other components.  Well, the fruit has thinned and fading.  The wine is still rather charming, and by no means dead, but have you ever seen a beauty queen at age 20 and age 50?  It's not quite the same.  87 points.

  
[Return to Top]

California / USA (White) (except dessert/sparkling)
1996 Moscato (Monte Volpe) QPR Winner 
This little Moscato from Mendocino comes in a half bottle and looks like a dessert wine. Maybe  a year of age has taken away its sweetness.  Apart from that, though, it is very pleasing as a light summer wine.  The normal fragrance of Moscato is muted at this point, and it reminds me more of a German Kabinett than an Italian moscato.  Light and airy, just a touch off-dry, and a little crisp, it is low in alcohol (10%) and refreshing.  For $6.99 per half, it is an excellent summer bargain for immediate consumption.  86 points. 

1994 Chardonnay (Pahlmeyer)
This has always been one of my favorite California chards, and from this bottle (very pristine and very cold stored), it is still gorgeous at age five.  Lush and sweet, with a finish tinged with  new oak, this wine has fruit to spare. At this age, the fruit is now fully open and integrated with the rest of the wine, which, despite its fruit driven flavors, shows good balance and some elegance, too. When young, it needed lots of air to open. Now, it's fully ready and singing sweet songs.  91 points.

1995 Chardonnay "Lorenzo" (Marcassin)
"Lorenzo" always seems to be the lightest of the Marcassins.   So, too, here. It got a bit too much oak for the amount of fruit, yet the lees flavoring to me was more prominent than the oak.  The intensity from the less coupled with the sweetness from the oak actually made the wine rather flavorful and lush.  To its critics, I would agree that it could have benefited from some restraint. But I don't think that destroyed the whole, which was chock full of flavor and easy drinking charm.   90 points.

1998 Viognier "Mica Ridge" (Chaddsford, Pennsylvania)
This viognier is a relatively new product from this well-known East Coast winery that has won some recognition particularly for its chards.  It worked for me. On first taste, it seemed that the nose far outweighed the palate. The pungent bouquent redolent of nuts and lees seemed to promise a distinctive wine. At first, there wasn't one. With air and warmth, though, the wine acquired some sweet fruit, and became more supple and gentle. The weight and concentration for viognier are excellent. On the whole, a very pleasing viognier that I liked better than some bland, pricier French ones.  This will drink well very young, and is pretty close to ready to roll right now.  88 points.

NV Sherry Tintilla de Rota (Lustau)
If you have had the amazing $15 Pedro Ximenez Sherry from Lustau, you'll have a pretty good reference point for this rarer, upper level wine, which is from 19th century vines, and has some 19th century must in it.  There are some differences, though.  This is not quite as sweet or as lush. Nor is it shy, though. It still looks like motor oil, thick and viscous and powerful. This bottling, while not quite as sweet as the generic PX,  is more intense. While the generic PX is broad and expansive, this is more tightly wound and has a gorgeous core of burnt toffee fruit and aromas. The wine has a grip and persistence that the regular bottling lacks, but is not quite as flavorful.  On the whole, I love both, and I think this is well worth the price increment. (This bottling runs around $33).  Actually, the regular PX is worth a similar price, but let's not tell anyone.  95 points.

NV Tawny Port "Benjamin" (Mildara Blass)
On my recent tour of Australia and many wineries there, I found their fortifieds to be an amazing part of their wine scene.  This is a disappointment. Maybe I would have liked it before I traveled Down Under.   Now?  Lacks creaminess. Lacks depth. Lack richness. This is a very mediocre tawny without much distinction, and of little interest. It's cheap. So is Clocktower, Reynella and a bunch of others.  Don't bother.  83 points.

1994 Botrytis Riesling Padthway (Lindemanns)
This Aussie stickie is showing some signs of age. The syrupy qualities mingle with that telltale metal that is indicative of oxidation setting in. But all that at the moment is very subtle, although the wine has lost some baby fat syrup. The wine mostly shows for what it is, a ripe, luscious stickie, with classic late harvest riesling qualities. Always a pleasure.  89 points.

