wine-people.com |
|
...and don't forget to email your
questions or comments! |
HOW TO USE THESE NOTES: Many of my tasting notes take the style of mini-articles and discuss multiple wines. So, rather than bust them up, I've organized them in the order they were written, with the most recent at the top. I realize this is a royal pain for folks simply seeking a recommendation for a good Chardonnay. If that's what you're after, please make use of our SEARCH engine. Just click the button below, wait for the search window to pop up, type in the word "Chardonnay" (for example) -- and follow the instructions on the results screen. If you're using Internet Explorer, you can also search any individual screen -- like this one -- by hitting "Ctrl-F", typing in your search word and pressing "Enter." EXOTICA (May 16, 2004) Don't want to gush, but it seems to me the very top New World winemakers have raised the bar yet again with the 2001 and 2002 vintages. The wines aren't necessarily bigger than before -- that would be tough, because the best wines of the '90s could be enormous. But the flavors are increasingly pure and distinctive -- especially the fruit and floral notes. The following wines recently rang all the chimes in my pleasure-center. is not what I was expecting from Australia. The American oak is pretty laid-back -- you can taste the dill only if you hunt for it -- and the wine is so well assembled that two folks tasting it blind mistake it for 2000 Bordeaux in the first few minutes after it's poured. As minutes tick by and the fruit flows, they change their guess to Napa Valley. Wrong again, but I don't blame them. You get gushers of very pure blackberry and blackcurrant, with a suggestion of raspberry Chambord on the lengthy finish. If you're fortunate enough to find a few, grab 'em -- and prepare to change your mind about Australian Cab. ***2001 Forman Cabernet Sauvignon has to be Ric Forman's finest since his astonishing 1991. It may not be quite as big, but it's even more complex. Takes an hour to emerge in my sizable glass, so decant if you're planning on robbing the cradle. When things finally start happening, they come thick and fast -- lots of classic Cabernet flavor, followed by licorice, band-aid, and wait a minute, is that blueberry? Violets too. Bravo, Ric. Must see if I can find a few more. ***-2001 Behrens and Hitchcock Kenefick Ranch Cabernet Sauvignon is the most fruit-drenched of this delicious quartet, though it doesn't quite match the scale of the other three. Black cherry, tobacco and a hint of guava. Rose petal aromas rise from the glass. Ooh. Gotta stop thinking about it. Almost drooled on the keyboard. ***Arietta Variation #1 Hudson Vineyard may be the most exotic and puzzling of the bunch, with flavors of blackberry, strawberry, tapenade and chocolate. Tasting it blind, I mistake it for an older wine from Howell Mountain, because it's very smooth and resolved. However, it's jet black and holds up well throughout the evening. It's 60% Merlot and 40% Syrah. Not sure I'd cellar this one for more than a few years, but it certainly offers gorgeous drinking now. HOW GOOD IS GALLO? (April 26, 2004) Remember back when Gallo released their first "really serious" Cabernet? Many of us were appalled that they dared to charge $60 for ***-1991 Gallo Northern Sonoma Cabernet Sauvignon. But a friend served it blind to me recently, and I've got to say I was sucked in. It's still very dark and I guessed it to be a much younger wine. It's got depth, lots of fruit, some herbal complexity, and it didn't fade overnight in the fridge. CANADA RIESLING -- FOR
REAL. (April 26, 2004) A while back, a winemaker friend gives me a
bottle of **--1999 Cave Spring Vineyard Riesling Niagara Peninsula.
"Try it," he says. "You'll be impressed." But alas, my
cellar lacks a Canada corner. So the bottle kind of gets lost until I
happen upon it last night. HOW OLD IS TOO OLD? (April 16, 2004) I'm in love with New World Pinot Noir, but wouldn't think of getting married. Five to seven years after vintage, the romance usually sputters and dies. Lately I've been revisiting some old flames with predictable results: serves as my Burgundy benchmark for this exercise. Oxidation blows off in about 15 minutes, revealing a fine weave of strawberry and mineral flavors. Elegant, gracious and all that good stuff, but gone is the oomph of yesteryear. One taster professes to like it a lot. I liked it lots better five years ago. *1994 Rochioli Pinot Noir Estate is supposed to be a decent ager and sure enough, hasn't dropped off the cliff. Over the evening, it opens to show some cherries and pomegranate flavors. Finesse freaks will appreciate it. Tonight I would have preferred a flashier date. 1997 Castalia Pinot Noir Rochioli Vineyard is dead, buried, pushing up daisies. No getting around it. I pour some into the griddle pan with my salmon. Doesn't even do so well there. This wine was delicious on release. With its Rochioli pedigree (same vineyard, same winemaker), I assumed it could go a greater distance. 1998 Panther Creek Freedom Hill Vineyard is so oxidized, I open another just to make sure it isn't a fluke. It isn't. This annoys me a lot, because I was told it was too stiff to drink on release! I'll give it the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps my bottles were damaged in transit back when I acquired them. Does anyone else have recent experience with this wine? [NOTE: Since the original posting, readers have written back with better experiences.] At last some good news. **+1993 Beaux FrPres Pinot Noir is aging just beautifully. What a class act! Strawberries, minerals, a hint of raspberry, everything I hoped for. Nearly dumb on release, it's turned out better than most of the 1993 Burgs that I so carefully selected. Congratulations to Mike Etzel. (Or, as his brother-in-law would say -- kudos!) **1995 Dehlinger Goldridge Vineyard is equally fine, if a bit less intense. Here we have more of the Russian River Valley red-cherry thing -- but this one too is more complex and interesting than it was on release. I wouldn't hold it much longer, but right now this is great intellectual date. And **--2001 St. Innocent White Rose Vineyard kind of proves my point. It's so young and pretty! Red berries and floral notes. So much more fun than all but a couple of the above. Sure it might age well, but why risk it? Finish one off tonight. (April 16, 2004) I sampled this wine twice in the past few weeks just to make sure I really liked it this much -- then opened another recently because I simply couldn't resist. ***2001 Veraison Synchrony Stagecoach Vineyard is plush, thick and bursting with blackberry fruit. Shows plenty of supple tannin, but it's very accessible right now. This is a winery to watch. Wonder when the 2002 will come on the market? Soon, I hope! BOGART THESE WINES (March 6, 2004) I like to taste as much as the next geek, but some wines are simply off-limits. They must not be measured out by the ounce, slurped and spat -- it's sensory torture. The following wines should only be opened with reverence, a few friends and plenty of time: WHITES
