Australia  (except dessert/sparkling)
2002 "Quartet" (Lamont's)
This is a kitchen sink blend of chardonnay, semillon, verdelho, and chenin blanc in even amounts. There is a heavy grassy note,  mouthpuckeringly so. You have only to smell it to know what is coming next.  After long aeration, it also showed some lively notes and exuberance, and decent weight, especially for a rather inexpensive wine. But it is a funky, off beat and sometimes an  unpleasant wine that seems to require some hard work at times to drink and like. It becomes a bit of an intellectual exercise. Some might call it exotic; others might go for kinky.  If you can deal with its bouquet, which makes wines like Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc seem reticent and shy, you may like it better. 85 points.

2002 "Classic Dry White" (Cullen) QPR Winner
Another kitchen sink wine, mostly semillon and sauvignon blanc, with dollops of verdelho and chenin blanc. Very grassy on the nose,  but here there is a bit more moderation and it integrates a bit better with air, although also a touch of cat pee. This didn't seem to require quite as much effort as the Quartet, perhaps because it flattened out faster, which you may or may not consider a good thing. There's a lot here to like in a wine that can be had in Australia for $12 or $150 a case Australian dollars. But you do have to like the style. 87 points.

2001 "Sarah's Blend" (Marquis Philips) QPR Winner
I haven't been a big MP fan, and yes I've trashed some of the others. This wine, around $15-ish, showed much better than my last foray into MP. True, it retains some flamboyance and eccentricity. Those looking for a restrained Barolo or elegant Bordeaux will want to look elsewhere. It opens with pure succulence, shows some welcome intensity for awhile, and thus balances the sweet, somewhat flamboyant fruit, marked with cherries and a bit of chambord. It has a lovely mouthfeel, and actually projects nice balance, too.  Supple, and friendly, it shows the oak and oddities a bit more as it airs out, but considering that it was held in a tiny glass for over three hours before it got to that point, I can't complain much. Nice value, if a bit exotic. It won't be for everyone. Those who like it, really will. 89 points.

2001 Shiraz "Lily's Garden" (Two Hands)

Sweet cherries and perhaps a touch of heat, respectively, open and finish this fun wine. Of the Two Hands offerings I've had, this is the least charming to me, having more of a grenache-y feel than shiraz, and being a touch more flamboyant than I'd prefer. One of the virtues of this winery, though, is that the wines do have some balance, and while there is a touch of flamboyance, it never becomes downright weird.  The persistent flavors will win a lot of fans. 87 points.

1998 Grenache "Old Vines" (Burge Family)
This grenache is what I would call fairly typical for too many Aussie grenaches---rather sweet, rather flamboyant in its flavor profile, nuanced with chambord and grenache notes. It tastes fairly good, but has a sort of candied aspect, and little resemblance to anything Rhone-y.  There's a touch of heat on the finish, but not too much. The wine has a pleasing mouthfeel, and several virtues, including reasonable depth and finish for something that sells for about $25. Those who like this style will like this a lot better than I; those who don't, won't like it as well. To its credit, it was better and better balanced the next day. 89 points.

[Return to Top]  

Bordeaux  (except dessert/sparkling)
1994 Chateau Montrose
Served from magnum, this beauty is drinking very well now, showing power, but lushness, and tons of flavor. It has that characteristic Montrose meat and bacon notes, but with restraint, and it sports a savory but not particularly long finish. For a 1994, this shows sensual texture, and excellent mid-palate fruit.  It lacks some intensity, and is a little short, though. A very nice Montrose, rather than a great one, I think, although it was hard to resist that mid-palate wave of lush fruit. 90 points.

1994 Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou
This, served from magnum, shows somewhat austere and a bit lean. It evolves and shows some flavors with air, but  seems a touch short. It never quite loses its angularity, though it does show some elegance and is of interest at times. Not bad--but not great, either. 87 points. 

2000 Carruades de Lafite
Soft for a young wine, this is very primary, and a great mouthful if you want flavor, more flavor, and still more. I loved the classic notes of violets on the nose and cassis in the middle. It is medium bodied at best. The show here is the easy going fruit and its delectable nature. What I never did get was much in the way of structure--but this wine is so primary that it was hard to tell without long decanting, perhaps.  Long haul, short haul, backbone or not, I think everyone who has this will like it. 89 points.

1966 Chateau Léoville Barton
This LB from magnum showed fairly well. It opened with a nose reeking of oxidation and decay and I didn't bother to taste it at first. It was decanted. Yet, it came around, blew off some of the bad nose, and showed fairly rich, powerful and sweet. Some of the sweetness was due to impending oxidation, but the wine was thick and powerful and tasty. Not great--but I got more interested as time went on. The cork did crack on pulling it, and this might be more evolved--and less pristine-- than in other bottles (at least from magnum). 87 points.

