Blog

1995 & 1996 White Burgundy Retrospective Hosted by Steve Tanzer

Steve and I always do a white wine tasting together in June, and this year we decided to take a peek at 1995 versus 1996 in White Burgundy, taking pairs of select, top producers and comparing them side by side. Steve decided to do the tasting ‘single, semi-blind;’ ie, where you know what is in each flight but not specifically which wine is which, and that added an extra dimension to our perspective.

Steve was chock full of information to start. Most of this paragraph is notes from his intro. Steve initially referred to the 1985 vs. 1986 tasting we did last year, and how he still remembered how ‘green’ the last drop was. In fact, he said that he was starting to drink his red Burgundies younger and his whites older. The reason he was most curious to look at these vintages is the fact that in the mid-nineties, many producers changed their cork treatments in white Burgundy to a peroxide solution that has not always worked out for the best. As a result, many wines have this early-maturing, oxidized edge that is unnatural. I asked Allen about this the next night, and he did confirm there being issues there as well. So, we had another controversy floating around about Burgundies, but I was still hoping for the best in this retrospective and that this controversy was more of an exception than a rule. Steve continued that he originally thought 1996 to be one of the great vintages of his generation for white Burgundy before the tainted cork issue started to change his opinion. In 1995, there was a combination of high grape sugars (from the small berries) and low yields, which was especially important in the flatter vineyards; 1996 did not have this problem as the crop was 50-75% higher! Better fruit could be selected overall as a result. There were murmurs early on in 1995 about rot, and the malos were very late. The quality was a bit all over the place, but many excellent to great wines were made. 1996 had a quick and regular flowering (similar to 2004, Steve noted), and the summer was not that hot or sunny. The rainfall in late August triggered fears of rot and unripe fruit, but the sun returned in September for three weeks of straight brilliance, and the North Wind kept the nights cool and the acidity high. It was a large crop with strong acidity and the cleanest fruit seen in a long time. The best 1996s are still young; the only downside to 1996 was that the yield was too high, and some producersoverproduced.

We started with a flight of four wines, featuring the Colin-Deleger Puligny Montrachet ‘Demoiselles’ and Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes.’ We did not know the order in which they were served, though, although we obviously knew that there was a 1995 and a 1996 of each. The first wine had an exotic nose with some edges of banana flamb eacute;, cinnamon, sweet butter and musk. There was a touch of yeast and yellow fruits, a pinch of caramel and corn. The nose was fat and wide but seemed to lack a centerpoint of acidity. The palate was oily, rich and round with nice minerals on the finish, a touch yeasty with a dash of inner citrus peel. Again, that centerpoint of acidity was lacking a bit. Custard developed in the glass, and it did have ‘sweet’ flavors as a woman at my table observed, but it lacked lushness to its fruit. Steve found it ‘leesy and nutty like an old Champagne.’ The unintegrated acidity held the wine back from greatness, and it came across lightly bitter as a result. It was the 1995 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ (91). Steve told us how Lafon has the best parcel of Charmes, which sits right next to Perrieres and has 40-65 year old vines. The next wine had a more buttery and richer nose, seeming similar in style to the first wine. It was also rich and buttery on the palate with caramel and banana flavors and aromas. The palate was also oily, with more acidity, just enough to hold it all together. There was light citric tension, slate flavors, and the wine was stonier and dustier. The acidity was there, but the wine could improve with more time and integration on the palate in this 1996 Colin-Deleger Puligny-Montrachet ‘Les Demoiselles’ (92+). Steve told us how the ‘Demoiselles’ vineyard was right next to Chevalier Montrachet and Montrachet and specially situated. The 1995 Colin-Deleger Puligny Montrachet ‘Les Demoiselles,’ served third in this flight, outshone its 1996 sibling. The nose was zesty and spiny with lots of great spice, bursting with yellow and white fruits, minerals, and ‘fairy’ dust as in a magical quality to the dust. There was excellent acidity here, although the wine was ‘back-ended’ on its flavor profile with the dust, chalk and earth components. There were still white fruit flavors, though. Steve found it ‘soft and broad’ with ‘perfect integration of acidity’ (93+). The last wine reminded me more of the third instead of the first wine even though it was the 1996 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes.’ So much for inside info! There was excellent zest and spice here with an extra layer of honey and banana, and it was also loaded with white smoke, steam, minerals and more spice. The wine was very tasty featuring great balance and length. It had the best balance of the first flight, and there were great flavors of dust, minerals and rocks (94).

