7/17/2018 - pacificoast Likes this wine:

Massive and concentrated without being overpowering, yet silky smooth and accessible. Undoubtedly one of the greatest Chevals, can only improve in coming decades. Several other reviewers seem to knock it because of the price, it seems more advisable to rate it independently of cost. Was the WOTN favorite of our 20-member party at Twist in Las Vegas featuring all the first growths, edging out a stellar lineup of Lafite, Latour and Mouton

10/11/2015 - pacificoast wrote:

A bit thin for a Beerenauslese, not particularly unctuous, complex or deep. Good but uninteresting.

8/19/2015 - pacificoast wrote:

Surprisingly underwhelming for a 2001 Sauternes. Promising initial nose later disappoints on the palate as it morphs into a rather nondescript general botrytized sweet wine. No complex melange of distinct recognizable flavors typical of a good Sauternes, you'll never pick out any apricot, banana or pineapple here. A definite harsh and inelegant note frames the palate experience which soon resolves into something utterly boring. If you really like to drink, you won't mind this, but if you like to limit your alcohol to great experiences, look elsewhere. Try this with cheese or the other Usual Suspects like creme brulee to coax some interest out of this, and to create some point in drinking it.

7/1/2015 - pacificoast wrote:

Thick, unctuous, a bit on the sweet nectary-side. Unusual taste of super-ripe instances of the common Sauternes flavors -- intense, jammy ripe pineapple, concentrated ripe apricot, etc. A rare hint of graham-cracker note adds to the interesting complex of flavors. Still lively and fresh, has many years to go. No hint of the signs of oxidation and age that can take their toll on fruity freshness. The creme brulée, honey and molasses stage is a long way off. Not even close to the magnificent 2001 or 2009 Suduirauts, is nonetheless one of the better offerings from this chateau in recent years.

5/7/2014 - pacificoast wrote:

A superb Comtes, perhaps only slightly eclipsed by the stellar 1996 . Yet this one may evolve to surpass even that great and prodigious effort. A very generous nose of citrus persists through extended airing. On initial opening, the palate is smooth and well-knit, despite the competition from the mousse. Even this fresh release of bubbles is never overwhelming, and the glass soon settles down to a rewarding and elegant evolution over the next 30 minutes or more. With a proper bit of breathing, it becomes virtually seamless and delightfully smooth, rich, and very generous notes of citrus, banana, and tropical fruits present themselves. Unlike the Salon of the same year, which seems completely inert in comparison, this one evolves, changes, and matures in the glass in seemingly endless variety. I can only imagine how beautiifully this will drink in 5,10, 20 years. A superb Champagne, and highly recommended.

5/5/2014 - pacificoast wrote:

Smooth, elegant, beautifully balanced and immensely refreshing. Possibly the best Rieussec of the 2000's after the stellar 2001. There is nothing out of place here, an exquisitely crafted wine with no discernable flaws. I laid into several magnums, which never fail to impress party guests. Highly recommended.

5/5/2014 - pacificoast wrote:

Generous floral nose, unctuous and decently balanced on the palate. Not the 2005, but very decent and drinkable. At this price point, is an excellent choice for a dessert wine with foods that may overwhelm a more complex and delicate Sauternes, such as foie gras and Roquefort cheese. This one has the strength to stand up to such rich or strongly flavored accompaniments, where a more subtle wine would be a waste.

5/3/2014 - pacificoast wrote:

Overrated in my view, or perhaps I had an underwhelming bottle due to bottle variation. A very intriguing nose with a background note reminiscent of pink bubble gum or a fine young Barsac. But a relentless, unappealing harsh, even somewhat bitter, finish on the lower mid-palate knocked it out of the running for me. Even the interesting nose does not persist, it's gone within 20 minutes of airing. I much prefer the 1996 and even the 1997 Salon. Maybe this will evolve into something more interesting, but I for one will not be joining in on the hysterics of what a totally top-notch Champagne this supposedly is.

1/3/2014 - pacificoast wrote:

Elegant, subtle nose with a whiff of banana. Nicely balanced on the palate, with acidity, sweetness and fruit in great harmony. Another example of fine craftsmanship giving Donnhoff the reputation it has, a very enjoyable wine.

