One of those trade tastings at which I never get to taste a goodly percentage of what is being poured, simply because one keeps running into old friends and acquaintances.
Wines presented in the approximate order I tasted the wines (or at least took notes on them).
Daniel Vollenweider Riesling Spätlese Gold Capsule #7 Wolfer Goldgrube 2007
Same as always really, concentrated, sweet and slatey, round and long. One of my favourite wines of the vintage, especially of course of the affordable ones. Rating: 90(+?)
Daniel Vollenweider Riesling trocken Schimbock 2007
Daniel explained to me that in contrast to the whole berry pressing for his Wolfer Goldgrube wines, the Schimbock (a parcel in the Trabener Würzgarten) is “traditionally made”. More depth and opulence than elegance perhaps for a Trocken, currently a bit closed. Rating: 88+
Daniel Vollenweider Riesling Auslese #5 Wolfer Goldgrube “Reiler” 2006
Reiler is a parcel within the Goldgrube. Continues to hold (back) outstanding potential (a very promising and fairly priced wine at release), partially closed now, I would personally not have poured samples of it. Rating: 88++
Daniel Vollenweider Riesling Beerenauslese #9 Wolfer Goldgrube 2007
From half bottle. Nicely gluey-viscous, retains that white chocolate flavour it already showed at release (when quite a few of the people I talked to preferred this to the TBA), but otherwise seems to be in a youthfully grumpy phase right now. Rating: 90++
Clemens Busch Riesling Kabinett trocken 2008
Barrel sample. High-acid and dry, a bit tough. Rating: ~85?
Clemens Busch Riesling Grosses Gewächs Pündericher Marienburg 2007
Cannot really make up my mind about Busch’s dry wines (the sweet wines are a different matter, love those). Well-concentrated, with fair enough power and body, no doubt, but I would not want to drink them young, yet at the same always wonder what they will age into. Rating: 87(+?)
Clemens Busch Riesling Grosses Gewächs Pündericher Marienburg “Rothenpfad” 2007
An emphasis on scorched stones here, otherwise similar at this youthfully burly stage. Rating: 88
Clemens Busch Riesling feinherb Pündericher Marienburg “Fahrlay” 2005
From a blue slate parcel in the Marienburg vineyard. Spicy and high-acid. Rating: 87
Clemens Busch Riesling feinherb Pündericher Marienburg “Fahrlay” 2007
More minerally than the 2005, perhaps not quite the same intensity. Rating: 86+
Clemens Busch Riesling feinherb Pündericher Marienburg “Falkenlay” 2007
Mainly grey slate here, some red. A fruitier, livelier expression, easier to appreciate. Rating: 87+
Clemens Busch Riesling Auslese Fass 36 Pündericher Marienburg 2006
A bit gluey-rubbery, quite fat, viscous, fairly long. Rating: 90+/91?
Clemens Busch Riesling Auslese Gold Capsule Pündericher Marienburg 2007
From half bottle. Fat, clean botrytis white glue, quite bright yet exotic yellow fruit, all backed by passion fruit acidity. Exotic no doubt, but pretty. Rating: 92(+?)
Rudi Pichler Grüner Veltliner Smaragd Wösendorfer Hochrain 2007
Fairly (white) peppery-spicy but round. Integrates its over 14% alcohol quite well. Quite promising. Rating: 88+/89
Rudi Pichler Grüner Veltliner Reserve Wösendorfer Kollmütz 2007
Spicier, more peppery, tannic and intense, but really alcoholic at 14.5%. Rating: 87
Rudi Pichler Riesling Smaragd Wösendorfer Kirchweg 2007
Pretty aromatically, but a bit sharp with acidity on the palate. Also tastes slightly looser at this stage, most likely due to residual yeast. Rating: 87(+?)
Tokaj Pendits Tokaji Gelber Muskateller trocken 2008
Organic, as Márta Wille-Baumkauff made sure to point out. Sárga Muskotály Szaráz, that is, dry Yellow Muscat or Muscat de Lunel, aged in steel tank, all from a 1.4 ha plot in the Pendits cru, 2500 bottles. 12% alcohol, 1 g/l residual sugar. Not too floral for the variety, but then, Hungarian dry Muscat rarely is. Fair enough alcohol integration. Rating: ~85?