We crossed the border with our second flight and left those premier crus behind. It was an interesting pairing: the Chablis ‘Les Clos’ of Raveneau versus the Corton Charlemagnes of Verget. We all agreed that if we could not at least tell the difference between regions in this flight, then we should hang ’em up! Verget’s parcels of Corton Charlemagne varied between 1995 and 1996, negociant that he is. In 1995, he made a blend of two parcels from the original Delarche holdings, including a West-facing and an East-facing parcel. 1996 came from only the East-facing parcel. Even Guffens (owner of Verget) himself has confided with Steve that some 1996s are fresh, and others are oxidized, referring to the cork taint issue. Steve also told us that despite the hype about 1996 being the vintage of the century in Chablis, Raveneau prefers his 1995s at the moment. Ironically, in Chablis, things were opposite vintage-wise, and 1996 was the tiny crop! It just goes to show how minor distances in geography can make a major difference in vintage quality. The first wine in this flight was brilliant. It had a fabulous, Chablis-like nose deep, long and clean, full of anise and minerals. There were secondary white and yellow fruits and a sweet, smokiness overall to the wine. It was unmistakably Chablis with its starfruit, smoke and granite. The wine had awesome breed. It was a white wine with grip, encompassing the mouth with its round and rich texture and long, gritty finish. It was a classic; the only negative was that it was a bit unyielding in its greatness, not necessarily ready to be disturbed. It was Bryan’s favorite of the flight with its ‘dense core of unevolved fruit, long finish and lots of promise.’ It was the great 1996 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos’ (96+). The second wine here had a more smoky, toasty and buttery nose, rich and oaky with an exotic banana-wax edge. The wine had a rich mouthfeel and was high in alcohol, which was somehow, still reined in. The wine was sturdy and very nice on the palate, more classic as its terroir took over, more classic than its exotic nose led me to believe. Steve noted the ‘great density and lift in the mouth’ in this 1995 Verget Corton Charlemagne (93). The 1996 Verget Corton Charlemagne at first seemed awkward. It was even smokier, oakier and toastier than the 1995 with the same kink as the 1995, except that it was more brutish and aggressive. It was also toeing the line with the oxidative issues to which Steve had alluded. The wine was rich yet clumsy at first, but with air it kept rounding out and growing, becoming very nutty. The power of the 1996 was amazing by comparison to the 1995, and ultimately it surpassed it, but the 1996 needed a lot more time in the glass before it was able to shake off its cobwebs and perhaps some cork taint. The 1995 may have been purer, but the 1996 was so powerful. Steve told us Guffens called 1996 ‘tight, high in acidity and young.’ Sounds good for the cellar (94)! Lastly, we were treated to the 1995 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos.’ Again, there was that distinctively Chablis nose, but the fruit was sweeter with more yellow spectrums and floral edges. Sweet pineapple joined the party, as did wax. There were great citrus flavors and spice on the finish. Bob noted ‘brioche,’ and Steve ‘a fascinating, wild nose of orange oil, coconut and great acidity.’ The 1995 was much sexier on this night, but the potential of 1996 seemed greater. The 1995 did become more classic with time in the glass. Steve called Les Clos ‘the Montrachet of Chablis’ and ‘great value for Grand Cru white Burgundy’ (96).

