A much smaller wine group, whittled down by the recession and other competing duties, got together chez Steefel to explore Chambolle terroir in the form of some 2006 wines from Barthod. Our preference was to try something older, but planning started too late to source anything beyond the 2004 and 2006. The nod went to the 2006 because of the favorable reports on their floral character at Barthod, and because we did not want to have to face the issues of whether 2004 was a suitably typical vintage or not.

The Barthod were tasted double blind by two of us, single blind by the other two. As far as I can tell, this would otherwise be similar to a Grand Jury Europeen format (all wines tasted at the same time blind), although we restricted ourselves to just four bottles. All were tasted at the same time from the same type of glasses, all at the same temperature. Bottles were opened about two hours in advance of the tasting, double decanting about 40 minutes in advance.

First up as a warmup was a 2006 Rochioli Sauvignon Blanc, always a great quaffer that pushes the quality envelope, challenging the likes of many of the white Bordeaux and Loire SB in my opinion. This was as lively as ever, showing aromas of freshly mown grass and fainter brassy citrus notes, and a firm, almost petillant palate that seemed to balance perfectly between fresh fruit and acidity.

2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Beaux Bruns
This slightly dark ruby red wine showed excellent depth both on the palate and on the nose, perhaps more than I had expected. Aromas of strawberry and underbrush merged with the floral notes of violet on the nose. On the palate, the flavors are intense, if slightly less elegant in presentation than those of the other wines in the lineup. This shows the strongest tannic finish of any of those tasted, perhaps the tannins here are a bit more coarse-grained, although this is relative. There is good depth of material here and I can’t help but feel that this wine was slightly underrated by some critics…

2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Baudes
On night one, this was probably the least impressive wine, with a markedly reticent nose only reluctantly giving up aromas of soil and red Pinot fruit. Still, there was an airy, almost ethereal quality to the aromas that suggested that this wine might just be sleeping. On the palate the acidity is higher and the fruit slightly leaner than the other Chambolle in the lineup, so it comes across as a bit more tart than than the others. On night 2, the wine seems to have gained some muscle, although still no fat—my guess is that it just needs some time to flesh out…

2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Cras
I had expected a somewhat leaner, more airy nose on this wine, similar perhaps in style to the Baudes. Instead we were greeted with a waft of quite ripe red Pinot fruit, with exuberant strawberry that emerged on the rich almost creamy palate as well. Some fainter coffee notes suggested an oak influence to some, but I am not so sure myself that it wasn’t just a faint hint of torrefaction emerging from the rich ripe fruit. This was a big wine, perhaps not perfectly balanced at the moment, but time should bring it around.

2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Charmes
This wine showed a distinctive menthol note on the floral nose and an overtly spicy palate, giving it the most exotic character of any of the Barthod tasted. There is good density in the mouth and length on the finish, and a substantial structure that suggests a bright future for this wine that is already drinking well. This was perhaps the most balanced and complete wine we tasted, already showing precise detail that the others could only hope to achieve with some more time in the bottle. The WOTN for most of the tasters…

A couple of nights later, the big ripe character of the les Cras vineyard was apparent again in the 2002 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Cras. Another big whiff of quite ripe red Pinot fruit suggests at least some similarities in style to the 2006 example, although this is a denser, creamier wine on the palate. Once the initial ripe attack on the nose and palate had scaled back a bit, it became apparent that this was still a tightly wound wine that needed another 5-10 years to come around. Excellent raw materials again, however...

The tasting confirmed the general impression of the Barthod wines, that they are mineral-driven, elegant wines that need some significant bottle age to come around.

Bordeaux-California Cab Shootout (Double Blind)

We tasted two wines double blind next to each other—I wasted no time in identifying both as Cabernet Sauvignon dominated, but then had to decide whether both were Bordeaux (as I thought initially) or one was Bordeaux Left Bank and the other was California Cabernet.