12/16/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

Oh, my, what a superbly rich and beautifully-crafted wine. An inscrutably complex and rich nose hints at the magnificent palate experience to come, with persistent notes of concentrated cherry predominating in a most elegant background structure. A massive tannic backbone assures this will have a life of 30 to 40 years or more. It benefits greatly from at least 3 hours of air, don't try this as a pop-and-pour. Then, savor it as an a meal accompaniment, it really comes into its own compared to a standalone tasting. Superb, utterly superb, this is one of the top CdP's of this magnificent vintage in the southern Rhone.

12/16/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

An exquisite, beautifully-balanced and well-proportioned offering from Yquem. The nose has typical Sauternes notes, overlaid with a powerful and unusual note resembling a kind of rare ether, which awakens flavor receptors deep in the olfactory nerves with palpable color, and a gorgeous cleansing. piercing intensity. On the palate, this wine is virtually flawless,with no harsh notes at all, and a hint of crème brulée unusual for such a young Sauternes. This Yquem is in my view rivalled in recent years only by the 2007, and surpassed only by the magnificent and legendary 2001. Absolutely stunning.

12/14/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

Gack. I don't often drink NV Champagne, and I guess too many experiences like this are why. Nothing to recommend it, other than might be suitable for downscale parties where the competition might be even more awful. Inelegant, inept, clumsy, and with an unmistakable nasty harsh finish. Delicious vintage champagnes from respected Grande Marque houses are available for about the same price with a little shopping around, why bother with swill like this? If you're a sophisticated fan of great Champagne, and unless you just want an alcohol fix, this will be something undrinkable for you.

11/16/2013 - pacificoast Does not like this wine:

Gack! Possibly one of the most overrated Champagnes I've come across recently. A potentially interesting nose with hints of strawberries overlaid on typical Champagne notes turns into absolutely, positively nothing special or interesting on the palate. Over-dry, no hint of fruit or any real reason to drink this swill unless you just want an alcohol fix. Disgusting, repugnant aftertaste. One wonders if those who praise this dreck know what a good Champagne really tastes like, or if they were drunk when they wrote the tasting note. And it's not just me -- another critic put it perfectly when he said, " I find it rather closed and not showing much personality; pretty much any bone-dry rosé with bubbles will resemble this" Truly, one of the worst and most disappointing Grande Marque vintage Champagnes I can remember, absolutely nothing to recommend it.

11/11/2013 - pacificoast Likes this wine:

A magnificent cuvee, vastly different from the standard Marcoux CdP. Shows very well the advantage of old vines, some in this blend are over 100 years old. An incredibly lush perfumed nose permeates the air around it when you first open it, and the palate reveals a beautifully suave, intricate and very well-balanced wine. A classy structure holds together a variety of rich, ripe fruit notes in a very graceful harmony. Can only get better and better, this will be a long-lasting wine that will easily delight for the next 20-30 years. Superbly done.

10/19/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

An exuberant, persistent, beautiful nose of apricots and peaches is the first impression when encountering this wine. On the palate, it does not reach the heights of elegance and balance of a great Yquem, but is notable for total lack of any harsh notes or significant defect. This is a perfect example of how even an uninspiring year for Yquem can still result in an excellent wine, great enough to leave most other Sauternes as also-rans.

8/30/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

This wine shows what this prestige cuvee of Pol Roger is really all about in one of its best years. Absolutely superb, magnificently poised and balanced, sheer hedonistic pleasure to drink. Many years ahead of it, no sign of approaching being over the hill.

8/30/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

Tasted again a year later from previous notes, this one is showing that it's not going to tire anytime soon. Very refined balance of still-fresh citrus notes and nutty-brioche character from having some age on it. A really, really elegant Champagne and a delight to drink, I think this one has another 15-20 years to go.

8/25/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

A superbly smoothed, balanced and rewarding Yquem. Not up to the heights of the 1988, 2001, or 2007, nonetheless one of the better Yquems of recent years. Strong notes of apricot and tropical fruit predominate. Not excessively unctuous, nor cloying, clearly the best of the 1990's.

8/25/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

If this bottle is any indication, this magnificent wine is coming out of its dumb phase quite beautifully. A robust, peppery nose hints at a very deep, relentlessly earthy palate of chocolate, pepper, black cherry and notes of liquorice. I highly recommend at least a 2-to-3 hour decant, the flavors mellow and refine nicely after having been cooped up under the cork. This wine deserves every accolade it's received, from what remains one of the most stellar vintages in the southern Rhone in several generations. Highly recommended.