The final flight had six wines in it, each of them no stranger to greatness: Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Ruchottes,’ Niellon Batard Montrachet, and Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet, Domaine Leflaive, of course. The first wine had serious spice to the nose with intense alcohol and a pungent, lit match edge along with citrus wax and an iceberg-like quality which was tough to put into words. The flavors were very rocky, and there was fat to its fruit, but overall the wine was shy on its definition. There were some secondary vanilla and sulfur edges and lots of earthy flavors on its finish. Steve loved the wine and its ‘green, truffly edge,’ but I was left a bit confused, respecting its raw materials but wanting more in this 1995 Niellon Batard Montrachet (93+?). The next wine had an amazing nose that was incredibly forward, practically leaping out of the glass. It was full of vibrant, bright yellow fruits and had a drop of honey with a lot of musk. The wine was very exotic and floral and also had great minerality. The balance and length were just short of outstanding, and its spiciness delicious. It was a great bottle of 1995 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Ruchottes’ (94+), which flirted with an outstanding (95 point) rating. The 1996 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet took no prisoners. Joe noted the signature ‘hazelnut and flint’ qualities of Leflaive. I called it ‘toasted nuttiness,’ and Steve chipped in ‘gunpowder.’ We were all right, and the combination of the three observations resulted in the classic, aromatic profile of Leflaive’s wines. The wine was incredibly smoky with great spice. The minerals and freshwater finish were very expressive; the finish intense and spicy. Steve found the wine ‘very sexy and graceful’ and more ‘exotic orange’ (96+). The fourth wine of this flight won the Miss Congeniality award for the night. It was very exotic with loads of wildflowers, bread, mint, sweet cream and caramel. The mint was a Ramonet clue, as his winesoften take on that characteristic with age. The palate was rich, forward and spicy, still young yet balanced and fleshy, meaty and rich with supporting menthol and mint. Steve pegged ‘macadamia’ and admired its ‘Grand Cru weight.’ The 1996 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Ruchottes’ may not get better, but it will be drinking well for a little while, for sure. Man, those Ramonet ‘Ruchottes’ are great around age 10 (95)! The 1995 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was corked and (DQ). The 1996 Niellon Batard Montrachet was a special wine. The wine was smoky, exotic, oily and ‘dusty,’ Steve chipped in. There was a gorgeous floral quality, exotic orange and a ‘honeyed, buttery’ texture. The texture was superior rich, long, pure, beautiful amazing and superior. It is a magical wine (97). You can find more of Steve’s reviews on www.internationalwinecellar.com

Amoureuses Dinner with the Burghound

The following night found us at AIX on the Upper West Side with the Burghound, Allen Meadows, and a delicious assortment of Les Amoureuses, Chambolle Musigny’s most sought after and collectible vineyard. Allen has been a champion of the vineyard, feeling that it is one of three red (and one white) vineyards that strongly merit consideration for a Grand Cru upgrade. The others are Cros Parantoux in Vosne Romanee, Clos St. Jacques in Gevrey Chambertin, and Perrieres in Meursault. Due to politics, real estate taxes and the nature of inertia in the wine world bureaucratically, it will probably never happen, Allen reasoned. Even if they did get approved, some producers might not want to pay more taxes on their vineyards anyway! He said when an acre of Chevalier Montrachet is estimated at a worth of $30 million today, one can see how those taxes would add up rather quickly. Point made! Allen continued that Amoureuses is 5.4 hectares (2 frac12; acres per hectare), meaning about 15 acres. The thing that separates Amoureuses (and the other two red, Premier Cru vineyards just mentioned) from many other vineyards also is the fact that all the producers who have access to fruit right now are high-quality producers. So, not only is the greatness of Amoureuses due to the intrinsic quality of the terroir, but also due to the exceptionally serious grower community. Griottes Chambertin is another similar vineyard in that regard, he added. Cros Parantoux and Clos St. Jacques are even more extreme examples, as there are only three and five owners/producers of wines from each of those appelations! Allen was quick to point out, though, that none of his top ten wines of all-time come from any of these Premier Cru vineyards. Allen called Amoureuses ‘a more forward Musigny,’ a ‘Musigny-ette’ if you will, and said the main difference between Amoureuses and its Grand Cru neighbor is the structure and ageability. Amoureuses will age about 30-35 years, Allen said, and not much more usually. Amoureuses are good, middle distance runners. They will not hold as well as Musignys do. Allen continued on the topic of terroir. Clos de Beze was established in the 600s (as in A.D.), and the care and attention put into that vineyard over time is part of its terroir. Terroir is not just about land, he reasoned, and said ‘there is a cultural aspect to terroir.’ It was a brilliant observation, I must say. Allen is the most knowledgeable person about Burgundy that I know. If you love Burgundy and are not a subscriber, then you do not love Burgundy! His website is www.burghound.com

