Ezine On Wine, May/June, 2003 Tasting Notes

Home Intro Bulletin Board Tasting Notes Articles Best Buys Coups de Coeur Search Contact
Philadelphia Wine Wine Books Wine Quotes Events Basics Links Photos Kudos Wine audio

Tasting Notes
May/June, 2003

Tasting Notes Contents Page

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.

Alsace Argentina Australia Bordeaux Burgundy California/USA
Dessert/Sparkling Germany Italy Rhone/SW/South France Spain

Following: 2001 new releases from Zind-Humbrecht, which the estate terms a Riesling year, first and foremost, and tending to produce drier wines. It also featured the use of the new ZH sweetness index, explained below. These were all at a trade tasting.

2001 Zind (Zind-Humbrecht)
This is ZH's pinot d'Alsace with the new, shorter name, as required now by law due to ZH's insistence on using chardonnay. It blends Auxerois (50%), Pinot Blanc (15%), and Chardonnay (35%), from Rotenberg, Herrenweg and Clos Windsbuhl. I loved the nose on this wine, minerally, but also laced with a touch of pear. On the palate, there were some green apples at first, but the wine is ripe and rounds into form quickly. It is impressively intense and crisp, with a big hit of acid on the finish. This is the first vintage I've experienced with ZH's new "sweetness index" ranging from "1," meaning bone dry, to "5," meaning the sweetness his table wines get before bottling them as vendange tardive or SGN. This got a "2," which for general reference I would call "perceptibly dry, but just a bit round and fruity." No one would think it is sweet, but it is not austere. I like the richness in this wine, impressive for its status. Not much "pinot d'Alsace" has this much going for it. 90 points.

2001 Riesling "Gueberschwihr" (Zind-Humbrecht)
A "1" on the sweetness scale, this indeed seemed a bit austere and bone dry, and steely. It had a Mosel-ish nose, and was very lean and focused, not terribly intense either. I was surprised and impressed when it improved considerably with air, and I suspect this will show better around 2005. There is mouth-gripping acid on the end, leaving a very prolonged finished. Still, I have to say, I'd like a bit more flesh, a bit more sugar. Those who stereotype ZH will be amazed at this dry, precise wine. It was that type of year--this is what nature gave. 88 points.

2001 Riesling "Heimbourg" (Zind-Humbrecht)
My thesis often is that a little sugar in a high acid Riesling is a good thing. Although this still only gets a "2" on the sweetness scale, the grams of sugar per liter is almost tripled over the Gueberschwihr, and it helps. This remains perceptibly dry, and the acid is still a key, making the wine lively, and focused. But it seems riper and rounder, the texture on the wine makes it softer and gentler, even while it retains its sharpness. To me, this was a much more charming wine, with a beautiful finish. It is approachable now, but will be better I think around 2006. Aeration showed lees influences, that I found rather ingratiating too. The vines here are young--only 7 years--but as the winery points out, low yields still give the wine a very respectable concentration. 91 points.

2001 Riesling "Brand" (Zind-Humbrecht)
Extremely low yields on this grand cru make it seem like the Gueberschwihr with several extra layers of depth added. The finish is better and longer, too. In some respects you think "this could've been a fruit bomb." However, the acid lacing through the wine keeps it intense and penetrating. It broods a bit, because of its depth and youth, and is not quite ready to drink. It may not hit stride until 2009 or so. The winery gives it a long drinking curve of 2005-2020 and on up. I think it just might hold that well, but I'd tend to give it a couple of more years of cellaring than 2005---still, it was fun to drink today, too. Although this gets a "1" on the sweetness scale, it is so packed with fruit, sporting layers of fruit that changed by the moment, that it does not seem quite as austere as the Gueberschwihr, which is to say, the balance between fruit and acid is better. It just seems caressing in the mouth. This is first class riesling from old vines (average vine age here, 51 years, versus, say, 7 for Heimbourg). 94+ points.

2001 Gewurztraminer "Wintzenheim" (Zind-Humbrecht)
If I sometimes have trouble with bone dry riesling, bone dry gewurz is even more problematic. It seems to me to finish a bit bitter without sugar. This gets a "1" on the sweetness scale, so we're playing in the bone dry ballpark. The wine seems a bit light, despite blending in a lot of Hengst vines, and indeed finishes a touch bitter. It has great gewurz typicity, black pepper and spice, and picks up weight with air. I only had this in the glass for about 10 minutes, and it changed from a wine I rather disliked to one I was enjoying quite a bit. It did seem a bit too austere for my taste, and a bit short, but still did a lot right for those who prefer the drier styled wines. 88 points.

2001 Gewurztraminer "Heimbourg" (Zind-Humbrecht)
On the now famous sweetness scale, this gets a "4," so you know what you have here. While this was perceptibly sweet, it was off dry--not a dessert wine. I thought the balance here was impeccable, and the wine was elegantly wrought, with most of the sweetness on the finish. It is rich, but has plenty of balancing acidity, especially for gewurz. Its final impression is not one of profoundity or complexity, or for that matter deep, concentrated fruit, but rather a sunny, charming wine that is difficult to resist now, although the winery says it will hold until at least 2018. I would like to see this develop a bit more in the cellar. 90+ points.

2001 Gewurztraminer "Clos Windsbuhl" (Zind-Humbrecht)
This is full bore gewurz, yet with a sweetness index of "3," it is relatively drier than this what is often produced from this vineyard. The mid-palate seems almost dry, and the sugar is apparent mostly on the finish, as it soaks into your tongue. And what a finish....long, sweet and flavorful; it is the best part of this wine. I suspect the sugar will pretty much blow off this wine as it ages. The gewurz spice and pepper come in on the back end and with some air, giving it a certain classical feel. This will drink well young, and I'm not sure it should be held too long (say, ten years....it won't fall apart!). With the "3" index rating, assume you get a wine that is off-dry, but one where the touch of sugar should not really interfere much with matching it to typical foods. 92 points.

1998 Gewurztraminer "Hengst" Vendange Tardive (Barmes-Buecher)
Honeyed, with a sharp edge, this is laced with mango, and a fine mid-palate showing excellent weight. It gets sweeter and more charming with air, and the botrytis notes are very prominent. I particularly appreciated the depth and unctuous mid-palate--which nonetheless was not at all clunky. Very nice. 93 points.

1997 Gewurztraminer Vendange Tardive (Trimbach)
For instructions on how to make a VT, see the Barmes-Buecher above. This shows just a bit off dry, with not much depth or finish for a VT. It is nicely done in some respects, showing a certain succulence at times, but it is too restrained, a bit flat on the finish, and also a bit bitter--it needed some more sugar. A lot of wineries wouldn't have called this a VT even with legal entitlement to do so, I suspect. 87 points.

1999 Gewurztraminer "Bergheim" (Deiss)
Easy going, and off dry, this wine was charming and friendly, but could've used a bit of intensity. It showed some spice with air, bu the gewurz-ness of the wine wasn't it's strongest feature. Hard not to like given its purity of fruit and flavor--but hard to be impressed by. 88 points.

Poured next to the 1994 Clos Windsbuhl (written up here many times), this was lighter, but zestier, livelier, but not as deep. It had a certain Germanic riesling character to it that was different for Clos Windshbuhl gewurz--but exuberant and sexy. At times, I though this was a bright, racy Auslese, or even a ripe Spatlese. It took awhile to develop that gewurz nose ZH normally does so well, but air and warmth brought it along. For those who think ZH only makes big, thick wines--here's another exhibit to enter into evidence to the contrary. 95 points.

Argentina (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Malbec (Don Miguel Gascon) QPR Winner

All I can say is "whooeee!" Look, this wine may have a price tag under $8. It has flavor, some intensity, a nice mid-palate. It has a soft velvety mouthfeel, and some brightness on the end. It has elegance. The flavor profile is a little rhubarb-y, but I can overlook that. It's lovely. It's cheap. It's maybe a touch light--but not by much. When you find bargains this good, this cheap...it's time to reevaluate those $50 wines that don't deliver much more. For a step up, but still cheap, try this Malbec, too. 87-88 points.

Australia (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Grenache-Shiraz "Stump Jump" (d'Arenberg) QPR Winner
This is an inexpensive but good value wine (under $15 retail) is 75% Grenache, 5% Mourvedre, and the rest Shiraz. The question will be whether you can deal with its flamboyance. It's very sweet, and redolent of kirsch or Chambord on the nose--a trend I see a lot of these days, and this note seems to recur most often with Australian wines. (A Marquis Philips would be another recent example.) You wonder what they do to achieve that....toss Chambord in the vat? But there is something here that makes this more than a fruit bomb with flamboyant notes.....it has structure. It was a welcome surprise to get a hit of tannin on this wine, a sense of backbone--a sense it was actually wine. Approachable now, but cellar for two years, and see what type of balance it achieves. If you like the Chambord note, you'll love this. If you don't, you'll think it's undrinkable, but I'd counsel patience; there's more here than meets the eye, unlike the Torbreck below. 88 points.

Ok, this is cheap, it's young vines, it's released in the year of its vintage, and it's unoaked. It's simple. I still couldn't warm up to it, although I'll say it does what it wants to do--i.e., a fruity, simple little Beaujolais imitation--fairly well. Except. Ah, the "but." It's like drinking liquified strawberries, sickly sweet, without any structure at all. It's like a young pinot noir without the acid kick. Dripping with flavor, minus structure, you may think you're drinking Welch's fruit juice instead of wine. For all that...I admit it tastes pretty good. Drink on release, not intended to age. 80 points.

2001 Shiraz "9" (Marquis Phillips)
In some respects a well made wine, solid, good mid-palate, good balance. And then there's that bizarre flavor profile. Someone volunteered cherry cough syrup. I go with my traditional Chambord and Kirsch. Too sweet, too eccentric, laced with melted raspberries, later turning to even sweeter strawberries, this seems more like a soft drink at times than a wine, despite some good fruit and structure. Kudos for the fruit and structure, too weird for me in flavor profile. Your mileage may differ. 82 points.

2002 Shiraz "Angels' Share" (Two Hands) QPR Winner
This and the next two wines make a fine statement for Two Hands, a hot new Aussie winery. The best value is this Angels' Share, made from McClaren Vale grapes, which should run around $20 or less in most places. It has beautiful structure and balance, focus and a touch of intensity, all without sacrificing sweet mid-palate fruit that is delicious. Nowhere is there a touch of American oak and the oak usage is restrained and appropriate. A very fine performance for the price. This is surprisingly approachable now, and I'd drink it on the young side, which affects its score--but don't underestimate how charming this wine is. Not much complexity here, but a lot of fun. 89 points.

2002 Shiraz/Grenache "Brave Faces" (Two Hands) QPR Winner
This is a few dollars more than the Angels' Share, but a very different wine. They are perhaps both equally good, but how you react to the flavor profile, caused by the Grenache here, will determine which you prefer. While the Angels' Share is a bit sexy but straight ahead, this is flamboyant and dripping with flavor, rhubarbs and strawberries. Yet, it is a beautifully made wine, with structure, too. It has some intensity, some tannin--and I suspect it will knit together well in a couple of years, although it drinks just fine now. For a lot of people, this will be a show stopper. Those who prefer a bit of subtlety will opt for the Angels' Share. The upside here, though, is higher, and this may prove to merit a score increase with age. 90 points.

2001 Shiraz "Ares" (Two Hands)
Of the Two Hands' wines above, this Barossa shiraz is the best in my view. The problem is that it will retail in my state for around $80, and probably in the $60s in most places. Ouch. The question is whether almost tripling the price is worth it. How deep are your pockets? It is a big, super wine, though. After a couple of hours of decanting, it was a still a delicious mouthful, rich and ripe, with plenty of velvet and enough intensity to make it serious. I liked this a lot. The price is up to you; it's a hard-to-find bottling. The problem vis-a-vis this wine and the two above is not that this is bad; it's that the others are such well priced wines for their quality levels. 90-92 points.

A mess, to put it mildly. This was pointed out to me by some seeking to make the case that there were restrained Aussie shiraz types out there. I'm not sure this makes that case--or at least it gives restraint a bad name. It is drenched with new American oak--no restraint there-- which overoaking seeks to hide the modest, thin fruit underneath. There is nothing distinguished about the wine, nothing distinctive. It is like drinking a glass of oak. The fading fruit is unimpressive to say the least, but then what is impressive here? Simple, thin, unbalanced. 80 points.

1998 Chardonnay (Curly Flat)
Sweet on the nose, this opened with steel on the palate, and touches of lime and minerality. But with air it got bigger, friendlier, and more luscious. As it transformed itself, I loved the delectable fruit, the lees notes on the nose, and most of all....it always remained in perfect balance. This was possible to mistake for white Burgundy, if fairly ripe white Burgundy, and I almost did.....considering that the Batard showed anise and this showed more lees notes, I think. But in the end its individuality won out. From the Victoria region, a cool climate wine. Beautifully done. NB: This note came with a lot of aeration. I had a chance to try another bottle a few weeks later, after the cork was pulled. There was extra cream, and more obvious oak. It is gratifying how well the oak integrated with air though. Had I had this but once and without much aeration, I probably would have focused more on the oak. 90 points.

1999 Chardonnay "Art Series" (Leeuwin)
This, the Curly Flat, a Verget 96 Batard and 96 Chablis Les Clos from Laroche were a flight served blind. This was the big winner on most scorecards, mine included. True, it will not age as well as the Batard or the Chablis, but it was simply irresistible. Bright, sweet and luscious, with a touch of mint, this was nonetheless impeccably balanced and penetrating, not just deep, rich and succulent. It certainly helped that it did not have the austerity of the Chablis, but it was utterly seductive, not just voluptuous, and showed class and breeding, not just flavor. Beautifully done, and a wine likely to please almost everyone. 94 points.

