Please forgive me but I have been late in posting my wine tasting notes. Many of these notes date back to the springtime. A number of them come from a trip to France and Spain back in April where, in spite of the bad exchange rate, I found great bargains on many of the wine lists of top restaurants. In particular, I had a good run of Clos St. Hunes, with examples from 1973, 1979, and 1982. I also had a spate of unbelievable Riojas at local tastings, including great bottles from the 1925, 1928, 1947, and 1949 vintages. Of course, let's not forget a number of other stunning bottles from the various regions I enjoy drinking. And while I know reading about them is not the same as tasting the wines, I hope these notes convey the feeling of drinking them.
Burgundy
2002 Ramonet Bourgogne – Spotted on the list at Michael Mina for $42 and scooped up immediately. Terrific bottle for its category. Nice and viscose, good ripeness, and good length. Of course, it didn’t have the same depth as Ramonet’s Chassagne’s but this wine was clearly trending in that direction. I would like to buy 3-4 cases of it and use it as my house wine. C+
2000 Aubert de Villaine Mercury – For all the hype that lesser bottlings of Burgundy get, I’m often underwhelmed with their performance. I know everyone loves this wine, and it isn't as if I think it's bad, but what's the big deal? C-
2000 Raveneau Chablis Valmur – This bottle was pretty much shut down. Too bad as I’ve had bottles of this wine that have been more open and enjoyable to drink. You can tell it’s classy stuff. Just classy and closed right now. C+
1999 Dujac Bonne Mares – It’s funny how you can notice those Grand Crus in one sip. I thought the flavor profile deeper than usual for Dujac, and the wine was a bit more syupy than I know his style to be. But you just couldn’t get away from the wines breeding even though Bonnes Mares isn’t his best bottle of wine. B
1998 Frederic Magnien Bonnes Mares – Delicious bottle. The fruit was pure and the finish was nice and long. A friend brought this to dinner, and I’ve been looking to buy it ever since but can’t find any. Classic Red Burgundy and surprisingly drinking beautifully. B+
1996 Arnaud Ente Volnay 1er Cru – Lovely juice. We drank this at Craft after a Bouchard Montrachet and a Valentini Montepulciano and I was afraid that it wouldn’t hold its own. But it surprised me by being a wine of great intensity, well beyond its breeding. Nice wine to buy for your cellar as it will be drinking perfectly in 3-4 years. B-
1996 Marc Colin Montrachet – Second tier. It didn't seem to have enough weight to compete with the better Montrachets. And the ripeness factor wasn’t all that either. I’m not sure this will flesh out either. It wasn’t my bottle, but I would sell it if I owned it. B-
1996 Niellon Chassagne-Montrachet Champ-Gains – Okay, but not in the same league as Niellons killer ’96 Chassagne Vergers which is one of my favorite white Burgs. I’m a seller not a buyer. C
1995 Bouchard Montrachet – This wine was fabulous right out of the box and it is still off the charts good. Full bodied and perfectly balanced. One of the best bottles of white Burg around and still undervalued on the secondary market considering what some of other top Montrachets go for. A
1995 Coche-Dury Borgougne – What a joy it is when you walk in a restaurant and they have this on their list for less than 100 euros. Amazed that this was still going strong. While it is time to drink this up, it is really delicious now for what it is and a more enjoyable bottle of wine than many 1er Crus. C+
1995 Jadot Montrachet from magnum – Like a bazooka shot into your mouth. That’s how much intensity this had but in a good way. At first some of the people at the table thought it was over the top and too intense, but then everyone warmed up to it. Leaner than the ’95 Bouchard Montrachet and more of an accent on minerality than opulence. Great stuff. A-
1993 Lamarche Grands-Echezeaux – Years and years from being ready to drink. Still a surprising amount of available fruit showing. It’s a bit citrus heavy at the moment. but more importantly it lacks harmony at this point and it needs time to resolve itself and develop secondary flavors. C
1993 Leroy Vosne-Romanee Beaumonts - Huge wine with deep black cherry tones on the palate. Still tannic , and I understand why people who like classic red Burgundy do not prefer the Leroy wines. Me, I'm more of a hedonist myself. And I could drink this anytime. Give this baby 15 years and it will sing. B+