We did the tasting youngest to oldest, and the first wine was the 2003 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses,’ fresh off the boat, so to speak. Jefery of Los Angeles was here in New York and joined us, and he was impressed with its forward, ‘hedonistic’ qualities. Jef and I were instantly reminded of Steve’s comments the night before about 2003 being one of the hottest, if not THE hottest, vintages ever in the history of Burgundy. The nose was very musky and exotic full of sappy, black cherry and raspberry fruit. There was nice dust and light mineral components, but the wine was most definitely fruit driven, which most young Burgundies are not. The palate was chewy but marked by its youthful, alcoholic nature. Stems and edges of bitters were present as well. The wine was Caliesque (‘Cali Pinot’ Ray bah-humbugged later) in regard to its ripeness but still Burgundian in character and finish. The wine lacked layers, though, but perhaps that is a function of its youth and ripe fruit masking them (91). The 2002 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a much more classic nose with more tension, earth and vitamin. There was sexy, cherry fruit underneath that flashed like skin on legs. There was great character aromatically; the wine was deep and long, yet so refined and elegant. The wine kept sweetening in the glass and became a symphony of red fruits. The palate was huge, seemingly enormous for Amoureuses. It had a tidal wave of a finish with a crest of alcohol and a body of acid. We were in the presence of an outstanding wine here, full of character and length. It would ultimately be my wine of the night (96). The 2002 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a beautiful, pure, gorgeous nose. It was super-feminine in style with a wintergreeny, cherried fruit quality; one could argue menthol instead of wintergreen. There was light earth and leather rounding out the nose. The wine was very tasty, voluptuous and long. It was not nearly as powerful as the Roumier but still beautifully balanced and exceptionally rendered (94). Allen had a few, interesting (of course) comments about the first flight. He called the 2003 Roumier ‘a well done 2003,’ adding that there are not as many of them out there as one would hope. He stressed that 2003 is NOT a terroir vintage, not that the vintage was completely devoid of terroir, but 2002s are much clearer as a reference. He then warned that 2002 was ‘still not a vintage to back up the truck and buy everything in sight.’ I might disagree based on the two we had on this night! ‘I prefer 2001s,’ Allen continued. You know what that means? Buy 2001s! Five or six years from now when the prices explode like the 1993s are now (another Allen favorite), don’t say I did not warn you!