1994 Grange (Penfold's)
This was a very disappointing performance. Although I have turned off Grange and its new American oak style in the last few years, seeing it not even competitive in a blind flight with the Shirvington (below), a 91 Chapoutier Pavillon and 1985 Cote Rotie La Landonne, was disappointing. After long aeration, the wine showed little but new American oak, which dominated it. There was actually some acid at the end, but in between there was not nearly enough fruit to keep up with the oak. I was pleased that it actually put on a little weight while being aired out, and the fruit asserted itself a bit--but to my mind, there was little distinctive about this wine, and it was overoaked. Considering its reputation and price tag, "Okay," isn't good enough. 87 points.

2001 Shiraz (Shirvington)
Having recently been rather appalled at the cherry cough syrup aspects of a Marquis Phillips 9, this wine scared me a bit. It was immediately identifiable, of course. And it did have that note of chambord on the nose, or kirsch. But it was considerably better. The flavors didn't seem to dominate the wine as much as with the "9," above, nor did they seem quite as Robitussin-like. They just seemed flamboyant. And that it was. Sweet and thick, with raspberries everywhere, this isn't what anyone in the Rhone Valley would think of as a varietally dominated wine that is more or less syrah. For all of its flamboyance, there was some balance here, and the wine had some focus--it seemed like wine. This isn't ever going to be my style of wine, but if you like the eccentricities, your mileage will vary, as it is otherwise well made. 89 points.

Henschke is probably best known for its famous, rare shiraz bottlings, but this was a super cab from a fine vintage. Actually, it is 20% merlot and 20% cab franc, the rest cab sauvignon. Identifiably Australian (which I can say with authority, since in a blind tasting billed as "France v Australia," this was one of 12 wines, all of which I nailed blind, I should immodestly note), this wine was simply great cab. It opened spicy and sweet, with a touch of anise, but after long decanting, it wasn't done evolving. Whereas I first thought there were some candied notes, involving sweet strawberry, the evolution of the wine was impressive. It put on weight, flashed power, showed remarkable depth and great flavor. Rich and opulent, it threw off waves of flavor. This is not what a Napa resident or a Bordelais would call classic cab, but it has plenty of merit all its own. I should note--this had lots of air. Its occasional flamboyant notes wound up integrating well, but I might have had a different reaction and score had I just had a quick sip of this at a tasting. 94 points.

2001 Cabernet "Hickinbotham" (Clarendon)
As odd as Clarendon Grenache often is, this wine seems pretty fine and much better balanced. It is certainly big, rich and thick, but the oak is reasonable, and there are nice cassis and cherry notes, surrounded by ripe, tingly tannins. There is just a touch of that kirsch note that seems so popular these days, but just a touch. Nicely structured, and well balanced, it is very restrained for Clarendon. 92 points.

Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)
1962 Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou
This, and the next two "old bones" bottlings came from the same cellar, and had some merit. Medium weight, and still showing a nice mid-palate, this was brick red around the rim in color, but still sporting plenty of fruit flavors, with red berry nuances. Smooth, but still lively, this wine showed some life, although there were some hints of decay around the edges, and was helped by being served a bit on the cool side. This is not stunning wine at this point, and it is a bit long in tooth for my taste, but it still had a fair amount to offer. 85 points.

1962 Chateau Cos d'Estournel
If the Ducru, above, still sported a nice mid-palate, this was weightier still, and made the well built Ducru seem light. For all of the weight and concentration here, though, this wine was not as pristine, and heavy notes of maderization laced through the mid-palate. That can be a particular bottle issue, to be sure, but from this bottle, this was hard to appreciate as a result. 75 points.

1967 Chateau Mouton Rothschild
There were so many things I disliked about this wine, yet curiously, I sort of wound up liking it for awhile. Yes, it showed some oxidation, and some traces of maderization. But it just seemed so refined and elegant, too....it showed brightly, and finished with a cool, silky feel. Its balance was impeccable, and the off flavors did not dominate the wine. It lacked the solid mid-palate of, say, the Cos, but was a lot more enjoyable. Now, I'm not making a habit of drinking this wine, but drunk fast, served cool, it wasn't a bad time, confounding expectations. 82 points.

1990 Chateau Margaux
This started slow, gathered steam, and eventually became a superstar wine. Like a lot of left bank '90s, this is pure velvet in texture, sensual and amazingly approachable. And then ... it is Margaux. If the 90s are showing a certain supple elegance, this provides even more, with a sweet nose of cassis, and an even sweeter mid-palate showing spice. In fact, after long decanting, it was almost shocking how primary and sweet this wine was in the mid-palate. Its only flaw was that it seemed a bit light. But it kept picking up weight, and the fruit got even sweeter. It sported a long finish, and seemed sensual and silky smooth. The sweet fruit integrated seamlessly into the wine. A little more intensity and depth wouldn't hurt, but this was decanted for a few hours before we got to it. Never has so much class been so effortlessly delivered. 96 points.

These wines are SO expensive. Few drink them often enough to determine what decanting program is best, and even then, it depends on how the wine was stored. This wine got aggressive treatment---double decanted into a bottle for twelve hours, and then poured into a decanter for almost four. I think that was too much decanting. The wine opened well. It showed some lead pencil, and some forest leaves around the edges, but also seemed incredibly thick and powerful, with this core of pure, sweet fruit that was remarkable. The worrisome note, though, was that forest leaves nuance, a sign of decay and oxidation. For awhile, this was utterly profound wine, one of the most remarkably deep Bordeaux I have ever had. Cut it with a knife. But then it declined...and came back...and then finally declined again, showing heavier oxidative notes. At the beginning, I didn't want to drink anything else. By the end, I wasn't so impressed. A combination of too aggressive in decanting with maybe some damage somewhere along the lines? Impossible to say without lots of experimentation, and no one offered me free samples to take home. As this was sort of odd, and surrounded by interesting issues, I'm not willing to score this, although I was thinking low 90s.

1999 Chateau Clerc Milon QPR Winner
Another winner in what is shaping up as one of the "great value" vintages of the decade. The wines may not always be profound, but they taste great and drink well, and have no major flaws. This is simply delicious, oodles of sweet cassis fruit attacking your tongue up front, followed by a nice, velvety mid-palate, and a touch of acid and ripe tannin on the finish. The tannins give it some welcome intensity, and the wine has fine balance, while remaining exceptionally sweet. Charming, with hints that it will develop character, not just exuberance with some age. 90 points.

2000 Chateau Maucaillou
It is distressing how bad this wine is from a certain perspective, because in many years it is a value pick I rather like. Or, to repeat an oft-heard comment in such circumstances, a $100 nose, and a $4 palate. In a $22 wine that's not a good thing. Once past the nose, the flavors on the palate aren't bad, but there is a certain whiskey-note to it. The wine is more or less hollow and thin, and seems exceedingly simple. Going nowhere fast, this should be drunk on the younger side. Want to see how good Moulis can be? See "Poujeaux" below. 83 points.

2000 Chateau Poujeaux QPR Winner
In contrast to the Maucaillou, above, this is another fine value, and it delivers a lot more for less--only $18. Smooth, and a bit creamy from the oak, it shows classical flavors of cassis, and sweet fruit in a medium bodied core. Not big, but not thin either, and showing nice focus, this also has a touch of acid around the edges and seems rather bright. It sports a pretty nice finish to boot, and at $18---it's a real buy of the vintage. Poujeaux have been known to age well too---my 1986 is still drinking well. 88 points.

Squeezed in between some very famous estates (like Lafite and Mouton), this property is owned by Pichon Lalande. I haven't actually been so thrilled at some earlier vintages, but this hits the spot and at a measly $15, you have to call this a "must buy." This is a bit compact, and shows very structured, very tight and rather tannic at the moment. Lurking underneath are cassis notes, but this wine seems closed for business at the moment. I don't like this quite as well as the Poujeaux, above, but it is a little harder to evaluate from this bottle at this moment, too. I'd like to see it again around 2005, minimum. The wine does lack a bit of weight and depth. 87+ points.

2000 Chateau Haut-Bages Averous QPR Winner
This, second wine of Lynch Bages, is another great deal at $24. In some respects, it seems just like the Poujeaux--but a touch more of most all components. Call it Poujeaux's big brother. Ripe, and tending to voluptuous for a second wine, this is fleshy and creamy, supple and reasonably deep. It evolved nicely with air, too, and I liked the soft texture. I'm not sure I sensed the tannins to let this age well and long, but for the first decade or so of its life, it is going to be a seductive crowd pleaser that will show nice balance and persistent cassis flavor. 90 points.

2000 Chateau Roc de Cambes QPR Winner
So, this is what stepping up to $42 gets you? In some respects, I didn't like this much better than the Haut-Bages Averous, which had more typical flavor. It depends on what you want. But there are some advantages here. This seemed to have twice the weight of the Haut Bages Averous--this was just plain stuffed, layered and concentrated. Flavor components seemed atypical though, more chocolate and rhubarb, than cassis and currants. It was rather exotic--and I liked it a lot. It did have a certain "California" feel to it, though. If that is your style preference or not, so be it. It is certainly well made and and sexy. I also wouldn't peg this as one of the long haul wines of the vintage, despite its depth. I'd want to drink up by 2015, and once past ten years, I'd like to keep a close eye on it. It might fool me; but it might also lose that sexy aspect and just become boring. 92 points.

About what you'd expect from Palmer's second wine, a pretty fair price for $35. Very focused and penetrating, with supple tannins, this had all the classical notes down perfectly, but lacked some stuffing, and lacked some intensity. In another year or two, it may be downright delicious and very seductive, especially if the nose opens up, but it's never going to be a big, obvious wine, nor will I think this will hold especially well....a "first ten" wine, rather than holding for old age. A lot to like here, though, in its easygoing, gentle demeanor. 88 points.

In this peer group tasting, this ($21) was not off quite like the Maucaillou, but was showing little. One reason: it was probably the most tannic, astringent wine of the group. Flavors were there, and starting to emerge, which was hopeful, but the wine seemed a bit angular and tannic, and not quite fleshy enough to support its tannins. This is one you have to cellar--and hope it works out. I don't think it's going to be bad, but I don't think it's a success of the vintage, either. A lot will depend on how it comes around with, say, five years of cellaring. 85 points.

2000 Chateau Montlisse QPR Winner
Friendly, and easy, this St. Emilion at $20, already seems to be drinking half decently. It's just one of those wines that is approachable young; yet, I don't think it will fall apart. It's not as big as the Roc de Cambes, or even the Haut Bages Averous, but it has a certain sexy demeanor, and is elegantly structured, with abundant, but very soft, tannins. 88 points.

2001 Beaujolais "Régnié" (J.M. Burgaud) QPR Winner
A perfect summer wine. Lovely, if light, fruity and fragrant, this tasty Beaujolais is cool and refreshing, velvety and clean. It's hard to dislike this cheery wine, which shows no odd flavors from carbonic maceration, as too many Beaujolais do. But this is the good stuff, sit back, put on the slippers, smell the bouquet. Under $9.50. Rejoice. Have a nice summer. My scores, remember, are relative between regions--this is not a better wine than the Morot, below, but I thought it represented Beaujolais slightly better. 90 points.

1999 Beaune-Bressandes (A. Morot) QPR Winner
This is tightly wound, but very approachable, and completely delicious...let's not forget that. It projects little weight or intensity, but it hangs together beautifully, and hardly seems wimpy or thin, either. The beautiful cherry nose follows through onto the palate, but you may want to spend quite a bit of time just smelling this, it is so seductive on the bouquet. The acid moderates nicely, and blends harmoniously into the fruit on the finish. There seem to be negligible tannins and little intensity, and at times it is too easy, but it retains focus, and the supple, beautifully balanced wine is completely charming. I suspect this won't age long, and it loses points for that (but don't let that fool you---it will show better than its score if drunk early). But it may be need another year or two to peak. Best of all---a fine deal. Around $30. 89 points.

2001 Puligny-Montrachet (Boillot)
I liked everything about this wine except the price tag--close to $40. It was light, but clean and refreshing, pure and chablis-like at times. It picked up a little weight with air, and showed, finally, just a touch of lees influences, but not much--it was almost pure chardonnay, lively and clean. It was also, it seemed to me, a bit short, and in need of a little more depth to justify its price tag. Ignoring that...pleasing and pure. 86 points.

1996 Batard-Montrachet (Verget)
Poured into a tiny INAO-styled glass about thirty minutes before I got to it, this still showed a touch of steel and lemons at first, but it was a sexy wine, also showing a touch of licorice, some lees notes, and superb depth. I loved the oily, mouthcoating finish, and every time I thought the wine would thin out, it seemed to show yet more depth. At the same time, it was beautifully balanced and seemed effortless in delivery of flavor. Served blind, the steel and lemons at the outset momentarily made me wonder at first if it was the Chablis I knew to be in the flight (below); but the licorice then made me wonder momentarily if it was Australian, two of which were also in the flight. After more air and time, I finally settled on Batard. Parker's seemingly odd note commenting on the anise was absolutely on the money. 93 points.

Some lees notes were on the nose, but on the palate this was all steel and lemons after long aeration. There was plenty of acid, and a nice body, but I confess what I most liked here was the long, lingering finish. You could make an argument that this wine was too young and some evolution will help it a lot and give it character, but we did have it aired out quite a while. 90 points.