8/17/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

An absolutely superb Climens, among the 2-3 best of recent decades. Surprisingly unctuous for a Barsac, much richer in style than the typical Climens. Virtually indistinguishable from a typical Sauternes for density and richness. Definitely not cloying or over-sweet. The first thing you notice is the unusually rich nose, heady fresh apricots predominate. The palate experience is very balanced, though perhaps not reaching great heights of complexity. The latter may reflect a personal preference for the richness and depth of a true Sauternes. Slightly awkward finish brings it to a slightly disappointing end, this is not a Yquem where the pleasant mouth experience can linger for a minute or more. Nonetheless, very highly recommended.

8/11/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

Very nice, smooth, unctuous mouth feel. A bit undistinguished, but very good nonetheless. A bit hot on the finish, alcohol out of balance. Nose has distinct notes of pink bubble gum and vanilla. Tropical fruits like pineapple and mango define the palate. Slightly awkward aftertaste. Very nice, but not a great Rieussec.

3/22/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

My first La Tache, and I'm glad to have had the experience so I can rest assured I'm really not missing all that much by not chasing after DRC's. I'll leave it to others for the details, they can wax ecstatic over notes of blueberry, cassis, spice, leather, or whatever. I'm more interested in the totality of the experience than I am to obsess on the details. A nice enough wine, but I've had $150 bottles of wine that to me were far more rewarding, interesting, impressive, and something I felt I really wanted to have a case of. For me, at least, I feel that I'd have to be an utter and total imbecile, fool, and an idiot to spend $2,000 or $3,000 or more for such a bottle of wine. I had this the same evening I sampled a 1970 Latour, and at $475 a bottle, even if the prices were equal, I'd honestly rather have the Latour any day.

3/9/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

Tasted at a horizontal of 1982 Bordeaux first and second growths, this wine held its own as one of the top wines of the event. Only a Latour and a Cheval Blanc outdid this classic, which remains one of the very best wines of this remarkable vintage. Lush, ripe, opulent fruit contrasted with the more austere, if more refined and precise, few top first growths that ever so slightly nudged it aside. Perhaps the freshness can be attributed to the predominance of Merlot, giving a roundness, opulence and soft tannins compared with the others, with a higher percentage of Cabernet in the blend. One of Robert Parker's great talents is to at times succinctly and eloquently hit the nail on the head in describing a wine. I feel he did so beautifully in one of his more recent revisitations of this wine and reaffirmation of his 100-point rating: "One of the monumental wines of the last century is the 1982 Pichon Lalande. Since bottling, it has flirted with perfection...." I could not put it any better. If only Pichon Lalande had kept up this incredible level of winemaking. A truly superb and fascinating wine.

3/9/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

I'm trying to be charitable in giving it an 84, for the fact is this wine is borderline awful. As several others who've given it harsh scores have noted, there's really nothing particularly worthwhile here. In my opinion, it's a disgrace to the concept of 'Super Second' Bordeaux, and betrays this property's legacy of some of the finest efforts in Bordeaux from the 1980's. What happened to this property? This wine is thin, harsh, and rather nasty on the finish. A hint of beefy meat on the nose makes promises the palate can't keep. This was one of my favorite properties in the 1980's, but with wines like this, it's sadly an embarrassing shadow of its former self. Avoid this wine, spend your money elsewhere.

3/6/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

A generously fruity nose gives unmistakable hints that this is an elegant and well-crafted wine. On the palate, initial notes of cherry liqueur lead to beefy meat, smoke, and a bit of leather in a harmonious balance. Considerable alcohol presence, but the concentration of fruit prevents it from being overwhelming. Just a touch below the superstars of the vintage, but clearly very nicely done and thoroughly enjoyable.

3/4/2013 - pacificoast wrote:

Not one of the stellar offerings of the 2007 CdP vintage, by any means. But that's reflected in the price ..... it's one-fifth or less the price of some of the top standouts of this vintage. Serviceable, but not particularly elegant or refined, rather artless, awkward and plain. Predominant experience of alcohol on nose and palate, followed by distinct notes of meat, beef and leather. A bit of a bore in comparison with the stars of this vintage, but then again, it's not anywhere near as expensive. After about an hour of air, all you get is lots of alcohol and some rather pedestrian wine. Personally, from the same vintage, I'd *much* prefer the Monpertuis Secret de Gabriel at this (and even lower) price point, or the Janasse Chaupin for a bit more.