The second flight started with a 2001 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses,’ and I immediately saw some extra depth to this 2001 in comparison to the 2002 just before. There was more meat, fat, depth and breadth. Perhaps it was Allen using his Jedi force! Aromas of red cherry fruit, musk, earth and pinches of vanilla, nutmeg and cinnamon danced around my nose. There was nice spine to the wine; you had to dig to get to it but once you got there it was quite nice. The palate was big and brawny with lots of body, a touch rugged but still flirting with outstanding. The acids were long, great even, and the palate had excellent weight. The wine was just a touch brutish at this point, but the balance is there to suggest that in time it will be great. It was Rob S.’s wine of the night, and definitely at the top of my ladder as well. Allen cooed about Mugnier how understated it was, almost too subtle for most people, a little austere and not shouting at you. He continued that Mugnier makes a wine that requires you to meet it in the middle, and that you have to get to know it. He also cited D’Angerville as that kind of winemaker (95+). Back to Roumier we happily went, and the vintage was 2000. The 2000 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ was very musky with aromas of firewood, cedar, minerals and nutshells. There was excellent structure here, more so than I expected. The flavors were complex and in a slate, rainwater, dust and young rust direction. The fruit was good yet shy, and there was currently more fireplace and stem action. I was reminded of what my friend and known, Burgundian fanatic Don told me recently: when he is in the mood for something young, he reaches for a 2000 (92). The 1999 J. Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a shy nose, almost figgy and pruny but not in a cooked way. Upon further investigation, the wine also had smoke, tea and good wood aromas as well. The palate was tight and young with a great, vibrant finish that had lots of ‘pop’ in a rusty way. There was a nice, leathery intensity to its flavors; it was a complicated wine with a lot of personality. Bruce agreed that it had lots of personality as well as ‘direction’ (94). At this point, Bob quoted a famous ‘WC’ (either Fields or Churchill, but he couldn’t remember), saying ‘I only drink to keep my friends interesting.’ We were all amused at that one. Woodson then went into one of his tried and true theories, about how wine tastes/shows/is better on high pressure/low humidity days (ie, sunny and dry), as opposed to overcast, rainy, muggy ones. Ok, back to the wines the next wine was also a 1999, the 1999 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ It had a sexy nose with nice balance and still tension between its fruit and finish. There was bright fruit, lots of spine, earth and almost a benevolent glue. The palate was shut down, as most 1999s are, at least to me, a little screechy but hibernating. The texture and body were great, but the wine was super shy and reserved overall; it was like weight without mass. The flavors were nothing but rusty at this stage, but this should improve in time (92+). Allen took center stage again and spoke about the use of stems in Burgundy, and how many of the younger growers are shying away from using them, or only using 5-10% of them. Allen feels this is a grave mistake. He did cite Henri Jayer, however, as being very against the use of stems and quoted Henri once saying, ‘Have you ever put one in your mouth and liked it?’ However, look at , who uses up to 100% of the stems and indubitably makes the most ageworthy and complex wines in all of Burgundy. Yes, the wines are less interesting and enjoyable when young, but the tradeoff is longevity and complexity down the road. Sounds like a good trade to me! Allen also touched upon other vintages in Burgundy some more, saying ‘2002 is for wine lovers while 2001 is for Burgundy lovers,’ since the 2001s are transparent regarding their climate. He also went ‘sideways,’ most likely brought upon by a question or two from our eager group of attendees, saying how the Achilles heel of 1996 was the lack of mid-palate density, although the wines were transparent and pretty as well as the cleanest vintage of all time. 1999 was a ‘miracle’ vintage because there was high quantity and high quality. 1995 and 1998 both share a lot of similarities: both had rot, both didn’t ripen, and you needed vignerons that were ready to wait. The ’95s were much denser, he added. He continued that the density had to be there in order to use stems, that you have to have lower yields, and lower yields are where the dollars come in. Lower yields mean less grapes which means your wine has to be more expensive. Not everyone is willing to take that chance or make that sacrifice.