Sweet and succulent, but with a lively, refreshing air dancing around the edges, this Joblot is another winner from an estate that consistently produces some of the best values in Burgundy. In the middle the fruit is very sweet, but the acid on the edges provides crispness. With air, it all pulls together, into a cool, refreshing, but intensely flavorful Burg. Mouthwateringly good, and holding exceptionally well. 91 points.

California/USA (except dessert/sparkling)
NV9 Cain Cuvée (Cain Vineyards) QPR Winner
The only problem with this bottling is that it almost puts the 1999 Cain Five to shame. This is a problem, since this bottling is around $20, and the Cain Five is about $60. This is a Bordeaux ringer all the way, a touch gamey at times, with a nice, soft, velvety feel. It seems like cab, it tastes like cab, and it finishes fairly well. It lacks some depth and intensity--and the Cain Five has a narrow edge there--but for the price difference, this is a super buy, and it will require a lot less cellaring. This is almost 60% cab sauvignon, 27% merlot, the rest cab franc. A real nice value wine! 88 points.

2000 Syrage (Maramonte-Charles Mara & Co.)
Some will really like this wine, but most not into parody will reject it. Do you buy Sports Illustrated only for the Swimsuit Issue? Well, ok, then. This is for you! Ridiculously sweet for a red table wine, and made from a blend of Bordeaux and Rhone varietals, this reminded me of nothing so much as the syrup that leaks out of those chocolate cherries filled with liqueur. It is almost sickly sweet at times, syrupy and well--ok. I'm guilty. I thought it tasted good too. Drink it by itself for dessert, even though it's not a dessert wine. But it's hard to deal with a candied concoction as a table wine. Good news though: as a party wine, this will make lots of folks swoon, and it is just about $10. It has its place, but the rating solely depends on how you assign value to a wine. On the important fronts, this is not what I want. Your mileage may differ. Maybe it will come into balance with a year of cellaring. This is from Californian grapes. 80 points.

2001 Syrah "Hudson" (Neyers)
Nicely balanced, and very elegant, this syrah is charming and graceful every step of the way. It's not a powerful wine, but it's a wine that will make you think "Rhone" and "Syrah." There are touches of game and bacon fat, and a sensual, velvety texture. There's also a nice hit of tannin on the finish, and it needed that touch of intensity. I could wish this was a little deeper, but it does a lot right. 89-90 points.

1998 Cabernet "Hillside Select" (Shafer)
Where once the '98s seemed full of soft, sweet fruit, and little else, I'm now seeing a lot of the bigger wines showing fierce tannins, and a little disjointed. First question: Are they closing down? Second question: are they losing fruit and betraying a lack of balance? I think overall it is some of each, but of course generalizations are dangerous. This Shafer does a pretty nice job--it opens with plenty of fruit, and it is certainly a packed mid-palate, but seems a bit disjointed, the tannins asserting themselves too much. It seems nicely balanced at times, and composed of warring components at others. The finish is superb and flavorful. But this wasn't much fun to drink, seeming a bit coarse, like a lot of current "big" 98s, i.e., the tannins overwhelming the fruit at the moment. Knowing Shafer, I vote for this wine coming around in three to five years, but the outcome is by no means certain and this does not remind me of some of the truly great Shafers of recent years. If you drink it now, decant. 89-91 points.

2000 Cabernet "Beckstoffer Vineyard" (Schrader)
This stands in sharp contrast to the Shafer, above, although it is also an off vintage. It is not as deep and concentrated as the Shafer, and its upside is probably not as great, but it is less brooding at the moment. The tannins, though, at the moment, seem riper, and although it opens with a wave of mostly tannins, they subside with air, and the wine picks up weight and flavor. Its bright fruit mingles with the tannin, and the whole becomes ever more pleasing. This is nuanced by chocolate, and coffee notes, but none of the extremely ripe, some would say overripe, notes that pervaded the 1998 release. While this is unready, I think it will come around faster than it first seems. I'd say, try it again around 2005-2007, but with new wines, who really knows? Still, this is a success for a debut release in this vintage, where so many premium cabs seemed to go seriously astray. 89-90 points.

1999 Cabernet "Howell Mountain" (Dunn)
When this first opened, I loved it. It had a great, bright, yet caressing mouthfeel. It was smooth, and sported ripe tannins, and had a cherry nuance. It seemed lovely. With air, as the wine opened, it became more herbal, and a touch green, or so it seemed, laced with bell peppers. I don't know if there is much cab franc in here, but it was giving me that impression. This is still a very young wine, that I think will come around well, but its flavor profile turned me off a bit. 88-89 points.

2000 Petite Sirah (Madrigal)
Elegant and graceful, this beautifully balanced wine has a touch of ripe tannin on the finish, and soft, easy blue fruit in the mid-palate. It was drinking well, it seemed, right now, and was delicious. The oak is in better balance than with some releases, and the fruit was flavorful. The big problem? A bit short, a bit thin in the mid-palate, perhaps a function of the vintage. But very pleasing. Mid-$30s pricing, which is not good QPR in this vintage. 87-88 points.

2001 Syrah "Couger Hill" (K Vintners)
Sweet on the finish, this shows character and discipline everywhere else. Nuanced with bacon fat and game, it seems more French than New World, and is beautifully structured, too, with ripe tannins, a touch of brightness on the finish, and, most of all, lingering flavors. A nice solid mid-palate finishes this off. I'd like to see how this ages, but it is very interesting. Only 138 cases made by this up and coming Washington State producer. A bit pricey at over $40 in Pennsylvania, but likely to be low 30s elsewhere. I bet this might just fool me and develop in the cellar. 88-90 points.

1999 Cabernet (Darioush)
Not bad, but when the best thing about the wine is the fancy, incredibly heavy bottle, you know you're in for another underperforming, overpriced cult experience, alas. I kind of liked this at the end of the day. The tannins were a bit dusty, and the fruit not quite deep enough for a premium wine, but it had focus and some balance, and some sweet fruit after it aired out a bit. If only the price tag were $25. Alas. It is a bit too short, a bit too simple. But I liked the bottle. If you can forget about the delusions of grandeur and the price, you might like it. Then again, your aggravation at the price might cause an overreaction. This should be cellared at least three years before trying it again. It's plainly unready. There are some balance issues though---we'll see if the fruit can stand up to the tannins. If not, the score may go down. 87 points.

1994 Cabernet "Fay Vineyard" (Stag's Leap)
The general feel of this wine, a bit weedy, a bit oxidized, seeming a touch too old than the vintage on the label would presage, was actually something I kinda liked. The cherry notes were a bit faded, but there. The wine, though, seemed a touch thin as well a bit old, and while it had its moments, I'd sure like to see something more distinguished for this price range. With air, it did improve some, and I appreciated the sweetening fruit. But it never went anywhere, or showed the distinction I'd expect from a good '94 cab. This had its gentle, charming moments and it gets some points for its graceful presentation. 87 points.

1999 Cabernet "Fay Vineyard" (Stag's Leap)
I'm publishing a note on this mostly to say "hold." It was really hard to evaluate without decanting. It was intensely tannic, completely disjointed. I can tell you it is mid-weight--and not much else. There were hints of some pretty nice fruit underneath, but the time just wasn't there to see what happened. Check in on this around 2006, when it may have calmed down. Meanwhile, judgment reserved.

1998 Cabernet Reserve (Whitehall Lane)
All briars and brambles at first, this seemed like another in the line of coarse, somewhat disjointed '98s I'd been coming across. The tannins actually subsided fairly quickly, though, and the next nuance was caramel, a little like the overripeness on some zins. And then, it just was there, not bad, not distinguished. For all of the development with air, this never seemed harmonious, and always seemed a bit short and clumsy. You could do worse, but at this price point, you could do better, too. I would give this a chance of improving with a couple of years of cellaring. 87 points.

1996 Cabernet Reserve (Whitehall Lane)
The difference between this and the '98 was remarkable--it could've been two different wineries, two different countries even. This opened with a heavy hit of new oak, giving the wine that blueberry, creamy feel. You might have guessed Aussie shiraz before Whitehall Lane. It was a little too sweet on the finish, but with air the components came into some balance and it began to feel like cab. It was a bit light and soft in the mid-palate, though, and never quite developed as much as I hoped. At one point, I had the feeling it was becoming seductive and sexy. And then it stopped, satisfied with just friendly and fun. Not a bad thing. Oak-a-phobes may downgrade it. Drinks well now. 88 points.

1991 Cabernet "Eisele" (Phelps)
A beauty, and proof positive that Phelps did pretty well with this vineyard, too, in case anyone forgot. This wine almost sparkles, it has so much personality and vivaciousness. The tannins are lively and ripe; they tingle. The wine is bright and sunny, yet underneath--there's plenty of tasty fruit. A little more depth would be nice, but that's a quibble. Ripe, beautifully balanced, elegant and sporting a long finish, this is another fine 1991, a benchmark California vintage. Drinking well now, though it could use short decanting. 92 points.

1999 Cabernet (Corison)
97 points for flavor, 82 points for the rest, I guess. What does that come to? It depends on what importance you assign to various values. The persistence of flavor here is simply delicious. The sweet fruit, rich and ripe, never quits, and it is the wine's most attractive feature. It is open, expansive, and just projects waves of velvet covered with plums and cassis. That said, I kept looking for something more, some depth, some intensity. There was a bit of tannin at first, but it didn't last long. This wine seemed like a lot of fun--but also a bit one dimensional and simple. For $20, that's fine, but this wine hasn't seen $20 in a long while. Still--it's hard not to like this. I think it's equally hard to get enthused over it. I'd love for this wine to prove me wrong and put on some weight with age. 88 points.

2000 Zinfandel (Madrigal) QPR Winner
The good news is that this is Madrigal's best zin to date in my opinion, and in a tough vintage at that. The bad news is that there are only 475 cases. This will run around $25 if you can find any. I though it was incredibly sexy, with a charm and seductiveness that I don't normally associate with zin. This is not a big monster, and not intended to be---but the mid-palate is chock full of incredibly flavorful, sweet fruit, ripe and with a "come hither" creamy feel. Just as it the sweetness finishes there is a little kick of acid that wakes you and the wine up. A bit light on its feet, it dances lively and finishes easy. A touch more depth would be nice, but this is too delicious to ignore. Elegant and charming. Drink young....it seems pretty fine now, and doubts about how will it age lose it a couple of points. By the way, this has, I'm told, a dollop of Petite Sirah, which furnishes its body. It works. 89 points.

2001 "Frederick" (Spring Valley Vineyards)
This Washington State wine is 70% cab, 15% merlot, and 10% cab franc--a Bordeaux blend. This was tasted as a barrel sample, with a December release being anticipated. As a young wine, it is amazingly intense and powerful, not the grapey little beast one normally sees. There was a touch of brightness on the end, and some red berry notes, but I was a little disturbed by some bell pepper "green" notes, too. As a barrel sample from a winery I've never sampled before, there's a certain challenge in evaluation, but I think I liked the 2001 Uriah (bottled in March, 2003, no note published) better, as it was a bit more pure in its flavor profile. I will be interested to see how this develops, though, and there is perhaps more upside potential here. Could run over $40 in Pennsylvania, at which point I'm not sure it is a great value, although it's a pretty good wine. 87-89 points.

2000 Cabernet Reserve (Andrake Cellars)
When this winery is "on," it is really on---and seems to offer, for around $40, a quality level that is hard to match in California. But there is a certain inconsistency and in some vintages the wines seem a bit too tannic and austere, without quite enough flesh. This is absolutely mouthfilling, but the tannins are a touch too astringent. The wine's early ferocity makes you cringe. It finishes bright, and finally the fruit pops up---with some nice red fruit notes. There's a lot going right here, but I'm not sure there is enough fruit to match the tannin in this vintage. I'd be interested in buying some just to see, though, since there's a lot of potential here. 86+ points.

2001 "Some Like It Red" (Red Car)
You've got to admire the names on this California winery's products! This is a blend of of cab franc and syrah, and seems too dominated by cab franc for me. The wine is laced with bell pepper notes, "green" qualities, that I didn't particularly like, as cab franc seems to produce, especially in cooler years or when picked early. But this wine does so much right....it has fine depth and mouthfeel, a long finish, and a smooth, sexy, creamy texture. For all of that, it shows some focus and precision, too. With age, hopefully the bell pepper notes moderate--because there is a lot here that I like a lot. Around $26-33 depending on your market. 89+ points.

2001 "The Dreaming Detective" (Red Car)
This 100% syrah is around $41 in my marketplace, probably cheaper elsewhere, and I find it pretty successful. Bright and supple, with ripe, tingly tannins, it seems round and smooth, but well structured enough to need a few years of cellaring to show its best. Ripe and easy, yet full and mouthfilling, this is a lovely syrah....90 points.

2000 Syrah "Bunny Slope" (Clos Mimi)
Pricey, limited production wine....probably around $70 in Pennsylvania, but only $50 on the mailing list. But this is certainly top notch California syrah. Intense and focused, it nonetheless provides a sensual, velvety mouthfeel, and lots of flavor. At the same time, it is very deep and multilayered, with powerful tannins and a long finish. This is my first Bunny Slope--and it is always perilous to make predictions on new wine, but I think this will evolve extremely well, drink better around 2008, and be super wine. If you want an introduction to this style, try the 2002 Petite Rousse from Clos Mimi---it doesn't have the depth or power, but it's only $16, and quite delicious. For the Bunny Slope: 90-92 points.

2001 Syrah "Lauterbach Hill" (Pax)
I didn't much like the thin, flamboyant 2000 version of this--but I think the 2001 is a step up. Running around $40, this will give you a touch of blueberry on the mid-palate and that same exotic nuance the 2000 had---a kirsch or chambord note on the nose. The mid-palate balance is far better here than in the 2000, though, and this adds a touch of much needed depth. I'm still not convinced this is a good value, but this vintage moves in the right direction. 87-88 points.