12/13/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

This one didn't quite make it for me, given the expectations arising from an excellent vintage in Sauternes. A bit thin and unremarkable, to me rather forgettable. Next to the stellar 2009 Rieussec and Climens, it's not really in the ballpark. Mehhhh.......

12/12/2012 - pacificoast Likes this wine:

This wine is a knockout, pure and simple. Its superbly elegant, beautiful, floral nose can fill the nearby space in a room in a few minutes. Little comparison to the standard Marcoux bottling, this prestige cuvée should convince anyone of the benefit that old vines can produce. Its remarkable palate almost defies limiting descriptors, at various times it seems most every berry flavor imaginable is there, along with spice, licorice, pepper, smoke, and some more besides. This is one wine you can pour to make devotees of Chateauneuf. Your guests will pull out their iPhones and snap photos of the label so they won't forget just what was this thoroughly remarkable wine they were served. This one can comfortably take its place alongside the other superstars of the 2007 CdP's, which in my view include Usseglio Deux Frères, Deus ex Machina, Beaucastel Hommage and Janasse VV. A superb effort from Marcoux, indeed. Bravo!

12/11/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

I'd eagerly awaited this wine to finally appear in bottle, after having been thoroughly impressed with it at the UGC tasting in January 2012. It seemed to hit all the right bases, and was clearly more impressive at the time than other likely contenders like Suduiraut or de Fargues. But I'd found the result a year later, while excellent, not quite as impressive as I'd thought. I'll confess I tend to prefer the richer style of Sauternes compared to the more austere Barsac, and I'd hoped this Climens had enough added body to make the leap into my favorites category. But not so much. There are still lingering notes of harshness or imbalance that prevent this from being a stellar wine, and I think the couple bottles I've bought will be enough for me, it's certainly nothing to chase after. Unlike the 2009 Rieussec, which, having them side by side the same evening, clearly struck me as the far more enjoyable, elegant, and just plain fun wine.

12/11/2012 - pacificoast Likes this wine:

A very notable Rieussec, possibly even surpassing the excellent 2005 for recent vintages. A very clean, elegant, nothing-out-of-balance style of creamy banana-vanilla that has come to distinguish Rieussec in recent years. Not at all unctuous, but neither is it thin or flabby. Very refreshing, a perfect accompaniment to The Usual Suspects that go so well with Sauternes -- foie gras, Roquefort, fruit tarts, etc., where the nuances of older or more complicated (and much more expensive) wines would get lost in the mix.

I was surprised to find I very clearly preferred this to the 2009 Climens, which, having tasted it at the UGC event in January 2012, when it was fresh in bottle, had struck me as the star of the 2009 Sauternes vintage (Rieussec was not pouring at that time). Since 2009 Suduiraut is to me not in the running, I can only await the 2009 Yquem as the only possible challenger to this Rieussec being the wine of the vintage in Sauternes. I disagree with those that say it needs to wait, it's perfectly drinkable now for those who still like fruit in their wines, no harshness, no nothing, to interfere with enjoying it now. But it will certainly evolve most interestingly in coming decades. I see I have something new to add a case or two to my cellar, and I'd hoped to have been done by now........

12/9/2012 - pacificoast Likes this wine:

An excellent Enchanteleurs, though I have a decided preference for the 1998. Yeasty, nutty, toasty, ample brioche notes, possibly signalling it's at its peak. Thoroughly ready to drink and a delight for your guests.

12/9/2012 - pacificoast Likes this wine:

A superb Enchanteleurs, light, refreshing, perfectly ready, and a delight to drink. Light in color and body, exquisitely balanced with prominent notes of lemon and other citrus. Not overly yeasty or heavy with brioche notes, on that score it's a bit more enjoyable to me than the 1996. Restrained, not overly-aggressive mousse, the bubbles enhance the experience rather than get in the way. Your guests will enjoy it very much.

10/15/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

An excellent value, perfectly enjoyable wine, remarkable in that it can be had for less than $15 a bottle. A bit simple and uncomplicated, to be sure, but delightfully unpretentious and delicious. Very fruity, almost cough-drop cherry. Great to cook with, will make a great wine sauce or liquid for braising meats, since it presents little tannin and is light enough that it won't become overpowering with concentrated cooking.

9/30/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

This one is a major step up from the Beerenauslese, with a superbly elegant balance of sweetness, apricots, spice and fig. Complex and varied, this is one that you want another glass just to check out how it evolves with air or to inspect some flavor component more closely. Less apparently cloying than the BA, too, oddly enough. A very nice wine indeed, no wonder it's $400 or more a 375. Highly recommended.