Wine 1: Deeply pitched nose of black currant that keeps the rich notes of slightly green tobacco well under control. The nose here just strengthens with time, becoming denser and more fragrant as the wine sits in the glass. The palate offers up a similar experience, with rich, dense cassis flavors that still manage to remain weightless in the mouth. The purity of fruit, the structure that gradually unfolds, and the overall balance are impeccable. Despite the richness and purity of the fruit, however, the overall profile here is that of a structured, firm, classically made Cabernet Sauvignon dominated wine—no flabbiness here. This wine is drinking beautifully now, but should have many years of life ahead of it. The aromas and flavors here are no longer primary, so I had to guess that it was a wine with some bottle age on it.
Key descriptors (in my mind): Structured, classical balance, purity of fruit, some bottle age.

Wine 2: A slightly more hightoned nose than Wine 1, with airy aromas of damp soil, saddle leather, and underbrush seamlessly merged with the recognizable cassis aromas one expects from a Bordeaux. On the finish, the wine shows a touch of astringency and slightly dry tannins that are not all that rare in Bordeaux, but the vibrancy of the fruit makes these complicating notes rather than dominating characteristics of the wine. This one there is no doubt on, particularly on the finish—this has to be a Left Bank Bordeaux. The complexity, the multiple layers that shift over time are distinctive here and I should have identified this right away as a well-aged example.
Key descriptors (in my mind): Soil-driven, slightly austere finish balanced by vibrant fruit, tertiary aromas and flavors, complex shape-shifting profile typical of a wine with some bottle age...

I suppose my descriptions are not good enough for people to guess (and I never guessed the actual wine), but I was able to zero in a little bit...

The wines:

Wine #1:  1992 Ridge Monte Bello 

Wine #2:  1986 Gruaud Larose

Rhys Vineyards Tour

I had the good fortune to tag along on a tour of the Rhys Vineyards in the Santa Cruz Mountains.  Here are my notes on the wines, with some extra notes on the soils (since that is partly why I was there).

2007 Alpine Chardonnay (13.5% alcohol)  A touch of sulfur on the nose, with a rich citrus character on the palate, with an underlying chalky and saline note that might suggest Chablis, although I did not find quite the weightlessness I look for in a Chablis proper.  A very bright and energetic Chardonnay, however…

2007 Alesia Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir  Apparently a blend of the Freestone and Chileno Valley vineyards, this 60% whole cluster wine showed the greenest, stemmiest profiles of the wines sampled.  The palate is medium bodied, dominated by red fruit, with an intense, mineral-driven finish that sweeps those green notes away.

2007 Alesia Green Valley Pinot Noir  The green stemmy notes are gone here, replaced by an intense sour cherry flavors and red rose and high-toned red cherry notes on the nose.  A step up from the Sonoma Coast…

2007 Alesia Falstaff Pinot Noir  This shows a pure floral nose of roses with an undercurrent of mineral dust and an even fainter whiff of green stems.  The medium-bodied fruit here is very pure, and the finish is the longest yet, with fine tannins emerging with a touch of dry extract.  My favorite of the Alesia lineup…

2007 Rhys Family Farm Pinot Noir (13.3% alcohol)  This is grown on clay-rich alluvial material developed on a gently sloping surface, within a stones throw of the San Andreas Fault.  The green stemmy nose reappears here, although not quite at the same level as in the Alesia Sonoma Coast.  This lacks the richness and intensity of fruit of the best Alesia examples, although the acidity and red raspberry/cherry notes emerge more clearly on the finish.

2007 Rhys Home Pinot Noir  (13.8% alcohol, 100% whole cluster, only 1.5 barrels made)  This is grown on decomposed Whiskey Hill sandstone, on the other side of the San Andreas Fault.  An interesting contrast with the Family Farm wine, this shows a much brighter cherry character with an intensely spicy finish.  The delineation here is markedly better than the slightly fuzzy Family Farm.  Best length yet of any of the wines tasted, the finish goes on for half a minute at least.

2007 Rhys Skyline Pinot Noir (12.8% alcohol)  Grown on Lambert Shale within the San Lorenzo Formation, with pebbly soil apparently giving way to fractured shale at very shallow depth.  This shows a beautifully spicy palate with an intense red fruit finish.  The nose here is spicy rather than floral, with a sneaky length on the building finish.  With the weightless initial attack, one doesn’t quite expect the intensity of flavors and minerality that emerge.