2001 Pinot Noir "Les Cousins" (Beaux Freres)
It's kind of amusing that in some quarters this winery has a reputation for producing huge, over the top wines. I think all of that pretty much stemmed from the unique 1994, which has actually turned out beautifully (as I predicted). But most of their wines these days are aiming for Burgundy---not jammy. This is another case in point. Light in color, and silky smooth, this cannot be deemed anything but elegant and I suspect, Burgundian. The nose starts with raspberries, and the wine is rather bright, with broader cherry fruit notes popping up with some aeration. Focused and penetrating with a nice finish. This has nowhere near the depth of the Beaux Freres Vineyard wines, but the price tag is a lot lighter, too. My first "Les Cousins." I would like to see it pick up a little weight and harmony, but it is a very young, not exactly finished, wine. 88-90 points.

NV Cabernet "Mountain Memories" (Smokey Mountain Winery)
Wow. How bad can it get? I defy anyone to taste this wine from Tennessee and say it's cabernet. Totally unstructured, with no perceptible backbone, it tastes like cherry fruit juice....that's the whole nine yards. Sickly sweet, flabby, grapey. It tastes closer to a cab nouveau, but with lots of residual sugar, than it does anything resembling cabernet. In some respects this is hardly wine at all. 70 points.

1968 "Special Label" (Beaulieu Vineyards)
These unusual BV bottlings are blends.....some charbono, some petite sirah, gamay, and other things. This is definitely past prime. Thankfully served cool, so it did not develop fast with air, this showed too maderized, and syrupy. For all of that, the wine retained rather impressive weight, and was not undrinkable, although not terribly interesting or pleasant, either. Hey...it could've been the Tennessee cabernet, above. 74 points.

1990 "Special Label" (Beaulieu Vineyards)
This more modern version of the Special Label did a lot better, if only by comparison to the 1968 above. But I actually enjoyed this. It did have some traces of oxidation and decay, but it was also firm, had some intensity, and still had some nice, identifiable plum flavors in the fruit. It was real wine. I was not thrilled, but happy enough to drink it. 85 points.

2000 Cabernet (Madrigal)
This winery has yet to produce anything profound, but on the other hand, I like everything they produce. This wine, in a difficult vintage, is rather typical. It opens with a bouquet of sweet vanilla, infused by new oak. The creamy texture is oak induced, too. But that's not all there is, and there is more restraint this year. The wine has a burst of acid on the finish, and is a bit disjointed on opening. After decanting, the wine's parts begin to integrate, and it becomes smooth and elegant, drinking well now. It lacks depth and the finish is average. In this vintage, this is a nice achievement, at a rational price, around $30. It seems to drink well now, but will probably be best in 12 to 24 months. Madrigal also makes a merlot--but I haven't tasted that; mine was corked. Considering the price of Cal cab these days, this is pretty nice wine in a tough year at a reasonable price. It may in fact be better than the last couple of years, a serious achievement. 88 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Miller Estate Vineyard" (Chaddsford)
I defy you to put this fine Chard in a blind tasting and tell me it's Pennsylvania. There's nothing "off" about it, and in fact, it seems rather classical. Nothing screams "offbeat." Forget the condescending "not bad for Pennsylvania." Over the years, this winery has kept making adjustments, and they've pretty much gotten there. It opens with beautiful leesy notes on the nose. The palate is medium weight, with respectable depth, and plenty of flavor. It is young--and seems to drink perfectly now, about its only flaw, if you want to call it that. I wonder how many people would guess "Burg" if this were served blind. It has the nuances down, and manages both flavor and elegance. It loses some points for ability to develop with age. About $25. 89 points.

1995 Petite Sirah (Madrigal)
This was Madrigal's first ever wine. The growers have been supplying fruit to major Napa wineries, like Duckhorn and Shafer, over the years, but now make their own wine, too. They sure have prime space in Napa. I approached this with trepidation. Some of their petite sirahs have been overoaked a bit. How would the first one be, when no lessons had been learned? How would it have held up? To my shock, everything integrated perfectly. In fact, I would say this is about the best Madrigal I've had to date. Holding perfectly, albeit obtained at the winery, this is easy, but bright, smooth, and flavorful. The oak seems completely integrated, except in its effect in texture, which gives it a touch of cream. But the acid on the back makes it lively, too, and the balance is impeccable. Elegant, but not hollow, with just a touch of blue fruit, this perhaps lacks the depth to be truly profound, but it managed to pick up weight while open and still sported some tannins. Pristine and lovely, this will be deemed irresistible by most. 91 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Muirfield" (Siduri)
In this run of Siduri wines, below, including the "Novy" which is another label for Siduri and focusing on Syrah, all wines were tasted in Santa Rosa, CA. They had been uncorked overnight. A couple of things stood out. The quality was uniformly high. You could throw a dart and get fine wine; they were mostly comparable and at a high level. And despite some obvious differences in the wine, there was a Siduri style, too, extracted, yet balanced, flavorful, but never overbearing. By the way..speak of "vins de garage." Siduri is more like vin de airport hanger. :) I guess they spend their money on wine production rather than manicured lawns. This wine, one of about 16 pinot bottlings, is from Oregon fruit. It opens with a lovely cherry nose, moves on to plums, and seems elegant, modestly bright, pure and clean, and completely effortless. The flavor follows through on the palate, and the texture is crushed velvet. I wouldn't mind a bit more depth, but this succeeds on its own terms, even though it is probably the lightest of the lineup. I expect this to hold well in the cellar; if it does not, the score might go down a touch. 90 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Shaw Mountain" (Siduri)
This, like the Muirfield, is from Oregon fruit, and is surprisingly from an adjacent vineyard site. The wines are completely different. This shows nice depth and a thicker mid-palate than the Muirfield, but the big distinction is a touch of gamey nuances and earth, and a nose that seems almost cherry chocolate. This is more distinctive and more powerful than the elegant, pristine and pure Muirfield, but which you prefer will be mostly a matter of taste, although you see where I came out. Some will prefer the purity of the Muirfield. 92 points.

2001 Pinot Noir "Van der Kamp" (Siduri)
Beautiful fragrance of cherries and red fruits starts this wine off, and it follows through on the fruit-drenched mid-palate, suffused with ripe cherries that keep delivering waves of flavor. Yet, it is surrounded--the structure provides some brightness on the finish, which is respectably long and impressive. I'm still smelling the fragrant cherries. Remember--this was opened overnight, too! Should improve nicely with cellaring. 92+ points.

2001 Pinot Noir "Pisoni" (Siduri)
This wine puts Siduri in overdrive. We progressed--or depending on your tastes, moved along--from lighter and elegant, to bright and flavorful, to this big, rich, ripe mouthful. There is a slight hit of acid on the back that wakes you up along with the wine, and it actually is well balanced and rather elegant, for all the weight it projects. I loved the great finish, too, and the subtle tannins, ripe and unobtrusive. It adds an intense bouquet and I think it will develop well with cellaring. I suspect that the winery will protest that they have other and better terroir and wines, but this was my personal favorite of the day. If you want to see some other reviews of recent Siduri releases, click here and scroll down for the 2001 Pinot Noir "Santa Lucia Highlands" (Siduri); 2001 Pinot Noir "Hirsch" (Siduri) and the 2001 Pinot Noir "Cargasacchi Vineyard" (Siduri). 93 points

2001 Syrah "Napa" (Novy) QPR Winner
I'd never heard of this. "Novy" represents the Diana side of the Siduri family--and a second label focusing on syrah not pinot. The $19 Napa syrah was a steal. Ripe and mouthfilling, it showed spice and structure, and coated the mouth. It also sported a hit of tannins, and seemed to carry a lot of syrah typicity with it. Well balanced and tasty, this delivered a lot of value. 89 points.

1995 Chardonnay "Red Shoulder" (Shafer)
This was the first Shafer Chard I had---and it is still holding brilliantly. There is a touch of butter and cream up front, a hint of vanilla on the nose. It is still hard to believe this wine had no maloactic fermentation (which softens the sharper acids and gives chards that buttery feel). Still rich and full, this wine simply drinks perfectly now--it has perhaps thinned ever so slightly, but it is hard to believe it is now age 8 and so pristine. This and the following group drunk at the winery, which still has Red Shoulder 95 in stock. I'd encourage purchasing! 90 points.

2000 Merlot (Shafer)
This has 9% cab sauvignon and 2% cab franc blended in, and it probably helped. In this rather difficult year, this wine is a success. It shows plummy, perhaps a touch herbal, and sports a nice attack, shows focus and intensity--hardly the typical USA flabby, merlot fruit bomb. There's a nice of acid and soft tannin in the back, and the flavor is persistent in this tightly wound wine. It is not big and fleshy, but does a lot right. The question is--does its current focus and relative leanness mean it will turn austere as it ages? I'm going to give it a vote of confidence. 89+ points.

2000 Firebreak (Shafer)
This has only 6% cabernet sauvignon blended in, and that percentage has dropped radically over the years. This is less and less a Super Tuscan, and more and more a Sangiovese. I was a touch disappointed in this from prior years, though. It seemed sharp and racy, but, while it had nice, cherry flavors, it was drying on the finish and a bit leathery. Now, this could mean it just needs some time to knit together. It could also mean it is a bit short on fruit, and just a little too sharp and tannic for its mid-palate. Still, those are comments relative to better years--it is not a bad wine. And it may uptick with cellaring. 87+ points.

1999 Port (Shafer)
Not many have ever seen this cab sauvignon port, sold only at the winery, and made in miniscule quantities. It is absolutely delicious, but bears more resemblance to Ca Togni than Port. Very sweet and very soft, it sports little if any tannin. It is lush and loaded with easy drinking fruit. It is well balanced in many respects, i.e., not too thick, which, given the relative lack of structure, would make the ponderous if it were. The lack of intensity on a wine called "Port," though, is a little disappointing. It lacks a "serious" demeanor. 88 points.

2000 Cabernet (Shafer)
This blends in 9% cab franc. Bright and a bit angular at the moment, this sports considerable astringency on the finish. It has lots of flavor--but I wonder if it has enough flesh and concentration. It may need some time to knit together, but I have some concern as to whether the mid-palate concentration will ever really sufficiently balance out the structure. I think this is somewhat less successful than the Merlot in this vintage. Shafer, to be sure, makes focused, precise wine, rather than big, heavy fruit bombs as a rule, and cellaring often helps, so maybe some cellaring will bring it around. My inclination is to say that this will be a good, not great Shafer. 87+ points.

1999 Cabernet "Hillside Select" (Shafer)
The crown jewel in the Shafer lineup is the Hillside Select, 100% cab sauvignon. This was opened the night before, thankfully. Inky black, and scheduled for September, 2003 release, it is a typical Shafer HS--big and powerful, well structured, but focused and precise. The wine is mouthfilling, and chock full of beautiful cassis flavors surrounded by tingly, ripe tannins and bright acid on the finish. The mid-palate is smooth--this is not unapproachable at the moment. But this is a wine to cellar, and it will not likely show its stuff until about 2008-2010. This is not the most stunning HS I've had, but it hasn't come together yet, either. It will be a fine wine, by any measure, though. 92-94 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Napa" (Clos du Val)
A steely nose starts this off, and there's a big chunk of acid in the back. but the wine integrates its components surprisingly well, and there is a fine, long finish. The wine actually turns out to be slightly opulent--at least relative to stern first impression on the nose. This may drink better next year than this year, but I think this reasonably priced chard will make a lot of friends. 89 points.

2000 Merlot "Napa" (Clos du Val)
Thin and a bit weedy, this Merlot is another example of problems many vintners in Napa had with Cabs and Merlots. There is some nice flavor and focus, but it just seems too hollow, too uninspiring. In recent years, Clos du Val's "Napa" wines, which are not terribly expensive (in the mid-20s) have been excellent values, but 2000 does not seem to be their best foot forward. 84 points.

2000 Cabernet "Napa" (Clos du Val)
Lately, this has been one of my favorite value cabs in California, but 2000 is not producing many revelations, especially at the low end, in Napa cab. There is fairly light and easy, and already seems to drink half decently. There are some supple tannins for support, and they are badly needed. If it is a bit tight, it also seems a bit too straightforward and simple. This wine does better often. This year, it will be pleasant enough for short-term drinking to the mid-term, and might improve a bit with 1 to 2 years of cellaring, but it isn't going to achieve much distinction in my view. 85+ points.

2000 Cabernet "Oak Vineyard Stag's Leap District" (Clos du Val)
There's a big price uptick for this bottling from the brown label "Napa," and you may get something significant for your money this year. In other years, I haven't been as sure. This is a lovely wine in many respects, and a success in this vintage. It adds way more flesh than the Napa, and while bright, it projects a smooth wave of mid-palate fruit that is mouth filling and tasty. There are some touches of herbal notes, too. Despite its feeling of a full mid-palate, the wine balances out beautifully and never seems particularly heavy--it manages to carry off projecting a full mid-palate with being light on its feet at the same time. If it is lacking anything, it is intensity. It seems too soft, too easy, for such a young, and relatively pricey cab. (I've seen this selling in the $50s..) Pricing aside, nice work, and it has a chance to get an increase in score if it improves with three years of cellaring. However, this may be a wine that is better drunk short (1 to 3) to mid-term (4 to 6) than cellared a long while. 89+ points.