9/30/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

This one's so rich and syrupy you could probably pour it over your pancakes. Delicious notes of orange, apricot and pears, ever so slightly smothered by a tad of just a bit over the top sweetness. Very nice, but make sure you have a sweet tooth when you try it. The Trockenbeerenauslese is not much sweeter than this, but considerably more elegant, complex and interesting with a marvelous fig-date-spice dimension. And oddly enough, the sweetness seems more integrated and less noticeable in the TBA ..... go figure.

9/30/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

A superb Palmer. Beautifully blended, with elegant balance of spice, meat, cherry and leather notes. Give it about 3 hours of air if you want to drink it now, as it is clearly only beginning to be ready to drink as of 2012. Quite rich with a solid body, not as much on the nose. Quite velvety palate experience that should evolve into something truly superb upon dissipation of the tannins. Hope the fruit will last that long, if it does, it will be a stellar wine. Drink from 2018 on, this one could last several decades. Very nice indeed.

9/23/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

What a remarkable, complex and fascinating Champagne. One of the best of this outstanding vintage, it is multi-faceted and highly rewarding. Others have noted a strong smoke character, Jancis calls it 'struck matches', and that it has in abundance, yet in a complex and interesting way. Lemon, toast, yeast and brioche are other notes that play on the nose and palate in seemingly endless variation. Not as dry or austere as one would suspect, knowing that the Oenothèque cuvée differs from standard Dom Pérignon by its lower dosage (in addition to being aged on the cork). Disgorged in 2008, it is just coming into its drinkability window, but has enough acidity to comfortably carry it through another 20 years or more. Very complex, beautifully crafted and unique, truly a magnificent Champagne and a delight to drink. Superb.

9/20/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

Surprisingly undistinguished for such a superior vintage in Sauternes. Thin and unremarkable nose. The palate starts off very promising, with early initial sense of extreme unctuousness, almost oiliness, hinting at a richness and complexity that just doesn't materialize. Slightly harsh and rather unbalanced, unresolved finish. There are many far better examples of Sauternes in this price range in the mid-2000's.

9/9/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

An absolutely delicious and thoroughly enjoyable Cristal. Elegant, clean, precise, and beautifully balanced. Nice interplay between yeasty brioche notes and citrusy elements, lemon plus green apple, supported by a persistent mousse. Very nice indeed and a treat to enjoy.

9/5/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

The RD variant is an interesting twist from a standard vintage or NV champagne. Very pronounced yeasty nose with a quite tangy, citrusy palate experience. Lingering, slightly off-putting and droll aftertaste is not up to the standard I'd expect from a typical prestige cuvée of a Grande Marque house, though, so I'm not sure exactly what the RD is getting us. This aftertaste becomes quite pronounced with about 20 minutes of air, turning a bit nasty. I definitely prefer Bollinger's Grande Année from a good year.

8/29/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

Clearly one of the better Doisy Védrines of recent decades, but not dethroning other examples since 2000. Interesting complex of flavors of vanilla, spice, and pear. Not one of the most elegant wines of this vintage, as it falls apart a bit on the finish and leaves a slight harsh note, but very nice nonetheless for an inexpensive young Sauternes.

8/29/2012 - pacificoast Likes this wine:

A very nice, almost stellar, effort from Suduiraut. An elegant nose and palate consisting primarily of vanilla, banana, pineapple and orange notes. Smooth, rich, refined, completely lacking in any harsh notes to mar the utterly superb finish. Just a wee bit shy of the spectacular 2001, but after that one, clearly the best Suduiraut of the past several decades. This is a can't-miss surefire party crowd pleaser.

8/25/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

May be in a closed phase at the moment, but it's really at this point nothing special, a rather generic Bordeaux. Tannins are the primary experience, as is typical of young Leoville, not joining the trend toward more approachable wines in their youth. Tannins and a rough, gravelly finish, and that's about it. Nothing to recommend it. Tasted from a 375.

8/12/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

This one's falling downhill fast and is by now rather a big bore. Slightly nasty nose of barnyard and vegetal, almost chemical and medicinal, smells blocking out anything resembling fruit. With about an hour of air, the nose improves somewhat and some fruit creeps out of the background on the palate. Tasted by itself, it is a serviceable dinner beverage, but if it's joined by a second bottle of a truly top wine, its flaws are painfully apparent. Drink up whatever you have left.

