A friend of Victor’s in Germany, who I’d only met once before, and who was so kind as to invite me to a lunch/dinner extravaganza of extraordinary proportions. Of all the fine courses Suganda prepared that day (we really sat there from noon to midnight), I shall never forget the intensely flavourful yet only subtly spicy Indonesian beef broth, and the stuffed quail that was so tasty, I had a second helping. My mouth is watering just sitting here typing... Thanks so much again, Suganda, for a great meal and tasting, and of course, great company!
This gathering took place on April 28th, 2007. Guests included Bernd, Dirk, Erik, Martin, Norbert, Sam (aka professional wine critic Marcus Hofschuster), Victor, and yours truly.
Château Grand Puy Ducasse Pauillac 1995
Thanks to Bernd. It was five years ago that I last had this, and it now becomes apparent I slightly underrated this at release and after. From a bottle Bernd and Suganda shared the evening before, thus decanted between 12 and 18 hours (as this was the finest showing of this wine I have ever witnessed, airing cannot have hurt matters). A bit evolved garnet ruby, slight orange at the rim. Mature nose for a 1995 Pauillac, tobacco, smells quite sweet and round with some plummy blackcurrant, but of course remains slightly green and mean underneath on the palate. Medium-short finish. Rating: 86-/85
Château Lynch Bages Pauillac 1995
Thanks to Suganda. Also from a bottle Bernd and Suganda shared the evening before, thus decanted between 12 and 18 hours. Fresher-looking ruby black than that of the Grand Puy Ducasse. Sexy blackcurrant, precise, just a little but pretty cigar tobacco, faint lead pencil and earth. Fairly long. A feminine wine with firm tannin that lacks complexity and finesse, but then, the wines of this Château are meant to be obvious and pleasing, not intellectual. No brain, no complaints, so to speak, perfectly valid as a style, which after all does have quite a following. Rating: ~88
Schloss Gobelsburg Riesling Alte Reben 2005
Thanks to Victor, who was curious to taste this after Michael Prónay gave this a score of 99 points in Vinaria. 13.5% alcohol is what it says on the label, seems as if there were more. From 60-years-old vines. Lots of surface tannin here, apple and old-viney gooseberry, lightly peppery-spicy, immense stone-dusty minerality, quite noble herbs, basil, citrusy, very ripe fruit, full body, with the alcohol integration not quite perfect. Palate-staining tannin and minerality. Firms acids. Really impressively long on the finish. Was there any botrytis here? It sure seems like. But sweet-tasting only due to the combination of ripeness, glycerine and high alcohol. Quickly looser, diffuse and warming with alcohol (too much so for my taste), if the glass is allowed to warm up a little. But certainly among the best 2005s I have tasted so far from Austria. Like the old-vininess and minerality best here. It may also be even more concentrated than Keller’s more easily drinkable 2004 G-Max, and in contrast to that wine, this can be expected to improve with bottle age (not that I think of ageworthiness as a qualitative characteristic per se, by the way). Rating: 92+/93
Weingut Keller Riesling G-Max 2004
Thanks to Sam. Residual yeast that smells roasted if not burnt, pink grapefruit, rather precise crustacea/carapace, smoky minerality, more aromatic acidity than the Gobelsburg, touch of bitter grapefruit zest. So much better alcohol integration here (an all-important aspect to me, I must admit). By the way, when I mentioned I do not believe this is ever going to taste better than it does right now (have yet to see a Keller bottling age well, that is, unless it is a Riesling TBA), Sam, who had only just been to a G-Max vertical, agreed (should mention perhaps that it puts those who know him almost inevitably into a state of shock when he agrees with them on anything ;^) Rating: 93-
Domaine Cauhapé Jurançon Quintessence du Petit-Manseng 1994
This half bottle was a contribution of mine. I once had an opportunity to talk to Henri Ramonteu at a trade tasting and was impressed with his sincerity, as well as his wines. Even so, I was sceptic as to whether the nuttiness this wine showed at release would mask the fruit with bottle age. Not at all. Full yellow-golden colour. Malty and buttery with a touch of Amaretti-like almond, fat and thick, sweet, round and polished, highly concentrated, with good body and structure, very long on the finish. The influence of (pretty) oak is still noticeable, and there is still some bready botrytis left. Lovely little smokiness to thick yellow fruit, dandelion among other. Not too high but neither particularly aromatic or flavourful acidity. Are there any soil notes hidden in here somewhere, though? Wish I owned some more – at this rate, this may age forever. Rating: 93+?
