Wine Aficionados Tasting - Westchester Wine School

Final tasting of the WWS season, exclusively held for select group of WWS sophisticates (ha!)

• 2005 Kistler Chardonnay Durell Vineyard 89 Points

  USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast

  Blanco brought this to a Ned WWS tasting. Drank blind alongside Aubert Lauren 2006 and Kongsgaard 2007, which was a very cool idea as these are likely my 3 fave Calif chards (pretty much the only ones I buy). I know these wines well so I pinned each 1. (J$ & Blanco, as well as most of the crowd ID'd the Kistler which was a bit over the hill, I thought, but mixed up the other 2). The Aubert was noticeable in the glass as it always has lots of stuff floating in the glass--unfiltered, of course. Pale, strawlike yellow color. Aubert had a nose of citrus & tropical fruit. A pretty full bodied chard, I thought the wine had better acidity than I recall, but still had gobs of ripe fruit---pineapple, banana, pears too--good mouthfeel, a bit spicy, and very long. I loved the Aubert, and found it to be burgundian in terms of its complexity, and despite its high alcohol level (which I never seem to detect in this wine). Definitely the best of these 3. 93 points.
  The Kongsgaard 2007 I've also had many of, and it's not my fave K, and also I think somewhat atypical of his wines. Deep golden color, it's a big wine--a bit too big and oaky for me to love. Lots of melon on the nose and on the palate. Big, round, tho still with decent acidity. I like this wine ok, but much prefer it in other vintages. I gave it a 90.
  The Kistler was the favored white of some, including Ned, but I found it past its prime, with the fruit faded and overshadowed by its acidity, making it somewhat sour. The nose was a bit stinky, which put me off from the get-go. Some thought it more nuanced and restrained than its competition; I felt that was a result of its age and being past its prime. This did not taste like any Kistler that I recall in its prime. I will say that it did get better in the glass, but with so many great reds to follow, I had to bid farewell to what was left and dumped it. I scored it an 89

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No

• 2007 Kongsgaard Chardonnay 90 Points

  USA, California, Napa Valley

  Johnny$ brought this to a Ned WWS tasting. Drank blind alongside Kistler Durrell 2005 and Aubert 2006 Lauren, my contribution, which was a very cool idea as these are likely my 3 fave Calif chards (pretty much the only ones I buy). I know these wines well so I pinned each 1. (J$ & Blanco, as well as most of the crowd ID'd the Kistler which was a bit over the hill, I thought, but mixed up the other 2). The Aubert was noticeable in the glass as it always has tons of stuff floating in the glass--unfiltered, of course. First my notes on the Aubert: Pale, strawlike yellow color. Nose of citrus & tropical fruit. A pretty full bodied chard, I thought the wine had better acidity than I recall, but still had gobs of ripe fruit---pineapple, banana, pears too--good mouthfeel, a bit spicy, and very long. I loved this wine, and found it to be burgundian in terms of its complexity, and despite its high alcohol level (which I never seem to detect in this wine). Definitely the best of these 3.
  The Kongsgaard 2007 I've also had many of, and it's not my fave K, and also I think somewhat atypical of his wines. Deep golden color, it's a big wine--a bit too big and oaky for me to love. Lots of melon on the nose and on the palate. Big, round, a bit buttery tho still with decent acidity. I like this wine ok, but much prefer it in other vintages. I gave it a 90.
  The Kistler was the favored white of some, including Ned, but I found it past its prime, with the fruit faded and overshadowed by its acidity, making it somewhat sour. The nose was a bit stinky, which put me off from the get-go. Some thought it more nuanced and restrained than its competition; I felt that was a result of its age and being past its prime. This did not taste like any Kistler that I recall in its prime. I will say that it did get better in the glass, but with so many great reds to follow, I had to bid farewell to what was left and dumped it. I scored it an 89

