Australia (except dessert/sparkling)

1997 Shiraz "Rayner Vineyard" (Brokenwood)

Sweet dill and licorice, for new American oak, constitutes the first impression. With air, it integrates somewhat, and the spicy undertone of shiraz pops through. Tasted on release, this wine was a monster, very tannic, very dense. A couple of years of cellaring has improved it greatly, but it is a bit surprising how quickly the tannins have moderated and the wine has softened. It seems now gentle and charming, but without the spectacular notes that I thought it might have had. Considering that some retail outlets are selling this for close to $100, and few below $80, this makes it a bit disappointing. On its own, it is still pretty nice wine, although I personally am increasingly losing my taste for American-oaked wines.   90 points.

[Return to Top]  

Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Pinot Blanc (Albert Boxler)

This sturdy pinot blanc has a touch of smoke, and seems penetrating and relatively dense for pinot blanc. It opens and evolves well with warmth, and for a wine of this class and status, the finish was more respectable. It is just a touch off dry on opening, but the sugar blows off quickly and the wine ends as dry. Very nice PB, though hardly profound. 87 points.

[Return to Top]  

Argentina (except dessert/sparkling)
1997 Malbec (Catena)
This seemed simple, pleasant enough, but not terribly inviting It opens bright, with a distinctive raspberry fruit flavor nuance. There are touches of mint and chocolate, but the fruit flavor is the wine’s most distinctive feature. Medium bodied at best, it never quite integrates into serious wine, seeming a touch candied, and too easy. It did taste good, and go down well. 85 points.

[Return to Top]  

Bordeaux  (except dessert/sparkling)

1982 Chateau Pichon Baron
There was a touch of seepage, yet this showed beautifully. The mouthfeel was pure velvet, soft and sensuous, and the fruit seemed ripe and easy. The wine is drinking just perfectly--for all its ripeness, it goes down easy, seems elegant, bright and delicious. One of many welcome surprises on the night. 90 points.

1989 Chateau Peyrelongue

This St. Emilion is a wine I've never had before. A friend brought it in from France. I suspect it's pretty cheap, and assuming that to be the case, it was nice enough. For a relatively minor wine to be this age and this pristine was impressive. If anything, on opening it was a bit tight and bright, with grapey fruit behind. It was a bit too thin to be really interesting, but was pleasant enough for what I assume to be a bargain priced (under $20 on purchase probably)  13-year old wine.  85 points.

1990 Troplong Mondot

Youthful and sweet, this exuberant Bordeaux is marked by its ripe core of jammy fruit, so flavorful and pure that it seems like fruit essence.  At age 12, this was amazingly youthful, and many thought it would benefit from more cellaring. At the same time, it was delicious and hedonistic, a sexy fruit bomb that sent waves of flavor over your tongue. If you like ‘em sweet and ripe, drink now. If you want more typicity and balance, it will probably come with age, say at least five, maybe closer to ten. This will certainly be a crowd pleaser wine at the moment, and it will be interesting to see if it evolves further and well. 93+ points.

1983 Château Pichon Lalande

It’s been awhile since I have encountered this old friend. Many ‘83s from Pauillac and St. Julien have always been lovely, this, also Mouton, Gruaud, Las Cases, for instance. They haven’t had the depth or sex appeal of the 82s, or the lush texture of the 90s, or the muscular aspect of the 89s—but they define what you might call classic Bordeaux. If they never quite get to be profound, they are always pleasing, always well balanced. All the attention went to the Margaux commune, but these were pretty nice too—and here’s a case in point. Just impeccably balanced, showing some primary fruit still, this wine seems pure, pristine and refreshing.  The supple tannins surround a core of gentle fruit, marked with cassis. Very fine. Settle back with an old friend and slippers. 92 points.

1994 Chateau Mouton Rothschild

People didn’t want to believe this was Mouton after its identity was revealed, even if it was a  ’94. After all, some people did manage to make fine wine in that year.  This was acidic, disjointed and flat. The fruit was flavorless, the acid on the wine made it seem more like Burgundy, and the wine was too angular and spiky, i.e., all the components warring with each other, and no hint of balance anywhere. Given how dull this wine was, I do not think cellaring will help—the fruit is not there. I wondered if this was subtly corked, as TCA below perceptible levels is said to rob a wine of its fruit without producing the telltale odors. But what about all that acid, and the inoffensive demeanor of the wine.  If this were an $8 wine, you probably wouldn’t mind drinking it with pizza.  As Mouton, it would be better declassified.  80 points.