1953 Chateau Latour
This was recorked in 1991 and double decanted about two hours before being poured. This showed beautifully. The double decanting had awakened it, and it was lively and vibrant, very bright, with a succulent finish. The tannins were pretty much resolved and the wine had thinned considerably, but it showed pure and clean, and was elegant and charming. By the end of the evening, I thought it had faded a bit. But given the decanting, and then being open for hours more, that was a pretty fine performance from a fifty year old wine...pristine while it lasted. 90 points.

1953 Chateau Gruaud Larose
This was a library wine re-released from the Chateau in the early '90s. The first one I had, at that time, was powerful and bretty, and nowhere near as good as this one. I guess it needed another ten years!  It opened soft and gentle, with a touch of game, but tannins resolved. As it sat (not decanted beforehand), it really came together, integrated beautifully, and showed a fullness and depth that the Latour did not have. The gamey notes blew off and  this showed great staying power and depth through the evening, as well perfect harmony. The fruit seemed sweet and fresh. It simply improved constantly. Surprisingly fine. 92 points.

1982 Chateau Latour
From my cellar, this wine has never shown like the massive young pup it was, but it has always been pure and flavorful. Double decanted for a couple of hours before serving, it showed round and lush, but not heavy, and firmer in the mid-palate than the last bottle I had. It still sported pure flavors and a sensual, velvety texture. It also gained weight in the glass. Some thought it closed down, too, indicating that perhaps this should have been decanted more aggressively. Purchased about four years after release. Not quite the legend it has been from other bottles, but very fine. 94 points.

1982 Chateau Léoville Las Cases
Silky and elegant, I can't say this wine disappointed, but it wasn't a home run either. It always drank well, and showed focus and flavor, along with impeccable balance, and a touch of oxidation around the edge. The fill on this was perfect, but the cork was kind of ugly--so it may not be a Las Cases at its best. In particular, it lacked much in texture, and the mid-palate was only average. It still projected so much charm and easy appeal, that it was only relatively disappointing to me. Others may've liked it better. 89 points. 

[Return to Top]  

Burgundy  (except dessert/sparkling)
1996 Pommard-Epenots (Dominique Laurent)

This wine was, at the outset, a pleasure to smell. Hints of oak, but loads of black cherry fruit, presaged a flavorful wine marked also with nuances of herbs and earth. Very tasty....and although it seemed to drink just fine, supple tannins came out with aeration indicative of a wine that has plenty of support for the ripe, cream and velvet textured fruit.  Nice depth, but also a feeling of control and focus. Very flavorful and sensual. 92 points.

1991 Bonnes Mares (Roumier)
Lively and intense, this muscular wine shows mostly structure, mostly tannin, especially at opening. It does evolve with air, and eventually you can taste some fruit, but it remains dominated by muscle and power, not flavor nor charm. This wine provides an interesting question as to whether its relative austerity means it will not come around, or whether it still needs more time. It's easy to say "needs more time," reflexively, of course, but I'm not entirely convinced that the balance here is right. For all of that, it has a lot to recommend it in depth and liveliness, especially if you like your Burgs with more muscle, and less perfume. To me, there were too many moments when this seemed  charmless, at the moment, certainly, to get really excited about its "I'm a Big Boy" structure. I'll be interested to see what this looks like in five years.  Somewhat begrudgingly, I give it 90 points.

1990 Pommard-Charmots (Parigot)
This opens a bit musty, but that blows off fairly quickly. The wine always seems a bit odd, though. It's VERY bright, and seems like sweetish raspberries, dissolved in acid. At times, the finish seems almost candied and a bit more tending to rhubarb. This wine, to my mind, is overacidified and eccentric, even though there were moments I rather like it. Still, there's a lot here not to like. 84 points.

1990 Chassagne-Montrachet (Ramonet)
This red Chassagne is a wine I've had a lot from Ramonet, and I've never been entirely thrilled by it. In most years, it seems a bit flat, lacking flavor and charm. Here, that description fits in spades, and perhaps the wine is a bit long in tooth, as well. Stolid, simple, and rather boring, it has no defects per se, unlike, say, the Parigot, above--except for being stolid, simple and rather boring.  85 points. 

1990 Meursault-Charmes (Delagrange)
This opens with a nice, heavy hit of lees nuances. It's vibrant and suffused with hazelnuts, and seems to have sweetness and intensity both. I loved the fine finish, too, lingering and nutty. 88 points.