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No

• 2006 Aubert Chardonnay Lauren Estate Vineyard 93 Points

  USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast

  Brought this to a Ned WWS tasting. Drank blind alongside Kistler Durrell 2005 and Kongsgaard 2007, which was a very cool idea as these are likely my 3 fave Calif chards (pretty much the only ones I buy). I know these wines well so I pinned each 1. (J$ & Blanco, as well as most of the crowd ID'd the Kistler which was a bit over the hill, I thought, but mixed up the other 2). The Aubert was noticeable in the glass as it always lots of stuff floating in the glass--unfiltered, of course. Pale, strawlike yellow color. Nose of citrus & tropical fruit. A pretty full bodied chard, I thought the wine had better acidity than I recall, but still had gobs of ripe fruit---pineapple, banana, pears too--good mouthfeel, a bit spicy, and very long. I loved this wine, and found it to be burgundian in terms of its complexity, and despite its high alcohol level (which I never seem to detect in this wine). Definitely the best of these 3. The Kongsgaard 2007 I've also had many of, and it's not my fave K, and also I think somewhat atypical of his wines. Deep golden color, it's a big wine--a bit too big and oaky for me to love. Lots of melon on the nose and on the palate. Big, round, tho still with decent acidity. I like this wine ok, but much prefer it in other vintages. I gave it a 90. The Kistler was the favored white of some, including Ned, but I found it past its prime, with the fruit faded and overshadowed by its acidity, making it somewhat sour. The nose was a bit stinky, which put me off from the get-go. Some thought it more nuanced and restrained than its competition; I felt that was a result of its age and being past its prime. This did not taste like any Kistler that I recall in its prime. I will say that it did get better in the glass, but with so many great reds to follow, I had to bid farewell to what was left and dumped it. I scored it an 89

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No

• 2008 Tenuta dell'Ornellaia Bolgheri Superiore Ornellaia 94 Points

  Italy, Tuscany, Bolgheri, Bolgheri Superiore

  Drank at Ned's best tasting this year with the WWS 'elite' tasters. This was my #2 fave of the nite, and I think the overall crowd favorite of the 13+ wines consumed--and we had many fine wines at this tasting--see my other notes from this date. I've had this wine now for the 3rd yr in a row and it's getting better each time I taste it. Beautiful dark plummy color. Nose of plums and black currant, as well as the wood that's still there, though fading with time. Fairly well-extracted, though not overdone--this is no Parker fruit bomb--mostly dark fruits on the palate, cassis, plums, blackberries, some leather, soft tannins that are smoothing out nicely, good complexity. The oak is still there and noticeable but the wine's still young, and its elements seem to be integrating well with time. I loved this wine at a Frescobaldi tasting last year, drinking it with winemaker Axel, and commented then how it had evolved since the year before. It's still evolving, and getting better. A very lovely wine; I hope to have the oppty to drink it again in 2014.

  Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No

• 1997 Roberto Voerzio Barolo Cerequio 92 Points

  Italy, Piedmont, Langhe, Barolo

  Drank at a Ned tasting. Very dark red/purplish color, shows some bricking which I don't recall noticing the last time I had this one. Had a fragrant, if traditional barolo nose of blackberries, tar, roses and violets. This wine seems more accessible, particularly so given the highly extracted fruit from this particular vineyard (I just last week had V's 97 Brunate which is such a totally different experience--great examples of how 1 producer's wines can be so completely different tho from the same vintage & neighborhood). Lots of dark fruit on the mid palate here, nice spices too, mixed with some tar and old wood & leather. The tannins are still very present but didn't interfere with my enjoyment of the wine, good length too. I think V's Brunate better straddles the line between the modern and traditional styles of barolo--it's far more restrained and reticent than this one, but not so much that one would call it backward--while this one leans a bit toward the former style. Still a very nice wine in a good place right now, though with several good years still ahead.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No

• 2000 Château Léoville Poyferré 92 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Saint-Julien