2001 Zinfandel "Old Vines-Estate"(Sobon)
About $15 a bottle, this projects an amazing amount of power for a zin. But that's not the good news. In fact, it seems overly powerful and unpleasantly astringent. Extended aeration of a couple of hours didn't seem to help, and if anything for awhile the tannins became more assertive. There was some sweet fruit in there somewhere, but it was pummeled, assaulted and attacked constantly. I hesitate to trash this wine, because I think there was some really good effort put into it, but I think it is simply unblanced and not likely to ever come into good balance. 82 points.

2001 Chardonnay "Overlook" (Landmark) QPR Winner
Buttery and smooth, but with a nice bite at the end, this shows beautifully. Focused and elegant, yet still flavorful and friendly, its balance is impeccable and it will make lots of friends with its easy but confident feel. At about $25, it is a good deal and fair value, too. 90 points.

2000 Chardonnay "Damaris" (Landmark)
I generally like Damaris, $30, better than Overlook--but perhaps the vintage differences account for this reversal (see above). This is a bit sharper than the Overlook, and not nearly as charming. It shows a somewhat better and more persistent finish, but also seems a bit more compact and austere. For this style of wine, I'd want an even better finish, more complexity, to offset the lack of easy appeal. This is still a very good, and fairly priced wine, but it lacks the pure appeal of the Overlook, above. 87 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Young Vines" (Landmark)
At its original selling price of about $25, this was simply overpriced. The winery is holding a 50% off sale for a 6 bottle purchase, and maybe it will move at that price, which is more than fair. This reminds me most of a Bourgogne rouge, at most a Cote de Beaune. It has a nice cherry note to it, but there are already hints of bricking color, and strawberries, which is what you get as the wine matures and oxidizes. It is rather light, and has little mid-palate to speak of. It drinks well now, and for a light, earthy, basic pinot, around $12 is fair enough--there isn't much pinot that is drinkable at that price. Drink up, though. This should be for consumption now, and it will not hold. It loses some points considering how far along it is in development and how unlikely to age it is, but don't take that as a total insult. It drinks pleasantly now, and the price is finally right. 82 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Grand Detour--Van der Kamp Vineyard" (Landmark)
This Landmark Pinot, at $45, is a more serious wine, and intended to be, but if falls short of real distinction and at the price is hard to recommend. Spicy, with some racy notes, it projects little depth or weight, but those interested in a basic Burgundian model may like its elegance and airy demeanor and perfume. Its finish is much more penetrating than the Young Vines, above, and is nicely focused. It seems to drink fairly well now. It's a nice wine, but a bit pricey for what it is. 87 points.

2001 Chardonnay (Pride Mountain Vineyards)
Hints of vanilla, coupled with a soft feel and vanilla fragrance, make this rather sexy. Those who like their chards creamy and touched with oak, will enjoy this a lot. Those who prefer a Chablis-styled model should look elsewhere! As creamy and softly textured as this is, it still provides a nice hit of acid in the back, a sharp little stiletto piercing the calm. At around $35, this isn't cheap, but those who enjoy the style will enjoy it a lot, especially after it calms down a bit. 90 points.

2002 Viognier (Pride Mountain Vineyards)
Spicy, penetrating and lively, this shows excellent flavor, robust depth...but it remains viognier. It does not become too heavy or unbalanced. This is one of the nicer Viogniers in the USA that I've had--they seem to tend to being too wimpy or too heavy--and the solidity of the mid-palate and the lingering finish made it exceptional in my view. This runs about $40 off the mailing list. Aged in barrel, but the oak is very restrained and neutral in flavor. 91 points.

2001 Merlot (Pride Mountain Vineyards)
Bottled April 2003, this sells for about $48, which is pretty pricey for the what amounts to the basic merlot (and cab). Still, it is pretty nice. Open about 45 minutes before it was tasted, this shows a hint of vanilla from oak, but the oak remains restrained. The wine in fact seems a bit sharp, certainly a bit tight. The plummy notes break through eventually, and the fruit sweetens nicely to the point of cassis. It seems too bright, too sweet for merlot--it reminds me more of a cabernet at this point. But it is approachable, even if it should have a few more years to smooth out. The winery's own notes mention cassis, which seems a bit odd in a Merlot, but I have to agree with them. Not quite ready to drink, give it a couple years to smooth out and integrate. 90 points.

2001 Cabernet Franc (Pride Mountain Vineyards)
This cab franc actually contains about 25% Merlot. It sure seems jammier, sweeter and plumper than most cab francs! Despite being young and chock full of fruit, it seems also smooth and well integrated, even now. Without any discernible green notes, the plum and cassis I saw in the basic Merlot carried through here as the dominant flavor. Bottled only fours weeks (April 2003) before being tasted, this shows lots of promise. $52 is the release price. This might go from merely good to distinguished. 90+ points.

2000 Cabernet (Pride Mountain Vineyards)
As 2000 cabs go--this is a beauty. It's a bit light on its feet for its $50+ price point, but that is the only flaw. It seems almost to drink well now, and is filled with oodles of sweet cassis fruit that deliver loads of flavor. Smooth, gentle, round and delicious....and just when I was ready to declare that it lacked some intensity, tannins came through on the finish. Not much tannin, to be sure, for young cab, but enough to provide a little grip. Very nice, although the price hurts a bit. 89 points.

NV Piccolo Cru (Paoletti) QPR Winner
This juice wasn't deemed good enough for the main wine, and is a blend of 2000/2001 juice. They couldn't get anyone to buy the 2000. Yet, here we are--it's delicious. It's a blend of merlot (66%), cabernet sauvignon (18%) and the rest malbec and cab franc. In other words--a Bordeaux blend. And it's delicious. And it is... $9. And they seem apologetic about it, as if there is something wrong with making a nice wine for a modest amount of money. We wouldn't want them to do that, would we?? We'd much prefer to overspend on fancy trophies. Gee. This is what California needs more of, not less of. Exuberant and bright, it is young and lively, and bursting with flavor. The wine seems excited to be alive. It was hard to dislike this wine, its only flaw being that it was on the thin side. But I've had similar wines that cost $35, too. So, this is packed. It's $9. It's delicious. There were 1800 cases made. Buy one now and drink up--for early consumption, an everyday wine you'll love. 87 points.

2001 Bella Novello "Rosa d'Amore" (Paoletti)
This was a complex and enchanting rosé. It had that extra dark color that reminded me of Sine Qua Non's Crossed Rose, or maybe some bigger Arbois. But it is rosé, fruity, but dry, powerful but not austere. There is a touch of candy in the middle, but on the finish it is all business, and real wine, with more depth than most rosés have. This wine is alive and exciting--perfect this summer. The only downer here was that there were only 65 cases made, and probably as a result the price was $18.00. Not completely unfair, but more than most people will spend for rosé outside of some Bandol. With only 65 cases, they'll sell it all, though. And deservedly so. This is 100% sangiovese. My ratings, as I've said, are relative between types. Judge this as a rosé and compare it to same. 92 points.

1998 Chardonnay (Paoletti)
Undistinguished, this has $20 chard has admirable weight, but little charm, little flavor, and it seems to be drying out a bit, too. Even for $20, there was just something too stern about this wine that made it something I didn't enjoy even while admiring some of its virtues. It was plodding, and clunky. Your mileage may differ. In my view, this needs drinking. 85 points.

1999 La Forza (Paoletti)
This runs $25, and is in a Super Tuscan style--80% sangiovese, 10% cabernet, and the rest Charbono. Hmmm. Bet you thought I'd say merlot. This gets only 30% new French oak, and that for 14 months. I liked this a lot, even while noting it was not quite exceptional. Briars and brightness started it off, and the mid-palate was earthy, with a touch of game, cherries, and good fruit. I liked its easy balance, and it had all the charm and distinction the chardonnay, above, lacked. The price point is more or less reasonable, certainly compared to the price of Super Tuscans, and this is something I think you can drink a lot of without getting too bored. Drinks well now, can still improve. Lotsa flavor! Could use a bit more depth in order to be a real star. Only 450 cases. 89 points.

1999 Merlot (Paoletti)
At $28, this seems too pricey for what it is--a simple, fruity, crowd-pleaser of a wine, that adds little depth, no complexity, and not much of distinction. For sure, as an everyday wine, it's soft, easy and delicious. At close to $30, it's perhaps too soft, too easy and I wonder if I can have something more. Sweet, mid-weight at best, and fruity--I think everyone who tastes this will like it. I'm not sure everyone who tastes it will buy it at this price point. 87 points.

1999 Cabernet "Lilia's Vineyard" (Paoletti)
This opens with some intensity---something the Merlot, above, needed. It's brighter, too, and the tannins are ripe, even as they announced their presence. The fruit is very sweet, and has that delectable aspect that I saw in the Merlot, but like the Merlot, it could use a bit more flesh, and something to make it stand out. It is an improvement, though, more penetrating, more focused. At $30, considering how Cal cab is priced these days, it is more of less fair, but won't make anyone run home to tell the world about their bargain. It's where it should be. Nice, not great, good, not quite over the hump to distinction. 89 points.

2000 Zinfandel "Old Vines" (St. Francis) QPR Winner
I've always liked this zin bottling, and while the price has indeed escalated, it stays within reason. The 2k version runs about $26 and it is a beauty of a 2k. Rich, but balanced, spicy and peppery, and redolent of black cherry and plum, but without the late harvest caramel overtone some very ripe zins have, this will appeal to those who most yearn for the more restrained zins. But it has plenty of stuffing, and plenty of charm, is hardly wimpy, and in this vintage is a considerable success. 90 points.

1998 Merlot Reserve "Behler Vineyard" (St. Francis)
Medium weight, with tingly very ripe tannins, this Merlot is a touch overripe, perhaps, but chock full of flavor and rather tasty. It has modest depth, and a modest finish--it's a bit simple--but its easy, shall we say, slutty appeal and persistent flavor, makes it a lot of fun, and a wine that will win lots of fans. About $45, it is a bit pricey. 89 points.

1998 Cabernet Reserve "Nuns Canyon" (St. Francis)
This has an elegant Bordeaux feel to it, and the tannins are drying on the finish. There are notes of leather and tobacco, and it is also perhaps a touch green on the end. It's a pretty big wine structurally, but I'm not sure the fruit matches the structure, and I disliked the green or herbal note at the end. I think this wine has a lot to recommend it, but does have some balance issues, and seems perhaps to be showing a bit mature for its young age. Perhaps not surprisingly, with a case purchase this was selling for half off at the winery, at which point it would be a reasonable buy, in the mid-$20s. 87 points.

2002 Gewurztraminer (Chateau St. Jean) QPR Winner
Running about $15, this is one of those rarest of beasts, a really nice New World gewurz. Showing just a bit off dry, with 1.5% residual sugar, it also shows a bit of spice, and just a touch of the characteristic lychees (not its strongest point). In fact, it is perhaps closer to pear than lychee. It is not big and thick, but for what it is, a charming, mid to light weight gewurz, it is tasty and well balanced. Pretty good stuff at a fair price point. One of my problems with New World gewurz is not that I have not occasionally found wines of this quality before--but they seemed to be more like $25 instead. 88 points.

2000 Riesling (Chateau St. Jean)
Easy and pleasant, without much crispness, this is a bit flabby and simple. For all that, it will make a pretty good party wine, and goes down easy, tastes good. 85 points.

1998 Cinq Cepages (Chateau St. Jean)
If you complain about high prices in California, one thing you might note is how many wineries have little deals in which they manage to cut their price without seeming to do so. If you're a member of their "club," this wine costs only $56, but if you're not, it is close to $70, which seems rather high for what the winery itself says is its second cab-ish wine. Pricing vagaries aside, and it's easy to get sidetracked with them in California, this is one of the more delicious '98s I've stumbled across. Mouthfilling and balanced too, it is restrained in oak usage, and delivers a hearty mid-palate laced with fruit flavor. It finishes a bit austere at this point--as too many 98s do--but there is an awful lot to like before you get there, and this seems to have the balance to keep improving with some cellaring. 91 points.

1998 Merlot Reseve (Chateau St. Jean)
There are only 250 cases of this, but that won't make you happy with the $90 list price (or even the $72 club price if you're a club member). This contains 7% cab sauvigon and 4% malbec, too. It has a French feel, and is deceptively elegant, then evolves beautifully, blossoming in the glass. It is tight and unusually tannic after awhile for California merlot, but it is also bursting with black cherry fruit. A bit astringent on the finish, the wine does just about everything else well, although one might like a touch more depth for something in this price range. Very nice, refined, and a pleasure to drink. Very pricey. But that's your call. 90 points.

2000 Pinot Noir Reserve (Chateau St. Jean)
Running about $55 list, and $44 for club members, this was another pricey winner in the very nice and rather pricey reserve Ch. St. Jean lineup. Admittedly, it is beautiful pinot noir, all cherries, turning to plums with air. It seems to have weight, but seems to go down effortlessly, too. Nicely balanced, except for the somewhat disjointed finish which shows the acid at war with some tannins. Not cheap, but a lot cheaper than the Merlot, and similar in quality. 90 points.

2000 Cabernet "Sonoma Valley" (Chateau St. Jean) QPR Winner
Middling weight, but solid enough in the mid-palate, this finishes with a lotta rhubarb and some brightness. This is a basic cab--no reserve here--and decently priced, $27 list, $21.60 club. In its price point, it is a strong competitor with a most anything you can name in California cab. Those who prefer cassis to rhubarb may be a bit off, but the flavor characteristic isn't that off-putting when you are actually drinking it. 88 points.