1993 Marquis D’Angerville Clos des Ducs – Tight but classy. This bottling is usually slow to mature and this vintage holds true to form and this needed loads more time, At least five years but more likely ten. But it will be killer stuff when mature and should become as enjoyable as the transcendent ’78 and delicious ‘85. B+
1993 Niellon Chevalier-Montrachet – Lovely wine, but lacking the ripeness and finish that I prefer in Grand Cru white Burgundy. As to be expected, a debate broke out at the table and the “intense tasters” (people who taste for a living) were singing the virtues of the ’93 vintage. I just don't see it. I find that vintages like ’93 allow “intense tasters” to flex their chops, and that is why they are so in love with the wines. Nice stuff, but not in the same league as what are considered the top vintages. B
1992 Leflaive Chevalier-Montrachet – I'm not a fan of this wine which I find overripe and with exotic fruit. It isn't awful to drink, just that the imperfections make it less enjoyable for me. There is also a bit of volatile acidity on the finish that I don't like. Considering that people pay $750 a bottle for this and up, it's a shame to drink it. You can sell it and buy nearly three bottles of that ’95 Bouchard Monty. C-
1991 Coche-Dury Meursault Rougeot – About 70% of the great ’89 Rougeot, and 80% of the great ’92. Big on the palate. Like the type of petrol mouthfeel you might find in a dessert wine. Still nothing to throw away and very pleasing to drink, even though it was far less than perfect. B-
1991 Drouhin Chambolle-Musigny Amoreuses – Drouhin's Amoreuses is an underrated wine. This was in keeping with other vintages I've had, but the fruit wasn't quite as round as I've seen in vintages like ’95, ’96 and ’99. There was the typical ‘91 harshness on the finish that I thought would go away with air, but it never really happened. I wouldn't touch this for five years if I owned any and I’m ambivalent abnout buying some if it was offered to me. B
1991 Leroy Richbourg – I loved this even though it had a bit of that ’91 coarseness that I don’t particularly care for. But beautiful flavor. Someone thought the wine was drying and the coarse finish was coming from wood tannins. But I wasn’t buying it and think this can age long term. I’m not a buyer at the price, but I would love to be a guest where they are pouring this wine. B+
1991 Rousseau Chambertin – This used to be one of my favorites but the last two bottles have not been as good as previous bottles. The wine used to be nice and smooth but now I have noticed the coarseness that you associate with the ’91 vintage. I’m going to try one more bottle and then I might be a seller. B
1990 Comtes Lafon Meursault Desiree – Too oaky for me. I was surprised when I sipped it because it could have been a better Marcassin. D
1990 Sauzet Puligny-Montrachet Combettes – Nice but not transcendent. No comparison with my favorite ’90 Carillon’s Perrieres. Not bad to drink, but not worth buying if it becomes available at auction or elsewhere. B-
1989 Amiot-Bonfils Puligny-Montrachet Demoiselles – This used to be a great wine but it has seen its best days. Not sure why it faded so quickly compared to other ’89s. But two bottles in a row have been flabby. D+
1989 Meo-Camuzet Corton – This suffered a bit of heat damage so the wine exhibited a bit of funk. But it was delicious in spite of it. I think that Meo’s Corton doesn’t get enough respect. B-
1989 Niellon Batard-Montrachet - Really classy wine. Nice and thick and long on the finish. A bit of Burgundy stink on the nose when it was first poured, but that slowly blew off with air. Easy to drink but it could stand 2-3 years more time in the bottle. I'd buy it if I could find some for less than the whacky price it sells for these days. A-
1989 Niellon Chassagne-Montrachet Vergers – This bottle must have seen some rough treatment at some point because I’ve had better examples of this wine. Not terrible, but not stellar either. B-
1989 Ramonet Bienvenues-Batard-Montrachet – I have had this wine on a number of occasions and I usually find it somewhat less enjoyable than Ramonet's batard bottling. But I think the wine is finally hitting an appropriate level of maturity for current drinking because this bottle was much more intense and expressive than past examples. B+
1989 Ramonet Chassagne-Montrachet les Cairellets - Beautiful wine/ Really pristine and drank like a baby. '89 Ramonets have a lot of bottle variation but this was perfect. True 1er Cru weight. It needs 3-4 more years of cellar time to devellop that nice honey flavor. Textbook Ramonet. B+