  Drank blind at a Ned WWS tasting, matched up vs a 2003 Ducru B. Both were decanted for at least 1 hour b4 pouring. Firstly, the Ducru had an overwhelming nose of coffee, and dark, perhaps even burnt fruit. Full bodied wine, dark red to purple coloring showing no signs of age to my eye. Still fairly heavy tannins, good minerality and earth, hints of tar and nice spices. Quibbling, I found this Ducru to be much shorter than I would have preferred, and the fruit somewhat stilted. Still, a very lovely wine drinking great right now. The crowd preferred this to the Leoville 11-2. I was in the distinct minority, preferring the latter just slightly more than the Ducru. The Poyferre showed a medium ruby color, nose of red berries and some wood. I picked up no tertiary aromas which I found surprising. Also, the Poyferre wasn't particularly complex and had no extraordinary or unusually memorable qualities. The wine was softer, with smoother tannins which were still quite evident. The fruit was more extracted than the Ducru, and hence it showed fruitier & sweeter on my palate. Still, I guessed this, correctly, to be the older wine as I found it more subtle, and its elements more integrated than the Ducru. I gave this wine a 92+. Reading Parker's superlative review of this wine--which helped me to choose it to match vs the Ducru--I am at a loss to comprehend his findings. Though I agree on some of the elements of this wine, this is no 97 point wine and never will be in my mind. I liked it but I've had many, far more memorable bordeaux of many vintages.

  Read 1 Comment / Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No

• 2003 Château Ducru-Beaucaillou 92 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Saint-Julien

  Drank blind at a Ned WWS tasting, matched up vs my 2000 Leoville Poyferre. Both were decanted for at least 1 hour b4 pouring. The Ducru had an overwhelming nose of coffee, and dark, perhaps even burnt fruit. Full bodied wine, dark red to purple coloring showing no signs of age to my eye. Still fairly heavy tannins, good minerality and earth, hints of tar and nice spices. Quibbling, I found the wine to be much shorter than I would have preferred, and the fruit somewhat stilted. Still, a very lovely wine drinking great right now. The crowd preferred this to the Leoville 11-2. I was in the distinct minority, preferring the latter just slightly more than the Ducru. The Poyferre showed a medium ruby color, nose of red berries and some wood. I picked up no tertiary aromas which I though surprising. Also, the Poyferre wasn't particularly complex and had no extraordinary or unusually memorable qualities. The wine was softer, with smoother tannins which were still quite evident. The fruit was more extracted than the Ducru, and hence it showed fruitier & sweeter on my palate. Still, I guessed this, correctly, to be the older wine as I found it more subtle, and its elements more integrated than the Ducru. I gave this wine a 92+. Reading Parker's superlative review of this wine--which helped me to choose it to match vs the Ducru--I am at a loss to comprehend his findings. Though I agree on some of the elements of this wine, this is no 97 point wine and never will be in my mind. I liked it but I've had many, far more memorable bordeaux of many vintages.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No

• 2006 Opus One 89 Points

  USA, California, Napa Valley

  Drank at Ned tasting. The wine was a bit cold which may explain why it had little to no nose. Dark purple/red color, no age showing. Very sweet ripe fruit, dark red cherries, some hints of black pepper, vanilla, lots of oak, highly extracted. Not much complexity, and quite short on the finish. Nothing particularly memorable here. Not my cup of tea--seems as if this wine is concocted in a laboratory and constructed purely to get a high rating from wine critics. Or maybe I'm just biased...

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No

• 2000 Giuseppe Quintarelli Amarone della Valpolicella Classico 95 Points

  Italy, Veneto, Valpolicella, Amarone della Valpolicella Classico

  Drank at Ned's WWS final tasting of the season, and this was the WOTN. I'm sure it was decanted for at least an hour or two. Very dark purple color, no age discernible in the glass. Belying this wine's great complexity, I was met with an overwhelming nose of raisins, figs, and some menthol thrown in. A huge, complex wine that was both extremely well structured with great length. Big and chewy with great mouthfeel, but silky soft tannins well integrated into the juice. Great spice and smokiness, along with ripe prunes, figs and raisins, with coffee beans on the back end. The multiple elements of this wine are so nicely integrated into a wonderful big package, making this a very decadent and extremely satisfying bottle of wine that just goes on and on in the glass. I can only imagine how good it will be with another 10 years on it.

  Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No