1997 Cabernet Reserve (Chateau St. Jean)
Running about $90 list, $72 club, this is beautifully structured. Nothing jammy. Nothing overly astringent. Nothing austere. Nothing tart. Everything falls into place. There are still plenty of tannins for ageworthiness, and the wine seems to be put together very precisely, with perfect focus. I like the black cherry notes in the mid-palate, and I suspect with age, this will sweeten and become more charming, too. It adds a nice, long finish to end things up. Here's a wine that many will say drinks well now--but in fact, I think the tannins need some resolution, and the fruit will develop. I'd look for it show even better around 2007. 92 points.

2000 Pinot Noir "Kastania" (Landmark)
Running about $45, with 450 cases produced, this is a pleasant, nicely balanced pinot noir, but it's hard to see what merits a $45 price tag. Laced with dried cherry notes, it seems earthy, a bit compact, and a touch too mature. It has decent depth and drinks well, but lacks liveliness. Still, I liked the cherry notes and it had some complexity. Whether it's enough for the bucks, you'll have to decide. 88 points.

2000 Pinot Blanc "Saralee's Vineyard" (Arrowood)
The problem with this wine---a theme running through a lot of this month's California notes--is simply the price. This pinot blanc runs $33, and at that point if you're not thinking of running to a store with some selections from Alsace, you should be. Still, this is a lovely pinot blanc, now that we got that nasty price stuff out of the way. Rich and mouthfilling, it is dry, but not austere, and seems more on the road to fine pinot gris than pinot blanc. So, maybe the real question is: is the price ok if you consider this fine pinot gris? 90 points.

1999 Merlot "Sonoma" (Arrowood)
Am I a broken record at this point? Very nice merlot. But gosh. They want $42 for this??? It has some pepper and herbal notes, and good balance. This is not a typical new world, flabby fruit bomb. It has a nice attack, followed by a smoothly textured mid-palate, of medium weight. Everything is in place for a nice drink. Very little is exceptional, though, in what becomes a middle of the road, well crafted but unexciting merlot. $42 for this? 88 points.

2000 Merlot "Sonoma" (Arrowood)
As for the 2000 Merlot--see review above. This is a bit softer, a bit easier--too easy, actually--and seems a bit less structured, but it is representative of the 99's general quality level and character. 86 points.

1997 Merlot Reserve Speciale (Arrowood)
In a more normal universe, this would be the winery's $42 merlot. Alas. It is $80. I was told when I had this that it had already been open more than a day. Nonetheless, it was bright and supple, drinking just fine, with the edges softened, and appealing cherry notes in the mid-palate, which was round, gentle and velvety. Very nice. And I imagine there would be a lot more grip when opened. I couldn't look twice at this, though, at this price point. 90 points.

1999 Cabernet "Sonoma" (Arrowood)
At club discount, this runs $36, but retail the sticker is $45. This is the "ordinary" cab at that price. It's actually quite good. Rich and balanced, bursting with fruit, if with a rhubarb-y tinge that I see in so many cabs these days (and more so in Sonoma I think), this is a solid mouthful of wine that caresses the palate and delivers flavor all the time. It is not particularly powerful or tannic, and doesn't seem to be a long term ager. At $36, the price isn't far off right, although for a soft, not particularly complex, fun wine, that isn't exactly cheap. 88 points.

1999 Cabernet Reserve Especiale (Arrowood)
The '99 reserve is a step up from the "regular," but not by that much. This is another continuing theme these days---lack of sufficient differentiation as to quality when the price categories radically change. A different label or vineyard name goes on the wine, but there's little it can do to justify the enormous price increase--in this case, going from $45 to $85. The big difference here is the addition of structure--this wine is not as simple or soft, not as fruit forward. It is more tannic, and has a better finish. I think most would like this wine. But I admit that the pie-in-the-sky pricing is souring my enthusiasm for it. 91 points.

1999 Syrah (Arrowood)
Pure and pristine, this $45 entrant is not much deeper than the Cote du Lune Rouge, below, but is a bit brigher, and somewhat more tannic. I really liked the blue fruit notes and flavors, but it was also not as distinctive as the Cote du Lune, and a bit short. Again, a pretty nice wine--but hard to recommend at this price. 89 points.

2000 Cote du Lune Rouge (Arrowood)
My first introduction to this winery many years ago was with their cabs, which I greatly enjoyed. In this lineup, I found myself liking their Rhone clones better this trip, at least at the price points. This $38 wine is 40% syrah, 26% grenache, the rest mostly mourvedre, with bits and pieces of other things. It is gamey, smelling of garrigue, and well balanced, with a touch of strawberry. It sure seems like a dead Rhone ringer, and it drinks well, the texture is soft and sensual and it tastes good. Its primary flaw--a bit light for a wine of this price. It could use some stuffing. Still, very nice. And still--it may send you running to buy some Cotes du Rhone or entry level Chateauneufs for a fraction of the price. 89 points.

2001 Viognier Late Harvest "Arum Dolce" (Arrowood)
Delicate, barely off dry, this wine showed minerals and juicy pear notes, where I expected something a heckuva lot sweeter. It comes in half bottles and seems poised as a dessert wine--but it is instead a perfect, and elegant aperitif. It's a hard sell for that job description though in halves running $16 per half. Club discounts available would bring it to $12 and some change, though. Ultimately, this is pleasant, undistinguished, and short. 84 points.

2000 White Riesling Select Late Harvest (Arrowood)
Drunk next to the Arum Dolce, this seems sweeter--but it's hard to call this a dessert wine either, so I don't. It's off dry, only 7.3% R.S., pear-oriented again, when I should be seeing some peach and apricot, and a bit deeper. Pleasant enough, at $25 a half retail, it's awfully pricey for the basic wine that it is. 86 points.

2000 Caravina (Seavey)
Seavey has permeated the consciousness of many wine geeks for their fine Cabernets--but their total production is a mere 4,000 cases. Of everything, not just this. It's a true boutique. This wine is poised to be a Bordeaux-blend, but is 100% cabernet this year, and lists for $36 (on sale for $30, though). It doesn't have much cab feel frankly---it seems more merlot-ish. There is little intensity, little power, although there is some focus. There are smooth, burnished, black cherry notes I rather liked, and the fruit was rather voluptuous for a 2000. With air, some acid and soft tannins pop out--this is not a flabby fruit bomb. Ultimately, this attractive and well priced wine (on sale at the winery) won me over, providing some reasonable bang for the buck. Fun and tasty, if not quite distinguished. This label may have a nice future in coming vintages. 88 points.

2000 Merlot (Seavey)
This is Seavey's rarely seen 100% merlot. Smooth and a little sexy, this has enough brightness to remain lively, but its undoing is that it is light and rather thin. In flavor, you will like this straight ahead merlot; but there's not much there there. 86 points.

2001 Viognier (Joseph Phelps)
Is this grape really catching on in California? It used to be I hated most everyone I tasted. Ten years later, I'm liking most everyone I try. This is crisp, but turns round and full on the finish. It's both lively and opulent, able to attack with a hit of lemons and steel, and able to caress with the oily mid-palate. Intense, rich, and very well balanced, I had a lot of fun with this wine. Very nice. About $30,.....fairly priced. 91 points.

2000 Mistral (Joseph Phelps)
This $25 Rhone clone is close to half syrah, and a variety of other grapes, including some petite sirah. Spicy, and easy to drink, this bright, and relatively light wine concentrates on flavor, and not much else. There are tasty little strawberry notes, but the wine really lacks a sufficient mid-palate. To me, this wine at this price needs some stuffing. Tasty, light and bright isn't quite enough. 85 points.

2000 Merlot (Joseph Phelps)
All merlot, this $40 entrant is medium bodied to light, precise, but modest in depth and finish. There are little whiffs of vanillin from oak, but it blows off fast. I like the nose on the wine, and it was tasty and easy. Another pleasant wine selling for about twice what it should command. This is basically an entry level merlot selling for a premium price. 86 points.

2000 Cabernet (Joseph Phelps)
This $45 cab is one of the nicer ones, especially at the "regular" level, I've seen in Napa Year 2k. It contains 10% merlot, 6% petit verdot, and 4% malbec--the Bordeaux blend, despite the Cabernet label. It's a bit pricey, but as the "regular" cab, it's pretty fine, too. There is a terrific burst of tannin at the outset, but it is bursting with pretty cassis fruit, and it has a solid, mid-weight core. It's nicely intense on the attack, and with air, expands into broader, more restrained cherry notes. Very nice. 90 points.

1999 Insignia (Joseph Phelps)
This is the big boy--the wine that year-in, year-out makes Phelps a fan from everyone who tastes it. Consistently one of the most charming wines in California, this year it has a 71% cabernet, 21% merlot and 1% each malbec and cab franc blend. (1%?) Ripe, as always, with spicy tannins, this takes the flavor bursting from the cabernet, above, and delivers even more. There is not much velvet in the texture at first, and it seems more angular than some other recent Insignias. It's also a bit astringent on the finish. For all of its good points, it is perhaps a touch compact---there have been Insignias with more opulence and depth. Still, this is beautifully balanced, persistent in flavor, and classic. I'd like to see it again, and see if it improves. But frankly--while I like this better than the 2000 Cabernet, and feel that this has more upside (maybe the difference will be clearer in 2012), there is that nagging issue of differentiation again...there's a big price difference between this and the regular cab. Is the quality difference equally great? I'm not so sure. 91+ points.

1998 Riesling Late Harvest (Joseph Phelps)
A lanolin nose betrays some volatility, perhaps, but that doesn't get in the way of business. The Phelps riesling is a traditional favorite, running about $15 a half, but this year it seems curiously restrained, merely off dry, more appropriate as an aperitif--which is why I have it here, and not in dessert wines. Pleasant, but you'll be really unhappy if you use this as a dessert wine. 86 points.

1999 Tarantella (Sine Qua Non)
SQN continues its twisted and bent path (a small joke!) with white wines and blends. This big beauty is spicy, big and ripe, with a flavor resembling dried mango. The oily, mouthcoating texture was impressive and the wine became spicier and livelier as it aired, a good sign. For all that, I wasn't entirely thrilled. There were lots of good ideas here, but the exclamation point at the end didn't quite happen. I predict some will love it far more, and others will just think it is too big without enough saving graces. I'm in the middle. 89 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer "Martinelli Vineyard" Black Label (Martinelli)
This is the "dry" black label. There's a touch of fruit flavor at first, nice weight, a rather oily texture. There's not much nose, and it seems bitter and hard to drink. The excellent weight at first is monolithic, as the wine is relatively devoid of flavor, and what there is, is not so pleasant. It did expand and improve in the glass, though, and the rough edges smoothed out, and the bitterness integrated some. Its depth became appreciated. This is a pretty nice dry gewurz effort, and I began liking it more and more. 89 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer "Martinelli Vineyard" White Label (Martinelli)
It's rare I prefer the dry to the off-dry in gewurz, a varietal I think benefits from some sugar. This is supposedly off dry. It is dry-ish, certainly, also flat, and bitter, with nothing resembling the concentration of the black label, and not enough sugar. Nothing of note is going on here at all. 79 points.

2000 Gewurztraminer "Corazon" (Corison)
What a mess. Poured for a table of gewurz fanatics, this drew universal condemnation, and made the Martinelli white label, above, look interesting. Very bitter, this flattens out fast, show unpleasant austerity, and little flavor. It was hard to drink, and nobody wanted to. It helped fill up the dump bucket quickly. 78 points.

Dessert / Sparkling wines
2000 Pinot Gris "Rotenberg Selection des Grains Nobles" (Zind-Humbrecht)
Spice, apricots and peaches on the nose and mid-palate...there's a lot going on here. The wine has plenty of unctuousness, but the acidity gives it a certain zing!, too. The weight and depth are superb, but the wine holds back a little at the moment. With air, some melon notes come out. I suspect this will put on weight with age and some oxidation, while it is delicious now, it could wind up rather profound. The winery suggests it can be held until 2030. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think it will certainly be better and still improving in 2010. 93+ points.

2001 Riesling Eiswein "Mussbacher Eselshaut" (Muller-Catoir)
Hard to believe this is Eiswein at first. It broods! It seems relatively dry-ish. It seems....sturdy, not unctuous. You know what this needs? Lots of cellaring. I'd be interested in trying this again in 2008. In the meanwhile, air did reveal some special components lurking underneath, beautiful tropical fruit, and lively pear notes. Not particularly sweet in perception, at least at first, it gradually opens up, and sweetens up, and it was a lot of fun watching the layers of this thick--but sturdy, not unctuous!--wine unfold. As this ages and oxidizes, it should remind you more of Eiswein---for now, this was simply infanticide. It is not showing anything near what it can be. 92+ points.

1988 Chateau Yquem
Not quite ready, but quite lovely! Focused, precise, and pure, the finish here not only lasted a long while, it seemed never to quit. The mid palate was solid, but a bit tight---this wine has not fully opened up, and will be more unctuous, I think. As it is--it filled with mouthcoating, botrytisized fruit that assaults your tongue and clings for dear life. It manages to deliver remarkable intensity and power without seeming overbearing, or making much effort. I would bet on this improving still more, and would check in again around 2008 if you want to see the next stage of evolution. It's pretty awesome now, though. 95 points.

2002 Riesling Eiswein "Bernkasteler Lay" (Dr. Loosen)
Rich and syrupy, this fabulous eiswein has an amazing, endless finish, and delectable flavors of crushed peach and apricot. Yet, it is just lively enough, too, and evolves beautifully with air, although no one would ever call this thick wine "racy." It dissolves slowly onto your tongue at the end, as if someone grabbed and apricot and slowly squeezed. At about $65 a half, this is actually a fine bargain for top notch eiswein. 96 points.