2007 Rhys Alpine Pinot Noir  (13.3% alcohol)  Grown on crumbly Purisma Formation shale situated below about 20 inches of soil.  Here there is a touch of green stems of the nose, with red fruit tinged with some chalky, dusty notes.  The entry is silky, but again the length is sneaky here, with the impression that the dusty crumbly shale is buffering the fruit, making for a smoother less aggressive profile than we find in the Horseshoe that follows.  Again, this is another weightless wine with almost surprising intensity of flavor, especially on the impressive finish.

2007 Rhys Horseshoe Pinot Noir (12.2% alcohol)  Grown on the fractured but otherwise compact Monterey Formation, the soil here is a mixture of almost hand sized rocks and finer material.  Silky initial attack, almost unprepossessing, but then the great purity of fruit and intense flavors gradually emerge on the finish.  The nose here is probably the most reserved of those in the lineup, although a red cherry note emerges with vigorous swirling.

2006 Rhys Alpine Swan Terrace Pinot Noir (13.9% alcohol)  Grown across the hill from the “regular” Alpine on a very steep slope, this lacks a little bit of the depth of the 2007, but is showing quite well due to the floral red fruit nose and the intense red cherries on the mid-palate.  The spiciness of this wine emerges strongly on the back end, with the impressive finish lasting close to 30 seconds.  This will be an interesting one to check on in 2007.

2007 Rhys Skyline Syrah (13.8-13.9% alcohol)  The first year of this new wine, this was described as less floral than the Horseshoe Syrah, but you wouldn’t know it tasting it by itself.  To me, this showed a floral violet nose of exceptional purity, with a mid-palate showing notes of licorice presented with a very silky mouthfeel.  This is a beautifully balanced wine all around and should really improve with age.

Chablis Terroir Fest

A long-planned investigation in to the role of soils and “geochemical terroir” finally took place with a group of Earth Scientists at Penn State. The goal was to take a single vintage (2006) and a single producer (William Fèvre) to eliminate at least the gross differences associated with winemaker and growing season, even if subtle differences in exposure cannot be eliminated. Otherwise, the intent was to focus on the differences that soil made in the character of the wine in this particular vintage, although even here both the physical (drainage) and chemical properties come into play.

The intent also was to compare a Petit Chablis grown on Portlandian soil, but the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board was unable to deliver these despite having ordered them 3 weeks in advance, so we opted for a quick buy of a 2006 Drouhin Chablis Premier Cru, presumably actually derived from 1er Cru vineyards, but made in a dramatically different (and inferior) style to the Fèvre Chablis.

The Wines

100% Chardonnay, all grown on Kimmeridgian (Jurassic)-derived soil, in most cases consisting of clay, marl, and oyster shells. Exposure varies, with the Grand Cru having the most direct southerly exposure (full sun). The Premier Cru grown to the southwest of the river (Montmains and Vaillons) face southeast. 

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Montmains
A Premier Cru vineyard that faces southeast, grown on a deep soil that mixes marl and clay on top of a Kimmeridgian subsoil. Apparently this blends three different vineyards from the same slope, with one of them including slightly later maturing fruit. Pale yellow-green in color. Initially, very subdued aromas of citrus and crushed chalk, but the wine takes on a spicier floral note with some time in the glass. This tastes initially like a 1:1 mixture of fruit and soil, but given some time, the fruit fleshes out and the mouthfeel becomes sappier and sweeter. This needs some time in the glass to show its suave character, at which point tropical fruit and floral nuances begin to appear. Classic Chablis, this really combines 1er Cru power and minerality. 