1991 Batard-Montrachet (Domaine Leflaive)

This opens with heavy lees notes, seemingly great depth, and some focus. It seemed very new world, and had  a lot of folks guessing "Kistler." As the wine evolved, that changed, on all accounts. It thinned pretty quickly, the component parts integrated well, and it seemed much brighter--and no longer new world. I'm not sure I liked where this wine went, but it had many moments when it was sexy and delectable. 90 points. 

[Return to Top]  

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 "Alluvium White" (Beringer) QPR Winner
Under $15, this showed beautifully. Simply, a terrific value in another kitchen sink blend, this one featuring semillon, sauvigon blanc, and dollops of chardonnay and viognier.  Call the sauvigon blanc here particularly restrained, and the oak, however modest, smooths out some of the edges, giving it a very different feel and taste than the Quartet or Cullen elsewhere on this page. Rich and round, this integrates all of its elements beautifully, and finishes well. Gentle and supple, flavorful and golden, it shows balance and class at a very fine price. 90 points.

2000 "The White Coat" (Turley)
On my first note on this, about six months back, I commented that, despite its Rhone clone (80% roussanne, the rest viognier) status, it showed some Burgundian features, particularly the style of the heavy lees notes. I really like how this wine has evolved since: big and powerful, and mouthfilling, it is more Rhone-y now than before, and the lees notes better integrated, popping out as a smokey nuance only on the end, and only after long aeration. Speaking of long aeration, it held brilliantly in a small glass, with a tiny pour, for hours, and only improved. It opened with a dark color, but it didn't seem old, and projected plenty of intensity as well as great depth. 92 points.

2001 "Conundrum" (Caymus) QPR Winner 
Another kitchen sink wine, a blend of sauvigon blanc, muscat, chardonnay, viognier and semillon. Sometimes with wines like this you wonder if they just need to get rid of excess grapes. :) But this works.  This wine, well priced at about $20, showed oodles of charm, even if it was a bit simple. The nose was sweet, and that followed through on the palate; I wonder if there is a touch of residual sugar in this wine. Still, quibble if you will about the seriousness of the wine, it is hard to resist on a warm summer day and is a great party wine, likely to please all comers.  A beautiful oily mouthfeel starts it off, the components integrate well, and it seems thick and opulent. The sweetness is not intrusive, and in fact rather tasty.  Deliberately made in a crowd pleaser style, you'd have to say it accomplishes its aims perfectly. 89 points.

2001 "Esprit de Beaucastel Blanc" (Tablas Creek)
I approached this with some anticipation, but oh my. Light, simple, mundane and short, and perhaps even sweet-ish, this $30 plus wine showed no depth or finish, and nothing of distinction at all. I would not pay $10 for it. At $30 it is really problematic. 80 points.

1997 "Valiente" (Vigil Vineyards)
Tasted blind, I concluded that this was Barossa shiraz. That may give you some idea how over the top this California meritage wine is.  Apparently beloved by the Wall Street Journal, it seemed to me more a parody of a Bordeaux blend than a success. Heavy mint and vanilla notes from oak suffused the wine, which was basically drenched in oak. It had a decent mid-palate, but nothing to redeem  the eccentric qualities and the lavish use of oak, unless you really, really like it that way. Simple. Overoaked. Under $30. 84 points.

1999 Insignia (Phelps)
On my first taste at the winery I liked this a lot, but wasn't quite sure it was really a great Insignia. It seemed a bit reticent. A bit compact. On this tasting, with long aeration and plenty of time, I like it marginally better, but I'm not convinced of greatness still. It did have everything just so, though--nice black cherry notes, impeccable balance, amazing elegance.  This is plenty friendly and supple, with a nice mouthfeel. Its presentation was admittedly harmed by being served next to a sweet, flamboyant, Aussie shiraz blend, a disparate pairing that shouldn't happen and can't serve the drier wine well. For the moment, I maintain my original score and thought: everyone will like this wine, few will call it great. 91 points.

1999 "Napa Valley Red" (Blair Estate)
Short and compact, this California meritage featured off flavors, when it showed any. What flavor there was dried out on the finish. It seemed mute and bland, boring dull.  Worse, at $50-ish, ain't cheap. It seemed to brood for awhile, and I wondered if it was closed and would open up. Hours later it still brooded, and showed some cracks. I did not have the sense that this was an off bottle, but the performance is so poor, I would like to taste it again. 80 points.

