WTN: Rainer’s birthday party

Some nice wines especially considering this was more of a niblet/finger food kind of reception (did not really expect Prosecco to poured, of course) than actual dinner party. ;^)

Dr. Loosen Riesling Kabinett #24 Erdener Treppchen 2005
Thanks to Rainer. Nicely concentrated and floral/appley, good typicity. Liked this as well or better than at release. Rating: 87+/88(+?)

Jakob Kühn Riesling Kabinett #9 Oestricher Lehnchen 2006
Thanks to Rainer. Early-mature, grapey-raisiny, darker-toned fruit and minerality. Rating: 87-/86

Egon Müller Riesling Kabinett #6 VdP-Auction Scharzhofberg 2001
Thanks to Cornel, a wine I already liked quite a lot at release. Lightly golden-green colour. Complex veggies and apple, concentrated, a bit viscous but really no more than off-dry, good body. „Acidity like a 1996“, said Rainer. Zingy, deep, extremely minerally wine, intense. Some mushroom, petrol. Somewhat evolved for its age, as Albino noted, but still, a lovely wine that I expect will continue to age well for quite a long time. Rating: 91(+?)

Joh. Jos. Christoffel Riesling Auslese Ürziger Würzgarten 1996
Thanks to Rainer. A bottle without a label, in fact, but exhibited easy to recognize Würzgarten spice and complexity. Mouthpuckering, lightly exotic, intense, concentrated, medium-dark Granny Smith apple, spicy strong minerality. Quite long. More loosely structured with airing, though. Rating: 89+/90?

Joseph Roty Bourgogne Cuvée de "Pressonnier" 2003
Thanks to Rainer. Raspberry-red with black reflections. Lightly nutty oak, roasted meat and charcoal, faint ginger, soft iron and stone dust. Mild, still youthful, nice tannin. Good medium body and length. Nicely fresh for the vintage, a tasty wine that should keep medium term, but that is really drinking too well to be unduly stretched. Rating: 88+/89?

Joseph Roty Bourgogne Cuvée de "Pressonnier" 2005
Thanks to Rainer. Wow! A Bourgogne of which I would love to own a case or two! More purple-black to the raspberry-ruby colour. More animal fur and iron terroir notes, darker and more complex fruit, more concentrated and tannic, nicely hard. Longer. Some oak. Best Roty Pressonnier, in fact, one of the finest generic Burgundies anyone of us has ever had. Rating: 89+/90?

Château Gruaud Larose St. Julien 1962
Thanks to Albino. First bottle had a cork taint. The second and last was in turn the best bottle of 1962 Gruaud we have had. Quite luminous garnet-red with soft black reflections and a faint amber-orange rim. Noble and sweet tobacco, and medium-complex red fruit (yes, this one retained fruit!) with a quite unique quince sweetness, dried marzipan and honey. Very harmonious and amazingly fruity especially on the palate (the rare exception of an old – and this wine’s plateau of maturity has been reaching its end for several years now – wine that tasted as well or better than it smelled). Medium body. Light on its feet brick clay, tobacco and spice (dried mace in particular) top notes. A gingery, mouth-cleansing freshness to the racy, tea- if not Nebbiolo-like tannin (little of it left, and still nicely hard by modern standards), soft blood orange acidity. Quite long on the finish. Everyone raved about this. The least tired and “cleanest” (a tiny brett note notwithstanding) bottle of all. What a bottle, the kind that makes you want to take your hat and boots off, and settle back. Rating: 91-

Jean-Louis Chave Hermitage 2001
Thanks to Albino. A significantly more primary and floral bottle than the one Oliver, Remo and I ordered from a restaurant wine list a month earlier. Almost opaque purple-ruby-black. A gigantic nose of lavender, raspberry, thick forest berry mix, and racy dark chocolate. Big, juicy and tannic on the palate. Faintest noticeable charcoal oak. Nutmeg, gingerbread, green pepper, and again, that (fresher this time) olive top note with airing. The finest bottle of 2001 Chave yet, less angular and 1983-like than some, nicely thick and dense with fruit for the vintage. As with the first bottle at release, I again felt this may develop a sweat top note with aging. Rating: 94+?