Zind-Humbrecht Tokay Pinot Gris Vendange Tardive Rangen de Thann Clos St-Urbain 1994
Thanks to Norbert. Tangerine top note to mostly apricot, such high acidity it can be smelled even though it is not as aromatic as that of a Riesling. Strong acidity on the palate, fresh and racy. Highly concentrated, viscous, this has body and power, complex and firm, a great TPG (not my favourite Alsatian grape variety). Oxidising a bit quickly in the glass, soon showing that TPG-typical, faintly nutty touch. Sam also noted that what oak can be smelt and perhaps tasted here seems used, not particularly attractive. I wonder if a wine like this, despite the fact that this is from a great late harvest vintage (still the finest Z-H has ever seen, Victor claims) and has the requisite structure to age, is not best appreciated in its exuberant, tropically-fruited youth. Not sure the volcanic Rangen soil notes surface more in aged TPG than young one, either. Even so, this was one of the highlights of the day. Rating: 96-/95?
Péter Kállai Tokaji Essencia Csontos Dülö 2000
Thanks to Victor. No different than a year ago. 100% Furmint with over 600 g/l residual sugar, unfiltered. Lightly amber orange colour with the faint milky murkiness of unfiltered Eszencia. Hugely thick and viscous. Incense, wax, dried apricot, pear juice concentrate, quince and paprika powder. Nicely bright and aromatic, though not particularly high acidity for Tokaji Eszencia. I have had more complex or minerally-deep ones, but this is a tasty, unadulterated example, and a fine QPR. Rating: 94-
Joh. Jos. Prüm Riesling Auslese Gold Capsule #1 Wehlener Sonnenuhr 1985
Thanks to Victor. A mature bottle of Prüm is always a treat. Quite full, lightly golden colour. A typical 1985 (a very, very good, though not great vintage in hindsight), with faintly dusty-medicinal petrol and acidity that is faintly brittle, albeit not especially so for the year. Lemon grass, aged as well as fresh apple, lightly stale spring flowers, some as if chalky slate, faint grey pepper. Medium-plus length. A quite well-balanced wine, and very tasty 1985. The rare kind of wine of which I could drink a bottle all by myself. Rating: 92-
Etienne Sauzet Montrachet 2002
Thanks to Suganda. Medium-pale yellow colour. Medium thistle-spiced oak, balm mint, Amalfi lemon, and tarragon on the nose. A bit candied and sweet with alcohol, with a tiny tannic dryness to nicely medium- to full-bodied, smooth, mildly floral Williams pear and lemon fruit, soft green pepper, juniper, subtle anise and quite noble, cool minerality, rather long on the finish. Already shows good subtlety and finesse, but seemingly kept putting on weight with airing. Nicely light on its feet Montrachet despite good concentration. Early harmony does not preclude this from being somewhat closed, but then, it is not really meant to be drunk young. On the whole, I found reminiscent of DRC’s 1999, if it less buttery and airy-floral (as well as less overtly oaky), then more precise – my instinct suggests there should be more to this one in the long run. Rating: 94+
Chapoutier Ermitage De L’Orée 2003
Thanks to Suganda. As Erik immediately noticed, fatter and more alcoholic than the 2001 of which he drank a bottle all by himself a week or so earlier (just mentioning this to prove it apparently can be done), so much so the TCA taint was for once harder to smell than taste. Oxidised pear, short and muted. Rating: N/R
Chapoutier Ermitage De L’Orée 2004
Thanks to Erik. I hope I do not hurt anyone’s feeling admitting that I do not particularly care for Rhône whites (that even includes Beaucastel’s Roussanne Vieilles Vignes, which I have more sympathy for because it contains no Marsanne). I happen to find most heavy and overbearing, with lots of alcohol, little acidity and what is worse, freshness and finesse – and I am not sure I want to make it habit to eat the fatty stuff people suggested might go well with it. Erik, however, visibly and audibly appreciated the opportunity to have these next to a Montrachet, and why not, they compare from a qualitative perspective and thus may be thought of as a relative bargain. Thank goodness this was not cork-tainted like the 2003 or forbiddingly