2001 Zinfandel (Blackstone)
This wine actually has 10% merlot in it, and 5% syrah. It is an exuberant fruit bomb, marked with blueberries and rhubarb, and delivering tons of flavor. Its "bomb" status mostly comes from the unrelenting delivery of flavor---it isn't particularly heavy or deep. It does not need to be cut with a knife. There is some intensity and structure lurking in there, and a nice finish. It's a bit eccentric--I wasn't sure it was a zin tasted blind---but frankly it tasted so good, I had trouble resisting it. This drinks well now.  88 points.

1998 Syrah "Eisele" (Araujo)
On release, this wine seemed burly and powerful, multi-layered and thick. At age five, it is rich and mouthfilling, but far more civilized and drinking rather well. Smooth, with a creamy texture, this throws off solid flavor in the mid-palate, and sports a nice finish too. It lacks the intensity it had in its youth, but it has acquired some gentle charm, too. Those used to unoaked or nearly unoaked Rhones will notice the oak, but it is really rather well integrated. 91 points.

1998 Harlan Estate Red Wine
Having had this wine several times now,  I can say it seems different every time. The last taste, from a 750ml, showed it powerful and disjointed. This taste, from a magnum, should be worse off, wouldn't you think? Actually, it was better, and the wine even showed some softness. It was not decanted though--which could bring out fierce tannins in a big, brooding wine. This evolved a bit in the glass, but not a lot, and seemed slightly closed. This time, unlike my last taste, there were some classic cab notes, and the tannins did not get in the way of enjoyment. Still, the wine was fine, but hardly profound. The more '98s big boys I taste, the less impressed I am overall. This has a chance to improve with cellaring, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, and you can probably forget the "+."  90+ points.

1998 Cabernet (Jones Family)
Served from magnum, not decanted but watched for a long while after pouring, this wine opened great, lush, with a nose of violets, and nuances of cassis on the palate. As it sat and aired, its development was a little troubling though. The wine became disjointed, and it began to seem a bit tart by the end of the evening, showing some cracks rather than evolution. This was a sexy youngster, but as it ages, it may not show us much. A slight downtick from my last rating. 88 points.

1986 Cabernet "Hillside Select" (Shafer)
I might be leery of this wine from 750ml, and the winemaking at Shafer has certainly improved since the mid-80s. But from a double magnum, this was in good shape. There were notes of maturity around the edges, but the core of the wine still sported vibrant fruit, with mature overtones, and the wine, while gentle, was certainly alive and drinking well. Those who like their wines with notes of maturity, and calmer tannins, will appreciate this a lot, especially from a double mag. 90 points.

1998 Cabernet Reserve (Raymond)
This wine drinks easy, opening with cream, oak and violets. Some will object to the oak, but I can say that, having tasted this at release, the oak has integrated rather well. There is still varietal fruit that is identifiable, and a certain brightness. In fact, the wine actually shows some tartness here and there. There is relatively little underlying concentration, but its flavorful demeanor is appealing. In a way, this reminds me a bit of the Jones Family, above---writ small. That is, this clearly lacks the depth and finish , but the way it progresses from violets to some tartness seemed all too familiar, and not surprising. They share some vintage problems, I think.  The Jones is a better wine, but considering that this is only $22, you might give this some thought. 87 points.

1999 Cabernet (Screaming Eagle)
On opening, the smell of this wine simply seemed to be essence of cabernet. It was double decanted into a bottle for about two and a half hours, and then poured into a decanter. At that time, it had a sexy nose, violets and cream, and an obvious dollop of new oak. There were times when I thought this was dominated by overly intrusive oak, but then spicy, supple tannins popped out, too, to give the wine some life and intensity. For all that, I couldn't go wild over this....it seemed a bit too soft, a bit too easy, and a bit too oaky. I loved the black cherry notes and texture, and I think the oak will integrate well with time, but I'd like some proof of that. 90+ points.

1997 Cabernet "Barelli Creek" (Gallo) QPR Winner
Wine is a humbling experience at times. It does what it wants, not what doctrine, ideology or educated guesses want it to do. When I first tasted this wine, I liked it, but thought it was rather eccentric, not showing much "cab-ness" or typicity. It seemed to show more rhubarb than cassis, and so on. And yet here we are, a few years later. It is pure cabernet, the eccentricities are gone, the wine is very balanced and typical. I will say, it does not seem to be maturing as well as the "Frei" Vineyard Cabernet from Gallo. This is a bit further along, a bit thinner. All in all though, a nice performance in a rare $20 Cal cab you'd actually want to drink. 87 points.

[Return to Top]  

Dessert / Sparkling wines
1999 Riesling Ice Wine (Konzelman)
This Niagara Ice Wine, running about $55 Canadian dollars, mostly delivers the goods. Very sweet, and more than reasonably unctuous, it is marked by delectable apricots and actually has enough acidity and backbone to be lively at times, too. This does a pretty fair imitation of a nice German BA, and will leave lots of folks satisfied and with a smile on their faces. 92 points.

2000 Riesling Eiswein "Ockfener Bockstein" (Dr. Fisher)
On my first taste of this, I admired its sweetness and lushness. It was finger licking good. It seems like a completely different wine with only a year or so of cellaring now. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not. The good news: it shows remarkable complexity, a bit of truffle, a bit of minerals. A lot going on here, and it is a pleasure to drink. Of course, at $42 a half, you want something more than what seems to be a restrained Auslese, don't you? This is not perhaps suitable to pull out of your bag for a dessert wine now, as the sweetness is greatly moderated, it's become lighter, and it's neither particularly lush nor unctuous. At $42 a half, that's an expensive aperitif or Auslese. Yet, I truly enjoyed this and liked every last drop. You will have to decide the existential matters. Unless this regroups and puts on some weight, I can't give more than 90 points.

1990 Port "Quinta da Bomfim" (Dow)
This single quinta is drinking beautifully now, sweet, sexy and velvety, expansive and charming. It lacks the zing of true vintage port, but it's supposed to. At this age, at this point in time, its elegant, but still lively demeanor is completely pleasing. 88 points.

1985 Port (Dow)
Simple, a bit hot, and foursquare, this porto can best be enjoyed if you're good at imagining things, like pretending it has more depth, intensity, balance or flavor. All that said, ouch!, it was not undrinkable, and merely a disappointment, not a catastrophe. But the Quinta da Bomfim, above, showed much more. 85 points.

1953 Muscat (Massandra)
Maybe I'm influenced by the romance of this wine coming from the legendary Massandra collection in Russia, but this was just terrific, showing little if any signs of deterioration. Sporting 23% residual sugar, this has a sugary finish that is rather tasty. It is the color--and to a considerable extent--the taste of apple cider, with some apple sauce thrown in. Rich, sweet and pure, it was also as good, if not better, the next day. A remarkable performance for fifty year old Muscat. 95 points.

1990 "Cristal" (Roederer)
Long one of my favorites, this champagne needed only one thing on release--some age. It was a serious mistake in my view to drink this on release. It has power and depth not seen in too many champagnes other than Krug, but it needed time to flesh out and develop. It's time is now---although I suspect it will improve more with more cellaring, too. Toasty and powerful, this has concentration to spare, a touch of smokiness, and a long, long, lingering finish. To me, this is simply great Cristal, which means it is a great Champagne. 96 points.

1836 "Oscar's Special" Malmsey Reserve" (Oscar Acciaioly)
A 185 points for nose, about 87 for palate, I think, although in many ways rating these things is a pointless exercise, no pun intended. This was in bad shape when purchased, showing some seepage that was fresh, although I doubt Madeira can be damaged much. In fact, the smell at the time filled the room. Two years later, just touching the area where it seeped still gave off a powerful nose, full of caramels and nuts. The palate just didn't follow through, lacking the same richness as the nose, and not even being quite as opulent as an 1830 I opened a couple of years back. If anything, this had only hints of sweetness. Its most obvious characteristic was some tartness in the mid-palate. Not that it was bad,  and drunk alone, not next to dessert, it was even more enjoyable, but after that nose, I was really ready for a home run.

1986 Chateau Yquem
Young, soft, rather simple and boring. Hmmmm. The capsule around the cork was cracked, but the wine itself looked ok, and even had a chance to breathe. The color was light and youthful. It's hard to believe this wine from this vintage is showing so poorly, and I would really like to retaste it. But so-so it was. At least for Yquem. I did like the nice, little, typical caramel notes, and it tasted ok, in an inoffensive, run of the mill way. Average depth. Hmmmm. Definitely needs retasting, as this note makes no sense to me--and I was there.  87 points.

NV Vi Dolç Natural Red Wine (Mas Estela)  
Fine, sweet red wine that doesn't come from Oporto often is hard to find. This was a pleasant surprise, from the Costa Brava region in Spain. Soft and velvety, it is hard to say what it most reminds me of...a soft LBV porto, non-tannic, with some of the flavors of a Maury from Mas Amiel or Banyuls?  In any event, the sensual texture is a pleasure, and the wine, while off dry, is elegant and refined. Unlike vintage port, there is relatively little here in the way of tannins. It is hard to really call this distinguished, given the modest structure, but it had a couple of major virtues: it brought a smile to everyone's face and was completely delicious. It's a wine I'd be pleased to own and drink often. A couple of days later, the velvet and the sweetness moderated a little, but was replaced by delectable plum flavors.  This is all Garnacha. Very limited, about $30 per 500ml.  91 points.