Graham Vintage Port 2000
Half bottle thanks to Albino. Once again confirmed my impression that the 2000 surpasses the 1994 (it is the only 2000 I know that surpasses its respective 1994), most likely either because it was to a greater percentage foot-trodden, as IMHO Vintage Port should be (tends to result in more impressively extracted, chewier Port of more natural-tasting texture), or because those new pump-over machines are so much better (from the producer’s web page: "Vinification: the Malvedos winery was refurbished in readiness for the 2000 vintage with the installation of three of Graham’s groundbreaking ‘robotic’ lagares. The make-up of the Graham’s 2000 Vintage Port included a 36% component of robotic lagar trodden wines whilst for the 2003 Vintage Port, this proportion had increased to 78%. The exceptional ratings awarded in blind tastings to both the Graham’s 2000 and 2003 Vintages provides ample indication that the very substantial investment by the Symington family in this new technology has been more than vindicated.") Virtually opaque plummy-ruby-black. Intense grapey-plummy fruit, dark chocolate, licorice, full-bodied, sweet and dry. That strong marzipan top note could make one think it was aged in all new barriques (I have no idea). Lush tannin. Tasted like a punch ball (an Austrian delicacy?) with airing. Persistent, quite powerful and very long on the finish, a tiny bit hot. Our favourite Port of the vintage. Rating: 96+/97(+?)

Gunderloch Riesling Auslese Nackenheim Rothenberg 1999
Yellow-green colour. A broad, not too precise, typical 1999 (even if some Saar wines were exceptional). Quite sweet with some vanilla botrytis, quite clean. Minor veggie note to peach and other pit fruit. Barely medium length. A bit superficial in comparison to the other Rieslings that night, albeit tasty enough. Rating: 87+?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

[David M. Bueker]

Well happy birthday Rainer!

Lovely notes as usual David. I will come back to them for comments a little later, but have to say I am surprised the Graham's (a great wine) is your favorite 2000. I love it but prefer the Fonseca by a small, but noticeable margin.

Well happy birthday Rainer!

Lovely notes as usual David. I will come back to them for comments a little later, but have to say I am surprised the Graham's (a great wine) is your favorite 2000. I love it but prefer the Fonseca by a small, but noticeable margin.

Thank you!

I guess it's just that the 2000 Fonseca invariably suffers from comparison to the 1994 and 1992, and most recently the 2003. Thus relatively speaking (given Vintage Port release prices were roughly similar over the last few years) it is not quite tempting enough. I know Fonseca 2000 corresponds to some people's perception of "elegance" (warning: British euphemism for - relative - lightness!), but I find that a difficult to define term in view of the obvious power, complexity, grip and liveliness of e.g. the 1994, which on top of this, manages to be perfectly balanced and potentially harmonious all the same. It's roughly the same that makes the 2000 Graham our sentimental favourite of the vintage (haven't yet had the Nacional, I would be very surprised if that weren't quite unsentimentally better!), as it appears to be a step up from the (beautiful and improving!) 1994, especially in naturalness (another difficult to grasp concept when it comes to judging a wine strictly in terms of aroma and flavour), and I guess that alone already makes it worth owning (we all liked Graham better up to and including the 1975 vintage, or more realistically, 1970). That wine proves that, although I still have a problem with them in principle, there may be (some) hope for the use of (here robotic pumpover) machines.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

[David M. Bueker]

I have a very hard time discussing the relative merits of the 1994 with you, as I have only had it once many years ago. I did recently have the 2003, and it is indeed weightier than the 2000, but not as high quality to my taste. The 2000 seems to be supremely balanced to my palate, and destined for a long and likely open evolution.

I can agree on the merits of the 1970 Graham's, one of the finest Ports (along with the '70 Dow by the way) that I have had the pleasure to drink.

I can agree on the merits of the 1970 Graham's, one of the finest Ports (along with the '70 Dow by the way) that I have had the pleasure to drink.

Meant 1970 and earlier, of course, as this was the former owner's last vintage. There have been so many great Graham vintages before then, 1970 is just one example (and a great sentimental favourite with me - it is the old-style Graham I've had most often); other top Graham vintages from that era that spring to mind would be 1927, 1935, 1945, 1948, 1955, 1963 and 1966. Perhaps my all-time favourite Graham is the 1963, as it is like a perfumy-floral, sweet-and-hard, highly concentrated yet light-on-its-feet, and very long red Burgundy. While 1994 is cast in the same mould as 1970 as far as vintage characteristics go across the board, one cannot expect the 1994 Graham to live up to the 1970 simply because it was not (that is, only partially) foot-trodden.

The 1970 Dow, by the way, probably is my favourite vintage from that port house, although I have quite high hopes of the 1994 (which I have not had in a while, but have always seemed to prefer to the 1994 Graham).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti