In the glass, this is very light yellow-green in color, and really quite viscous. The nose is very floral, with bright yellow flowers and a nice center of lemon. It also has a very nice lightness to it, with the distinct delicate scent of sugar cane. The palate, in contrast to the nose, is quite full and with a substantial creaminess surrounding a bright pineapple backbone. Some detected oak, but I do not think so. To me the creaminess was pure malolactic fermentation, as I did not get even a hint of butter or toast or wood. There is quite a lot of residual sugar to this wine, but it is balanced against a solid, above-average acidity. It performs almost like a Sauvignon blanc, but without any grassy quality. Everyone agreed that this would be a very solid seafood wine. I gave this an 89-90, initially, but the length and just pure deliciousness of this wine convinces me that the high end of the range is correct and Bill may even be right to give it a 91. At the purchased price of $19 all-in, this is an excellent QPR. I hope the LWS still has it in stock.

Ruby red, and quite dark for a Pinot noir, I was quite surprised to learn that this was from Spain. I don't think I have ever tried a Spanish Pinot noir before. Unfortunately, I probably still haven't. This was extremely funky and sheepy on the nose, and the palate was overly acidic with very little fruit and some "off" flavors. John wrote it off as cork taint, although I did not detect any cardboard or moldy newspaper. I would have called it VA, myself, but since I have a known high tolerance for TCA, I can't be sure. What I am sure about is that the wine poured here cannot possibly be what the winemaker intended. Sadly, it goes in the book as flawed.

Almost black, with just the barest purple at the rim, this has a muted nose of black fruits, but not a lot else. Even that much, you need to go get...leaping from the glass is not what this wine is about. Exciting your palate, on the other hand, this does in a big way. It is almost inconceivable that a wine that is this tame on the nose can be this huge on the palate. Exploding with blackberry, cassis, and mulberry, infused with cinnamon, allspice, and cedar bark. It is a touch hot - at 14.7% ABV, the taste did make me look - but it isn't wild and comes across a bit as extra spice. The nice part is that the alcohol did not get in the way of the nice, long, delicious finish. That finish brings it up at least an extra point in score. Overall, this is a very good wine that tastes every inch of the $51+ CT average value.

(Edit: Day 3, on the other hand, is not good. The flavors have gone round the bend into overripe stewed prunes and raisins, with bitter overcooked flavors. At this later time, this is an 85. Don't let this wine sit around at all.)

Still almost black, rather than purple at the edges, this wine is more ruby red. The nose is nice and bright, with plum reduction tinged with a candied sweetness which Rick calls butterscotch. I agree. The palate is quite hot, but with very nice blackberry, cinnamon, and maple. The palate also calls to mind what I missed on the nose: mint. There is nice acidity to this, as well. The length is not nearly as nice as the 2005 Larkmead that immediately preceded it, and the 15% ABV is a touch overbearing, but this is still a quality wine. I don't like it quite as much as I did the last time, and not quite as much as the brand-name Larkmead, but it also wasn't as expensive as the brand-name Larkmead, at $30 from Wine Library. It is quite solid at that price point.

(Edit: Tasted alongside the brand-name Larkmead on Day 3, this wine held up much better. Yes, there is a trace of overripeness here, too, but the bright acidic lift holds it up. While the heat still persists, it is less, and the spicy depth remains. The length is still decent, and possibly better balanced. Overall, a little less nice after three days, but certainly not deteriorated. I gave it a 90 on retaste.)

This wine is the blackest yet, barely purple even at the very edge. The nose just blows you away! So much so that I forgot for a moment to even take complete notes. But this is sweet and delicious with big, black fruit leaping into the nose. The palate is also big and sustained, with both black and red fruits in a fruit-forward, California style, but with plenty of cinnamon, clove and sweetened black tea to provide depth. The finish was long and balanced, and I was shocked to learn that this wine was a whopping 15.4% alcohol, proving that high ABV can be done right. Overall, this is a wine with a big reputation and a big price tag ($114 average CT value as I write this), but it is living up to both. Really, really nice wine, and probably just slightly edges out the Diamond Creek as WOTN.

(Edit: Day 2 the nose is much more subdued, and the palate loses a little something, as well. There is fruit, a little spice, and solid acidity, but the depth and most of the length are gone. Still above-average, but after just 24 hours, down to 91 at most. Drink this down on the night it is opened.)

This one is dark compared to Pinot noir, perhaps, but not compared to anything that came before it in our tasting. It is a wonderful, luscious, vibrant ruby. The nose isn't as huge as the Caymus, but it is brighter and fresher. It is fruity, and still has some California, but it has nice undertones of cedar bark, too. The palate is much more Bordeaux-like, with a smooth texture, and good dark, but not extracted, fruit flavors. Compared to the Caymus, this is maybe a little understated, but with elegance and great complexity. It backs up the fruit with good secondary notes of forest floor, fresh leaves, and maple. The finish is not quite as long as the Caymus, but even better balanced, and while the Caymus was not overly hedonistic at 15.4% ABC, I like the 14.1% of this wine even better. This is more mature in a good way than the last time I had this, and the texture and mouthfeel really make this standout. I may give the Caymus the slight edge, but deciding between these is really a bit like deciding between a Rolls Royce and a Ferrari: So different, but each excellent in its own way. I bought this a number of years ago at $90, and I consider that a very good price for what was in this bottle.