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Vaillons
A Premier Cru vineyard that faces southeast, grown on a soil dominated by limestone rather than clay and resting on a hard, fractured limestone bed. Primary citrus aromas dominate along with a subtler note of chalk dust, but these components don’t strike me as integrated at least at the moment In the mouth this comes across as slightly tart without the buffering evident in the Montmains. In our tasting back in California after an hour, this came across as nearly ordinary Chardonnay, although still head and heels above the Drouhin tasted at Penn State. This just did not have the sappiness, spiciness, or underlying complexity of the more slowly evolving Montmains. What role does the lower clay content (and corresponding ion exchange capacity) of this soil profile have? In any case, I think the critics have over-rated this wine by a couple of points, and this strikes me as a step down from the Fèvre Vaillons in 2002.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Fourchaume 
A Premier Cru tasted only in California, I decided to substitute the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent for this one at Penn State. South-southwest exposure with a marl-rich topsoil of variable thickness. On the nose, this wine is much more expressive right out of the gate than the two preceding Premier Cru, with both tropical fruit and floral notes emerging. On the palate, the wine is sappy and round, but it seems to become less delineated and precise with time, finally losing some of its early power. After an hour or so, I thought that the Montmains was showing as the marginally better (or more interesting) wine.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent
A Premier Cru, but separated from the Grand Cru Preuses by a footpath. South-southwest exposure, with dense, compact clay-rich soil resting on a limestone bed. On the nose, a more extravagant citrus, tropical fruit, and white flower notes infused by minerality. In the mouth, this is much richer and has much better volume than the Premier Cru from the other side of the river, but also showing much greater clarity and sustainability of expression than the basic Fourchaume. This was a big step up from the foregoing wines, and I was pleased to see that quite a few of the tasters at Penn State noticed this. This is definitely Grand Cru quality.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Bougros
A southwest-exposed Grand Cru located just down the hill from Preuses, which is just to the east of Fourchaume. Some of the production is from relatively low-lying ground near the river where the drainage is perhaps not quite as good. Fèvre says this is grown on clay-rich topsoil. This was perhaps the most reserved of the noses that we encountered, with citrus and distant chalk dust as the main expressions of the aromatic profile caught early in its evolutionary development. This wine struck me as more linear than the other Fèvre Chablis (with the exception of the Vaillons)—while it had good underlying power and volume, it was not yet showing those evanescent fruit and floral notes of the best of the other Fèvre. I would put this wine a notch below the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent, at least at this point.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots
A Grand Cru from a direct south-facing slope of nearly 30% grade, apparently a fault scarp. The thinnest soils of all of the Grand and Premier Cru, consisting of clay and pebbles, this makes it hard to grow the vines. Whoa doggie, this one delivered everything one could expect and more--if anybody at the Penn State tasting was starting to slow down, this one jerked by the lapels and announced itself as Grand Cru. This one had all the floral and faint tropical fruit nuances of the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent, but with an extra dimension of what I can only refer to as “muscle”—it presents a powerful, sappy mid-palate that complements the nonlinear notes (faint notes of a distant tropical isle, a stony white flower-filled grotto) that arise on the long, high Reynolds Number finish. I was again pleased to see that quite a few of the tasters (including some neophytes) realized what they were tasting here.

2006 Drouhin Chablis Premier Cru
When the PLCB failed to deliver the Petit Chablis, we grabbed a few bottles of this as a comparison, but it barely registered as the same varietal for me. Thin, acidic, this seemed to be missing anything resembling ripe fruit at its core. The contrast with the Fèvre wines was dramatic. Still, at least a few people (perhaps hammered at this stage) rated this as their favorite. 

Epilogue
My own order for the Fèvre Chablis would be the Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots as the top wine, followed by the Fourchaumes Vignoble de Vaulorent, then the Bougros, then the Montmains or Fourchaume, with the Vaillons a step down from the others. The connection to soil remains speculative (one cannot of course doubt the importance of exposure), but I am developing some speculative hypotheses for the role of clay (and its ion exchange content) in combination with the highly soluble carbonate of the oyster shells in the Kimmeridgian. More data is needed, but we did have a Program Officer from the U.S. National Science Foundation there, although she only laughed when it was suggested that she needed to fund more research in “geochemical terroir”.

Last offline before the cataclysm?

LAST OFFLINE BEFORE THE CATACLYSM - (10/7/2008)

We thought this might be the last offline before the financial cataclysm has all of the wine geeks roaming the streets like so many dispossessed waifs in a novel by Cormac McCarthy. So we (myself, DrWine2001, Darvid, and Lou Rittenhouse) were hoping for the best with a first flight of 2000 white Burgundies followed by a couple of 1990 Corton. While the white Burgundies showed well, and mostly in keeping with expectations and previous experiences, the Corton were a big disappointment, with a Jadot Corton Pougets apparently flawed and an Ambroise Corton Rognet showing the unflattering effects of big-time overextraction. Well, the Ambroise helped to answer my post of several years ago about how highly extracted wines evolve, although I have certainly had other data points upon which to base my rapidly firming conclusions.