Tokaj Pendits Tokaji Furmint Holdvölgy 2006
“Trocken”, that is dry, but I do not remember it said so on the label (at any rate, there is no more than a dry version in 2006, a sweet version in 2007, and none at all due to mildew in 2008 – organic farming has its pitfalls, as Márta says). 840 bottles from a 1 ha parcel in the Holdvölgy cru (I am not even sure the vineyard designation is mentioned on the label, but maybe there is a front an back one – too busy tasting and chatting). Fermented and aged in used barrique (she keeps referring to them as 225 liter barrels). Strange oxidized apple, medium intensity and length. The 14% alcohol does not stick out. Márta told me the wine is quite popular in gastronomy, I assume in Hungary, where customers are more used to this style. Rating: ~85?
Tokaj Pendits Tokaji Muskotály-Hárslevelü Cuvée Szellö 2005
Szellö means breeze. Blend of Hárslevelü and Muscat Lunel with 50 g/l residual sugar and 10% alcohol. Evolving well in bottle, no different of course from one I opened for Patrick in April. Fair enough complexity, easy to enjoy. Rating: 85
Tokaj Pendits Tokaji Furmint Édes 2007
“Süss”, that is, sweet. Also from Holdvölgy, from a yield of 10 ha/ha. 11.5% alcohol. Fermented and aged in used barrique, plus a few months in steel tank prior to bottling in June last year. Interesting pineappley fruit, almost incredibly ripe apple (given it is clearly on the safe side of overripeness). Lightly viscous. Good body. Quite pretty. Fairly long. Rating: 87+/88(+?)
Tokaj Pendits Tokaji Aszú-Essencia 2003
What a great wine! A mere 460 liters of this wine were made. 330 g/l residual sugar. Barely evolved since last year, remains a youthfully raw and primary wine, so exotic, smells more like Eszencia than Aszú-Eszencia, dense and smooth despite the virtual absence of botrytis (more passerillé-styled). Rating: 95+/96(+?)
Tokaj Classic Tokaji Aszú 5 Puttonyos 2001
156 g/l residual sugar, 8.6 g/l acidity, 11.9% alcohol. Virtually unchanged since I last tasted this two years ago. Not my favourite style, but medium complexity of lightly oxidative apricot, touches of date and tobacco, some surface “rancio” oxidation dryness, a bit short on the finish. Rating: 85+?
Tokaj Classic Tokaji Aszú 6 Puttonyos 1999
192 g/l residual sugar balanced by sufficient acidity. Slightly ascetic as András Bruhács himself suggested, who hastened to add he believes 1999 to be the finest vintage of the modern era, and that this is “classic” Aszú. Possibly a bit worn out by the oxidative upbringing? Rating: 87(+?)
Sandrone Barbera d’Alba 2006
Chocolatey (dark), tannic, a bit rustic, rough and animal, good grip (even so, I would not age this too long). Nice! Rating: ~87
Sandrone Nebbiolo Valmaggiore 2006
Tight tannin. Not too dense but still some grip. Not too complex, but then I tend to look at all Nebbiolos from the viewpoint of a Barolo/Barbaresco lover – not bad at all for what it is. Medium body and length. Rating: 85+
Sandrone Barolo Le Vigne 2004
Le Vigne is made from grape material from four very different vineyards: Vignane in Barolo district, Merli in the Novello district, plus Ceretta and Conterni in the Monforte d’Alba district. Lightly evolved colour, a touch of nutty oak, medium amount of fruit but quite complex, dried Papa Meilland rose petal, a touch of white Alba truffle, medium-plus length, faintly dry tannin. This was poured a bit too warm, but it grew on me all the same. Oliver, who has had both 2004 Sandrones side by side a number of times, later told me he finds the Le Vigne comparatively overrated by the wine press – if that is true, I want a taste of the Cannubi Boschis! Rating: 92+/93(+?)