(Edit: Day 2 for this wine took away almost all of the nice nose, but the palate was still rock solid, with chocolate, blueberry, and still that smoothness. The length was actually improved and still extremely well balanced. On Day 2, this wine was better than the Caymus, but not quite as good as it was on day 1. 92 points, though, easy. Really impressive staying power.)

The first thing one notices about this wine is the bottle. The full bottle must weigh more than 4 pounds. The glass is ridiculously thick, and the weight makes it a challenge to pour. Once in the glass, it is dark, but not black - somewhere between the Caymus and the Diamond Creek. The nose is blackberry, but with a distinct overtone of rye cracker. It's an interesting combination. On the palate it is a bit funky. Sure there is blackberry and surprising plum, but while I was expecting a big, bold wine, I was surprised to find that the fruit was not the focus, which instead was on cedar and earth tones. We questioned whether it was even a traditional Bordeaux blend, but it is 88% Cabernet sauvignon, 7% Cabernet franc, and 5% Merlot. The latter is surprisingly prominent. The length was only medium. Considering the CT average value of over $100, I'm not sure this wine quite lived up.

(Edit: By Day 3, the funk had blown off and the wine had brighter flavors with plenty of depth. It was longer as well. It might even have improved slightly. I'd say if you are opening this now, give it a good, long decant.)

Still very dark, but with less purple than most on the night, this one has more of a bright cherry rim. The nose is mild, with a touch of funk, but also nice fruit. Perhaps I am influenced by the color, but this seems more red fruit than black on the nose, which is very balanced. The palate is interesting, with sweet red and black fruits, but a complex base of black tea. It is an interesting balance between the sweet fruit and the bitter tea, although it might be just a hair too far on the bitter side for my palate. It also is just a touch too hot, showing the 15.1% ABV a bit too much. It is a solid effort, though, and only a touch behind the Signorello at less than half the price. For $40, this is worth it, although perhaps not an outright steal.

Lighter than most tonight, with a bright cherry look to it. The difference is not surprising, as this is not a Cabernet-based blend. Instead, it is 51% Zinfandel, 19% Cab sauv, 18% Syrah, 7% Petit syrah, 3% Charboneau, 1% Grenache, and 1% Malbec. On the nose, this comes across as candied eucalyptus. There is fruit, but it is undefinable, like a cross between tropical fruits, berries, and red licorice. The palate is more on the plum end of things, with some good clove and nutmeg, and just enough acidity to hold things together. The prominent pluminess leads me to check the blend again, but there is no Merlot here at all. This is quite a bit on the hot side, which takes away from the finish. Overall, this is decent wine, but probably not a buy for me at the $33+ average CT price. I would give it an 89.

(Edit: This wine does much better on Day 3, losing most of the heat, and emphasizing more raspberry and spice. The fruit is still very lively. Surprisingly to me, I'd give this a 90-91 after it has been thoroughly aired out, and would reconsider that buy decision. Be sure to decant this wine. The listed score is a composite of the taste over time.)

Poured blind by Rick for the group as a dessert offering, the wine is an absolutely gorgeous honey gold in the glass, with decent viscosity. The nose is nice, if a touch simple, with peach and honey. The palate is more complete, with grilled pineapple, still plenty of honey, and a nice botrytis spiciness. There is a lot of acidic freshness, and this wine would do well for folks who find a lot of Sauternes too sweet. This is a lighter style, that can work as a dessert wine if paired correctly, but would also work well as an apéritif with saltier foods. This wine doesn''t have the fullness to stand up to richer desserts. For the life of me I could not pick out the grapes used. It turns out to be 70% Petit Manseng and 30% Gros Manseng. I don't get enough complexity to rate this anything like the 94 Spectator rating, but at $20, it is a solid value wine.

From a 375. This came out when folks asked for dessert. I had determined in advance that I was going to make fresh créme brûlée, and I wanted to have a wine to go with it that wouldn't get lost. Besides, with all this great wine over the course of the evening, we needed something killer at the end. Yquem certainly is that, with its rich dark gold colors and thick, viscous texture in the glass. The nose leaps out, with spicy botrytis in the lead, along with primary peaches, apricots, and pineapple. But that's not all. There is also candied orange peel, toast, and, yes, créme brûlée, with its light sugary topping, rich vanilla middle, and caramelized undertones. The palate is big, but devastatingly smooth, with all the flavors of the nose landing on the palate, plus a bit of almond and lemon pound cake. The littlest sip is enough to wake up the palate, and the finish is balanced and persistent. A great wine, and this particular vintage was a relative bargain, although at $115+ on sale for a half bottle, this is definitely still an investment. If any wine is worth that price, though, this one is. Spectacular.

OK, so it just isn't fair to put this wine after the Yquem, but the host (that's me) selfishly wanted to be sure that the Yquem was served with the dessert. So, I'm sorry, John. Nevertheless, this wine did make a respectable showing. It was much lighter in the glass than the Yquem, of course, and as a very young Sauternes, it did not have the depth. What it did have was a nice floral nose, with light, fresh pineapple, and tart green apple. The palate carried through especially the apple, but also the bright acidity. There was not a lot of botrytis evident, and the 14% alcohol came through a little too hard, but the heat and depth should be helped by time. This is very young. Overall, a solid effort, and I was told the purchase price was $14 for a 750, making this the QPR of the night. You can't find much Sauternes at all for that price. That this drinks even respectably makes it something to look for.