1987 Henri Jayer Nuits-St. George – Figures that Jayer could make an ’87 this intense. A number of years back at L’Ambroisie, I had the ’87 Jayer Cros Parentoux and it didn’t do it for me. But this was super. Okay, it isn’t the ’85 Echezeaux, but great in its own way. B+
1985 Ponsot Griottes-Chambertin – In the past, this has been one of my favorite bottles of red Burgundy. I've had it five or six times, and each time it exhibited absolutely pure fruit. But this bottle wasn't anywhere as grand as those in the past. Not a bad wine, but not transcendent. I wonder if it's time has come or if this was just an off bottle. B
1985 Ramonet Chassagne-Montrachet Ruchottes – Flabby and over the hill. It had its chance to revive itself with air but it never happened. Drinkable but just. Too bad. C
1985 Roumier Bonnes Mares – Very good but maybe a hair past its prime. It seemed a bit sweet and cloying, but maybe that was a function of the wine having come to room temperature. Still, I’ve had other bottles from the same case which were earth shattering. Is this now slightly over the hill or was it this bottle? I think I might be a seller given the price on the auction market. B
1978 Remoissonet Musigny – Low fill and a depressed cork made this one a little suspect. But it opened with a bang from the very first pour, and it was full of very pretty fruit that was maybe a hair overripe. The finish was short at the beginning, but with air the acids popped up and it added some length. By the end of the evening it was cooking on all burners. Super stuff. A
1969 DRC Echezeaux - This is a much maligned vintage for DRC. I actually have never had any of the wines. The Echezeaux was nice, but did not have the intense mossiness comonined with searing acidity I associate with DRC. B
Italian
2002 Schiopettio Colio Pinot Bianco – This needs 2-3 years. Right now there is a bit of coarseness on the finish that I predict will disappear with a bit of bottle age. Wonderful with cold shell fish. B-
2001 Giacomo Conterno Barbera D'Alba – Just superb. Intense and highly extracted without being at all over the top. A little long on the mid-palate today, but it should fill out. Almost drinking. Unless it shuts down, in 3–4 years this will be glorious. B+
2000 Sandrone Barolo La Vigne – Very sweet and pure. So soft that it almost seemed as if it was flabby. Tremendous mouthfeel, possibly a bit too smooth. I kept wondering if this wine will last. But delicious in a way that made it hard to put the glass down. The one major flaw I found was over-ripeness. With air the wine became a bit cloying. I'm not sure how that is going to resolve itself in the future. B
1997 Valentini Montepulciano Abruzzi – Terrific stuff. Intense on the palate while being perfectly balanced. A bottle of wine that will flourish with some cellar time. I’m looking to buy some but a recent offer at nearly $200 a bottle made me flinch. A-
1985 Giacosa Barbaresco Santa Stefano Riserva (red label) – Good but not great, and past bottles of this wine have been stupendous. Somewhat chalky and it seemed a bit hot, but that is to be expected for the ’85 vintage. B-
1985 Giacosa Barolo Villero - What a nice surprise this was. After about 30 minutes in glass it opened into a beauty with that strong barolo cherry flavor I like so much. Something about the balance was appealing and made me smack my lips. On my list of wines I am looking to buy. B+
1978 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Santa Stefano Reserva (red label) – Big wine. Lots of deep red fruit. Surprisingly tannic, very chalky on the finish. This is rustic compared to the ’78 Gajas I've had recently – the Sori Tilden being smooth and the Sori San Lorenzo rustic – the Giacosa falls somewhere in the middle. It still has years to go and isn't anywhere as evolved as the ’82 or ’85 bottlings of this wine. It could easily use another five years, possibly more. B+
1978 Gaja Barbaresco Sori San Lorenzo – Really rustic. It needed loads of time in the glass to open up. We should have decanted it 2–3 hours ahead of dinner and then poured it back in the bottle to bring it to the restaurant. B
1971 Giacomo Conterno Monfortino – The fill was great, about 1/3 into the neck. We knew it was going to be a beauty as soon as we saw the color. What a blockbuster. It was one of the most intense wines I've ever had, and over the hour and a half it was open, it evolved into something really spectacular and really was the essence of grand nebbiolo. I never thought of the ’71 as being the equivelent of the ’61 or the ’78, but I have to tell you that this was close, if not an equal. Truly Grand Vin and it will easily keep for another 25 years or more. A+