REDS
IS THIS VINTAGE CRACKING UP? (March 3, 2004) Count on it like the swallows of spring -- at least once a year, rumors will spread on bulletin boards that a well-thought-of vintage or wine is cracking up. The latest debate is about California Cabs from the 1990s and 1994 in particular. ANSWER: No, the better ones are singing! In fact, I've been drinking well-reviewed Cabs from the early '90s quite a bit lately, and they've never been better. But there's often a grain of truth behind every crack-up panic. Here are my usual suspects:
HINT: Give an "adolescent" wine at least an hour to open. The aging process doesn't always happen in sync, and the result can be a temporarily awkward-tasting wine. But even a dumb wine can improve amazingly in a large glass or decanter. In the first hour after you open it, the wine can taste pretty lean -- but if you're patient, you'll often find the tannins yield. This is exactly what happened last night, when I opened... I've watched other vintages of this wine fool tasters who rush to judgment. Tonight's bottle follows form. In the first fifteen minutes, you taste the blackcurrant and can't help noticing herbal notes from the Cabernet Franc in this blend. As minutes tick by, the initial fruit fades and tannins clamp down. But hang in there! Everything comes into balance after about an hour of airing and you're left with violets, cassis and a bit of cedar, like a fine St. Emilion. Cracking up? No way! OZ SHIRAZ & ALL THAT JAZZ (February 26, 2004) I've been berated for neglecting the tasting notes. Sorry friends, here's amends from a recent Oz-a-thon. Some of these wines were very impressive, but in general I found them much of a muchness. This is an oft-heard criticism of Australian wines that I usually dismiss as snobbery. But tonight, well...maybe I wasn't paying attention or maybe the wines weren't deserving. Anyhow, let's start with the good news:
1996 vs. 1997 CALIFORNIA CABERNET (January 9, 2004) These two great vintages are starting to remind me a little of 1989 and 1990 Bordeaux. The earlier vintage is showing its bones, while the other tastes just as juicy as ever. No complaints about either, but if your corkscrew is getting itchy, I'd opt for the '97s and hold the major '96s a few more years. Here's how some of the big guns compared at a recent celebration: vs. ***+1997 Shafer Hillside Select. Virtually identical in their enormous scale, unending finish and seductive flavors of chocolate-covered cherries. The two contended for wine of the evening honors. But the 1996 is perceptibly more tannic. I'm not sure this means it will age longer than the 1997 -- both continue to open impressively throughout the evening. Note also that the '96 isn't as structured as the 1999, which may be the most backward Hillside I've ever tasted. ***-1996 Dominus vs. ***+1997 Dominus. Both are delicious. Both unmistakably from Napanook Vineyard, with aromas of violets and a leather, followed by flavors of cherries and red currants. But the 1997 clearly outsings its sibling. Some may fault it for being gamier, but there's more of everything going on. Why? ***+1997 Araujo goes from strength to strength every time I taste it. If anything, it's even more lush and fruity than it was on release! Kind of like 1990 Pichon-Baron, it refuses to drop its "baby fat." It also shares the minerals and lead pencil flavors of the PB. Would love to compare them blind sometime. ***1996 Jones Family is beginning to lose its baby fat, but what's left reminds me a bit of the young 1992 Peter Michael Les Pavots. Intense, focused red cherry flavors with a very convincing finish. Opens gradually to reveal voluptuous texture. No question, however, that it's not quite as plush as it was on release. I'm inclined to believe that the wine may age well, but there's no track record here. If you're in a mind to open one, it couldn't hurt to decant. ***+1996 Abreu gets some tongues wagging, but mine just hangs out in awe. To me, it's the wine of the evening -- a neutron star of blueberries, cranberries, blackberries and so berry, berry long. Others can't seem to get past the structure, calling it too acidic. Well, it does have more acidity than the Araujo, Domini and Shafers, but the balance is impeccable. Might be better in 10-15 years, but I'll probably never find out. HYPE OR HERO? (January 1, 2004) 2001 Paloma Merlot is almost as black as the ocean of ink that's been spilled in its praise, but what does it taste like when you can't see the label? We served it blind to some platinum palates and, well... they were wow-wow-wowed! At this stage, it may still be splintery if sampled direct from the bottle, but an hour's decanting turns it into a beautiful box of fruit-filled chocolates. Voluptuous texture. Long finish. May age well, but why the heck would anyone wait when the debutante's so delicious today? Won't bother scoring it -- you get the picture. Good luck trying to find one! (January 1, 2004) Not only does Patrick Campbell deserve a medal for championing down-to-earth pricing, he's also created more than his share of out-of-this-world wines. We uncorked his ***+1992 Laurel Glen twice in the last few weeks, and both times it flew to the moon. HUGE bouquet of violets, followed by saddle soap and berries. Round and ripe on the palate, with supple tannin on the finish. Use your decanter if you have one -- otherwise, let it sit in the glass for an hour before tasting. |
GO TO other tasting notes: January-June 2004 |