8/5/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

Another total stunner of a wine from the magnificent 2007 vintage in the southern Rhone. Multi-layered, beautifully complex notes of spice, cherry, meat, leather and cassis play against each other in a marvelously orchestrated swirl of intense flavor. Soft tannins make it approachable now, but it will obviously only get better over the next 10-30 years. A bit of an alcohol pop on first opening, after all this is a CdP, but it dissipates rapidly with proper airing, and the fruit comes out beautifully as well. Truly a stunning experience. Those lucky enough to afford such a hard-to-find prestige cuvée will be able to awe their friends with what would have to be the obvious WOTN at most any gathering. A superb effort indeed.

8/2/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

A superb nectar. Initial surprise was to see its color as deep as it was for only a 2002, being a rusty red-orange. And then to taste the elements of raisins, figs, dried apricots and honey typical of a much, much older sweet wine. At first I thought this was perhaps indicative of improper storage of this particular 375, as maybe having been kept for 10 years without any refrigeration, or at even elevated temperatures perhaps, could cause what appears to be accelerated aging. Seeing so many other tasting notes describing a precocious maturity, though, leads me to conclude this is normal for this bottling. Perhaps an unusually low level of acidity upon bottling is the explanation. Nonetheless, it should not be considered a defect, since this wine at 10 years exhibits the complexity, maturity and mellowness one normally experiences at about 30 years of age. Delicious, and highly recommended.

8/2/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

Initially reticent nose, not terribly generous. Sweetness typical of Auslesen, would perhaps have better balance with a bit more acidity. As it is, the sweetness is the primary experience. Quite smooth, though, and pleasant, obviously a quality wine. A good Sauternes still goes better with foie gras, though, due to the complexity of nose imparted by botrytis. Very nice.

8/2/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

This stuff is overrated cr*p, pure and simple. An initially impressive, delightful nose of citrus and melon gives way to a miserably disjointed, unappealing, thoroughly unartful beverage on the palate. Sour and harsh, clumsy and awkward, and if that's not enough, a rather nasty aftertaste tops off this monument to mediocrity. There are reasons this sells for $50 a bottle despite it being a Donnhoff, and the foregoing explains them. I haven't had Gallo Chardonnay in a very, very long time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was rather like this. Another example of Grosses Gewachs in my opinion better deserving the moniker Schlechtes Gewachs. Gack........

7/31/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

One of the best Suduirauts, ever, and clearly eclipsed only by Yquem in this great 2001 vintage. Even the Rieussec was not as impressive to me as this one, and I've been historically more of a fan of Rieussec than Suduiraut. The 2001 Climens, even, is a bit of a bore next to this complex rollercoaster.

I'm surprised at the several complaints and 80's-range scores here. But looking at some of them more closely, it's clear some of them have never had a Sauternes before, and they have that oh-so-tedious reaction you get from a n00b, "but gosh, it's so SWEET". I roll my eyes as they repeatedly voice the same comment with each sip, and I respond, "yeah, like I told you, it's a DESSERT wine!" (making a mental note to never invite this moron to a tasting ever again......)

This 2001 Suduiraut is nonetheless one of the top Sauternes of the 2000's era, for those of us who know and appreciate great wines like Sauternes, Tokaji's, Trockenbeerenauslesen, etc. Rich, unctuous, botrytis-laden, absolutely delicious, this wine has never failed to become one of the WOTN favorites at any event I've ever brought it to. At prices as low as $125 a 750ml bottle, it's an absolute steal and an utter delight to serve your guests. Highly recommended.

7/26/2012 - pacificoast wrote:

A deliciously nutty aroma with strong pear notes distinguishes this elegant and well-balanced effort from Climens. Distinct almond and brown sugar taste on the palate overlays the typical fruit notes of a good Barsac-Sauternes. A bit of a yeasty aftertaste. Not terribly complex or unctuous, but well-knit and poised. Not an overwhelming knockout on any of the criteria that distinguishes a great and impressive Sauternes. In other words nothing I'd chase after, but serviceable and pleasant nonetheless. Climens has been one of the consistent stars in Sauternes-Barsac along with Yquem and Suduiraut for the past decade or more. This is not as immediately impressive to me as the 2009 Climens, which was to me fascinatingly good at this past January's Union des Grands Crus Bordeaux tastings, but this is again, quite a nice wine.