1961 Giacomo Borgogno Barolo – Newly released and in perfect shape. Good, but not great wine for the vintage. I'd rather invest my money in a bunch of ’78 Barbarescos at auction than in these Borgogno wines. They are the same price and offer more pleasure in my opinion. B
1952 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino - This started out like it was going to be oxidized and funky, but it turned into an exceptional bottle of wine. Really light in color. As if the tint had faded. But with a little air it opened up into something gigantic. Amazing that we are talking about something that is 52 years old. I should have double decanted it before I went down to the restaurant. A
Alsace
2001 Dirler Riesling Grand Cru Kessler – I usually love this bottling but this vintage seemed to have some problems. Especially with volatility on the finish. Not even air mellowed it. Someone at the table said that with 3-4 years of bottle age it will come around, but I’m not sure. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your point of view,) I have some in my cellar so we are going to find out. C
2000 Boxler Riesling Sommerberg – This was so sweet it could have been a VT. Otherwise, good structure and weighty. Enjoyable with food. B
1998 Ostertag Riseling Monchsberg – Shut down. Not much to report. I love the 2000 bottling. C
1996 Trimbach Riesling Clos St. Hune – Delicious wine. Much more open than I imagined it would be. Full bodied and viscose for a St. Hune. Great potential (isn’t that true of every St. Hune) and deserves a place in your cellar. B+
1994 Zind-Humbrecht Gewurztraminer Heimbourg – Beautifully floral and ready to drink. I'm not sure why so many people dislike these wines as they are easy to drink. Yes, maybe they are a bit hyped up but I don't always find it troubling. B+
1993 Trimbach Riesling Cuvee Frederich Emile – Perfectly mature. Apples and lychees in the glass. I wish I owned more of this, or I could find more, because it was super easy to drink and quite pleasing for a vintage that is considered less than the best. B
1990 Zind-Humbrecht Pinot Gris Rangen de Thann – Surprisingly delicious. Post-1988 ZH wines have a bad reputation among the artisanal wine crowd, but I find that there are many good bottles of post-’88 wine out there. This was one of them, with good structure, good extraction, no signs of over-extraction, and a lovely finish with a touch of exotic fruit which probably comes from being slightly overripe. Where can I find more of this to buy? B+
1990 Zind-Humbrecht Riesling Clos Windsbuhl Vendage Tardive – A bit too much alcohol here for me. And not as viscose as other ZH VT's from the Olivier Humbrecht era. Not bad though, just not as good as the ’90 Golderts I have. B-
1989 Zind-Humbrecht Riesling Goldert VT - Nice with Indian food at Devi. I thought this was a bit long in the tooth compared to other bottles I've had, and maybe the sugar is starting to caramelize a bit. But easy to drink. B
1982 Trimbach Riesling Clos St. Hune – Really lovely. I have had the ’83 on many occasions but not the ’82. Underrated wine, and I would buy it in a heartbeat if offered any. A-
1979 Trimbach Riesling Clos St. Hune – This was terrific and perfectly ready to drink. Not a perfect bottle but really enjoyable. Is there such a thing as an over-the-hill St. Hune? B+
1973 Trimbach Riesling Clos St. Hune – This started out a bit flabby but after about 10 minutes an amazing structure appeared. Beautiful wine with oranges, lemon peel, and apple. Highly expressive minerality that hit every part of your tongue. Makes me look forward to drinking my ’83’s in 10 years. A
Rhone
2002 Domaine Richaud Cotes de Rhone “Les Garriques” – Delicious $20 bottle of wine. Big on the palate, a little spicy, and nice ripe fruit. Superb balance. I couldn't stop drinking it. C+
1998 Domaine Gramenon Cote de Rhone “Sierra du Sud” – I was surprised that this wine had so much power. Loads of spicy fruit, Still, the wine seems a bit out of balance and the acids on the finish are a bit harsh. C
1995 Beaucastel Chateauneuf-du-Pape – Underrated Beaucastel with lots of good structure and fruit to go with it. Spicy. My style of CNdP. I have some but I am looking for more of it for my cellar. B+