1989 Chateau La Conseillante

This opened slowly, a touch of tar, and lots of tannin, another muscular 1989.  I thought it would develop with air, and so it did.  The texture smoothed out,  beginning to show some velvety characteristics, and the tannins softened, and the fruit sweetened. In the midst of that evolution, I discovered I had no wine left. It never got quite to where I wanted it, and should have been decanted at least an hour, but I saw a lot of fruit, a lot of structure, and a lot of promise for a long haul wine. Since I didn’t quite finish my evaluation, let’s just say 93-95 points.

1995 Chateau Tayac "Cuvée Prestige"
This estate, many would say, is the second best producer in Cotes de Bourg and Cotes de Blaye, after Roc des Cambes. I think based on what I generally see, that that is true, but that it is a distant second. This powerful wine opened a bit weedy, and very tannic. The tannins dominated everything, and there seemed to be a bit of a sour aftertaste. With air, the wine improved dramatically. It took a good hour or so, but eventually, the tannins moderated enough to allow some sweet fruit to pop through. It became a touch spicy, and was  cool and refreshing.  This is at least three years from being ready to drink at will, but if you open it, it should be decanted.  I do think the balance between hard tannin and fruit is a bit off. It will become a nice wine, but never an excellent one. 87 points.

[Return to Top]  

Burgundy  (except dessert/sparkling)

1988 Volnay "En Champans" (Monthelie-Douhairet)

This opens bright, silky, medium weight and smooth, and then goes downhill, as underlying tannins pop up. There's an odd flavor nuance here somewhere, a touch of plum. It seemed promising. It becomes strange. And then....the Burgundy Strikes Back. The components integrate surprisingly well with more air, and I particularly appreciated the finish. Long after I thought this wine was going to disintegrate, it was still providing pleasing drinking. It's neither stunning nor profound, but it was a good matchup with the foods and showed pretty well, particularly for those who appreciate structure and maturity.  86 points.

1983 Pommard "Le Clos Blanc" (Machard de Gramont)

I've had good luck with wines from this estate aging well, but I have to admit I looked at the '83 askance, and had not even heard of "Le Clos Blanc." This, however, was the best surprise of the night. It opened hard, with touches of mint, and a touch of mustiness, or mold-perhaps we're just hypersensitive in this vintage. The fruit seemed clearly to be drying out, although there was a nice cherry flavor nuance on the finish. The tannins, though, seemed to overwhelm the wine; it was hard and austere. It was going to be work not fun. Then, this wine began dramatically changing. It softened. It matured in front of my eyes (and nose). The fruit became flavorful. The odd nuances blew off. It never showed those wet leaves, oxidized notes that I hate with decaying wines and Burgs in particular. It was,uh, good. At the end of the evening, it was still drinking rather well, and seemed full of flavor, although it was showing some hints that that would not continue too much longer. The texture had softened appreciably and appropriately. Wine can surprise-it's part of the fun.  88 points.

1961 Cotes de Beaune (Heyman Frères)

This was just a curiosity. It opened very pruney---reminding me more of that eau de vie made in Alsace-Lorraine than Burgundy in flavor.  It was also a bit sour, which just, uh, added to its appeal. For all that, the pruney notes did blow off a little, and the wine had remarkably good weight, proving once again that wine can last a long, long time in many respects with even half decent storage, but also that it is often not worth the effort to hold it so long. 50 points.

1997 Vosne-Romanée “Les Hauts Maizières” (Robert Arnoux)

Soft, and rather charming, this wine is velvety and elegant, but a bit too easy and inoffensive. Its flavors are pure and pristine, and the wine has a certain lushness to its texture that is very attractive.  It lacks much mid-palate depth or intensity, however, and it is short on the finish as well. This has its virtues, but is ultimately fairly routine Burgundy that needs to be drunk in the near term.  86 points.

1990 Vosne-Romanée “Chaumes” (Daniel Rion)

This opens hedonistically, with a big hit of raspberry fruit. It did nothing wrong for the rest of the evening, methodically evolving and integrating into a silky, charming whole. The wine lacks a bit of intensity and depth, but its flavor nuances are delectable, and it seems rather stylish, too. 90 points.

1996 Corton-Renardes (V. Girardin)

This opened a bit tight and hard, like a lot of young Girardin, and the grip and intensity was welcome.  There was just a hint of mouth-drying tannin on the finish, and bright acid surrounding the fruit. The question became where the heck the fruit was. As the wine evolved, it was almost always structurally dominated, with little flavor. The longer it sat, the more the acid and tannins dominated. I’m sure there was some fruit in there somewhere, but it was hard to say where. If this was a typical bottle, it was mightily unimpressive. 84 points.