[Return to Top]  

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
1991 Riesling Auslese "Graacher Domprobst" AP 2-583-154-07-91 (Willi Schaefer)
This opened a bit musty, with a feel of a wine that was still kicking, but had seen better days. It had that slightly rounded feel, but not from expansive soft fruit, but rather from fruit that seemed to have curled into a ball. And gosh, then it just exploded in the glass, evolved, blossomed, expanded, spread wings, and flew effortlessly around the room. Yes, suddenly Clark Riesling whipped off those glasses and became ... SUPER RIESLING.  By the time this wine, served from a half bottle, was done, it seemed young, pure and pristine, flavorful and sunny. Only off dry, those looking for a big hit of sweetness will be disappointed, but everyone else might contemplate a few songs to match this wine's cheery personality.  Not bad, he said with a wry grin. 93 points.

1999 Riesling Spatlese "Urziger Wurzgarten" A.P. No. 2-576-162-46-00 (Dr. Loosen)
This was served from magnum, and was a special auction bottling, made in only 25 cases of 750ml and 18 mags. Scarcity does not, of course, confirm greatness, and this isn't. It is, however, very good. For a young riesling served from magnum, it seemed to lack a bit of intensity--or maybe it is still so primary that the acid attack hasn't begun. I think this wine will never show with the intensity that a Christoffel brings to the table, though. On the other hand, it was incredibly sexy, charming and gentle. The sugar integrated perfectly into the wine and dissolved gradually with perfect balance on your tongue. It was a pleasure to drink at every moment, so it seems churlish to complain that it isn't even more impressive. These auction bottlings ain't cheap, though. And mostly, this delivers the goods. 93 points.

1998 Riesling Kabinett "Hackenheimer Kirchberg" (Ch. W. Bernhard)  QPR Winner 
This is one of those seemingly simple wines that prove how much value you can get in Germany even when you don't expect it. Smooth and round, and just off dry, this opens a bit dull, if pleasant enough. Predictably, air and warmth open this wine up, wake it up, and let it strut some stuff. It shows some notes consistent with  the beginning of its entry into a mature plateau, some burnished qualities, almost a hint of caramel, but as the wine wakes up, it shows spry and lively, too, with all components beautifully integrated.  87 points.

2002 Riesling Kabinett (Weil)
This is not one of Weil's "big boy" wines, you know the ones that are about as expensive in their classifications as most anything. In fact, there is no vineyard designation, and it is pretty much entry level Weil, nonetheless running around $17-18. But I have to say, this seems worth every penny. Sweet and exuberant in its youthfulness, as you might expect, with some pucker up notes in the background, this has in your face fruit, but that's not all. It is laced with minerals and slate nuances, and as it warms up, the sugar dissolves and integrates perfectly. Don't you love those wines where the acid gently laces the sugar into your tongue? Not spectacular, not deep, not a 30 year wine, but pretty nice for an estate's blended Kab. I'll take a point or two off because I think I like this 2002 now better than I will at any time in its existence, meaning, I'm not sure it will develop too much with cellaring.   89 points.

[Return to Top]  

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1990 Campaccio "Barriques" (Terrabianca)
Despite the barriques aging, this opened burly and disjointed, showing brambles, and hints of oxidation around the edges. It wasn't bad, but I didn't have much hope. Yet, an hour and a half later, the wine showed remarkable smoothness and a soft, well integrated mid-palate. The oxidation did not increase; in fact, it seemed to dissolve. On the whole, this went from so-so to pretty nice in an interesting turnaround. 89 points. 

1986 Amarone Classico (T. Bussola)
Double decanted a couple of hours before pouring, this still showed rich, ripe fruit, but with a focused, bright demeanor and supple, ripe tannins. I loved the chocolate nuances and elegance, despite its richness of flavor. The only critique I could come up with is that as the wine aired out it seemed to show a bit hot on the finish. Still, a pretty nice effort for this point in time for this winery. Gentle and supple, good to drink now. 90 points. 

1997 Barbaresco "Rabajà" (G. Cortese)
Mouthfilling and toasty, this big supple wine still shows focus to go with the ripe fruit. Enjoy it for its rich, big mid-palate, and gentleness despite its size and concentration of fruit. Not the most intense wine, it has a certain sexy velvet texture that I liked a lot. 90 points.

1997 Chianti Classico (Casa Emma) QPR Winner 
I didn't know what to expect from this wine I'd never heard of, but there was a lot here to like. The mid-palate was chock full of unusually sweet fruit for Chianti, and it seemed more than a little exuberant for its status. It added reasonable depth. I liked it less an hour and a half  later, as it showed a bit of heat when the sweet fruit started to fade. Still, pretty tasty, if a bit simple, but fairly priced at about $15.  87 points.