NV Tawny Port "Personal Reserve" (McGuigan)
McGuigan has this annoying habit of putting all of its wines in a extra long bottles. So this 500ml bottle is a little taller than a 750ml. Thanks guys. Wine sells the product. The packaging only gets you so far. Ok. Now that we got that out of the way. This is a very nice tawny. The wine is medium bodied and elegant, but the core has a burst of sweet,  gorgeous, juicy fruit. Very pretty. Liked it a lot. Almost syrupy in sweetness, despite the elegance of the wine's mid-palate. A hard combination to achieve.   The question however is whether the price is a bit too high. The Aussies certainly have some premium fortifieds, ranging from upper level tawnies (like the 1981 vintage dated Para Port--not imported, regrettably) to "show" wines like the Seppelt D.P. 57 and 63.  All of these tend to be more intense and contain older juice than the regular bottlings like the Yalumba Clocktower. The "show" wines seem particularly intense, but not quite as sweet and lush, and more raisiny. When you start to get around $20, the premium stuff is what you can get.  I'm not sure that anything in this wine justifies the premium pricing ($17.99). It tastes like a typical, fine tawny, like a Reynella "Old Cave" or a Clocktower. But not like the upper levels. (In fact, it doesn't really have quite the pure, lush fruit of the Clocktower or the depth and power of the Old Cave, either.)  Of course, I wonder if the premium ones are generally worth it anyway. Still, this wine seems like a regular, non-vintage $13 tawny with great packaging selling for $17.50. Oh, well. Taste and try. It sure is good.  Maybe the extra few bucks don't matter to you except on principle.  89 points.

1976 Yquem
From magnum, this was disappointing.  The color was tending to amber, and the wine showed too much age.  As it warmed up, the wine showed some sweetness and texture to the fruit, but it never seemed to develop much power or intensity. It just seemed a bit too old to be really appealing, which is  a shame, because my Yquem standards, a quarter century from magnum isn't all that old.  Curmudgeonly I am, but I didn't hear anyone in a large group lauding it. Maybe the particular bottle? I've had this before (although not for about ten years) and it sure showed way better.  85 points.

1994 Port (Fonseca)
Suprisingly, this is approachable and drinking well.  Very sweet, it finishes tannic. It is young Port, right?  But the big, sweet fruit is spectacular and the wine is in beautiful balance. For Port, the tannins seem rather modest.  This doesn't strike me as a massive Fonseca on the order of the 1977, but it is a beautiful one.   Oh, it will close down, but it hasn't yet.  In the meanwhile, you have a small window of opportunity if you are into infanticide.  90+ points.

1983 Port (Taylor)
The last time I had this, it was so tannic that I could barely drink it.  Underneath the tannins, though, was some pretty awesome sweet fruit.  I sent it to the cellar. This time, it was appropriately decanted, and what a difference.  The fruit is amazingly youthful, so rich and sweet that the finish was almost sugary. The tannins were submerged, thankfully.  The finish is long and beautiful.  Those who believe in more extended cellaring--and this sure needs it--will not be as delighted, but I have to say that the fruit is so spectacular I could start making a case for drinking young portos. 93-95 points.

1994 Port (Taylor Fladgate)
Served next to the Fonseca, I was not surprised to find this a bit sterner and more powerful, but it was also suprisingly concentrated with seemingly sweeter fruit, too.   Usually, I much prefer Fonseca early on, and this does not seem like the ferocious, massive Taylors of old (try, 1955, 1970, 1977, 1983). Yet, it still seems to have more of everything than the Fonseca.  Whatever it is, you can't ignore the gorgeous, concentrated fruit.  92-93 points.

1985 Port (Grahams)
This has been my traditional favorite in this vintage. The style of the wine and the vintage seem well suited to each other.  It is showing rather well.  Lush and fully open, expansive and rich, the wine melds beautiful sweet fruit with a rather elegant structure and moderate tannins.  Friendly and drinking nicely now.  I haven't had any of this for a couple of years until now, but if this is a typical bottle, I don't know that it is a long termer.  It's drinking just fine now.  93 points.