closed like the 1996 at the Gupf last year. From 60 to 70 years-old Marsanne vines. More of an emphasis on veggies on the nose, viscous and full-bodied yet fresh on the palate, a less oxidative vintage compared to others I have tasted, partly aged pear, underripe lightly tannic quince and sultana, clean straw, attractive minerality, nice earthiness, very long on the finish. A relatively easily enjoyable vintage of this bottling, ironically, it is in part the length here that keeps one from taking another sip, as if serving as a reminder of the hugeness one is not yet ready to succumb to again. Extremely well-crafted wine, no doubt, expressive of its terroir. Even Erik admits this is not about fruit, but extract and soil notes (and lots of both!). I have always wondered if I would like these wines better with bottle age (the most mature of this bottling I have had so far was the 1992 last year at the Gupf), but given my preferences, I am never going to find out unless someone serves such a bottle to me. Forgot to note anything about the wine’s acidity, but seem to remember there was some, more perhaps than in other vintages. Rating: 93+?
Jacquesson Champagne R. D. “non dosé” 1988
Thanks to Norbert. Aged on its lees for 17 years, “dégorgé” (is there an English translation for this?) in July 2006. Ahem... Did I mention I do not particularly care for bubblies either (there is barely half a dozen I liked so well I would like to have them again)? Toasted brioche dust, nicely smoky minerality, aged but not stale lemon, tannic, hay-like dried flowers. Some old oak. Not a fruity Champagne. Lots of CO2 left, with the perlage a bit rough, certainly not particularly fine. A bit rustic in style. Could be creamier, more exotic, I overheard someone mention, definitely true. Rating: 91
Domaine de la Romanée-Conti Richebourg 1952
Thanks to Suganda. Should you ever happen to count me among your guests, serve a rare and costly, possibly legendary wine or trophy bottle, and notice I am sitting there quiet as a mouse, chances are I am not enjoying what I am having, and that it is only my polite (not modest) nature that keeps me from speaking my mind, such as here, not wanting to offend our gracious (and generous!) host. A bottle with an almost (except the lowest half inch) dried-out cork and two inches ullage, stored too dryly I guess. Quite deep garnet-brown with an amber edge. Mature lemon, sherry-tainted, cocoa powder and chocolate, new leather (as of a BMW, Erik says – apparently all new cars have their specific scent nowadays?). Quite juicy still, highly concentrated, firm tannin. Some dark dried berries plus raspberry and blood orange, faint redcurrant. Faint varnish note to the leather with airing. The longer it aired, the more it loke like Coke and tasted like a dried-out Tokaji Aszú, with an emphasis on dried date, chestnut, coffee and tar. No mushroominess, just some autumnal fallen leaves. Long, but with an aftertaste concentrating on prune and Ricola herbal candy cough drop. Soon after Madeira-like already. Must obviously have been a structured super Pinot in its prime, and, very likely, may still be from a pristine bottle. Not sure why people raved about it, pedigree perhaps (not what I am used to ever encounter in our Swiss wine lovers’ circle)? Rating: N/R
Dujac Clos de la Roche 1990
Thanks to Norbert. A pristine bottle. Guesses centered around Chambolle, no surprise for this bottling (never the spiciest, most powerful or minerally CdlR), someone actually found it a bit Oregon-like (the emphasis is on “like” – overt Dujac opulence notwithstanding, this is still unmistakable Burgundy). Ruby-black with a touch of amber, especially at the rim. Lovely forest floor, soy sauce, raspberry, thyme, just minor terroir-induced clove. With a little airing faint marzipan from the new oak, actually found this a bit oaky for my taste. Nice smoke, the somewhat roasted fruit of the vintage, Indian-spiced meat, dried laurel. Good body, quite good length, growing a bit longer with airing. Relatively light on its feet for a CdlR, and quite finesseful for a Dujac. As Norbert noted, the yields in this fine vintage were not particularly low. Good sweetness, nicely firm tannin that is not quite as flavourful as in the greatest wines, but the finest I have so far encountered in a Dujac. Not too deep, but nicely complex wine that goes well with food. Rating: 93-/92