2000 Beaune-Coucherias (P. Labet)

This showed lovely, cherry flavors, turning a bit astringent and tannic at the end. I like the general feel of it, though—it should come around with a couple of years of cellaring, and develop some silk to the texture. It will always be a touch straightforward and simple, though.  85-87 points.

2000 Vosne-Romanée “Suchots” (Confuron-Cotetidot)

Hmmm. This showed a touch of brown at the edges, and a gamey note. It seemed a lot older than 2000. I questioned its freshness, suspecting heat damage. The representative at Vin Expo said it was a good bottle. Ok, then… I can only say that this seems badly flawed, prematurely developed,  a bit thin for 1er cru, with some gamey notes that stuck out like a sore thumb on a very young wine. Be careful. All that said, it wasn’t entirely unattractive in profile, for those who like mature Burgundy. Maybe you can pretend the label said 1991. I’ll look  forward to tasting this again. 82-84 points.

2000 Clos Vougeot (Chateau de la Tour)

This has the makings of a super wine. It is very hard to taste at first, showing lots of tannin. This estate certainly tends to make wines that hold in good vintages. The tannins were ripe, however, and with air, the sweet, cherry nuanced fruit popped out, and the core of fruit seemed almost syrupy.  Bright, structured, with a lot of fruit in the middle—I could only think in the time I had to spend on this that it had the makings of a star. In the short amount of time I had, I’m reluctant to get too excited, but I’m hoping it heads to the upper part of this score. 92-95 points.

2000 Gevrey-Chambertin “Les Cazetiers” (P. Leclerc)

Elegant and medium bodied, this wine shows nice balance. It is a bit disjointed, with sweet red berry notes fighting for attention with some tannins that give it a hard edge, but I think this should develop well, improve, integrate, and drink nicely around 2006.  88-91 points.

2000 Chambolle-Musigny (B. Serveau)

Soft, easy and a bit simple, this gentle wine already shows some velvet and some charm, nice fruit flavors, and not much structure. I think it is early maturing, and likely to drink well soon—but it will never be anything more than a pleasing Burg, a nice drink. 84-86 points.

1999 Morey St. Denis “Les Sorbets” (B. Serveau)

This opens with a focused, moderately intense attack, and ends with a reasonable finish. In between, it is medium weight at best, and gives the impression of a nice, middle of the road Burg—early maturing, fun to drink, never special. 86-88 points.

2000 Gevrey-Chambertin (R. Leclerc)

This was a bit schizoid, opening tight, precise, austere and finishing a touch sour. Here and there, there were some signs that there was actually fruit here, and that it might poke through and make this a wine I’d be interested in drinking. I tend to think the acid levels on this wine are a touch too high, but I do see an opportunity here for this wine to develop and come together in another two years.  I’d like to retaste it then, but until then, 84-86 points.

2000 Echezeaux (Lamarche)

Tight, focused and bright, this shows pure and pristine red berry notes that were delectable. That said, the wine, for grand cru, seemed to lack some flesh and depth—it just seemed to be needing a little more oomph. When this develops, and I suspect it will be on the early side for grand cru, maybe 2006, I suspect it will be rather delicious, but not terribly complex or profound.  Whether that makes it worth the money is up to you. 88-90 points.

2000 Echezeaux  “Les Rouges du Bas” (Meo-Camuzet)

This has all the elements of a stunning wine. Start with the bouquet, which seems to attack from a foot away, redolent of crushed, very ripe raspberries. The wine has fine depth, and seems to just expand to fill your mouth, coating the palate and lingering, with its fine flavors.  It has structure too, showing welcome grip and intensity.  I look for a fine future from this wine.  It should be stunning around 2009.  93-96 points.

[Return to Top]  

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 Bryant Family  
Served blind, I guessed Aussie cabernet. I’m surprised at what it is, but my guess still seems pretty good. It is not exactly as if Bryant Family ever wins many typicity awards. Although after the bag came off, everyone oohed and aahed, the fact is, this was just another contender among many, served blind in a field of wines like 1995 Rubino della Palazzola and 1999 Foradori Teroldego Rotaliano and not exactly clobbering them. A super pricey cult wine should do more, right?  If these guys want to sell these wines for triple digit numbers, especially when they don’t decrease the price in lesser vintages, they better get used to the criticisms when it is anything less than stunning. It opened simple, over-oaked, and seemingly showed some of that syrupy, pureed vanilla-blueberry note that new American oak produces so often. Do they use new American oak, someone wondered? I don’t know, but as has often been pointed out, there are lots of other issues, including toast, method of drying, etc. I can only say, it’s a pretty rare event for me to have Bordeaux that show this flavor nuance.  Not that it did not have some merit.  After opening lush and simple, it began to pick up some weight in the glass, and also showed some underlying, ripe tannins popping out.  The oak integrated considerably, although the nuances of mint and vanilla never entirely disappeared.  I was ultimately appeased by some evidence that the wine had structure, and while I doubt that this will ever become a great wine, its price is what is most likely to make it a target for criticism. Some compared it to the charming 1998 Jones Family. I would say this: the Jones is more typically cab and better balanced, but the Bryant shows some hints that it may have better structure and a chance to develop into something more.  If it evolves well, and I had some hint that it might,  and if the oak integrates well, and I’m not sure it will, I might increase the score a bit, in which case it would remain a rather poor value, but would become an awfully nice effort in the context of a difficult vintage.  90+ points.