• 2000 François Raveneau Chablis 1er Cru Montée de Tonnerre - France, Burgundy, Chablis, Chablis 1er Cru
  Very pale straw yellow, this wine showed very similarly to a previous bottle, with perhaps a bit less punch in the mid-palate than I recalled from that one. On the nose, a fading lemon note inflected by soil, with a bitter note (that showed up on the palate as well) that suggested quinine at least to me. In the mouth, a distinctly saline, briney note appears that had me thinking about the typical Chablis cliches--it really wasn't hard to think of this wine as being influenced by its oyster shell soil. As with previous 2000 Raveneau MdT, and the slightly more powerful (but also more aged) 1990 MdT from Raveneau, this wine is delicate, detailed, and all about finesse.
• 2000 Domaine Latour-Giraud Meursault 1er Cru Les Perrières - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Meursault 1er Cru
  Bright medium yellow, this wine offered an interesting contrast with the less powerful Raveneau Montee de Tonnerre of the same vintage. The nose was dominated initially by a distinct sulfur note, which we treated (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) with a copper penny, but time in the glass seemed to reduce these aromas. Peeking through the sulfur haze were aromas that seem to have transitioned from citrus to red apple and pear, with a yeasty pain grille note suggested in the background. In the mouth this is impressively full bodied and balanced, with a powerful core of citrus and orchard fruit melded with the underlying minerality of the wine. I think we caught this one a little early, but this should evolve into a complete wine with a couple of more years in the bottle.

• 1990 Louis Jadot Corton-Pougets - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Corton Grand Cru
  Volatile vegetal nose with a note of harsh lemon thyme. On the palate, really not much better--a sweet attack, that might be due to chapitalization as DrWine2001 suggested, since the finish on the wine was astringent. Certainly a disjointed wine, this seemed to be going in five different directions at once, and none of them pleasurable. In fact, this sweet note on the palate seemed to fade with time in the glass and we were left with a medium-bodied hard edged wine that gives no pleasure. My guess is that this was stored at a bit too high a temperature for some years (75F) and disparate elements diverged rather than integrated with time, but this is speculation. One is tempted perhaps to blame it all on poor storage, but I am not even convinced that the individual elements in this wine are all that attractive, since even the fruit core of the wine comes across in an unflattering way. NR (flawed)
• 1990 Maison Bertrand Ambroise Corton-Rognet - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Corton Grand Cru
  Dark ruby red to almost purple, the nose on this wine only reluctantly shows anything beyond a hint of the massive dark fruit that underlies it. On the palate, this is concentrated, but also very tannic, with a hard and drying edge to the tannins on the finish. The fruit, while concentrated, is impenetrable--I don't believe I would have guessed this as Pinot Noir at all. Presumably we are drinking this too soon, but I can't believe this has the potential to do anything but soften up a bit with time, although the tannins as they are will never disappear. This seems to me to be Exhibit A of what happens when you over-extract a wine. You make a big monolithic wine that has no potential to evolve into anything better.
• 1995 Domaine de Montille Volnay 1er Cru Champans - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Volnay 1er Cru
  Medium-bodied, with a cool Pinot nose that offers a refreshing contrast to the forgoing 1990 Corton monsters. This wine is not quite ready yet, with a reserved dark fruited palate that probably needs another 5 years to really blossom, but the raw materials are there in what seems to be the proper balance and good detail. Should be interesting to resample with some more bottle age.

Posted from CellarTracker

2000 Chateauneuf du Pape

Here was another chance to check out the 2000 CdP, in this case the Pegau Reservee up against the 2000 Janasse Vieilles Vignes. A very interesting contrast in style, with the signature Janasse VV style clearly on display, very dark sweet cherry and underbrush balanced by fine tannins and an almost buried acidity. The 2000 Pegau Reservee showed mostly as expected, with the typical Pegau balance of acidity and spiciness making for a very well balanced drink.

• 2006 Domaine William Fèvre Chablis 1er Cru Les Lys - France, Burgundy, Chablis, Chablis 1er Cru
  Very pale straw yellow, this started out a bit warm, but as the wine cooled down and took on some air, it sharpened up into a 1er Cru quality driink as the citrus and mineral-dominant gained some urgency and breadth and the gradually expanding nose showed white flower and sea brine aromas with time in the glass. My first experience with this particular 1er Cru, this seems to be a touch less rustic than the Fevre Vaillons and better structured than the typical Fevre Montmains, so it is worth following.