1997 Delice du Semillon (Joseph Phelps)
At a hefty $40 a half, this had better be good. It is. It opens like a Sauternes, with vanilla notes on the nose, and mingles all the key characteristics--unctuous in the mid-palate, bright around the edges and on the finish. And what a great finish--long, and with pure apricots dribbling onto your tongue. Home run. Better than Dolce, and cheaper. 95 points.

1992 Gewurztraminer "Late Harvest" (Ravenswood)
Fading fast, this has that oxidized apricots feel to it. It just holds off death, and provides some pleasure, some sweetness, until the finish begins drying out, too. Drink up fast, before the Reaper comes. 80 points.

2001 Gewurztraminer Cluster Select Late Harvest (Navarro)
From the premier American maker of late harvest Alsace and Germanic varietals, this is another big winner. Unctuous, yet with that lively, bright burst of acid in the middle, this is thick, rich and sexy, but sunny, too, and dripping with flavor. This has a beautiful future ahead of it, but it's hard to resist now. 93 points.

1997 Gewurztraminer Quintessence Selection des Grain Nobles (Deiss)
Penetrating, with tightly wound apricot notes, this is bright on the end--surprisingly so--and not quite sweet enough or rich enough for SGN in my view. The gewurz notes of pepper and spice are buried, but not enough depth or finish or sugar replaces them to make me happy. Very nice wine--but I'd like to see more from SGN. 89 points.

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)
2001 Riesling Spatlese "Norheimer Kirschheck" (Donnhoff)
This is my first taste of this since a pre-release trade tasting, and it seems sweeter than before. In fact, it opens surprisingly sweet, and then gets sweeter, projecting a sugary feel onto the wine. On the finish, there is eventually a touch of lemons after long aeration, heralding the acidity lurking underneath. This seems to have picked up weight since I last tasted it, plus a lot of exuberance, and the finish is delectable. It is all puppy fat at the moment, though. Delicious, but not showing much intensity right at this moment. 92 points.

2001 Riesling Spatlese "Oberhauser Brucke" (Donnhoff)
This is my first taste of this since a pre-release trade tasting, too, and while the NK is showing sloppy sweet, this wine has all the intensity. Nuanced with a bit of petrol, this is sweet, but not just sugary. The wine's texture is such that it feels oily rolling around your mouth. It just seems to cling to your tongue. It is truly remarkable the way it lingers... It has an impressive level of concentration, too. I'm still feeling that seductive texture and mouthfeel, and the wine seems opulent, too. This is going to be a benchmark spatlese, although it is nowhere near peak. I wouldn't be surprised if peak for this wine meant 2011...and it will last a lot longer. 95 points.

2001 Riesling Spatlese "Haardeter Herrenletten" (Muller-Catoir)
Two wines could not be more different than this and the Oberhauser from Donnhoff...it is as if they are not the same varietal, not the same country. This is smoky, suffused with petrol notes. Behind the thick, impenetrable mid-palate is a touch of spritz, it seems. It is harder to see what is here, as this wine is a little surly at the moment and amazingly deep. The flavor nuance is more melon, and darker fruits. This seems to project power more than sun, and it is going to require a LONG time to come around. At the moment, you might well want to decant this Pfalz brute before drinking. 94+ points.

2001 Riesling Spatlese "Meddershemier Rheingrafenberg" A.P. 7-745-028-005-02(Hexamer)
This AP denotes, I'm told, the one-star of this wine, accidentally bottled with the regular label and with no indication that this is in fact a one-star. Check the AP numbers to see what's what. This is a completely different animal than anything else on the page, showing soft, open, expansive and charming. I love the lingering flavor on the finish, and with air, it developed touches of both slate and peach, alternately. Rather sweet, very charming....but if you're comparing, this lacks the complexity and depth of the wines above from Donnhoff and Muller-Catoir, with which it had the misfortune to be served. 90 points.

1997 Riesling Auslese "Abtsberg" (Maximim Grunhaus)
This fooled me a bit---I expected something more intense. Instead, I got a fruit bomb. Very sweet and lush, this eventually shows minerals in the mid-palate, and acid---and the sugar does not entirely dominate the wine. In fact, the finish got more and more refined, and the wine smoothed out and integrated, showing beautiful harmony of components, and touches of pear, after the early sugar hit. Lovely, delicious and impeccably balanced, I wished only for a little more intensity on this wine. For my tastes, this is ready to drink--though the flavors are primary. 91 points.

The following 8 wines were all tasted with and introduced by Ernst Loosen at the same tasting. The J.L. Wolf estate wines are the wines produced by Loosen from a property in the Pfalz that used to include what is now Burklin-Wolf. There are radical ideas in play here---the pradikat system is not used at the Wolf estate, and instead Loosen uses Burgundian-styled classifications from an unofficial 1828 classification for the Pfalz wines. Plus, all the Pfalz table wines are vinified dry.

2001 Pinot Gris Villa Wolf (J.L. Wolf) QPR Winner
This wine has the same place in the Loosen universe as the famed "Dr. L" riesling. That is, it is mostly purchased fruit, and not from the grand cru vineyards. But Loosen does his job well. If I didn't just tell you that, you would never guess. This, at about $11, is an amazing bargain and wine. It is very much Alsace in style, not Germanic. Dry and thick, it is full bodied by all accounts, smooth and mouthfilling. It gets no malo fermentation, and is aged in old barriques for part of the run. It has impressive power and weight, a long finish, and while a bit reticent in flavor, it simply made my jaw drop to find that this cost but $11. Try it and see for yourself. 90 points.

2002 Riesling "Wachenheimer" (J.L. Wolf) QPR Winner
This is classified as the "village wine" in the J.L. Wolf lineup, but at $15, it is another steal. It opens with lemons and steel, but the acid not too obtrusive, nor bitter, while the finish remains mouthwatering. There is nothing austere about this, and if you are familiar with Zind-Humbrecht's new sweetness ranking, I would give this a "2." That is, perceptibly dry, but fruity, not shrill. It has a solid mid-palate, too. It opens a bit with air, right when you would expect that hit of sugar from a Mosel spatlese--but it stays dry and the sugar never comes. Nice deal. 87 points.

2001 Riesling "Wachenheimer Belz " (J.L. Wolf)
Moving up the cru scale now, this is called a 2d growth vineyard. The price rises a few dollars, and the wine is marginally better, but one theme that runs through this tasting is that the cheap wines are so fine that the more expensive ones find it hard to differentiate themselves, at least while young. This is a bit more lively than the Wachenheimer, with a more beautiful finish, and a sunny disposition. It also has a touch more flavor. But these are all nuances--the differences are subtle, not dramatic. Very charming. 88 points.

2002 Riesling "Leinhöhle" (J.L. Wolf)
This is the Wolf 1st growth, and the price rises accordingly, to $25. In the grand scheme of things, it is worth every penny, but as I sip it, I am thinking that I am just about as content with the Wachenheimers. This has a subtle depth to it--it is round and full, yet seems light on its feet. It does have a certain class. At the same time, it does not now drink as well as the Belz--maybe that will change in a few years. Very fruity, with a hint of spritz. 90 points.

Moving now into the Mosel, this is one of Germany's great values. Billed as an entry level wine, this is all of $10. It shows beautiful concentration, tons of flavor and charm, in an off-dry, sexy sweet fashion. Drink now. Rich, with a velvety feel. Delicious, easy drinking, unctuous, and a super buy. 89 points.

2002 Riesling Kabinett "Erdener Treppchen"(Dr. Loosen)
This is about $16, and coming after the "Dr. L," which is sexy and sweet, it seems a bit dull. That placement was unfair, for this is a very fine Kab. It seems light and airy, but not at all hollow. It opens with a whiff of petrol up front. It goes down refreshing and easy, and is drier and crisper than the Dr. L. All things considered, though, I rather preferred the viscous Dr. L. 87 points.

2002 Riesling Spätlese "Urziger Wurzgarten" (Dr. Loosen)
At this point, the wines become pricier ($26 here), and take on the capacity to age. That's the clear difference between them, I suspect, because otherwise there is little to justify the price hikes. Hopefully, this will still sing at age 10, whereas the Dr. L will be long in tooth. I wonder, though, if I ever will like this as much as I like the Dr. L today....? This mingles sugar and spice and acid, but still seems soft and easy, hinting at a hidden weight but not showing much off. There are some bright lemons and acid for structure and liveliness. Hopefully, it earns the "+" here. 89+ points.

2002 Riesling Auslese "Erdener Prälat"(Dr. Loosen)
Lovely and charming, richer and weightier than the spatlese, it nonetheless doesn't show too much more at times, and the price soars to $50. The sugar announces its presence most, as it typical, on the finish, which is seriously sweet. I would like to see the weight and intensity on this wine pick up--it seemed a bit muted and closed in some respects. It is, however, seductive and charming, for sure. At its price point, though, I need to see it develop some complexity and intensity to get really excited and obtain a better score. 90+ points.

2001 Gewurztraminer "Meddershimer Rheingrafenberg" AP. No. 774502801502 (Hexamer)
I make a point to give the AP here because although this was listed as a Spatlese in a catalog, the label appears to say nothing. Like a lot of German gewurz, this doesn't have much gewury-ness to it, none of that fat, oily essence vins d'Alsace get, nor the heavy lychees or pepper as they dry out. But it is very Germanic, and that's not a bad thing. Flavorful, if somewhat restrained, the sweetness is well integrated and delicious, and it finishes with a hint of spritz. Not exciting, but a lot of easy drinkin' fun. 87 points.

1998 Gewurztraminer Auslese "Niersteiner Paterberg" (Eugen Wehrheim)
Very sweet on the finish, this is burnished, a sort of roasted pineapple. It flattens in the mid-palate, though, and with air, the sweet finishes turns bitter, indicating, perhaps, a wine where the sugar, badly needed, is blowing off. It doesn't seem sweet enough or deep enough for Auslese. 85 points.

2001 Gewurztraminer Spatlese (Messmer)
Sweet and full, this doesn't always remind me of gewurz, but it is is rich and delicious. In fact, this is gewurz made in a German riesling style. There are worse things. Viewed that way, and given its strong riesling-esqe nose (can this really be 100% gewurz) it is straight ahead fun, and a wine I really enjoyed drinking. It was only at the end that I wondered "where's the gewurz?" Blind, I surely would've identified this as a riesling or some blend or hybrid of riesling. 89 points.

Italy (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Palazzo della Torre IGT (Allegrini) QPR Winner
Call this Corvina with a wallop (only 70% Corvina; most of the rest is Rondinella, with 5% sangiovese tossed in). The flavors are all corvina, ripe, plummy and velvety. This traditional "best buy" though has more---the mid-palate is laced with structural components, some tannin, some acid, and the wine seems intense, not just a cute little fruit bomb. You usually have to compromise with inexpensive wines. But where was the compromise here? It has a nice finish, too. It's not quite La Poja in depth or intensity, but it's pretty impressive. For roughly $16---this is just a super buy, year-in, year-out. 88-90 points.

2000 Costera IGT (Argiolas) QPR Winner
Made from 90% Cannonau, this Sardinian wine is harvested with low yields--and sold at a dirt cheap price, probably under $10. Surprisingly bright, with precise red berry notes, this evolves into a warmer, more expansive cherry version with some air. It's a bit thin, its main drawback--but delicious, and bursting with flavor. In this price range, it's a beautiful wine, with supple tannin. 86-88 points.

2000 Merlot IGT (Falesco) QPR Winner
Another great QPR find from Falesco....Soft and velvety, this projects fine fruit and flavor, but just when you think it's a simple fruit bomb, the fine structure reveals itself, too. There are tannins here for aging, and this is a cheap wine that has backbone and the ability to improve with a couple of years in the cellar. It's remarkable how they can keep turning out wine this good for so little money, around $13-15. Smooth, lush and delicious. 89-90 points.

Double decanted for an hour or so, this still showed pretty much nothing. After two hours more, there was still pretty much nothing. Bright, intense, spicy--but closed up tight as a drum. This was not remotely identifiable as merlot--it seemed more cabernet-ish, actually. But that may be because the fruit just never opened, the wine projecting pure power, no voluptuousness. It did have a little red berry note that finally popped up that I liked a lot, and a mouthwatering finish. I had the chance to taste what was left of this two days later--it was smoother--but still not showing a whole lot of flavor. Yet, it hardly seemed in decline. Can this wine be that big and that tight? I'm hesitant to give it a lukewarm review on this showing, since there seems to be so much potential, so much power, so much of a "serious" demeanor. But at this point, I was mostly getting the appearance of a wine trying to be great than a great wine. I would say this: hold it for ten years. Then we'll see what's what. Judgment reserved.

1983 Barolo "Marcenasco" (Ratti)
This showed a bit tired, with notes of oxidation around the edges, but I liked it more than some did. It also showed a certain gentle caress, a soft texture and a mild nutty flavor. Given that I tend to really hate oxidized notes, the wine had to be doing something right to make me want to drink any of it. It held reasonably well as the night wore on, never showing much that was distinguished, but held a certain faded charm, too. 84 points.

1990 Barolo "Bussia" (Prunotto)
Powerful and ripe, this wine seems like you bit off a real mouthful---it is chunky in the mid-palate and its weight is impressive. I liked it better in the first hour than the second, though. The finish was superb, long, persistent and earthy. It seemed young and vibrant, and approachable. In the second hour, the partly hidden tannins asserted themselves with aeration, and some astringency came out that I wasn't always ready to deal with. The voluptuous charm of the first hour wasn't merely a memory, but it was no longer the main event. This is a simply a massive Barolo, deep, multi-layered, powerfully structured. The mid-palate seems to be like an old tree that you can cut apart to see how many rings there are. I'm thinking that "peak" will be more like 2010 than today, but it sure needs a lot of decanting to show its best. Or, drink fast. 97+ points.