1991 Guigal Cote Rotie La Landonne – Excellent wine, although this isn’t really ready to drink. And we gave it a two-hour decant, but that wasn’t enough. Nice and spicy, and showing more acidic than bottles I’ve had in the past which usually seemed fruity. It needs a good 3-4 years before trying it again. A-
1991 Jamet Cote Rotie – Drinking beautifully. The wine has possibly lost a bit of the opulent fruit it had a few years ago, but it has resolved itself into a spicy but mellow masterpiece of a cote rotie. Not as much class as the Guigal. B+
1990 Andre Brunell “Les Cailloux” Cuvee Centenaire – I haven't had this wine in a few years and I'm surprised it hasn't evolved more in that time. Still a heavily extracted cherry liquor flavor on the palate, mixed with black olives and Provencal herbs, with a small touch of spiciness. Smooth on the tongue, even though the wine has a slight chalky quality to it. I was trying to imagine when this is going to be fully mature. It could take up to another 10 years, which would almost be unheard of for a Chateauneuf. A-
1990 Clos des Papes Chateauneuf-du-Pape – Finally ready to drink. Roasted raspberry milkshake (but no oak.) The wine tastes like there is a high percentage of Grenache in the blend. A bit hot. Not exactly my style of CNdP but not bad. I think Clos des Papes did better in the ’95 vintage. B
1989 Jamet Cote Rotie – The last bottle from a case I bought about five years ago and what an improvement for this wine. It really fleshed out and is full bodied and has great intensity on the palate. More like the ’91 than ever. Delicious and I would gladly buy more. B+
1988 Jamet Cote Rotie – This was surprisingly soft and thin for a wine that is usually a bruiser. I'm not sure if it was the bottle, or that the wine was somewhat shut down. But I keep waiting for this wine to reach its apogee and it never seems to get there. And 17 years for a Jamet is getting on the older side already. B
1983 August Clape Cornas – I tend to find Cornas a bit light for my palate and this bottle, at the end of its useful life, held true to that form and more. Not bad, but not my style. I prefer the more assertive style of Cornas that is now being made by producers like Domaine de Tunnel. C
Bordeaux
1990 Figeac – Nice bottle that could possibly use another five years. The wine is not completely resolved and it has a sort of citrus finish which stands out. C+
1988 Palmer – Palmer is usually a bit light for my palate, but this vintage seems to have produced a more acute version of the attribute. Pleasant to drink, the wine seemed to have more of a citrus component than I usually find in Palmer, but maybe that is a result of the wine not having the same amount of fleshiness that the famous vintages of ’66, ’70 and ’83 have. C-
1985 Lafite-Rothschild – The combination of a vintage that was easy to drink out of the box, and the style of winemaking that creates wines that usually don’t drink well until they are more than 30 years old, makes for strange bedfellows. The result is a wine that is currently awkward to drink, and which needs a good decade, probably two, to be in its prime. B-
1975 Trotenoy – How can a wine be so soft and so powerful at the same time? Such deeply intense fruit with a touch of cedar. I hate to be redundant but I don't think I ever had a wine this soft, yet so good. Even softer than Palmer is. As the evening went on, the wine just kept getting better. One of the few Bordeauxs with some age on it that is undervalued. This will easily hold for another 20 years. A
1964 Haut Brion – Past bottles have been erratic, and when they aren’t erratic they are highly acidic. But this bottle was gorgeous stuff and all nice and mellowed. Mellow Graves is sort of a contradiction in terms, but I guess this is as close as it gets. People at the tasting I brought it to were trying to figure out how to buy some. B+
1964 Latour – Just a beauty of a wine. A small wine for a Latour. But a beautiful and fragrant nose of violets, black olives, and black cherry. A pleasure to drink, although it is far from great and just good to very good. B+
1961 Gruard-Larose from magnum – Gorgeous stuff. Surprisingly mellowed for a Gruard which I usually find a bit coarse. I have another magnum and I’m looking for an occasion where I can open it. A+
Rioja
1994 La Rioja Alta 904 – Great stuff. We drank this wine four different times over a long weekend on the Costa Brava. Every bottle was delicious, but for some reason the bottle at El Bulli was the freshest bottle. I immediately went out after the weekend and bought a case of magnums. B+