1996 Cabernet (Jones Family)
Simply beautiful. On release, this was tight and it closed down fast, but I thought there was a lot going on here. An extra year or two of cellaring answers the questions, with an exclamation point. It opens big, ripe and powerful, laced with cassis and red berry fruit. It seems to be a totally hedonistic wine. But I know that this wine has structure--at a certain point in time, that's most of what you got. With 30 minutes of air, the ripe, supple tannins pop out, and the wine shows a backbone. It spends the rest of the evening integrating its parts gradually, and becoming a smooth, supple, flavorful wine with a welcome hit of intensity. Classic cab, extremely well done, and very approachable now. There should be no difficulty holding this for a decade--but I think in another two years, maybe three, it will be at peak and enter its plateau. 94 points. 

1991 Cabernet “Hillside Select” (Shafer)

This starts slow, comes on like gangbusters. It seems silky, but a bit reticent. It is matched with 1991 Dominus and 1991 Insignia and it seems to be losing badly. Many folks score the Dominus, really on tonight, as close to 100 points, and feel the Shafer has overtaken it by the end of the evening—so there’s a vote of confidence. I didn’t quite agree, but this wine evolved brilliantly, putting on weight, fleshing out, and showing great class and impeccable balance. Superb, not quite ready.  94+ points.

1998 Cabernet “Gaudeamus Vineyard” (Schrader)

Some have not liked this wine, but I thought it was pretty tasty.  What you might not like about it is that it is a touch overripe, with hints of caramel. The most typical cab in the world it is not. I suspect in their first release they overcompensated a bit for the difficulties of the 1998 vintage.  Yet, it is also focused and penetrating, with a mouth-gripping finish.  If it seems a bit more like Pahlmeyer Merlot crossed with Justin Isosceles, so be it---it was otherwise well structured and delicious. 90 points.

1993 Insignia (Phelps)
Very pleasing, but not quite inspiring. This shows bright and sprightly, with tingly, soft tannins and a fairly high acid profile. It seems vibrant. There is also a touch of mint from new American oak remaining; at this point it is just a nuance, but it's there. It is medium bodied at best, and also tinged with a touch of plum. It seems cool and refreshing, but lacks some depth and intensity, the things you might expect a premium meritage wine to show.  Very pleasing, if less than profound. 88 points.

1997 Dominus
On opening, this was more than a little worrisome because it was so light, so self-effacing.  Let's be honest: in 1997 a lot of California producers at the top end made big, jammy, thick wines that seemed rather over-the-top.  At the other end, a lot of  '97s seemed a bit diluted and watery, too light and thin. It was a large crop. It was hard to find people in the middle. One wonders whether the Dominus folks opted for elegance, tried to find the middle--and just missed. With air, this picked up some welcome weight and showed just a little intensity. It always seemed like Dominus in flavor profile, i.e, very, very Bordeaux-like, but it really needed some cassis and flesh to match the tobacco and earth. In my opinion, it never quite got to home base, but wound up being very nice. If it could pick up a little more weight, I might revise the score up. It could be just a touch closed. 89+ points.

1990 Dominus
This old favorite opened a bit tight, weedy, laced with tobacco, and a touch short on fruit. I feared it was becoming tired. Yet, throughout the evening, I was surprised, if pleasantly so, to see this keep shucking off the attributes of old age, and becoming fresher and more vibrant. I do not think it ever quite reminded me of the beauty that it was young, but it was holding better than I predicted,  while doing the typical Dominus imitation of maturing Bordeaux. 91 points.