1993 Barolo "Pajana" (Clerico)
One of the bigger, more powerful '93s I've stumbled across of late, this shows tight yet very fleshy--underneath the currently brooding demeanor, there is a lot of fruit here, and a wine that may actually turn out to be supple. Not now, though.. There are plenty of tannins, but in good balance, and this appears to be about 5 years away in a cold cellar. 92 points.

2000 "Centine" (Banfi) QPR Winner
Poured next to some big Barolos, this drew some derogatory comments. It was moderately tasty, seemed mature, earthy, a bit thin and drying out. Our perceptions changed when we found it to be an $8 wine. Ok. Thin becomes "appropriate" for the price range, and "mature" for a young, cheap wine is ok, too. The earthy notes now become interesting and distinctive. Perspective is a wonderful thing, isn't it? But that's reality as well as amusing. 84 points.

1998 Valpolicella Classico (Tommaso Bussola) QPR Winner
Bright and cherry dominated, this also showed a bit gamey, perhaps a touch bretty, which, given the general fruity character of the wine was an asset. Suddenly, it had character, like Sinatra's voice after the throat problems. It seemed almost a touch bitter at the end, though. Even with a nice, medium bodied core and good focus, I wasn't sure how much I really liked it. Then, as if a magic wand passed over the glass, this wine blossomed. The fruit became so sweet, so delectable, so bright and cheery, it was the wine I kept going back to. Impressive evolution in the glass. This is under $30--a pretty nice deal! It gets two extra points on pure charm alone. 92 points.

1996 Guado al Tasso Tenuta Belvedere (P. Antinori)
Soft and easy, this lacked the intensity and big hit of flavor I hoped to see---but there was still a lot of good things happening. I loved the velvety texture, the seductive mouthfeel. And it snuck up on me on the finish--showing longer and more flavorful than I anticipated. It needed some "oomph" and focus, particularly given the price range, but it was hard to dislike if you just want things that taste go and make you feel warm and fuzzy. 89 points.

2001 Gewurztraminer "Kolbenhof" (Hofstatter)
Compact and restrained for gewurz, this is neither expressive nor fat. There are no lychees-and it is seems higher in acid than most gewurz, and rather light, though lively. A sort of pinot grigio style, not surprisingly. Pleasant, but undistinguished. 85 points.

Rhone/South/SW France (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Cahors (Clos La Coutale) QPR Winner

This perennial Best Buy has another winner here---70% Malbec this year, with 15% Merlot and 15% Tannat. Maybe the Merlot makes this unusually approachable, maybe it is just the youth of the wine, but this Coutale is unusally lush and easy, smooth and rounded, with touches of vanillin from oak, and blackberry notes, pushed along by acid on the end. This wine kept evolving while I played with it in the glass---it always ages well, drinks well. This year seems a bit easier than some, and perhaps not as powerful and ageworthy as others, but it should be an outstanding value, best around 2005-2009. 88-90 points.

2000 Chateauneuf-du-Pape "Cuvée Girard" (R. Usseglio)
Sweet strawberries dominate this wine, and it shows a bit candied at the moment. Fruity, sexy, flamboyant, with a touch of burnt rubber on the nose, too, this wine takes no prisoners, and there are no holds barred. Yet there's a little more here than meets the eye, or should I say, nose. It's rather tight at times, showing some nice backbone, and the finish lingers on. This needs to settle down and come into some balance, but apart from always being a crowd pleaser, I think it will take on some seriousness, too. A very interesting, hedonistic, and exotic wine, and I'll be interested to see if it evolves as well as I think it will. I think this will always drink easy, though, and should be drunk on the young side, i.e., within ten to twelve years for peak performance. 89-91 points.

2002 Viognier Vin du Pays du Gard (Campuget) QPR Winner
This is all of $9---and boy is it nice. This shows spice and penetration, lovely flavor and fine depth for viognier, let alone cheap viognier, something that is hard to accomplish. When tasting this, I really thought I was going to hear it was around $25. Or more. And if it had been Condrieu, I would have. This is not entirely profound, but I've had a lot worse for a lot more, and this delivers about what I want in a $9 package--cause for celebration. Drink young, and it shows well now. 89 points.

1985 Cote Rotie "La Landonne" (Guigal)
Powerful, and burly, this wine, served next to the Chapoutier, made the big Chapoutier seem small. This was poured into a small glass and aired for a good hour or so before I got to it. Rich, thick and tannic still, it showed amazing power, and seemed to be a sumo wrestler of a wine. There were little touches of game on the wine that made it distinctive and interesting, too. That was all the good news. The bad news was that it was a bit weedy, showing some oxidized notes, and seemed to be cracking just a little around the edges. Although the tannins said "hold," the fruit qualities said "drink." I can't tell you if this was a representative bottle...it is the only one I have had in several years. But this wine from this bottle in these circumstances, while still very interesting and very fine, was showing some strain. 90 points.

Elegant, but still rich, pure and precise, this silky smooth Hermitage, has a long, pleasing finish. But there's more. After being poured in a small glass and sitting for a good hour or so before drinking, it still kept improving, picking up weight and power. I've had this wine before--but this was perhaps its best performance for me, showing pristine, with years of life left, and not even yet at peak, perhaps. Penetrating fruit, nice structure, fine depth and finish--big winner. 95 points.

2002 Minervois Rosé (Chateau du Donjon) QPR Winner
A beauty of a rosé, this does everything right. About $9. The color is fairly dark pink, and the wine has subtle notes of raspberry. I say "subtle," because while there is plenty of fruit and body here, the wine is dry, and flavorful, not candied and sweet. Cool and refreshing, it carries its 13% alcohol with ease. A perfect pink, a summer find. 91 points.

Spain (except dessert/sparkling)
2002 Verdejo (Vegadeo) QPR Winner
This fresh, young white from Rueda is remarkable in several respects. No, it isn't the greatest wine you'll ever have. But it's pretty fine. And it's $8. Not quite a dead ringer for, but a close cousin of a Loire sauvignon blanc, it is crisp, with just a touch of grass. The fruit seems so fresh, you wonder if it was picked yesterday, and it's plenty concentrated, showing fine weight. It's a bit shocking how cheap this is for the quality. Don't be misled--despite its fine depth, this is not a fruit bomb. It is structured, tight and bright, and the acid dances across your tongue. Think Sauvigon Blanc and you have the idea. Drink now. A perfect summer wine. A steal. Imported by Distinct Expressions. 88 points.

2001 Malvasia "Dos" (Liberalia)
In this Spanish lineup of value priced wines from the same importer, Distinct Expressions, this was my least favorite. The wine is stern and austere, even while weighty. It broods, and delivers little flavor except that from oxidation. It shows a touch of sherry, a maderized note, that I disliked. I was told this was typical of this wine. If so, count me out for the style. It would drink better without the sherry notes. About $13.50, fairly priced if you like the style. 80 points.

2000 Monastrell (Las Renas) QPR Winner
Bright cherry notes open this grapey, young and rather simple wine from Monastrell (mourvedre). But it sure tastes good, and the nose is full of fresh crushed fruit. The flavors meld into darker plum like notes with air. It doesn't have much weight, but it drinks easy, and doesn't fall apart either. It was pleasant enough to enjoy, and as a lighter summer red, a pretty good wine. Too simple to be grand, it nonetheless made my jaw drop a bit when I discovered it was $4.99. Now, at that price--you're in business. Loses points for aging potential, but pretty tasty now. This is a co-op bottling, raised in stainless steel. No oak in sight for you oakaphobes. Drink now. Those who like the style will really gravitate to this for early consumption. 84 points.

2000 Monastrell "Seleccion" (Las Renas) QPR Winner
The difference between this and the regular Monastrell above is that this is aged one year in oak. Oh, yeah. That makes the wine a whopping $11.99. The vine age is 40 years. Take my note on the regular bottling above, add some depth and oomph. It is, however, aged in new American oak, and has that telltale minty note, but I liked its persistence and balance. Even though this seems like better wine, the oak issue would actually make me buy the un-oaked regular bottling over this one. Call it even--on the one hand this, on the one hand that....Your mileage may differ. 85 points.

2001 Tempranillo (Vega Moragona)QPR Winner
This wine, from the La Mancha area, is bright and cherry, with a touch of game that gave it character and distinctiveness. This is also a co-op. Not surprisingly, the wine is cheap. A whopping $5. But don't write off the co-op--it's good, too, a super bargain at that price point. It showed a touch of relatively neutrally flavored oak, and had some earthy complexity on the finish. It did thin a bit too much with air for tempranillo, though. Still, we're talking $5 here, and I actually enjoyed it, and it had some distinction and class. If it were not for the thinning with air, I would rate this plainly higher than the Monastrells. But call it almost even. 85 points.

1999 Tempranillo Crianza (Vega Moragona)QPR Winner
This is the upscale wine from this co-op....the "old vines." Oh, it's all of $9. You big spender you---this is the one to get as between the two. Surrounded by ripe tannin, it is focused, but easy drinking, with a nice velvety character and medium weight. It cures most of the flaws of the regular Tempranillo. It's almost twice the price, to be sure, but it shows more class in the mid-palate. A bit bland at times, but drinking nicely. 86 points.

Touches of mint, from new American oak, mark this wine, or in my view these days, mar it. But it is beautifully balanced, and danced brightly on your tongue, delivering otherwise pure flavors. It finishes bright, and delivers more flavor than the Vega Moragona wines, but I'd still take the VM Crianza over this in general and given the oak profile of this wine. This soars to $15. 85 points.

1998 Rioja "Zenus" (Puelles)
This, I think, was the most expensive wine in the lineup at $25, and to me it did little to justify the higher price. It did have more structure, and there were some drying tannins on the finish. It was bright and nice, and showed good focus and dried cherries, with hints of new oak. This was a slightly better wine on a lot of little points compared to several preceding. But there wasn't enough distinctive here to make me almost want to triple my expenditures and it seemed "plain vanilla" at times. Not bad--or maybe the problem is that the rest of the lineup overachieves and busts through its price category, while this seems a bit pricey next to them. Maybe I'd like it better drunk by itself. Maybe I'm overreacting to the unexpected price hike. 86 points.

1996 Custodia Crianza (Arco Isilla) QPR Winner
So, compared to the Zenus, this takes $10 off the price and drinks better in my opinion. Yes, this is merely $15, from Ribera del Duero. Elegant and fragrant, it sneaks up on you, evolving slowly but surely with air, and finishing beautifully. I liked every sip. Not big, not huge, but utterly charming. Just tasty tempranillo, with pleasing cherry notes, clean and persistent. 87 points.

2001 "Tres" (Liberalia) QPR Winner
This is billed as a boutique in the Toro region, and was probably my favorite in this lineup. All Tempranillo, it is smooth and elegant, it has a tannic bite with air for grip and liveliness. It engulfs the mouth, seems big and ripe, a touch earthy, and completely stuffed. No, it's not 1982 Mouton in that regard, but it's also $12.99. That seems shocking to someone who just came back from California. I liked the sensual texture, its easy feel. The big selling point here is the wine's fine depth and structure. Mouthfilling! I'd like to see how this ages before I give it 90 points, but I'm thinking about it. Will it be this nice in four or five years? Probably not, but maybe. It's sure good now. The "Tres" has a funny origin by the way--the wife of the winery owner is French. They emulate Chanel--you know, number "5" and so on. This is their "3." Whatever they call it, it is a fine bottle of wine at a bargain price. I should note....a friend with whom I tasted it thought it VERY likely to age well, more so than I. In which case, give it 90 points. At the moment: 89+ points.

2002 Les Sorts "Fresh" (Coop Agricola del Masroig) QPR Winner
Les Sorts is a co-op in Montstant, Southern Catalonia, and this is called "Fresh" for the English speakers. In fact, it is carbonic maceration wine, made to drink now, and fast. It's a blend of grenache, carignan and tempranillo, probably running around $8. For the price, there is nothing wrong with this wine, it is pleasant, fresh and flavorful. I liked it a lot. But I confess that I got spoiled in this lineup with one very nice, super cheap wine after another. I began to demand more. :) Tasty, enjoyable, very simple, but fairly priced. 83 points.

2000 Les Sorts "Old Vines" (Coop Agricola del Masroig) QPR Winner
This winery takes a big step up with this beautiful bottling of old vines grenache and carignan. They have 60 to 100 year old vines, I'm told. This shows anticipated intensity, very ripe (someone said, a bit exaggerating, amarone-ish) cherry fruit, and a slam-it-into your tongue finish. The depth, intensity and roll-around-your-mouth power were all superb. Guys, it is just $21 a bottle. I kept debating whether I liked this better or the Liberalia Tres. I probably should drink them side by side a few more times just to be sure. But I give this the nod for aging ability, the Tres the nod for immediate charm. I'll rate them the same and see what the future holds--but this is a better bet to win the "+" point, even if I don't like it as well today. 89+ points.

1999 Vinya Selva de Mar (Mas Estella)
Ok, this soars to $27, and is a blend of grenache and syrah. It's lovely, though. Silky and bright, it expands in the glass and shows supple tannins and touches of raspberry. There's also a touch of new American oak, but very subtle. All in all, this is a fine wine, and not unfairly priced. But in this lineup, why buy this if the Tres is half the price and Les Sorts is 30% off? The quality is about even amongst the three, and there is insufficient differentiation to justify the higher price, to which I'd normally be insensitive if I had not had so many great bargains in a row. 88 points.

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.