1981 Cune Vina Real – I thought this was suffering from some heat damage and I never quite got into the wine. Too bad because the ’81 Contino is superb. D
1968 Cune Imperial Gran Reserva – A delicious wine. Deeper tones than your typical Rioja which is expected from Cune. Their Imperial bottling usually ages before the Vina Real in my experience so I expected that this would be more open than it was. But a wine with nice potential. B
1962 Cune Imperial Gran Riserva – Another bottle of Rioja that had seen better days. C-
1962 Cune Vina Real - The best bottle of this wine I've ever had. Amazing concentration and length. Usually Riojas are a little thin, and take on a Burgundyish character with a tart cherry nose. But this was a Bordeaux style bruiser that was packed with complexity, and reminded me of the ’54 and ’49 Vina Reals. Great wine and I need to buy some more and lay it away. This was even less evolved than the Monfortino and I predict it will last for more than 25 years. A-
1961 Federico Paternina Gran Reserva - Charming with beautiful tart cherries. Easy to drink and I finished my pour in no time. Not a great wine but certainly enjoyable. Beautifully mature and in balance. C+
1959 Marquis de Murrietta Castillo Ygay Rioja – Possibly the best bottle of Rioja out there post-1949 at this point. I’ve had it four times over the last 18 months and every bottle has been fantastic. If you noticed someone buying up this wine at auction recently, that would be me. A
1958 Marquis de Riscal Rioja Riserva – I’ve had numerous great bottles of this wine. At one point, one could argue this was the best bottle of Rioja that was still drinking. But the last four bottles I’ve had, one from my cellar, two in different restaurants, and one that I recently bought from a dealer in the U.K., have been over the hill. Still drinkable, but it seems to have lost the glory. B-
1955 Bodegas Montecillo Vina Monty – Once again a charming older Rioja that is completely unexpected. I can’t think of another region in the world outside of Bordeaux and possibly Barolo for well stored bottles, where there are so many good bottles that date from the 1950’s. C+
1954 Lopez de Heredia Vina Tondonia – I’ve had this wine three or four times and this was the best showing ever. Surprisingly a ’47 I had recently, another wine that I thought needed more time, was fabulous as well. Maybe this is the year of Tondonia. But the complexity of Heredia wines always surprises me. The other Riojas are always so fruity with sour cherry on the plate. But the Tondonias are always brooding. Serious wine that will last another 25-50 years. A-
1952 Cune Imperial Gran Reserva - Unexceptional for what is supposedly an exceptional vintage. Perfectly mature. Just not a lot going on. It didn’t even have the charm one associates with older wine. C-
1952 Cune Vina Real Reserva Especial – This had a cork problem and it was heavily oxidized and over the hill. It smelled and tasted of rotten meat.Supposedly this is the greatest bottle of Rioja from the 1950’s but on three tries, I have yet to have a good bottle. They are either completely shut down or ruined. D
1950 Cune Vina Real – Purchased on recent release. Very young, and it needed a longer decant than we gave it. It could use another four to five years in the cellar if not more. Not as good as the ethereal ’49, ’52 or ’54 Vina Real, but not a bad wine for the third runner up. B+
1949 Cune Vina Real Reserva Especial - Fantastic. Deep and complex in a Bordeaux style. A wine with a least a few decades left, and if you have any, decant for at least two hours or lay away for a while longer. Great stuff and the best bottle of Rioja this year outside of the 1928 Ernesto Lacuesta and the 1925 Marquis de Riscal Reserva. A+
1949 Marques de Riscal Reserva Especial (served from 187.5ml bottles) - I thought this was going to be dead from the 1/4 bottles. But it wasn't. It lived on and was amazingly syrupy for MdR. Okay but not one of the best. B-
1945 Bilbainas Vina Pomal – This was hard to assess because it was surrounded by such phenomenol wines. The best I can say is that it was lovely, but not in the very, very top class of Rioja. But on it’s own it would probably be marvelous. B
1934 Bodegas Montecilli Vina Monty – DOA and nothing but rotten meat. F
1934 Cune Vina Real Reserva Especial - What a beauty. The nose was terrific and the palate even better. Cune is the Latour of Rioja. Or are they the DRC. I would buy 10 cases of this wine if I could. A+.