Hubert Lignier Clos de la Roche 1995
My second contribution that day. Corked, second time in a row, and these were the only two bottles of this wine I owned. Damn! Rating: N/R
Jean-Louis Chave Hermitage 1989
Thanks to Norbert. Sensationally pristine bottle, whatever comes out of his cellar always tastes so impeccable, fresh and racy, as it should. Deep ruby-black, almost opaque. Black truffle, subtle but racy Syrah fruit, fresh prune minerals, some iron, stale blood. A relatively dry vintage, but a nicely classic wine. Of course this could offer thicker, sweeter and deeper fruit, but what wonderful soil notes – the more intellectual of the two is how my companions termed it. The first wine that night of which I drank a well-filled glass. As impressive as the La Chapelle is in this vintage, the more mature, a bit fruitless, almost exclusively terroir-driven Chave was more to my taste. Makes for more versatile combinations with food, too. Now that it enters full maturity, I secretly reconsidered the 1989’s alleged superiority to the 1988: perhaps not in terms of body, size and fruit density (although it is precisely the medium-plus bodied, lightly Burgundian character that makes this so easy to appreciate), but harmony, tannin quality and terroir expression. If I could choose a refill of anything served that night, this might be my first choice. Rating: 95-/94?
Jaboulet Aîné Hermitage La Chapelle 1989
Thanks to Erik. Opaque pruney ruby. Compared to the Chave, the more hedonistic and polished of the two, altogether more candied and densely fruity, but also new-oakier (as well as simply oakier, period). Almost syrupy curranty and candied canned tomato. Stemmier tannin than the Chave, not at all rustic, dry or grainy, am exceptionally thick, smooth and candied bottle (almost the texture of a top Aussie Shiraz), the finest of the 1989 I have so far had, seemingly more youthful than the Chave. The more sizeable wine of the two. Even so, it cannot be expected to ever fully absorb its new oak, and may well dry out earlier than the Chave. Rating: 94+?
Jaboulet Aîné Hermitage La Chapelle 1990
Thanks to Suganda. Again more open than a couple of years ago, evolving slowly. Prunier, yet more opaque colour than the 1989’s. Marzipan, canned tomato, faintest possible brett, a bit curranty, more minerally, smokier, tarrier, flintstonier, soft green tobacco and banana leaf, soft rusty iron. With airing increasingly sweet and a bit mulled wine-like, adding top notes of grilled shallot and bell pepper, but the new oakiness of the marzipan top note also became more apparent (it is no secret I much prefer Chave from a stylistic point of view). Much more closed than either of the 1989s, yet firmer structure, ageworthier. I am glad I kept a well-filled glass for almost the remainder of the evening. Dense, filled to the brim with reserve fruit and sweetness at the core. A bit prone to oxidation with airing, like most vintages of this bottling, even so, the 1990 has the structure to improve, and needs and deserves more time in bottle. The finest La Chapelle since the 1978 and one of the wines of the day. Rating: 97+?
Cavallotto Barolo Riserva Bricco Boschis Vigna San Giuseppe 2000
Thanks to Sam. From vines planted in 1961. Deep garnet-ruby-black, red and orange at the rim. Mainly sweet marzipan, increasingly hot, white truffle, forest floor, moss, sweet tar, black cherry coulis, all hinting at fair enough potential complexity. Not at all easy to recognise as traditional style Barolo (is it really?), perhaps due to the vintage. Quite full body, only the alcohol integration leaves a little something to be desired. The tannin, as seems typical of many 2000s, could be more flavourful. Not bitter or rustic, rather on the polished, but barely expressive side of the spectrum. Fair enough length. Wants depth, and more attractive (or simply more!) soil notes. But a still relative success in this atypical vintage (which I must admit I never liked in general for Piedmontese Nebbiolo). Rating: 90+/91?