2000 Rossj-Bass (Gaja)
This Gaja Chardonnay, running around $50, has a lot going on. Sharpness in the mid-palate is moderated by a creamy, buttery finish, showing a fair amount of oak. This is not big or heavy but has lots of flavors, even if it seems not to have much depth. Very pleasant, but some will not consider it worth the money. Still young, this might improve its score with some cellaring and show more integration. 89  points.

1999 Merlot (Falesco) QPR Winner 
Close your eyes, and "Italian Merlot" won't be the first thing that comes to mind. Earthy and complex this year, the Falesco Merlot seems very Right Bank Bordeaux. It lacks the exuberance the '97 had young, but it's class and cool demeanor make it every bit as appealing. The only critique I can make of this wine is that it is a little light. By no means wimpy, it still does not seek to compete with big boys like, say, L'Angelus. Nor should it have to in this modest price range, around $12 or $13. This does everything else just right. Drinking beautifully now. Let the terroir ideologues bleat about "somewhereness." If it is wrong to have a wine this fine for $13, I don't want to be right. A fine deal. 89 points.

1998 Brunello (Pertimali-Sassetti)
This is soft, supple, new wave Brunello, and there's not much to dislike. Round and velvety, this had a sensual mouthfeel that I liked a lot. It threw off an image of ripe fruit and flavor all the while, and seemed gentle even while the finish persisted. For all of that, the thought did cross my mind that a young Brunello could do with a little more intensity. Still, this is sexy and voluptuous, a real charmer. 91 points.

1996 Barolo (Stefano Farina)
Medium weight, this wine seems to be drinking fairly well.  Although it is not quite astringent, it is a bit dusty, and the structure tends to win out over the fruit. It seems burly and rustic, filling up your mouth, even while only being medium weight. This wine is a nice middle of the road, somewhat conventional Barolo. It does little to distinguish itself, however. 87 points.

1999 "Sorriso" (Scavino)
Tasted blind, it made me think this must be a Bordeaux blend. The sauvignon blanc was fairly obvious--and also obviously blended with another grape. Ok. So it was blended with chardonnay!  I liked its demeanor a lot. Deep and oily, with an earthy nose, it shows a little acid at the end, but mostly makes its point in weight and mouthfeel. The moderate sauvignon blanc nuances give it some pizazz and personality. Very nice. 92 points.

1999 Barbera (M. Molino)
When I tasted this on release, I loved this sexy, creamy, very atypical Barbera. The cream came from oak, of course, and to some purists, that was an affront. Tant pis--it worked well. And with another year or two of cellaring the oak has integrated nicely, and is far less obvious. It rounds the edges and gives the wine a certain texture that is appealing, but if you were drinking anything other than Barbera, I doubt you'd pay attention to the oak. The wine is supple, flavorful and charming. About $25, and worth it all. 91 points.

1999 Chianti Classico Riserva “Vigna del Capannino” (Tenuta di Bibbiano)  QPR Winner

When I last tasted this at a trade show in early 2002, I thought it was going to be big winner--and a great deal.  I thought that the fruit was just remarkable for Sangiovese for its flavor and exuberance, and the price, under $20 a bottle, was pretty special, too. Not your father’s sangiovese, was the conclusion. Now, with it a little calmed down, a little better integrated, I like it  even better. Sweet, but gripping and bright, this seems downright exciting at times in its ability to deliver very ripe fruit with loads of flavor while still projecting structure. Delectable Chianti. 91  points.

[Return to Top]  

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

1998 Minervois La Livinière "La Chandelière" (Domaine La Combe Blanche)
On release, I loved this tightly wound, focused wine. With more cellaring, it has only gotten better. More expansive now, but still vibrant, with supple tannins showing, this reveals delectable black cherry nuances, a touch of game now on the finish, and some brightness around the edges. It is cellaring beautifully, developing nicely. It is completely approachable now, but will still improve in my view for another couple of years. 90 points.

2000 Ermitage Blanc de l'Orée (Chapoutier)
I really liked this flamboyant white Hermitage, but purists may perhaps be less thrilled. It opens with a bit of cream, and perhaps a bit of heat. More surprisingly, it has bite and eccentricities, some vanilla, some spice, almost a cinnamon finish. For all of that, it evolves beautifully and shows more typicity with air. It never loses its flavor and sex appeal. 93 points.