Pierre Usseglio Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Lightly roasted fruit and garrigue, a bit closed. Tannic, quite full body, good persistence on the finish. Rating: 89+/90?
Pierre Usseglio Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2006
Fruitier, more Kirsch, less firm and powerful, less dense and lighter especially on the mid-palate, truly “plus facile” as the pretty French lady who poured the wines remarked. Rating: ~88
Pierre Usseglio Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2007
I have too few wines to say so with certainty, but I think I like this vintage! Darker but at least as fresh on the nose, intense, complex, lively, firm and long. Faintly rustic yet finely-grained tannin. The vintage characteristics (the freshness and precision in particular) appear simply ideal (but then I am reminded of when I last went overboard buying wine in all categories, 1996 Burgundy, and later came to the same conclusion I lately always come, that I should have restricted myself to buy the handful standouts – even though there is nothing to say against doing that per category). Rating: 90+/91(+?)
Comte Georges de Vogüé Chambolle-Musigny 2006
Retasting the 2006s with Jean-Luc Pépin was one of the highlights. The village showed just as well as in November. Mild and fruity, quite complex and long. Smooth at the surface, a touch high-acid underneath. Rating: 89+/90?
Comte Georges de Vogüé Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru 2006
From Musigny vines less than the 25 years old, their Musigny Jeunes Vignes, so to speak. More powerful and persistent than the village, this has much more terroir intensity. A bit earthier and more animal than in November. Rating: 90+/91(+?)
Comte Georges de Vogüé Bonnes Mares 2006
Showing even better than in November. Harmonious fruit and terroir notes. Terrific, balanced, if again lightly high-acid 2006 (hardly higher-acid than the 2005, this just lacks some of the earlier vintage’s grip). Rating: 93+/94
Comte Georges de Vogüé Musigny Vieilles Vignes 2006
More closed than in November, this continues to hint at great depth, but right now, is all potential. As Jean-Luc Pépin pointed out, the Musigny is rarely as showy in its youth as the Bonnes Mares, and tends to shut down more severely “in-between”, that is, between its primary fruit phase and maturity. Rating: 94(+?)
Château Smith Haut Lafitte 2006
A blend of 59% Cabernet Sauvignon, 30% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc and 1% Petit Verdot. Most impressive SHL in recent years (admittedly never a favourite Château of mine, though)? Firm, fruity, tannic, somewhat charcoal-toasty oak (as usual with this producer). Several people I talked to raved about this wine, though, so admirers of the Château should probably take note. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Château Cos d'Estournel St. Estèphe 2002
A blend of 58% Cabernet Sauvignon, 38% Merlot, 3% Cabernet Franc, and 1% Petit Verdot. From a yield of ca. 32 hl/ha. A bit nuttier (with oak, but also appears to be a characteristic of the fruit) now, already reasonably mature (a bit surprisingly so, I must admit), but still holds potential. Medium depth, complexity and length. Rating: ~90(+/-?)
Château Angélus St. Emilion 2006
A blend of 62% Merlot and 38% Cabernet Franc. Spicy oak, but already quite well-integrated. Quite fresh, nice complexity. Touches of mocha and hazelnut to the tannin. Rating: ~91
Château d’Aiguilhe Côtes de Castillon 2004
The Count of Neipperg (the most “un-aristocratic” – affable just won’t do – aristocrat I’ve ever met, patched blue-jacket and all) was there to pour samples and entertain prospective customers in person. The full Neipperg/Derenoncourt package already at entry level: oaky, quite full-bodied, minerally and tannic – way too toasty and modernistic for my taste, but intensity and vinosity are undeniable. Sizeable but not really a fruit bomb, by the way, this showed Rhône-like roasted herbs. Rating: 86(+?)
Château Clos de l'Oratoire St. Emilion 2004
A blend of 90% Merlot and 10% Cabernet Franc. Same as at a tasting in March 2008, the size of this wine is remarkable, no wonder it has become such a favourite with Neipperg customers, but I would insist it is made to impress, and that one must make sure to catch it at the right time, when it is no longer tough, and not yet hot and spiky (such bottles, judging from experience with earlier vintages, can be quite pretty – a bit like dry Port). Emphasis on oak, chocolate and baked plum right now, a bit hot, with slightly mean tannin/acids. Rating: 87+/88(+?)
