Brian K Miller wrote:The "regular" Sonoma County vintage, not the Reserve.
Brian, Laurel Glen is one of my California favorites, both because of its intrinsic merits and because Patrick Campbell has been a good buddy since back in the '80s.
I'm not absolutely sure about "regular" vs "reserve," though - those aren't terms I associate with Laurel Glen.
Looking over my notes, I find that I've tasted through the 1999 Laurel Glen Sonoma Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon (which is their flagship wine but in the past hasn't borne the "Reserve" word as far as I know) and the 2000 Counterpoint, which is the second wine, made from estate-grown but younger vines. Are you thinking of the Counterpoint, maybe? Or am I missing something? It's really early in the morning over here.
Anyway, here's a note on a restaurant tasting of the 2000 Counterpoint at a dinner with Patrick and a small group of wine geeks when he was here in Louisville in the summer of 2004:
<b>Laurel Glen 2000 Counterpoint Sonoma Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon</b>
This may be the "second label," but it's a fine red table wine in its own right. Very dark reddish-purple in color, it shows ripe Cabernet cassis and fresh herbs on the nose, and good structure, black fruit and acid on the palate, with soft tannins that don't interfere with its immediate enjoyment.
My last TNs on the Sonoma Mountain are on the 1999, also tasted in 2004:
<b>Laurel Glen 1999 Sonoma Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon</b> ($42.99)
Very dark purple, almost black, the wine pours with a rich, grapey bluish color that signals youth. Because of its immaturity, I opened it 90 minutes before dinner, decanting it into a clean container to allow aeration. First tasted immediately after opening, it's intriguing but very young, offering deep, brooding plum and currant aromas with grace notes of spice; pleasant and fairly forward for a young wine but requiring swirling to bring out. On the palate it shows black fruit, tart acidity and smooth but drying tannins that become quite astringent in the finish. After an hour and a half, it opens up somewhat, displaying good blackberry and tart cherry aromas and fresh, clean black-fruit flavors over good lemony acidity; tannins are still quite evident but have become secondary to the fruit, and rare steak on the dinner table further ameliorates the tannins and brings up the wine's fruit. Over the course of the evening, the wine's tannic astringency continues to soften with exposure to air, and four hours after opening it has developed considerable complexity, adding subtle notes of roses, menthol, sweet leather and herbal thyme. A tannic backbone remains - this is, after all, a wine meant for aging - but with the combination of extended "breathing" and an appropriate food match, it's quite drinkable now. (July 24, 2004)
I have a singleton 2002 Sonoma Mountain sitting around here, but based on my past experience with Laurel Glen, I'll be smart if I wait until 2012 to drink it ... this wine typically takes at least a decade to come into its own.
The 2003 and 2004 Sonoma Mountain are currently available at the winery. I'm not sure why, but my records don't indicate that I ever saw or tasted 2000 or 2001.