1996 Quarts de Chaume (Pierre Bise)
This Loire beauty is so sexy, so sensual, it made me smile just drinking it. Plenty sweet, with a beautiful honeyed texture, this wine also has a nice little core of crispness in the middle that enlivens it and provides lots of sex appeal. The flavors are penetrating, the bouquet powerful. The wine is intense and easy at the same time. I could have drunk it all night.  95 points.

1996 Huxelrebe Beerenauslese  "Durkheimer Schenkenböhl" (Vier Jahreszeiten)
Beautiful BA, from not necessarily the best grape or best producer....but just goes to show you what generalizations lead to.  Rich and thick, sweet, and redolent of melons and mangoes, this BA rolls around your mouth and coats it with thick, unctuous fruit. Delicious. Not too gentle. Big and rich.  90 points.

1989 Sauternes (Climens)
A monstrously rich, ripe Climens.....  This wine is just brilliant.   Very sweet, surprisingly ripe and syrupy for Sauternes, this wine has almost a sugary finish. The fruit is so ripe that it almost reminds you of peaches drenched in sweet syrup.  This is amazingly flamboyant, decadent and irresistible Climens. 95 points.

1989 Riesling Beerenauslese "Monzinger-Halenberg" (Petri-Essling)
An oddball wine? But I just loved it.  I was told it was grown in red soil in the Nahe region and often shows red fruit characteristics. Surely, though, I've never had a riesling that seemed to display such prominent strawberry characteristics. It was flat out delicious, though, and wrapped around a sweet, slightly sryupy body,  it provided persistently flavorful and mouth coating fruit. Rich and ripe.  Delicious. And a bit kinky.  I can deal with that.  92 points.

1989 Riesling Beerenauslese "Forster Mariengarten" (Kimich)
Gorgeous. It's a good month for BAs, I guess.  While this is not quite as distinctive as the Petri-Essling above, its finish is arguably longer and the combination of crispness on the backend and rich, sweet fruit lingers.  Pretty and sexy, in beautiful balance, with intensity, too.  Hmmm. Which did I like better, this or the Petri-Essling, above? Hard to say. Pick 'em. Drink both. 92 points.

1991 Riesling Eiswein "Erdener Busslay" (Meulenhof)
For thick and syrupy, I would rather go to TBA.  What I like about eisweins is how they can appear ethereal and wrapped in light and air, yet provide flavor that lingers.  This is a pretty good example.  Yum.  It seems so airy and elegant, but the flavors are persistent and penetrating.  Gossamer and peaches. A fine combination.  90 points.

NV Tawny Port (Maduro)
This is another Aussie tawny in a funny bottle, like the Rosemount Old Benson. I've come to love this style, but I have had a chance to taste the very best in Australia, so I'm pretty picky now.  This would've floored me six months ago. Now, I can put it in its relative place in the world: delightful, very good, above average, but short of extra special. Also there was an oddity on the back label, saying this was a Barossa Valley wine bottled in California? Huh?  Anyway...the wine is dominated by juicy nutmeg fruit, has a nice dark chocolate finish, and some intensity. It's pleasant and flavorful all the way through, and develops some velvet on the texture with air.  Very nice performance, but despite the premium packaging, this is more a competitor for Reynella Old Cave that the super specialty tawnies available in Australia and hard to find here. That still makes it pretty good, but I'm getting annoyed at the premium packaging these days.    90 points.

1975 Muscadel (KWV)  QPR Winner  
This fortified South African dessert wine is delicious, and inexpensive for something twenty-five years old.  It reminds me a bit of a Lustau Moscatel Sherry, but actually seems a bit richer and sweeter, more velvety and more voluptuous. The nutty flavors are persistent and delicious, and this is just a fun wine at a great price (around $18 for a 750ml).

