TN: WeltWeinFestival Bad Ragaz

Topic: TN: WeltWeinFestival Bad Ragaz
Author: David
Date: 20030704065149

Ordered by country of origin for convenience, not in the order we tasted the wines. For my "verbal rating system", see postscript, if necessary.

AUSTRIA

Knoll Grüner Veltliner Smaragd Ried Loibenberg 2001
Strong spiciness, terrific intensity for a standard Loibenberg GV, dark minerality and brown bread note coupled to lovely freshness. About outstanding.

Knoll Grüner Veltliner Smaragd Dürnsteiner Ried Schütt 2001
More balanced, subtle and harmonious, so pretty on the long finish and aftertaste. Outstanding!

Knoll Riesling Smaragd Dürnsteiner Ried Schütt 2001
Spicy, minty, herbal, limier than the Kellerberg, fairly full body, good minerality and intensity, quite important acidity, darkly stony finish. Outstanding.

Knoll Riesling Smaragd Dürnsteiner Ried Kellerberg 2001
Wrong order of pouring these two, if you ask me, and that regardless of vintage. Emmerich, who usually serves these two the other way round, agrees with me, but points to his wife saying she wanted them to be served in this order. Was fun to hear her defend this decision and watch her highly sympathetic, modest husband look at her trying his best to suppress a patronizing smirk in his face so that all that remained was a glowing smile in his eyes. Pretty wine, more subtle spice and herbs, less intense and long than the Schütt, a bit beer-like with yeast, but definitely tasteable. Excellent.

Knoll Grüner Veltliner Beerenauslese 1998
110-115 g/l residual sugar, 9.5% acidity and 13% alcohol is what Emmerich told Albino and me three year ago. I like this rather better than back then, although it still lacks elegance. Rich and earthy fruit, rather full-bodied, long on the finish. About outstanding quality?

GERMANY

Gunderloch Riesling Kabinett Jean Baptiste 2002
This is a top Kabinett almost regardless of vintage, and a fine QPR. Nice minerality, yeasty-cidery apple, fine depth for the Prädikat level, good but not great length. Lovely wine, a success for the vintage. About excellent.

Gunderloch Riesling Auslese Nackenheim Rothenberg 2001
Tops virtually every 2002 we had tasted in the morning, white-blossomy and sharply etched, apple blossom, minerally, tenderly honeyed, just a kiss of botrytis, long finish. Outstanding.

Gunderloch Riesling Auslese Gold Capsule Nackenheim Rothenberg 2001
I love this wine, which is perhaps the most successful Gunderloch 2001 at its Prädikat level. Great purity of white raisins and blossoms, clean botrytis, satisfyingly sweet, almost BA-like, long with ripe, aromatic acidity. Consistent showings, consistent ratings. Well outstanding!

Gunderloch Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese Nackenheim Rothenberg 2000
Honeyed, oily, light botrytis brown-breadiness, thick sweet apple juice concentrate that is neither tired nor lively, as this is soft, a bit short and low-acid for a Gunderloch TBA, which means it is acceptable in every regard, and still a relative success for the vintage. Compared to the benchmark 1996, most vintages of this wine tend to be a relative disappointment. Excellent to about outstanding quality?

Gunderloch Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese Nackenheim Rothenberg 2001
Much more minerality (I like the stony smokiness they provide) and greater focus, higher as well as riper and more aromatic acidity, racier. As I already said the first time I tasted the 2001, it is not up to the near-perfect 1996 either, but outstanding.

FRANCE

Clos des Fées Côtes de Roussillon Vieilles Vignes 2001
Sound ruby, purple hue. Very oaky with thistle and clove, a bit compressed. May or may not open up, but seems to hold some good raw material. Very good plus?

Clos des Fées Côtes de Roussillon Clos des Fées 2001
Much deeper colour than the VV. Sweeter and riper licorice on the nose, greater density of fruit on the palate. Excellent plus? Even so, I am not really "into" Southern France so much that I could easily be won over by any but the most exceptional efforts (the best of which I have ever come across being the 2001 Sibérie, of course).