Flight number three began with another Mugnier, the 1998 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ It was a little wild in the nose with a touch of mildew and stew. It blew off a little but was still there. There was nice, pure cherry fruit behind it, smooth and supple and accompanied by a splash of strawberry and stems. It got muskier in the glass. The palate was very bright, long and smooth with a great, satiny texture. It still had a bright and spiny edge in that Amoureuses, subtle yet sensuous, way. That mildew edge, though, never left, so I had to wonder if we had a perfect bottle, as 1998 is a fabulous year for Mugnier (92+?). The 1998 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ left no doubt as to the quality of the bottle. ‘Mmm’ is how my note started off. The nose was deep with waxy, plummy fruit and that same ‘twinge’ that the ’99 Drouhin had. There was solid t ‘n a with a nutty intensity that blended into this Moroccan spice. A splash of vitamins rounded out the nose with an edge of cinnamon. The palate was very spicy with lots of rust, earth, minerals and light citric tension. The acid was rock solid in this excellent wine (94). The 1995 Comte de Vogue Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had lots of ‘black licorice,’ as Bob observed. It seemed simpler in the nose by comparison to all the Roumiers, Mugniers and Drouhins we’d been enjoying. There was some t ‘n a, meat, yeast and a plummy side to the fruit. The palate was broad, however, earthy, spicy and screechy. Jefery didn’t like the style, and there were some stewed flavors (but good ones), and lots of vitamins emerged in the glass (92). The 1995 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a touch of benevolent green bean at first, with wintry aromas and cinnamon. There was a touch of that rotten, stewed 1995 edge found in the Vogue; perhaps rotten is a bad word choice as it was not a negative rotten. It was a ‘Dirty, Rotten Scoundrel’ rotten like MichaelCaine or Steve Martin. The palate had nice leather and spice and was quite meaty and fleshy. There was a shot of vanilla extract there, and the finish separated it from the Vogue (93+). Rob S. generously brought a 1995 R. Groffier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ Thanks, dude! Allen let us know that Groffier is actually the largest landowner in all of Amoureuses. Now why couldn’t it be Roumier? The Groffier had a shy nose, but it was consistent with the other 1995s. All the 1995s seemed to have the spice, spine and anise thing happening along with the rotten, meaty edge. The palate was sturdy with great balance and intensity. Long and sturdy with some green beans as well, the 1995 Groffier was very good, bordering on excellent (92+). Allen made a side comment as to why Bordeaux was more consistent: it is all about the quantity. If Roumier has two barrels of Amoureuses, he cannot declassify a barrel. The microscopic production levels of Burgundy wines make Mother Nature all the more powerful.

The fourth flight consisted of three 1993s, the vintage that ‘had it all,’ Allen cooed. ‘Naturally dense,’ it was ‘the best vintage since 1978.’ The 1993 J. Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ batted leadoff in this flight quite well. The nose was pungent and meaty with a touch of cat’s pee, meat, earth, citrus and ‘shine,’ almost like a varnish. Underneath, there was some red cherry fruit. The pungency stood out. The palate was rich, round, hearty and long. It was classic with its earth, leather and rust, all very primary. The meat, citrus and violet were secondary. The wine was bright with excellent tension (94). The 1993 Comte de Vogue Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ was loaded with ‘cough syrup,’ as Jef keenly observed. The wine was very stewed, and it was tough to get past the cough syrup in the nose. The palate was better, mentholated but with great density to the fruit. The wine smacked of potential but was still a little sickly and stewed. I think the bottle was a bit off (91+?) The 1993 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a weird nose in that a) there was not a lot there and b) what was there was violet, nut, light caramel and some earth. The palate was long, smooth and satiny, earthy, rusty and dusty with traces of game. It was very fine and long, and its density was superior. Pure and sexy, it was a ‘wow’ wine on the palate (95). FYI, Ron and Bruce brought up (and obviously felt) the 1990 over 1993 point of view, but it was then counter-noted how even Aubert de Villaine actually prefers his 1991s to his 1990s.

The final flight was upon us, beginning with the 1991 Comte de Vogue Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ There was ‘diatomaceous earth’ action, ie living organisms in the earth. It had to be Allen to come up with that one! There was dark fruit full of vitamins and stewed fruit. The palate was bright but a little weird. It could have been another off bottle (90?) The 1986 R. Groffier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had the classic, stinky, Groffier nose, with an aged twist. Beefy, wild and weedy, the wine was intense, rich and meaty with citrus and Worcestershire. It was fleshy and gamy in a good way, and often his wines rub me the wrong way (91). The 1986 J.F. Mugnier had a gorgeous nose silky, satiny and plummy with a shot of grape juice. There were Welch’s flavors, good acidity still, excellent balance and nice length. The finish was spicy, and the wine was rich and smooth. Those of you who remember my review of his ’86 Musigny V.V. know that 1986 was indeed a special year for Mugnier (93+).