1928 Martinez Lacuesta Reserva Especial – What a surprise. An unbelievable wine with tremendous power and grace. Amazing complexity and it bested wines like the ’34 and ’49 Vina Real and the ’25 Marquis de Riscal for wine of the night at a tasting. In terms of quality, it was right up there with the bottle of 1920 Lopez De Heredia Bosconia I drank a few months back. Finding more of this would be like finding a needle in a haystack. A+
1928 Federico Paternina Gran Reserva – It lacked the clarity that the older wines in the tasting had. Probably much better being opened on its own. Something worth owning, but not worth paying any type of premium for this wine. B
1925 Marques de Riscal Reserva – An absolutely fabulous wine. It needed air to evolve but when it did it turned into something magical. There is an argument to be made that if it had a little time in the glass, it might have competed with the Martinez Lacuesta as the wine of the night. In fact some people at the tasting had it as their wine of the night. A+
Champagne
1996 Billecart-Salmon Cuvee Elizabeth Rose – This didn’t impress me very much. A very pale rose with a heavy mousse. It didn’t seem to have much finesse. C-
1996 Cristal – Very good. Not as creamy as the ’90 but opulent in that Cristal way nonetheless. This will be rewarding to cellar. B
1996 Dom Perignon - We drank this right after the 1990 Krug, and it was more than a little unfair to this wine. It seemed to be showing better than other bottles I've had, but it was really hard to get a handle on it given what it came after. It seemed soft and a bit flabby compared to earlier vintages of Dom. Even though there was more austerity and firmness on the palate than other bottles of the DP '96 I've had, it didn't convince me to buy any. B
1995 Salon les Mesnils Champagne – Pretty good, but without the intensity and toastiness (as in yeasty, not oak) that this wine can show in better vintages. B-
1995 Veuve-Cliquot Champagne Grande Dame – Better than I thought it was going to be. It had a bit of class and distinction, but there are better champagnes to drink. C+
1990 Dom Perignon Champagne – Two bottles. Both good, but not as good as other bottles that I’ve had of this wine. B
1990 Dom Perignon Champagne Oenotheque – There was something about this I liked. The wine was clean and fresh. Crispy in the way I like my champagnes. Yet there was a hint of maturity via the way champagne gets oxidized when it gets a bit of age on it that I loved. B+
1990 Krug - Simply phenomenol. I haven't bought any because the price has been high for what I usually pay for Krug, but the wine was so good, I am tempted to go out and buy two cases regardless of price. The perfect Krug balance of austerity and wininess with a nice firm mousse that I love. It just blew away the next bottle of champagne we drank, which almost tasted like we were drinking flavored water after the Krug. A
1988 Krug Champagne – Delicious stuff. Some bottles have been tight, others open and fabulous. This was the latter. You can’t lay away enough of this wine. A-
1985 Dom Perignon - I've had this wine a number of times but never warmed up to it. I was going to sell my remaining bottles, but recently I decided to give it another shot. Well I was pleasantly surprised as the wine seemed to have gained some precision and didn't show the flabbiness and wininess that I always complained about. It still didn't move me as much as the '90 does, but I have reconsidered my decision to sell my remaining bottles off. B+
1979 Bollinger Champagne RD – Excellent. Champagne is underrated as being a white wine equivalent, and I find that as time goes by I enjoy it more and more in that situation. This bottle had all the attributes I like. Slightly sherried from maturity, assertiveness on the palate, a tight, firm mousse, and a good dose of austerity. I could drink a bottle of this every day and be happy. A-
NV Jacques Sellose Substance – Great stuff. It’s a shame they don’t import it into the U.S. anymore. This champagne straddles the great crispiness that I love in champagne, along with that slight hint of sherry on the palate. Good stuff. B+
Laurent Perrier Champagne Grand Siecle – Bottled in 1978, using wine from 1973, 1974, and 1975. It was glorious. So full, with a huge impact on the palate. It started out intensely sherried, but it softened with air, and more freshness came to the forefront of the wine. Absolutely super-stuff; people were actually groaning after each sip. A+
Pierre Gimonet Blanc de Blancs NV – Fine for a bottle you buy at a restaurant to drink as an aperitif, but not something I would buy cases of. But I thought it held up well to the next champagne we drank, which was the 1996 Cuvee Elizabeth which cost twice the money. C
Miscelaneous
1924 Huet Vouvray Haut Lieu – Fabulous. The wine glowed on my tongue. It tasted like a vanilla creamsicle. Not from oak, but the wine itself. Great structure, beautiful length, and tongue-coating viscosity while not being very sweet. A pleasure to drink. A
Cerdon de Bugey – They were pouring this buy the glass at Gramercy Tavern and how could one refuse it on a hot summer night. Really delicious. Some years I find this wine either not sweet enough, and some years I find it cloying. This years bottling is perfect. A great sparkling aperitif. B+
Is that all you drank, lol.
Whilst we were at Can Roca I thought the general opinion was that the Clos St Hune was shut down but that the Raveneau Valmur was delicious?!
I'm off to Barcelona and Girona again in December. The 904 '94 can be had for around £20 there which is quite a bit cheaper than the UK so I'm definitely bringing a few bottles back. Have you any experience with the 1989 890?
Posted by: Scott | July 25, 2005 at 09:06 AM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Posted by: Steve Plotnicki | November 09, 2005 at 11:29 PM