Clos des Fées Côtes de Roussillon Petite Sibérie 2001
100% Grenache Noir en goblet from a 1.16 ha plot. Nearly opaque purple-black with a purple-red rim. Having been so impressed with the barrel sample Phillipe Bouffey had brought along half a year ago (see more in-depth earlier TN in the Archive, this is the one out of hundreds of new, jaw-droppingly expensive wines without a track record that we have tasted in years that is really worth looking out for), the question of course was, could that quality be transferred into bottle? The answer is yes! Just slightly compressed now due to the recent bottling, I thought it a sure thing this will blossom again very soon. A little oakier now although still not oaky in balance (virtually none of the new oak could be sensed in the monster barrel sample, dense, precise and deep fruit, sweet and ripe yet not at all overdone, lushly tannic, very long, a near perfect wine that the maker will forever have to live up to (he said he did believe he could ever top this result, and although he was happy enough with his 2002, of which he said some customers ever prefer it to his first vintage, he added that the later vintage is already as developed in barrel at this stage as the 2001 is in bottle today – Albino, who attended a tasting of the 2002s confirmed that while they are a remarkable success for the vintage, they do not come close to the 2001s). This is the rare garagiste kind of novelty that combines colossal size with freshness, precision and purity of fruit, virtually perfect structure, balance and potential harmony, rare tannin quality and even a character of its own. Difficult to argue with the self-confident pricing policy.

Clos des Fées Côtes de Roussillon Vieilles Vignes 2000
More rounded off already, but a bit hot with alcohol, another problem I have with many southern wines. Good to about very good only?

Clos des Fées Côtes de Roussillon Clos des Fées 2000
Lovely wine, round and rich. Excellent. Maybe it is only the VV bottling I have a problem with here?

Domaine Gauby Côtes du Roussillon Vieilles Vignes 2001
Considerably better balanced than the Le Soula, rounder, with nice complexity and length, the oak only shows up on the finish (although that is where in my experience it should not, I did not feel this was a problem here). Not bad at all! Excellent on the verge to outstanding quality.

Domaine Gauby Côtes du Roussillon Muntada 2001
A positive surprise when I think of the somewhat weird 1999. Oaky yet very well-integrated. Complex and deep fruit, ripe and luscious, intense and quite inky, round mouthfeel, big finely-grained tannin, long finish, should develop well. Well-outstanding quality, possibly about great with age?

Domaine des Lambrays Clos des Lambrays 1999
There would have been several vintages on show, but I just re-tasted this, my favourite so far, in passing (see earlier in-depth TN in the Archive) because I wanted to show it to Dani (who is not a great admirer of Pinot Noir). Remains subtle and sharply etched, yet round and balanced. Pretty tannin quality. But it is certainly more closed now than following release. Excellent plus right now, should be safely outstanding when mature.

Three Neippberg 1999s:

Clos de l'Oratoire St. Emilion 1999
Hugely nutty-oaky, overwhelming the probably relatively (for the vintage) thick but closed (compressed!) fruit, oaky tannin and finish. In contrast to the 1998, a modernistic, huge superripe Aussie Shiraz-like Merlot blend, Derenoncourt's winemaking and barrique aging seems to backfire with juice of lesser concentration. About very good quality at best or will this come together with age?

Canon-La Gaffalière St. Emilion 1999
More subtlety in terms of metal and mineral underpinning here, coffee-tinged fruit is also quite oak-compressed. Very good plus?

La Mondotte St. Emilion 1999
The so-called garage bottling (there is too much produced for it to be thought of one, plus in contrast to the likes of Valandraud and Quinault L'Enclos this comes from a truly fine terroir) is considerably better than the other two wines in the portfolio (did not taste the fourth), but at this price level, I wonder who buys vintages of Mondotte other than the 1998 and 2000? Pruney ruby-purple. Much more density of fruit, more serious structure, more depth, more length, finer tannins, not too dry. Less compressed yet still oaky (I do not really care whether one wants to call the 1999s here overoaked or underwined, although given the house style, the latter is probably the case). Should end up about outstanding, which makes it an awful QPR in this vintage (it is already a borderline QPR in its best renditions).

Château Palmer Margaux 1996
Although a terroir I love and a vintage I am often very impressed with, and even though this almost comes as a relief after the southern Frenchies, it is not quite as good as I (owning some) had hoped. Tenderly cedary-nutty, lovely finesse and freshness, concentrated enough although typically far from big, but not much complexity and depth of fruit, let alone weight. Excellent.