I will leave you all with one last, wise comment from Allen: ‘Americans are too vintage-centric.’ That is for damn sure. Great producers make great wines every year. Some just have to be drunk sooner than others.

Notes from our own Dave Hamburger on Part III of our 2001 Blind, Cali Cab Showdonw

I actually missed our final showdown, Part Three, of our 2001 Blind Cali Cab tastings (BUMMER). About 50 Cab lovers were in attendance, and our own Dave Hamburger took charge and took some notes from the tasting, and he kept the final tally of all the votes. Everyone got five votes, first place getting five points and fifth place getting one. The wines were not revealed until all the votes were tallied.

Here are some brief observations from Dave, who is studying to be a Master of Wine, and the final results. It should be noted that Foley and Switchback finished in the top five for the other two tastings as well (Foley got two first places, I believe, and Switchback a definite second at least once). Bob Foley makes both wines, as well as Pride. He seems to have the magic touch of the moment and has catapulted himself into the select group of elite winemakers in Napa Valley.

1. 2001 Switchback Ridge Cabernet Sauvignon Peterson Family Vineyard
Very expressive aromas of black fruits, full bodied with a creamy texture. Very hedonistic and sexy.
104 votes

2. 2001 Robert Foley Vineyards Claret
Out of magnum. Very young still showing, hard tannins, full-bodied, dark fruits yet balanced and well structured. (Perhaps the magnum prevented a third, first-place showing – JK)
86 votes

3. 2001 Pride Mountain Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve
A bit more closed then the Switchback but similar in personality, showed a bit more elegance.
58 votes

4. 2001 Merus Cabernet Sauvignon
Medium to full bodied, showed earthy tones and a bit of old world complexity, still excellent fruit on the palate.
51 votes

5. 2001 Harlan Estate Proprietary Red Wine
Still young, evolved greatly throughout the night. Obvious breed and character. Not as overt as Foley’s wines but more complex and sophisticated – a perfect mixture of new world power and Bordeaux style, great depth and structure. Longest finish of the night.
44 votes

6. 2001 Screaming Eagle Cabernet Sauvignon
This wine took a long time in the glass to open up; at first it was too earthy showing some old world funk. As this evolved, incredible aromas of licorice, minerals, red and black fruits emerged, along with a touch of old world leather.
43 votes

7. 2001 Colgin Cariad Proprietary Red Wine
This wine was the most exotically fruity of the bunch, The fruit was more citrus then black or red; it displayed an almost banana split ice cream kind of thing on the palate. An obvious crowd pleaser.
41 votes

8. 2001 Darioush Cabernet Sauvignon
In past tastings, this wine was more hedonistic and fruity; this time it showed more earth tones and was more on the elegant side.
27 votes

9. 2001 Paul Hobbs Cabernet Sauvignon Beckstoffer To-Kalon Vineyard
This wine was one of the most jammy and candied. The texture was round with low acid and fat ripeness.
23 votes

10. 2001 Lewelling Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Wight Vineyard
Also rich and ripe with lower acid, a bit short on the finish.
20 votes

11. 2001 Diamond Terrace Cabernet Sauvignon
This wine was more elegant; it showed good balance and was very St. Julien. Good structure and still young. Aromas had a hint of mineral and reminded me of the gravelly soil in Bordeaux.
19 votes

12. 2001 Schrader Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon Beckstoffer Vineyard
Very ripe and concentrated; a lot of flavor and fruit on the palate, showed a bit low acid, but was hedonistic and delicious.
15 votes

13. 2001 Stanton Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon
High toned red fruits on the nose, cherry and strawberry, medium bodied. A wine of elegance and balance. Surprised it didn’t show better.
8 votes

14. 2001 Dalla Valle, Estate
Surprisingly in last place, yet the wine did not show well. It was disjointed and had excessive wood on the nose and an astringent quality.
1 vote