1994-1996 Merlots (Pahlmeyer)
These were poured at a dinner where we basically all brought Pahlmeyer.  As a group,  along with the meritage, they were a testament to the quality from this estate, although I'm not sure the wines merited their often lofty price tags.  But what else is new...?  The 1994 showed tight but intense, flavor poking through on the back end. It was the least fleshy, the most structured, the least sweet. Someone thought it was marginally corked; no one else agreed. If this is what it is like corked, it's pretty damned good. I loved the tightly wound core of fruit, and the structured intensity. It was the least typical Pahlmeyer of what was to come, and showing a lot of that early 1994 power that caused many of these wines to shut down hard. 91 points.  The 1995 was more seductive in terms of velvety texture, and not as tight. It was also brighter, as many of the '95s tend to be, and it was certainly more fruit driven and sweeter. It was still nicely structured, knit together well with air, and utterly charming. The fruit was flavorful and delectable. 92 points.  The 1996 was my big winner of the group, though. Sweet, exotic, nuanced by cherries, and just a touch flamboyant on opening, it settled down nicely, but always remained a sexy, youthful, sweet wine. Underneath, there was a backbone discernible, and some focus, and air brought its components together perfectly. I liked the texture best on this, pure velvet. 94 points.

1986 Pahlmeyer Meritage
First vintage of Pahlmeyer meritage?  It opens with a touch of charred leather, but actually improves with air. As it shakes off the bottle slumber, it pulls together well, and becomes a pleasant, very approachable wine. The fruit is drying out on the finish though, and this wine has seen better days.  Drink up.  85 points.

1996 Pahlmeyer "Caldwell Vineyard" Meritage 
This is full throttle in every respect, sexy and intense, well structured, but fruit driven.  The wine reeks of cassis--a good thing!--and shows fine mid-palate depth. I liked the way it evolved a lot. If it didn't quite have the sexy charm and flamboyance of the 96 Merlot, it showed a bit more intensity and structure, meaning, pick 'em.   This evolved beautifully with air, and has lots of time left to go.  Approachable now, I'd expect it to peak around 2005. 93 points.

1978 Cabernet "Lot 2-- Stag's Leap Vineyard" (Stag's Leap)

An oldie but goodie! Sure, it showed some mature notes (one hopes it would). After shaking off the bottle must, though, it seemed, well, quite delicious. Certainly, it was the lightest wine on the night, and needs drinking. It shows fruit with a touch of oxidation, and a few years from cracking. But at the moment, its elegance, its clarity and sweet red berry note makes it very appealing. It gave me more than I anticipated. 89 points.

[Return to Top]  

Dessert/Sparkling
1998 Semillon "Noble One" (De Bortoli)
Reasonably thick and tinged with apricot and a touch of mango, this all features sprightly acidity on the back end. The botrytis seems relatively low on this, though, with not enough of the creme caramel notes I love on Sauternes, and at times this seems more like an Ortega Beerenauslese than a Sauternes. It was still pretty tasty, though, and will benefit from further cellaring. 89+ points.

1990 Chateau Yquem

The first surprise was how relatively light this wine showed, not too much intensity, not too much unctuousness. It was gorgeously balanced, with a long, long finish though. There were hints of vanilla, and lots of apricot for clearly delineated flavors. The wine seemed a bit stern and on the drier side, though.  The presentation was lovely, but where was the Yquem weight and power? Often, with wines like this, I have seen them put on weight as they oxidize and grow old.  The transformation can be amazing. This wine needs to do that, and I’m betting it will. It seems a touch closed now, a touch reticent, not as flavorful and unctuous as some others I’ve had like Lafaurie, Climens and Raymond-Lafon, but I do think there is a lot lurking here under the surface. I wouldn’t touch one of these for another decade, minimum, and then maybe we’ll see what’s what. 94+ points.

1996 Coteaux du Layon Saint Aubin "Les Simonnelles Selection des Grains Nobles" (Genaiserie)

Perhaps not sweet enough, despite its SGN designation, to hold up to a lot of desserts, it is still delicious. Spicy, and tangy, nuanced by vanilla and botrytis, this has some mid-palate depth but manages to seem light and airy, and elegant due to the acid. I'd actually prefer a little more unctuousness in an SGN. It's an SGN, after all. Ignoring the classification stuff, though, the wine drinks easily and well, is tasty and charming, and finishes respectably. 90 points.

2000 Chateau Suduiraut
Unctuously sweet, very flamboyant and opulent, this sexy Suduiraut wowed everyone who went near it. Delectable, ripe and dripping with fruit, it seemed styled closer to German dessert wine (with less acidity) than traditional Sauternes. For those who complain that Sauternes show too much oak and not enough opulent, sweet fruit, here’s an answer. I have some question as to what will happen here when the opulence calms down and the sugar integrates, but I suspect this is always going to be a hedonist’s Sauterne, not a vin de garde.  90-93 points.

2000 Chateau Lafaurie Peyraguey

If the Suduiraut was exuberant and opulent, the Lafaurie was far more classical and reminded me more of a Climens in some years. Tinged with vanilla notes from oak, it was equally sweet, but not as opulent, and beautifully balanced. This will age slowly and gracefully, but I do not think it will become great Lafaurie, and am guessing it will wind up closer to the lower end of the point range. 89-91 points.