Château Pichon-Baron Pauillac 2001
Barrel sample. Coffee-tinged with oak, quite rich, a bit pruney fruit with a minor bell pepper note, sizeable tannin with a tiny bitterness in the finish. But very good quality.

Château Pichon-Baron Pauillac 1998
Quite compressed with oak and not much lushness of fruit, tight and unforthcoming. No doubt in a transitory stage right now, but the difference between right and left bank wines in this vintage continues to strike as unprecedented in modern times. About very good at best when mature.

Château Pichon-Baron Pauillac 1999
Riper fruit with the typical lead pencil top not, more prettily cedary with fairly well-integrated oak, a bit simplistic though, like many 1999s. Very good.

Roger Sabon Châteauneuf-du-Pape Cuvée Prestige 2000
Deep ruby. Grenache-typically soapy fruit and roasted Provençal herbs due superripeness, fair length at best. Never been my favourite style of CdP, and not noticeably better than the 1999, although of course much riper. About excellent quality.

Roger Sabon Châteauneuf-du-Pape Cuvée Prestige 2001
More peppery and intense, seriously structured, powerful and long. If I bought Sabon CdP at all, I would make sure to get some of this one. Outstanding!

Roger Sabon Châteauneuf-du-Pape Le Secret de Sabon 2001
Somewhat blacker purple-ruby. Dense, structured and very ripe, yet fairly peppery and very intense fruit, mostly dark, some inky steel, good minerality, sound acidity and big, healthy, not too dusty tannin. Outstanding plus, very likely about great quality when mature. Albino preferred the 2001 to the 1998 and I can see why: instead of the impressive generosity and surmaturité of the earlier, the 2001 puts an emphasis on concentrated spiciness and freshness, and a solid, nicely hard backbone. The QPR is very debatable though (it would be at half the price), especially in contrast to the Prestige's. But I can already say this much: I will be looking out for more of these concentrated, solidly structured 2001 CdPs.

Roger Sabon Châteauneuf-du-Pape Le Secret de Sabon 1998
Prettier, since more luminous, if less opaque colour than the 2001's (no wonder, given the ripeness here), yet fuller body and richer fruit of seemingly 100% surmaturité-picked grape material, no doubt mainly Grenache. Raisins, cream, liqueur-like strawberry in Kirsch, some pine needle and a little scorched earth, very complex if a bit roasted. Yet longer on the finish than the 2001. The 16.2% alcohol integrates fairly well (even so, one keeps wondering what good aging can do to such a wine). About great quality stuff in a style one has to like. Pedigree and price tag aside, I cannot see this is on the same level as this monumental CdP vintage's top handful examples (such as the minerally Marcoux Vieilles Vignes and complete Hommage à Jacques Perrin – plus one sold at roughly a third, the other at half the price of the Secret). Nevertheless, I ended up finding it approximately similar in overall quality to Chapoutier's Barbe Rac, for me another of the success stories of the vintage (not a better 1998 CdP than the Secret, but a wine I prefer for stylistic reasons).

Le Soula Côteaux des Fenouillèdes 2001
Same owner as Domaine Gauby. A bit tight, yet not too oaky on the nose, spicy-fruity on the palate but oaky enough there, some dried Provençal herbs. Very good plus?

Château Suduiraut Sauternes 1997
Viscous, ripeness and richness of fruit coupled to good freshness, lovely generous apricot, nuts, buttery brioche. About outstanding. Neither brown-bready nor gluey with botrytis, nor in the least medicinal, and thus easily tasteable (fun actually) already at this early stage.