NV "Old Sweet White" (Yalumba) QPR Winner  
I had no idea what to expect from this.  This supposed white dessert wine (about $16 per 375ml) looked alarming. I was told it was sweet and rich. But the color was dark amber and it seemed like it had passed peak a long while back. The wine was non-vintage, but the reality was multi-vintage. Yalumba blends several vats, years, and grapes apparently to make this "museum show release."  Some of the juice is said to be forty years old. And it looked it.  Presumably, though, it was also topped off with some fresher wine, because this was amazingly thick. To my surprise, I also found that it seemed to be fortified. The weight and texture, richness and sweetness reminded me more of a Malmsey vintage Madeira than the late harvest stickie I thought I was getting. Let's put it this way. Opened next to a Banyuls, it made the Banyuls seems light and wimpy.  The depth and concentration and thickness level here surpasses big time TBAs.  Just stunning.  95 points.

1992 Port (Chateau Reynella)
Unlike Reynella's famous "Old Cave" bargain port, this is not a tawny, but an attempt to mimic true vintage port. It runs about $18, and is pure shiraz.  In style, it reminds me more of a nice LBV than it does true vintage port.  Rich and fruity, sweet and forward, the wine has few tannins at this point, just fruit and velvet.  It is really pleasing, and if it does not have quite the power of Old Cave tawnies, it is richer, more velvety and sweeter.  Another nice Aussie fortified.  89 points.

[Return to Top]

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
1985 Scheurebe Auslese "Weisenheimer Goldberg" (Neckerauer)
Pristine and complex, this wine, at nearly age 15, shows not a hint of decay, and sometimes not of maturity.  If tasted blind, I might have guessed it was a mid-90s wine.  The bouquet mixes various elements, including some grass and melon, and yes, a nice little hint of acid. On the palate, the wine's sweetness and richness counterbalances the acidity. In this context, the acidity is actually rather refreshing.  Fragrant, delicious. 91 points.

1969 Riesling Auslese "Mehringer Lei" (F.W. Gymnasium)
This stately old Riesling is proud and unyielding. Time has changed it.  It does not seem all too typical of a riesling at this point, time have mutated it into something unique.  The edges of the fruit are rounded, there is only a hint of acidity at first on the finish, which acid touch then fades.  The ripe, soft fruit has a touch of apricot, and good weight.  There also seemed to be just a tiny hint of madeira. I kept waiting for full blown maderization, but despite decanting this wine, it never cracked up, which was pretty impressive.  I appreciated it for the gentleness and the rounded, smooth texture of its fruit, but I still think I would have preferred this a decade or so earlier, when it was brighter and and more varietally true.  85 points.

1989 Riesling Auslese "Oberhauser Brucke" (Donnhoff)
This Nahe Auslese is a beauty, elegant and crisp, with perfect balance and nice hit of intense, sweet fruit in the mid-palate. It kept getting better as it warmed. Easy to drink, easy to love.  92 points.

1989 Riesling Auslese "Burrweiler Schäwer" (H. Messmer)
Pristine, fresh and youthful, this pretty Riesling has a lingering, crisp finish and excellent balance.  Apricots and pears provide persistent flavor nuances, and the gentle, sweet mid-palate is delicious. Focused, and charming. Others have more depth and opulence, but there's not much here to dislike. 90 points.

[Return to Top]

Rhone/South/Southwest France (except dessert/sparkling)

1997 Condrieu "La Doriane" (Guigal)
I had this recently and was seriously underwhelmed. This showed way better. Served with the Macon, above, I at first lost track of which was which. This viognier was so ripe, so relatively thick, that I almost mistook it for chardonnay. To be sure, next to the Macon, it is a much lighter weight wine. But for viognier it is remarkably thick.  The finish persists, seemingly indefinitely, and the fruit coats your tongue and stakes out a toehold for the future. Fans of a more delicate, more perfumed style of viognier won't find it here. However, if you just like concentrated, intense wine of great depth, this is it. 92 points.