2000 Chateau Guiraud

Very distinctive, marching to the beat of its own drummer, the Guiraud has an offbeat flavor profile that was nonetheless delicious. Tinged with lime up front and apricots in the back, the wine stood out in a pack.   Its finish was distinctive and long. Not as opulent as the Suduiraut, or as classical as the Lafaurie, it made a compelling statement for individuality and personality. 91-93 points.

2000 Chateau Bastor-Lamontagne

This is a pleasing, but fairly simple Sauternes.  Other than being short on some depth and finish, it does nothing wrong. But the things it does not do consign it to a “pleasant, but unexceptional” category, a good buy if the price is right.  Friendly and charming, it had little to distinguish it after the three previous estates. 85-87 points.

2000 Chateau de Malle

Lovely… If you’re looking for a reasonably priced (thirties…) Sauternes that delivers a lot of bang for the buck, this is a good bet.  Very focused, its flavor profile is of late harvest apricots. Add that it shows relatively little tannin or oak, there were times when its style made me wonder if I could close my eyes and think I was drinking a fine, new world late harvest Riesling.  The purity of the fruit on the finish made my mouth water. 89-91 points.

Chateau Rayne-Vigneau

This wine had some similarity to the Bastor-Lamontagne, but had more of everything, particularly including flavor and ripe fruit. Classically styled, it showed nice balance and a pleasing fruity finish in a somewhat straightforward Sauternes.  86-88 points.

[Return to Top]  

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)

2000 Riesling Spatlese “Graacher Domprobst” (Willi Schaefer)

Having just had the flabbier ’99 last week, I thought pulling this would be an interesting contrast. I liked this better, assuming both bottles to be representative. This had beautiful intensity on opening, mouthgripping acidity.  Yet, it was perfectly balanced, and it did not take long for the nuance of residual sweetness and fine, underlying mid-palate fruit to assert themselves. It a few minutes, it was a beautifully integrated whole, and remained a mouth watering treat. A very fine 2000. About the only critique I could make is that I would expect this to be a shorter lived than in a big vintage.  90 points.

1998 Riesling Spatlese "Kiedricher Sandgrub" (Baron Knyphausen)
When I first had this, I thought it was a magnificently structured but very tight wine that just needed some cellaring. It is still tight, will still improve with further cellaring, but the acid has moderated enough and the fruit opened enough to make it enjoyable, indeed stunning. The acidity propels the slight residual sugar into your tongue, the finish is long and delectable. The wine is still very powerful, but it sure has expanded beautifully, and tastes just delicious. 92 points.

1988 Riesling Auslese "Erdener Treppchen" (Merkelbach)

Tight, powerful and intense, this assaults your palate immediately with aggressive acidity. I did have some question as to whether the fruit would catch up, but as the wine aired and warmed, the fruit was there-and pretty tasty it was. The wine shows some hints of maturity in the fruit, but the acid is still pretty intense. This indicates to me that this might eventually have some balance problems with long term storage, but for the moment and for the next several years certainly, it should cellar easily and continue to improve.  Eventually, what was an angular wine became delectable, with a finish just sweet enough. 91 points.

 [Return to Top]  

Israel (except dessert/sparkling)

1999 Merlot “Galilee” (Yarden)

Bright, with cherry notes, this had some nice fruit flavor, but a bit too much acid. In a simple $10 wine, it might have been a nice quaffer, but considering a retail price around $25, I’d have to say this slight wine in not terribly impressive. 82-84 points.

1999 Cabernet “Galilee” (Yarden)

This has a bit more substance than the Merlot, and is made to age, showing some tannic backbone, even a little astringency on the finish.  It finishes a touch short, though. It shows nice balance with some air, and decent flavors, but again, given its mid-20s price point, seems more than a little underwhelming. 83-85 points.

 [Return to Top]  

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)

1995 Rubino (Palazzola)

There was nothing profound here, but every drop was charming, delicious and sunny. It was a wine I wanted to drink all night.  After just a few minutes in the glass, some initial tightness dissolved. The flavors were ripe cherries, but the wine was bright—and mouthwatering as a result—and very focused. The combination of that flavor nuance and structure gave it an easy-drinking, easy going, cheerful disposition, and great focus. Lovely. 91 points.