HUNGARY

Királyudvar Tokaji Cuvée Ilona 2000
I'm obviously more of a purist and like the real stuff, Aszú that is, better to begin with, but given the choice between this and Szepsy's version of Tokaji Cuvée, although the latter may be more serious and have more in reserve, I like the even more progressively (modern) styled Királyudvar version (I mean, if it has to be early-release, primary and easy to interpret, a style apart from Aszú, why not in-your-face like here, where one feels almost reminded of a Scheurebe Beerenauslese?). A bit paler in colour of course than the Szepsy version (I guess he vinified his own and Zoltán Demeter this one?). Viscous, fresh, a bit volcanic with terroir of course as it should be, but quite Scheurebe-like in its fruit (though not actually grapefruity), bread dough and lemon rind, backed by nice acidity. A tiny bit broad only in the middle, but remember Szepsy's 1999 Tokaji Cuvée by and large overcame the same problem with only a little bottle age, so this may, too. However, even if it will probably keep, to my taste this is not one to cellar for a long time, but rather one to enjoy while it is at its most primary and exuberant.
Rating: ~88?

István Szepsy Tokaji Cuvée 2000
A bit spicier (lemon pepper!) and more intense and minerally (possibly a tiny bit more concentrated as well?) than the Királyudvar Cuvée, lovely tiny little honeyed balm mint top note, but a bit broad as well (which incidentally, the 1999 used to be at the same stage of its development, too). Less of a tropical fruit-flavoured dessert wine than the 1999, the 2000 seems less flowery and complex, too, plus I could not detect any of that earlier vintage's minor Côte-Rôtie-like bacon fat, so even though the 2000 does not really seem to differ in terms of weight, there appears to be less exotic superripeness to the fruit. This may well become somewhat more focussed with time and reveal a tighter core than can at present be discerned, as the 1999 has done (in fact, that core can more easily be sensed in the 2000 than it could in the 1999 at the same stage, perhaps an indication that it is developing more quickly). Personally, I miss the exuberant exotism of the 1999, which I seem to have liked slightly better at least at this early stage, but find it difficult to tell if there is as much of a qualitative difference as a stylistic one between the two vintages (the 2000 has nice structure and balance, as well as early harmony, less exuberance and acidity, i.e. it is elegant in a deceptive way). More importantly, one has to like the style of this early-release, subjectively only 5 to 6 Puttonyos-sweet bottling which I am quite sure holds more residual sugar than its predecessor (the 1999 would theoretically have qualified as 6P with its 163 g/l), which resembles less to a German BA than an Alsatian VT or SGN (due to the influence of the volcanic soil, it is perhaps most, if anything, reminiscent of a Rangen de Thann VT or SGN, such as maybe from Domaine Schoffit). With the price remaining unchanged in contrast to that of his latest relase Aszús, Szepsy's Tokaji Cuvée may come across as even more of a fair QPR, but one should not think of this bottling as a smaller-scaled introduction to the world of Szepsy Aszú (the Cuvée is neither small in scale nor similar to his Aszús, it is really a niche product of its own). As to the 1999, I have noticed that women (especially younger ones) prefer the Cuvée to real Aszú. Of course, I am unable to tell why this should be so – is the latter manlier? Either way, maybe grizzled wine lovers like yours truly might want to use its effects to their advantage? ;^)
Rating: 88+?

Királyudvar Tokaji 6 Puttonyos 1999
10.8% alcohol, 190 g/l r.s., 10.2 g/l acidity, 0.92 volatile acid, 65 g/l dry extract. Now guess what, the 1999 6P is hardly less modern and still manages to be typical Aszú. It is even more primary and sulphured than Disznókö's 1993 6P was at the same stage (remember how its critics said that wine had nothing to do with Tokaji Aszú but rather tasted like Sauternes? Of course the great volcanic terroir has since then taken over step by step, year after year, and criticism has gone silent). Not surprisingly, Királyudvar's 1999 6P seems even fresher and less oxidative (not surprisingly because Zoltán Demeter's winemaking style is recognizable, but in a positive way, tamed so to speak compared to his own early Aszús, which back in 1999, we had thought primary and reductive to point of weirdness), apart from the fact that the noticeable sulphur content would personally keep me from enjoying this in quantity right away. Pale yellow colour. Some balm mint and candied lemon with a tiny top note of anise cookie covering the more usual Tokaj palette of fruit (quince, apricot, pear etc.), lovely ripeness and fine sweetness with the typical tender bitter note (as yet barely identifiable as quincy-volcanic) one finds in all Tokaji Aszú except those grown on 100% loess. Nice length. There is only a minor amount of botrytis dust left here, this fairly complete wine has already achieved remarkable overall integration (again: apart from the sulphur). What I was less impressed with was that this may not be optimally minerally and deep, plus one can easily tell it must be a blend from different types of soil: this has got to be why it achieves a sense of completeness without really being attributable. I would not go so far as to say that blending makes for anonymous wines (although I have often thought it works better for reds – think of Chave Hermitage – than whites), on the contrary, as with the 1993 Disznókö (which, stemming from the eponymous premier cru, has the advantage of being a single vineyard bottling, even if from relatively large site), I expect more typicity to come out as this ages. I love the virtual absence of oxidative top notes here, but secretly continue to believe in an ideal amount of minor oxidation, maybe still less than Szepsy got in his 1999 yet more than here (anyone who knows Gergely's 1993 AE will have an idea of what amount I mean, more or less, even if this should really be looked at as depending on the individual wine, and not globally). Neither this nor the Szepsy show the acid backbone and power of the finest 1993s, but an elegance (despite fine concentration) and early harmony coupled to even ripeness and smoothness of mouthfeel that I already had the impression would be hallmarks of the 1999 vintage tasting musts and Esszencias at harvest. A most userfriendly vintage producing wines to enjoy young as well as to let mature it seems.
Rating 90+

István Szepsy Tokaji Aszú 6 Puttonyos 1999
This vintage has special significance for Albino and me insofar as it was during the later stages of the harvest in 1999 that we visited Tokaji Hegyalja for the first time. Imagine how blessed we felt to have visited the region in what could already back then be recognized as one of the two greatest vintages of the decade (in theory, 1993 would probably still have to regarded as the vintage of the decade, but of course there was only a limited number of vintners who could make the best of it at that time, which renders vintage comparisons somewhat academic). Until now, the only bottled example of the vintage we could taste was Szepsy's Tokaji Cuvée, a promising but stylistically controversial product, so modern that some people have likened it to a German BA. Lighter amber-orange than previous vintages of Szepsy Aszú, with the exception of the 1997. Rich bee's wax, Marron glacé and candied orange, even mix of a little prune and apricot, this has depth and minerality and length, great balance and structure, plus at this stage partly hidden power that one tends to overlook due to the impressive early harmony of this wine. The most complete Szepsy 6 Puttonyos to date (with the possible but not too likely exception of the 1996 single-vineyard Király, a wine from a lesser vintage that I have not retasted since bottling, which brings me to the one subjective disadvantage – from my point of view as a terroir fanatic, that is – of the fact that this is an assemblage from different soils, which is that a mixed field blend may make for a more complete final product, but at the cost of being typical of anything in particular). While there is obviously minor waxy amber to the colour and minor but aromatically noticeable oxidation to this in contrast to its Királyudvar counterpart, Szepsy's 1999 6P is not just less primary and/or more developed, it really reveals more depth at least at this early stage, plus it has a rounder (not necessarily smoother), mouthfeel, albeit lightly tannic due to the wood. It may also be the more concentrated and especially sweeter of the two, although they differ more in terms of winemaking style than anything else. Which wine will age better or longer remains to be seen (I would certainly volunteer for comparing them on a regular basis). What I find difficult to answer is whether the greater earlier harmony and potentially greater depth and complexity of the 1999 makes it such an obviously preferable buy to Szepsy's concentrated, high-acid (thus particularly oxidation-resistant), admittedly unusual 1997 6P, given that wine that can still be bought at two thirds of the price of the 1999 (which at roughly 100.- Euros is Szepsy's first 6P to cost more than his 1991 and 1993 Aszúessencia bottlings). The 1999 is no doubt the easier to interpret and enjoy early on. As to its sweetness level, although I have no doubt this 6P exceeds the requirements for Aszú-Esszencia (which in part explains for the price increase), from the subjective perspective (to my mind the most important factor when it comes to judging Aszú-Esszencia, which I tend to regard as the winemaker's special reserve or even final qualitative statement in winemaking, provided one accepts that Esszencia is essentially a product of Mother Nature that should, if at all, only be influenced via fermentation temperature and the blending of different lots) it tastes like a very satisfyingly sweet, but more importantly perfectly balanced 6 Puttonyos.
Rating: 93+? (Szepsy's booth was the first we walked by to say hello, but the last we visited to taste wine on this day, so I really need to retaste this to make sure)