• 2000 Domaine du Pégaü Châteauneuf-du-Pape Cuvée Réservée - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Châteauneuf-du-Pape
  That trademark Pegau spiciness and acid balance is here, with a restrained nose of garrigue and dark fruit, this turned out to be an interesting contrast with the 2000 Janasse Vieille Vignes showing a very different style of CdP (sweet dark cherry). I don't clearly see the raw materials for the Pegau to involve in to a strikingly more complex wine, but it is drinking very nicely now.
• 2000 Domaine de la Janasse Châteauneuf-du-Pape Vieilles Vignes - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Châteauneuf-du-Pape
  Very dark ruby red, this made for a very interesting contrast with the 2000 Pegau. The Janasse VV style was clearly evident here, with a core of sweet viscous dark cherry balanced by very fine grained tannins and a backbone of acidity. This is similar in style to the 2001 Janasse VV, but well on its way to maturity, since the flavors are no longer completely primary. On the nose, the dark kirsch aromas are swept by a woodier element, perhaps some oak that is well integrated, but conveying now something much more like underbrush. The nose was more expressive than the 2000 Pegau, and the kirsch/dark cherry flavors currently more intense, this wine is aging very well. Demonstrates to me how well the Janasse VV can age...

Half Italian Night

Another day, another dollar, so it was time to try to put a dent in the Rittenhouse cellar, with some real treats on the list. The Zind-Humbrecht Brand was an epiphany for me, my first Zind as far as I recall, this was the perfect aperitif. I am not normally a big fan of Rieslings with much in the way of residual sugar, but this wine really carried it off. And that 1997 Scavino (my second bottle) was another standout, showing as distinctly more open and accessible than the backward, brooding monster I had tasted only a few months before.

• 1999 Zind-Humbrecht Riesling Brand - France, Alsace, Turckheim, Alsace Grand Cru AOC
  A sweet viscous attack, then a wave of fine acidity sweeps through and transforms this wine on the finish--delicate, intricately detailed, and a good 30 seconds in length. Sort of like those firework displays where the big initial explosion is followed by a scintillating shower of sparks that settles slowly to the ground. This wine is all about its finish, where the Grand Cru status I suspect would be obvious even to the complete neophyte. A musky nose offers up notes of soil and honey that infuse the floral aromas, maybe something like what a bee picks up when it zeroes in on its target. I think this was my first Zind-Humbrecht and I became an instant believer. (94 pts.)

• 2007 Bruno Giacosa Roero Arneis - Italy, Piedmont, Alba, Roero DOC
  Straw yellow, with lively aromas of mineral-laden citrus and a lurking floral element currently dominating the nose. In the mouth, the wine really struck me as almost racy, at least not the lush and full-bodied palate that Antonio Galloni describes, but then my experience with Arneis is minimal. And I might have been influenced by the decadent Zind-Humbrecht Grand Cru we had just finished. A bracingly good drink, I need to find some of these... (91 pts.)

• 1997 Paolo Scavino Barolo Bric dël Fiasc - Italy, Piedmont, Langhe, Barolo
  The second bottle tasted within the space of a couple of months, this one didn't show the same backwardness and reserve--in fact, the wild brambly dark cherry aromas cascade out of the glass, skillfully melded with spicy oak notes that seem to have transformed to something more like underbrush on the sweeping finish. In the mouth the wine shows dense and deeply pitched flavors of dark cherry and plum, with surprising liveliness that is conveyed by the deeply seated tannins and acidity that provide a scaffolding for the wine. As before, there is great depth to this wine and a long and bright future if anybody has any bottles resting... (94 pts.)

• 2003 Château La Tour Blanche - France, Bordeaux, Médoc
  From a 375 ml bottle, I still find this one of the more attractive of the 2003 Sauternes that I have tried, although I am not a big fan of the vintage. Very dense and sweet in the mouth, the wine comes across as well-balanced even at this relatively early stage, although a touch more acidity would still have provided some additional structure and space for additional complexity to develop. (91 pts.)