Château Canon-La Gaffelière St. Emilion 2006
An unfined, unfiltered blend of 55% Merlot, 35% Cabernet Franc and 10% Cabernet Sauvignon, from a yield of 35 hl/ha. Looks, smells and tastes a bit evolved for such a young wine – perhaps I should rephrase this, and remark on how approachable it is? Nutty-oaky, Rhône-like – I gave up on finding words to describe the (to me questionable) style noticing how everyone who came to the booth (in any crowded trade tasting venue, Neipperg’s booth always seems to be the one with the most enthusiastic, noisiest clientele – maybe the wines are meant for people who lack a sense of subtlety?) rave about this wine. No, this will not fall apart anytime soon, nor would I recommend cellaring it: like it, drink it – don’t like it, leave it. Rating: ~88(-?)
Château La Mondotte St. Emilion 2006
A blend of 80% Merlot, 20% Cabernet Franc and “the fruit of two ginormous old Petit Verdot vines, more like little trees, believe me”, Stephan von Neipperg explained. I have said this before: if there is a wine in the Neipperg portfolio that supports the winemaking style, it is La Mondotte. It is almost impossible to tell if the terroir is really superior, but there is simply more wine here, something at least comparatively irrepressible, in the best vintages (such as 1998 and 2000) potentially undeniable (even if naggers like me will still find much to carp about stylistically). Spicier fruit as well as oak, greater balance, that is, overall integration of alcohol, tannin and acidity. Tighter than the 2001 of which Christian opened a bottle a couple of months ago. Longer too. A mocha top note, if not coffee torrefaction, and yet, this is not just bigger, it is also fresher, more positive in every respect. While there is a virtual plethora of cheaper wines that I like better, this at least, of course in the context of hyper-modernistic winemaking, is a benchmark product. It is a scary thought, but I do not think I have tasted a better 2006 Bordeaux. Rating: 92+/93?
Taylor Vintage Port 1985
A faintly volatile bottle (in other words, is this taking the same route as most 1985s?)? Evolved for the vintage, fairly complex, quite long. Rating: 92(+?)
Taylor Vintage Port Quinta de Terra Feita 1995
Chocolatey, thick, a bit alcoholic, medium complexity, quite long. Rating: 88(+?)
Fonseca Guimaraens Vintage Port 1998
Evolved and chocolatey in a nice way. A touch nutty perhaps. Round, smooth and easy-going. Medium-plus length. Probably safer to drink this on the early side. Rating: 88
Fonseca Vintage Port 2000
From magnum. Evolving well. Retains good colour and freshness, plum and milk chocolate, nice body ripeness and complexity, pretty tannin. Needs/deserves more bottle age. Rating: 93+/94(+?)
Taylor Vintage Port 2007
Barrel sample. Good grip, wonderful berry intensity, violet. Lovely mineral and metal notes. Soft inkiness to finely-grained, smooth tannin. Long and fruity on the finish. Unusually elegant and modern-styled young Taylor, nowhere near the size of e.g. the 1994 at the same stage, but lively and pretty, and eminently drinkable – which the young female Portuguese Taylor/Fonseca promotional assistant who poured the samples told me is what customers want. Rating: 93+/94
Fonseca Vintage Port 2007
Barrel sample. Inkier, thicker, riper, less fresh and elegant than the Taylor, much sweeter (Recioto-like), this may have greater density. Again, an elegant, modern, incredibly approachable style compared to e.g. the 1994 at the same stage, but still shows some grip. Smoother tannin than usual, but flavourful, which the Taylor/Fonseca promotional assistant attributes to the “always nice but cool weather” (that is, a prolonged vegetation cycle without ups and downs). Smooth and long on the finish. The Taylor is currently showing a little better, whereas the Fonseca seems to be holding back some of its potential, ultimately liked them about equally well (and was equally perplexed by the polished style). Rating: ~94(+?)
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