Királyudvar Tokaji Esszencia 1999
3.5% alcohol, 540 g/l r.s., 17 g/l acidity, 90 g/l dry extract. Back in November 1999 Albino tasted three young Esszencia musts of which parts may have gone into this, from different sites (Danczka and Lapis among other) and with differing percentages of grape varieties (there was even an Esszencia made from of 100% Oremusz or Zéta, but I do not know whether this bottling contains any of that). I learnt about the stats here only after I tasted this, but thought it tasted like a very well-balanced mixed field blend, one where a lot of thought may have gone into blending, and that could either be held onto or attacked right away, as the owner wishes, just what the market needs, I guess. I do not remember having seen a similarly youthfully coloured bottled Tokaji Esszencia – I forgot to note the colour but it must have been a relatively bright yellow, probably with shades of gold and copper, but nevertheless, it looked so youthful that Alois Kracher felt compelled to ask how long this had been kept in cask (he seemed to wonder whether it ever had). Of course there are vintners who keep their Esszencias exclusively in glass balloons in order for none of it to evaporate, but I would have guessed this actually had been kept in cask for a little while (Kracher, in the discussion between him and István Szepsy that I happened to overhear, did never got that answer to his question, but rather a confirmation by the Tokaj primus inter pares that Tokaji Esszencia was formerly never sold in a such primary condition, along with a shrug and the explanation that "one needs to able to market something in order to survive"). I personally did not think this bottling needs any justification, however: it is delicious as it is, hugely fat and viscous like jelly, with lots of fresh and dried apricot, racy candied lemon, some fresh apple, a tiny but prettily aromatic bitterness (as is typical of volcanic soil), and a balanced finish and not-too-prominent but lively and highly aromatic acidity. While it may not be easy to find a greater dessert wine elsewhere in the world, it is true I have tasted yet greater Tokaji Esszencia. Even so, it is as good as any currently on the market, plus it is from the much-heralded from the 1999 vintage and sold at a fair price (a little over 200.- Euros per half litre). Although my benchmark 1999 Esszencia, Márta Wille-Baumkauff's from Tarcal-Deák (the winery is now called Tokaj Pendits), has more memorable character, is deeper, more intense and complex, more minerally, and higher in sweetness and electricity (it contains over 23 g/l of acidity!), the 1999 Királyudvar is a nice introductory example thanks the considerably lower price. I thought it not too dissimilar in overall quality from the still available 1993 Pajzos (565 g/l r.s., 13.9 g/l acids, 4.59% alc.) that the WS rated rather too favourably at 99 points, a tiny bit less overwhelmingly jelly-like and a bit less long perhaps, but rather racier thanks to crisper acidity and more tropical-fresh in terms of aromas and flavours (plus, if the 1999 Királyudvar contains any of the soulless and virtually acidity-free Zéta grape variety in addition to Furmint, Hárslevelü, and a little Muskotály, it does not make itself felt in a negative way, although it neither did in the 1993 Pajzos at the same stage). Compared to the 1996 Szepsy Esszencia, the 1999 Királyudvar comes across as less minerally, deep and full of finesse, but as a better-balanced, higher octane, as "truer" Tokaji Esszencia so to speak. I believe I have covered much of what can currently be had (the near-perfect 1993 Disznókö costs three times as much, and of the 1996 Tokaji Stanza bottlings only the sweeter Red Capsule is on a similar or higher qualitative level; the Blue Capsule's statistics may be slightly more impressive to read, but that is already all there is to it). In short, my conclusion is that the 1999 Királyudvar deserves recommendation for those who want to get a taste of Esszencia at a reasonable price. One might want to wait for István Szepsy's own 1999 Esszencia to be marketed (Albino and I could taste a highly promising sample from Danczka immediately following harvest – if that was any indication, Szepsy's 1999 should be the more serious bottling), but given the price relation of one to one and a half between the respective 6 Puttonyos Aszús, prospective buyers may want to think this option over twice. Although in theory, the 1999 Királyudvar will keep almost eternally like most Tokaji Esszencia, it is one I would recommend to those who want a bottle to open and enjoy now. In contrast to the 6 Puttonyos, I was unable to detect much sulphur here, maybe this big baby just swallowed it (looking at the analysis chart on the web site now, it appears there may in fact be none)?
Rating: ~94?