Château Léoville Las Cases St. Julien 1986
Thanks to Bernd. Identical to a bottle with my family two years ago, this seems to be evolving at a snail’s pace. Opaque pruney ruby-black, glossier, fresher and livelier colour than that of the Lafite. Tiny Cordier-like whiff of horse sweat at first, but soon noble cigar tobacco and lead pencil, spicy-earthy roasted blackcurrant, terrific cut and depth, not just solid and firm, showing structure, power and great body, this is impressively complex and deep, and very long on the finish. Lafite’s terroir notes may be yet nobler, but this won me over with its precision and focus, as well as its completeness, and it must be said, the terroir expression here is really one to admire as well, especially in this vintage. Quite frankly, I am currently wondering if I have started to prefer the 1986 to the 1982. Wow! Victor’s and my favourite of the three 1986s that night, and one of the wines of the tasting. Too bad this Château is doing silly stuff such as use reverse osmosis... Rating: 97(+?)
Château Lafite Rothschild Pauillac 1986
Thanks to Bernd. Similar colour to the LLC’s, just a fraction murkier as usual. But a fine bottle, clean as a whistle, except for the usual faint bretty sweat top note. The fruit again seemed more evolved than the tannic backbone, same as the bottle with Rainer at the Lafite vertical two and a half years ago. Softer, rounder, superficially more evolved, easy-going and less structured than the LLC, when in reality it is an unusually sizeable chunk of a Lafite. A tasty, jammy, meaty-round, more finesseful and intellectual, quite long wine that I would love to re-taste in another decade from now. Not quite as resistant to oxidation with airing. The mythical terroir transpires, but with less precision and focus than the LLC’s, so that the two wines were almost at stalemate from that perspective, too. Note everybody raved about this, and that Victor and I were the only ones who found the LLC superior that night. As to the alleged perfection of this wine, which has so far eluded me, there seem to me to be three aspects to consider. Firstly, bottle variation and/or as Bernd noted, possibly an unusually high percentage of TCA-tainted bottles. Secondly, the minor but noticeable discrepancy between the evolution of its fruit (seemingly mature) and the slightly austere tannin. Thirdly, the slight lack of oxidation resistance. Add to all this the fact that this does not at all correspond to the feminine style of Lafite its long-time admirers look for, thus may not be everybody’s darling. I have learnt to be grateful for any great showing of a bottle of Lafite, however. No complaints, then. Rating: 95+
Château Talbot St. Julien 1986
Thanks to Dirk. A bit more evolved garnet ruby-black than the Lafite’s, minor orange at the rim. Definitely a Cordier nose this time, cedar with a little sewage and horse sweat, vulgar but lovely fruit, plummy blackcurrant with a caper note, faint tree bark and some oak. A bit rustic, not much depth, with tougher tannin, but a tasty, sweet and ripe wine that is quite long on the finish. Opulent sweetness and horsiness with airing, increasingly Port-like. Just do not expect any attractive terroir/soil notes here. But then, who said vulgarity does not have its place, too? Dirk informed us of the Parker score, giggling away – cannot say I find this “better” than the (fine!) Sociando-Mallet in this vintage, just (very!) different. Rating: 92
Dunn Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Howell Mountain 1996
Thanks to Victor. Serving this blind was an interesting experience. First of all no one had a clue what this was (this is one of those wines that are all too easy to recognise if one has had them before, and near-impossible to make sense of if one has not). Norbert, the wine merchant and former sommelier immediately started making out a strong case for it being a most natural-tasting wine, full of character, whereas Sam took a while to come to the same conclusion, initially wondering whether the awesome soil notes were oak-induced (one really only finds a below-average oak-induced vanilla top note here for a Napa Cabernet of this size), the fruit superficial garagiste style mimicry etc. Victor visibly enjoyed the situation as well as the wine, which once again showed superbly. Quite glossy garnet-ruby, faint watery orangey rim. Iodine, medicinal minerals, perhaps a faint metal aroma and flavour even, such precise and fresh yet jammy fruit, great body without being in the least alcoholic. No different from other bottles I have described, another tasting note seems almost redundant. On the level of the 1986 Léoville Las Cases from a purely qualitative point of view, with a more idiosyncratic character, unruly yet almost cooler, even more refreshing. To Victor’s and my mind, Norbert hit the nail right on the head when he said that this came across among the Bordeaux style blends like the Chave among the Hermitages before. Rating: 96+
Gaston Huët Vouvray Moëlleux 1ère Trie Le Mont 1959
Thanks to Martin, who bought this only recently. Always a privilege to get to taste one of these. Bottle, capsule and label looked like one of those recently released ones, such as have been auctioned at Christie’s, that is, wines stored at the winery for the most part of their lives. Quite full golden orange colour. A bit dusty-dry nose, some dried quince, apple, perhaps faint tangerine. Quite fruity still at the surface, if a bit dry underneath, barely medium sweetness on the palate, a little tannic, nicely refreshing. Pure and clean. Lively, quite long. Finesse notes of coffee, herbs and mace. But not an especially deep or complex wine from this source. Lacks the minerality of sheer nobility of terroir of a Le Bourg (my favourite of the three in this respect) or Le Haut Lieu. From a hot vintage, relatively low acidity, and yet this kept well. Not the tears-in-one’s-eyes quality of the Vouvray Moëlleux Le Haut-Lieu 1947, of course, which to my bafflement, Martin appears to have been offered by the same wine merchant, and refused. He really seemed rather disappointed with this, but let me point out two things here: firstly, bottles do not come any more pristine than this; secondly, I remember having a glass of the Le Haut Lieu Moëlleux from the same vintage in Noël Pinguet’s presence nine years ago, and that he was more than apologetic about it given it is a 1959, he simply noted it was “not a great wine anyhow” (handing me his glass at a vertical after my sample had been poured from a cloudy bottle). A matter of perspectives, then: to me, this was a positive surprise. Rating: 92-
Château du Breuil Côteaux du Layon Beaulieu Vieilles Vignes 1990
Thanks to Sam. Fairly bright golden orange colour. Botrytis, faintly rubbery, and veggies. Not sweeter than the 1959 Le Mont 1ère Trie. Some lightly buttery yellow fruit, marzipan and coconut oak that is well-integrated but still making its mark, a rather one-dimensional and simplistic wine, at least fairly long on the finish. Rating: 86
Koehler-Ruprecht Riesling Auslese #13 Kallstadter Saumagen 1990
Forgot to note but thanks to Sam, I guess. Medium pale yellow. Quite rubbery even at this stage (how the hell is this producer achieving that all the time, using excess sulfur?), a bit artificial and mushroomy. Utterly simplistic in terms of “fruit” or “complexity” – plus smells and tastes of oxidation and not too clean vats. Rating: 83-
Château Rieussec Sauternes 1986
Thanks to Erik. Golden colour. Corked, not too badly but still. Rating: N/R
Château Yquem Sauternes 2001
Half bottle thanks to Erik. Second time I have had this, identical to the sample a year ago. The greatest young Sauternes I have ever tasted, and despite the fact I am not a Sauternes lover (let alone buyer anymore), as perfect a young dessert wine as any. I realise one might think this is the kind of effort that would barely make a Tokaj vintner grin. Roughly a 5 Puttonyos in sweetness, made for the most part from a grape variety that without botrytis tends to be of little interest. However, this single-handedly achieves sometimes overlooked characteristics our Hungarian friends look for in their wines no less, residual sweetness and acidity for balance being the least of their problems: squeaky-clean botrytis and fruit, absolutely serene balance (even early harmony at this stage), wonderful smoothness and overall integration, a sense of nobility that for once really deserves to be called aristocratic. One might find it infanticide to open bottles now, to which I have this to say: maybe, just maybe, this is never going into an awkward or closed phase thanks to its tremendous early harmony – if it does, however, who knows if any of us will live to see it come out of it again? Bright yellow colour. Most noble botrytis, smelling of fresh bread and dough, and clean white glue. Complex and deep yellow fruit, nicely tropical but well on the short side of exotic or over the top, perfectly ripe, clean and pure, even light on its feet. Pretty coconut-scented oak, not obtrusive in the least. Pretty tangerine- and almond-flavoured acidity. Not too thick, viscous or oily either, reminds of a virtual blend of the 1988 and 1990, combining smoothness and finesse in a manner that transcends both those earlier vintages. Endless on the balanced finish, this just clings to one’s palate, creamy yet tender like few wines can. Far from overpowering especially in its greatest renditions, like here, a characteristic that has always made Yquem and the more citrusy-obvious Climens (wonderful 2001 there too!) my favourite producers of the region. Rating: 100
Schloss Johannisberger (Fürst von Metternich) Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese Gold Capsule #011 2005
“Goldlack” actually, meaning “golden lacquer”, i.e. their own brand of gold capsule. Half bottle thanks to Sam. Picked at 215° Oechsle must weight, resulting in a wine holding 415.9 g/l residual and 9.8 g/l acidity at 6.6% alcohol. Medium golden colour. Lovely fat and clean botrytis, not too bready, rather unobtrusive, allowing the tasty, quite subtle and rather deep fruit to express itself, well-concentrated, nicely fresh and long, good finesse. One to drink or hold, I would say. It seems like such a long time ago I last had a wine from this source this good. Note, by the way, that most people at the table agreed these last three wines (before the Madeira, that is) were roughly on the same quality level. It remains a fact, though, that young Riesling profits from its sprightliness in direct comparison. Rating: 95+/96?
Heymann-Löwenstein Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese #03 Uhlen Roth Lay 2003
Half bottle thanks to Sam, who reports this holds well over 400 g/l residual sugar. I do not quite agree with Riesling being taken to an almost Tokaji Eszencia level of sweetness, for the simple reason that some of the inherent qualities that make Riesling, to my mind at least, the supreme white grape variety (finesse and that airy-fairy lightness on its feet), tend to be lost almost inevitably, even in an almost botrytis-free example like this one, being made from mainly healthy shriveled berries (which is why one should not think of this as of a dried-fruity-botrytised Eszencia-styled Riesling TBA such as Gunderloch’s VdP-Auction 1996 Gold Capsule). Quite deep golden-orange. Oily, almost Eszencia-like on the pour. Bready-rubbery but enormously clean for a wine of this size, as exotic on the palate as on the nose, though ultimately not particularly rubbery or exotic for the vintage. Lilac, apricoty dried tangerine. Honey-like texture, so much so that acidity and length are not easy to judge at this stage. Sam claims this will surpass any 1959 in the long run – we shall see... It does, perhaps unfortunately so for us living, seem to be one to cellar rather than drink now. Rating: 97+?
Barbeito Madeira Malvazia 1875
Thanks to Dirk. Brown with a touch of amber-yellow, yellow at the rim. Fairly full-bodied, cocoa and coffee dust, dried date and fig, lively acids, lemon juice. As thoroughly oxidised as this is, it is still firm, fresh and quite long. Great cut, precise, if slightly lean and rough wine, Victor and I agree we have had more filled-in examples. Alcohol integration is quite good, finish fair enough, virtually no aftertaste. While free from flaws, there is simply not much to hang on to here. To be quite honest, I do not like Madeira enough to make a conscious effort paying attention, they need to be attractive enough to win me over. Dirk says it is the driest Malvasia he has ever had, and that he misses the typical almond top note. Impressive for survival only, to use one of Cor Baalfort’s phrases (anyone know if he is still around, by the way?). Rating: 88-?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.