1996 Barolo “Brunate” (M. Marengo)

For just a little while, the tannins dominated this wine, and the flavors were muted. The focus changed, as the tannins evolved, and the wine showed an expansive demeanor, wide open fruit, and frankly, a touch thin in the mid-palate. This was pretty light for a young Barolo. For all of that, it was charming, fun to drink, and eventually became rather flavorful, showing some almond nuances that I enjoyed a lot. Profundity is not ever going to be this wine’s strong suit, but don’t underestimate its charm and elegance. 90 points.

1996 Masseto Merlot (Tenuta dell'Ornellaia)

This is another of many wines these days that I was really enjoying until someone told me what current retail value is (around $150). Ouch.  It opened tight, closed, and dominated by tannin. It showed little weight or depth, and seemed unimpressive. Then, it improved every second it was in the glass, seemingly.  Sweet fruit, with hints of licorice, gradually emerged, and it seemed flavorful and charming. I still thought it lacked depth, but air solved part of that problem, as it put on weight gradually.  Ultimately, this got sweeter and sweeter, and I liked it more and more. I still think it is a bit short on mid-palate depth for a wine of this price range, but ignoring the price it seemed churlish to dislike or criticize it.  I would've liked to have seen what happened with about two more hours of air.  Elegant and charming, bursting with flavor after some aeration, this was a wine that was really hard to dislike....but also one that I could not imagine paying $150 for.  The mysteries of the universe were not revealed. 92 points.

[Return to Top]  

Rhone/South/SouthWest France (except dessert/sparkling)
1993 Cornas "Terres Brulées"  (J-L Colombo)

Lovely.  When I last had this, not too long after release, it seemed a bit opaque, charming, elegant, and very internationally styled, squeaky clean, grapey, purple fruited and pure. It was fine. BUT, those who attacked this producer and wine for lack of typicity seemed to have a point. What, after all, should scream "rhone" more than Cornas?  Yet, here we are. 2002. The wine is beautiful, elegant and typical. Notes of garrigues and game on the palate are nuances that do not overwhelm the wine, but that seem very Rhone-y. The wine is still medium-bodied at best; it was a never big bruiser, or overly intense. Yet, it emits flavor, goes down easy and has a delightfully soft, crushed velvet texture. Delicious, pleasing, a pleasure to drink, impeccably balanced.  It lacks the depth and finish to be stunning, but everything else is perfect.  90 points.

2000 Grenache Vin de Pays des Pyrenees Orientales "The Fifteen" QPR Winner  

This unwieldy wine in nomenclature--call it The Fifteen? Vin de Pays... Grenache? Anyway....This is a bargain co-op wine that I loved in the 1999. The first bottle of the 2000 I had seemed almost like amarone, over the top, and rather hideous. This re-taste went a lot better, indicating that the other was cooked.  There is a bit of a kirsch nose,  and some very flavorful strawberry notes that exude from very mature and ripe fruit, a nuance I noticed before--but also the wine shows some brightness and balance despite its high alcohol content. This stops just short of the edge, but as it stands is rather attractive. For about $11.50, depending on your location,  it's a steal, full, flavorful and persistent.  It also needed about fifteen minutes in the glass--no joke intended--to breathe.  I still have to deduct points for some heat. 86 points.

NV Hermitage “Le Pavillon--Cuvée MC” (Chapoutier)

A bit sour on the finish, with a touch of volatile acidity, I think, and way too thin in the mid-palate for this pricey wine, about the best I could say is that with air it became drinkable and showed some varietal typicity.  It would’ve made a pretty nice St. Joseph, if it wasn’t too expensive. At this point, it just seemed too old and faded.  84 points.

1992 Ermitage “Le Pavillon” (Chapoutier)

This opened a bit harsh, but air smoothed it out readily enough. The next problem was that it was a touch too gamey, but that started to blow off, too. As it kept evolving, it turned into something pleasing and focused, charming and elegant. I don’t know that it justifies the eccentric spellings or the reputation, but a 92 that shows like this is, without regard to pricing, a pretty nice performance. 87 points.

1998 Chateauneuf-du-Pape “Cuvée La Vigneron (Domaine des Relagnes)

At about $20, this is a pretty nice deal, but not exactly profound Chateauneuf from a great year. Soft and gentle already, it shows very sweet, and seems to have almost a California-merlot, chocolately feel to it. It’s easy drinking, ripe and friendly, but doesn’t show much structure or the most typicity I’ve seen in a CdP.  Still, forget what it should be, concentrate on what it is, and you’ll have a very pleasing wine, early maturing. 86 points.

1989 Chateauneuf-du-Pape (Beaucastel)

An amazing performance from this wine. I’ve had it many times, and it has never quite shown like this. The person who brought was French; I wonder if it was purchased from the estate. It certainly seemed amazingly youthful and primary, like a wine in Year 2 of its development. And I’ve never seen a Beau with so little gamey nuances and so much sweet, exuberant fruit. Nor was it easy drinking like the ’98—the fruit was a pure core of sweetness that was remarkable. With air, supple tannins popped out. I can only say, this succulent, brilliant wine wowed the table, and me, too.  97 points.