2001 Chateauneuf du Pape "Mon Aieul" (P. Usseglio)
Beautifully structured and nicely balanced, this Chateauneuf shows big, intense, and tightly wound. The tannins are ripe, but there, and provide nice support for the beautiful mid-palate core of fruit.  It holds and evolves nicely with air. Surprisingly approachable, even though unready, this would seem to me to be likely to hit a prime drinking window around 2008-2013. 92+ points.

1999 Chateauneuf du Pape "Mon Aieul" (P. Usseglio)
Contrasting this with the superior 2001, I'm less impressed. Sweet in the middle, it is dusty, almost chalky, on the finish. There is a hint of sour strawberries, too, although not much. Tight and compact, I suspect this will improve with air, but I'm inclined to doubt that it will ever be close to the level of the 2001. 87+ points.

1983 Cote Rotie "Brune et Blonde" (Guigal)

Expectations sometimes write the note, and I had few with this wine. It has held beautifully with time, though, a remarkable feat for its classification. Bright, charming, and showing slightly dried strawberry notes, it still has some vibrancy and flavor, and plenty to like. The mid-palate has thinned considerably, though, and there is not much left. While it still has flavor and the fruit shows only thinning rather than decay--drink up. 88 points.

1998 Chateauneuf du Pape "Cuvée Réservée" (Domaine Pegau)
Served from a double magnum, this was simply infanticide. Mea culpa! Still, after opening hard as nails and sporting some aggressive tannins, the sweet fruit burbled up and you could actually taste something. It got richer and bigger as the evening wore on, but never fully opened up. Serving this from a double mag without long decanting wasn't the best idea in the world, I suppose. :) But I've done worse. The wine is going to need some time to settle down from a large format bottle for sure. 92+ points. 

2001 Chateauneuf du Pape "Boisrenard" (Beaurenard)
Speaking of aggressive Chateauneufs, see the Pegau, above, this is another monster, this time served from 750ml. Deeper than the Pegau and denser, it seems, it was both rich and powerful, and aggressively tannic. This shows all the signs of becoming a superstar--it has everything you want. But it is a wine you may not want to touch until about 2011 for it to show its best. 93-95 points.

[Return to Top]  

Spain (except dessert/sparkling)
2001  Tinto Figuero "Old Vines Unfiltered" (Bodegas Garcia Figuero)  QPR Winner  
Sexy and ripe, this Ribera del Duero Crianza had a certain voluptuousness, combined with some focus. The bad news was that it seemed a bit simple, and the oak was a bit too prominent. I noted that the wine evolved nicely and showed some lively notes over a couple of hours, but I wasn't quite ready to be convinced. Some fifteen hours later, with only refrigeration of the half a bottle remaining and a little vacu vin as the method of preservation, this seemed completely different. It was a still a bit creamy from oak, but the oaky flavors were now pretty well integrated. The wine seemed ripe and primary, filled with delicious fruit that was exuberant and throwing off waves of flavor. It is fairly light on its feet, and seemed lively, too. At the end, there were just a few hints of supple tannins lurking beneath for some needed structure. I will be curious to see where this wine goes in its development, and would think it will drink better in about one to two years, but I was impressed by its ability to deliver rich flavor while remaining elegant. It also had a bit of a young cabernet feel (although it is all tempranillo), bits of cassis, black currant.  I hesitate to rate wines from estates I don't know well too highly until I get feel for how they develop, and this is the first vintage from a grower who started his own Bodega. (They used to supply fruit to Pesquera.)  Allow me some conservatism, but know that this may exceed its point score if it develops well. About twenty dollars.  89+ points.

NV Sherry "Aurora Manzanilla" (Pedro Romero)

This is a pasada, nine years old (versus a typical five year old wine), and you can get it in a four pack of 187mls for $12.99. The point is to keep it fresh and fragrant--it must, since this had the best bouquet I've had in any dry sherry. All that makes a difference. I am not rating this because, frankly, I don't drink dry sherry often enough to have a point of comparison, not being thrilled with oxidized wine styles. But this was, simply, the best Manzanilla I've had. It had a freshness to it, a wave of fruit that overwhelmed the oxidation, that was surprising. It also sported a powerful bouquet.  I may have to experiment more. Imported by Distinct Expressions.

[Return to Top]  

QPR Winner   I give this award to wines that demonstrate an excellent quality to price ratio. They are sometimes more expensive than the wines featured in my Best Buys section (which is cut off at $15), so while every Best Buy is also a QPR Winner,  not every QPR winner is an official Best Buy.  QPR winners are simply wines that are great values for a relatively  reasonable price. 

This site designed and created in content and in form
by Mark Squires, copyright © 2003,  all rights reserved.