ITALY

I included the TNs on the three Giacomo Conterno Barolos we could taste here (Cascina Francia 1998 and 1995, 1995 Monfortino) in my adjacent Giacomo Conterno Vertical post.

Cà la Bionda Valpolicella Casal Negri 1999
Ruby-red. Good floral fruit and body, medium weight. Dani finds it a bit light, but it is certainly clean and pure. Very good quality.

Cà la Bionda Amarone della Valpolicella 1998
Blacker ruby. Rather bitter but nice fruit, again quite clean and pure, with a minor animality and just some of the typical raisins. Very good plus quality?

Cà la Bionda Recioto della Valpolicella 1999
Purplish ruby. Sweet plummy cherry, a bit artificial chewing gum-like in taste yet clean. Very good only?

SWITZERLAND

Christian Zündel Vino Rosso del Malcantone Orizzonte 2000
Oaky, thick fruit with a touch of green, tobacco and smoke, quite forceful, may yet integrate, but not as convincing as e.g. the 1995. About excellent?

Christian Zündel Vino Rosso del Malcantone Orizzonte 2001
Barrel sample soon to be bottled. Fruitier yet greener underneath. Difficult to judge. Very good to excellent?

USA

Sine Qua Non Tarantella 1999
One of the reasons I like trade tastings is that one gets to see famous names (Manfred Krankl and wife) and taste wines one is glad to have been offered the possibility to avoid buying out of curiosity. A bright yellow-coloured blend of Rousanne, Viognier and Chardonnay. Oaky and sweaty on the nose, oak-spicy fruit on the palate that is thick and impressive in its own weird way. This is honestly impossible to rate because of the assumption that this is actually a product category anyone needs. The fact that it is well-concentrated and huge does not make this better wine as far as this taster is concerned, hence my rating of only about very good quality.

Sine Qua Non Ox 1999
I might have guessed this was a Pinot Noir without being told, just to say there is something inherently right about these wines. Sound ruby colour. Quite oaky, with nicely ripe yet not overripe crystallized fruit, sound acidity and a smoky finish and aftertaste. No terroir to speak of (as Robert Callahan once pointed out so correctly, terroir is not the presence of minerality, earthiness and whatnot; my point of view is that expression of terroir may well be of fruit only, but it is the sense of typicity that is missing here, that which could make you recognize the sameness of origin of this and another vintage of the same wine – it is the anonymous wine, as far as this taster is concerned, that is devoid of terroir). About very good quality.

Sine Qua Non Marauder 1999
Typical enough Syrah, lightly steely-leady, with good brightness of fruit, minor variety-typical animality, good body (not overwhelming, just nicely big) and length. But again more typical of grape variety than conveying any sense of terroir. Way too anonymous wines for the money here. Very good plus quality.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

P.S.
I have discontinued divulging numerical scores on this board (in order to avoid e-mails solely concentrating on the virtues of numerical rating, since I'd really rather talk about the wines themselves). For those who have problems interpreting my "verbal scoring", the numerical correspondences are as follows:

79 and below = NOT GOOD (i.e. no need to figure out exactly)
80 – 84 = GOOD (same as 16 and over in the European 20-point system)
85 – 89 = VERY GOOD (same as 17 and over; I sometimes use EXCELLENT or ALMOST-OUTSTANDING to indicate 88 – 89)
90 – 94 = OUTSTANDING (same as 18 and over)
95 – 99 = GREAT (or CLASSIC, same as 19 and over; I sometimes use NEAR-PERFECT to indicate a 98 – 99 score)
100 = PERFECT (20/20)

Note I will rarely buy wine below my own EXCELLENT rating (that's where wine really starts standing out for individuality from the mass of technically impeccably-made wines) except for an occasional and there truly exceptional QPR (I must insist any wine in the VERY GOOD category with me is serious stuff, way above average wine, that I still wouldn't buy because I've got to somehow limit my wine buying). But if a wine is costly, it had better be at least OUTSTANDING!