CHAVE VERTICAL, HERMITAGE BLANC:  This event showed a hard-to-duplicate Hermitage Blanc vertical from perhaps the appellation’s greatest producer of it. Let’s take them all together. These were served in flights of four, with plenty of time of evaluation.  1984 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 85 points, was the tortoise in this flight. It opened downright ugly, showing more than a whiff of the oxidized, sherry notes that many of these wines had. But this one seemed totally gone—over the hill, a fino sherry and that’s it. Shockingly, 15 minutes later, it came back and the sherry blew off.  It was never anything other than mediocre, but the back-from-the-grave performance was remarkable.  1985 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 88 points, was tangy, with clean, pure flavors, and a gentle feel.  With air, it put on a little weight, but it always seemed velvety and clean, pure and charming. Profound, it was not. Still, a nice performance. The 1986 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 85 points,  was a step back. It started with a whiff of sherry,  and perhaps volatile acidity, but otherwise showed good mid-palate concentration, and fruit. Then, it seemed to crack. By the end of the flight, the ’84 had improved enough and the ’86 had declined enough so that they were about even. How you liked them depended on how fast you drank.  The 1987 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 88 points showed just a touch of sherry, but the fruit was glorious, oily and mouthcoating. It thinned a bit too fast for my taste, and to be great wine, but there were hints that something better was coming. I didn’t expect much from this, but it was a fine performance. 

  The 1988 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 88 points, was piercing, with some of those sherry notes, but fresher and full fruit followed.  It improved while I had it, but never fully shook the oxidative notes on the finish.  The 1989 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 94 points, began a whole new level of quality.  The fruit here was mouthgripping and penetrating, the mid-palate solid and the surrounding structure bright and cheery. I loved its elegance and its refreshingly pure demeanor, and it developed beautifully in the glass. The 1990 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 95 points, left me unable to pick between this and the ‘89---hmm.  This was more exotic and flamboyant,  a touch more mango, and tangy. It seemed lively and vibrant, equally deep, if not deeper. The ’89 might be a touch more classically balanced, but this was a touch more exciting. Pick ‘em. The 1991 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 95 points, was the surprise winner of this flight and although I rank them more or less the same, if I had to pick just one, this would be it. . If the ’90 seemed a bit exotic, this went further, with notes of peach and mango, perhaps some botrytis influence. Rich, ripe and mouthfilling, it nonetheless evolved effortlessly and impeccably into an elegant and beautiful wine that was a joy to drink. This trio was simply spectacular. 

The 1992 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 85 points, was confronted with a major challenge, and was not worthy. It showed hot, with too much sherry and mint, and not enough fruit. Not bad, but a big step back. The 1993 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 90 points, was another wine, like the ’87, that overachieved. It was not as deep and profound as the big boys, but it showed a sunny demeanor, and lots of charm, and was fun to drink every second I had it.  The 1994 was reported on recently, and received 94 points, no change.  Perhaps due to its youth,  the 1998 Hermitage Blanc (Chave), 96 points, just seemed to stun everyone. Coming after spectacular performances, one wouldn’t have guessed this to be the group favorite (and mine), but it was. Big, rich, ripe, powerful and mouthfilling, it showed hints of peach and pear and threw off waves of flavor surrounded by velvet-textured fruit.  An ending with a bang—and not a whimper.

1999 Chateauneuf-du-Pape “Cuvee Reservée” (Domaine Pegau)

Following up on the lovely 1998, and just behind the heralded 2000, this beauty does not give up the contest easily.  Cool, calm and collected, it develops beautifully in the glass, picking up weight, and all sorts of typical nuances, game, herbs, and earth, with a tinge of strawberry. Silky smooth, elegant and refined, this is another fine CDP from Pegau, if a bit on the restrained side.  This will probably be a bit early maturing, and it will be interesting to see if has the depth to age gracefully.   90+ points.

1995 Hermitage Blanc "Chante Alouette" (Chapoutier)
Lovely. Not long ago, this was an acidic monster, closed and austere.  It is a truism with fine white Hermitage that once it closes, it needs cellaring. These are not simple wines. It is just opening again now.  Still a touch austere, air and warmth nonetheless give it that velvety texture that is so appealing and sensual. Tinged with melon, it shows no botrytis and the finish lingers respectably. Medium weight, it lacks the depth and power of the Chave--but is elegant, ripe and delicious. 90 points.

[Return to Top]  

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