Florida Jim

Point taken, funny boy. Best, Jim

My cellar is in a basement in the mountains of North Carolina. I live there 6 months and Florida 6 months. When I go to FL I take a few things along but there, I have excellent stores available to me. In NC, there are no stores so the cellar is my only source. And yes, I am indeed lucky - I never forget that. Best, Jim

Yep. Sarah, Friends, astute retailers and a litle collecting. Variety is my middle name. Best, Jim

Mary, I was on their list; most of their wine has gone to auction as I could not stomach it. That is not to say that the wine is poorly made or that a large number of the population enjoys it but, it may be one of the oakiest wines (all varieties) that I have ever tasted. I gave up my allocation years ago and the savings have bought so many wines that are more to my style that I have never looked back. But that is only one geek's opinion . . . Best, Jim

1996 Mommessin, Clos de Tart: On day one, fairly closed and acidic with strained fruit and a clipped finish. On day two, very engaging aromatics with a sort of feral, sauvage register that lends depth and rusticity; relatively light-weight and still fairly acidic in the mouth; medium length, slightly drying finish. Interesting but not fascinating. Thanks John. 1999 Siduri, Pinot Noir Archery Summit Vnyd.: Very earthy aromas nearly obscure the fruit and have a slight char to them; better in the mouth, equally about fruit and earth tones; medium length finish. At least for me, not on the same level as recent bottles from the Shaw and Murfield vineyards (same vintage, same producer) but definitely distinctive and enjoyable with roasted salmon. 2001 Poeira: A Portuguese table wine made from Port grapes; sort of port-light on the nose; rich, round and nicely integrated on the palate without the raisened flavors often associated with Port; long, smooth finish. Good stuff and, although certainly not without a cellar life, very nice right now. 1999 Diochon, Moulin-á-Vent: Bright, structured, layered, concentrated and long; a wine for now or later and a joy to drink. 2000 Ronchi di Nimis di Giovanni Dri, Colli Orientali del Friuli Refosco: A terrific wine with a cabernet franc type nose; deep pure, intense flavors on the palate with bright flavors and the slightest hint of Alka-Seltzer crisp on the finish which is long, pure and refreshing. Delicious wine; sort of cab. franc intensity goes Beaujolais. I hear this grape is also called mondeuse – whatever, it is beautifully structured and powerfully flavored wine that never goes into the tannic/rustic/big-ass mode. Thanks Bob. (Aside: Anybody knows where I can pick-up a couple cases of this, please call.) 2001 Dom. du Murinais, Crozes-Hermitage VV: Another fine and distinctive wine with a substantial dollop of northern Rhone funk (Côte-Rôtie-esque, if you will) but with a lighter, friendlier profile on the nose and palate and some really lovely nuances in the mouth; solid, medium length finish. A delight to smell and drink and terrific with turkey meatloaf, mashed potatoes and broccoli-rabe. Thanks Chuck. 1995 Coulée de Serrant, Savennières Moelleux: It is always exciting to taste a rarity – this is golden in color; impressive on the nose, and, absolutely a work of art on the palate; deep, slightly sweet, intensely bright and amazingly clean for a wine with RS; chenin at its most seductive with great mineral tones, the essence of quinine and honeyed fruit flavors, and, an endless finish. A young wine with a future measured in lifetimes and one of the very few sort-of-sweet wines I would search out. Superb. Thanks Mark. Best, Jim

I just heard today that I have graduated from the waiting list to the mailing list. I've been on the wait list for about 2 1/2 years. Amazing! The full customer allocation is a case of cabernet, case of merlot, 3 bottles of reserve cabernet, and 3 sangiovese. I'm excited. Do you think it will be worth the wait? ← If you love toasty new oak. Best, Jim

2000 Belle Pente, Pinot Noir Murto Vineyard: Here is something special; clean earth, spice and ripe fruit aromas are layered and, even over a fruit-sweetness, the accent of a mushroom/earth/under-brush tone is alluring; on the palate it is ripe, deep and tends toward black fruit but the complexity and nuance show through in a rising and falling of the earth tones that make me think of Gevrey and, also, that the future of this wine is golden; long, complex finish. This producer has worked with this vineyard for several years (that I have tasted) and, I think, has found a combination that, with just a little bit longer history of excellence, would make it worthy of designation as the first domestic grand cru for pinot noir. Nothing in California comes close to this kind of complexity, balance and authenticity; it is reminiscent of fine Burgundy and yet, distinctly of its own place. The 1998 version of this wine is in the queue and I can’t wait to taste what an additional two years in bottle may mean at this stage. (Aside: A recent bottle of the 1998 Raptor Ridge, Pinot Noir, from this vineyard was also characteristic of the vineyard despite showing a somewhat different fruit profile which, I assume, is the direction the winemaker chose. Hence, the sense of place that I think is so necessary to any kind of worthwhile vineyard designation seems consistent from producer to producer.) 1997 Jabolet, Hermitage La Chapelle: I have tasted this wine at least thirty times since release and this is the first time it has shown at all closed; more about structure in the mouth today than about fruit but still quintessential Hermitage on the nose. Hold. 1999 Texier, Côte-Rôtie VV: Immense character, breed and depth; glorious complexity; infinite potential; shows young yet is still the most exciting Côte-Rôtie I ever tasted. 1998 Belle Pente, Pinot Noir Murto Vineyard: As mentioned above, I was really looking forward to this wine; alas, it was corked. After dinner, Diane and I served a cheese plate and, since our guest had never had one of these wines, we opened the 1994 Araujo, Cabernet Sauvignon Eisele Vineyard. It was totally unconvincing with graham cracker oak in the nose and a simple, closed and clipped delivery. So we set it aside and opened a 2001 Clos La Coutale, Cahors, which was excellent; lots of fruit aromas and tastes in a big-boned, tannic frame that was both lip-smacking and rustic. So I thought, just another example of the $8 French wine being miles better than the expensive CA cab. But the next morning, I took the towel off the top of the decanter where the rest of the Araujo had spent the night (on the counter) and lo, the angels sang! The nose exploded from the decanter, powerful, penetrating, gloriously mineral and cassis driven, expansive beyond any definition of the word I can figure; and, it was just as good in the mouth with extremely intense, concentrated flavors of cassis berries and that wonderful, multi-tiered mineral profile that Eisele wines can have, suave tannins, structured, balanced, and as classy a texture as any cab. I can remember. Swallow, and the flavors get even more powerful and expansive in the mouth and last and last and last . . . I owe Bernie Roth an apology. I have been dissing his beloved Araujo wines for awhile now – and I was wrong. I was too damn early. This will age at a glacial pace; anyone who opens this bottle in the next ten years better decant hell out of it. A memorable experience and a good solid two by four to my head – California can make life list wines and I just had one. Best, Jim

I have not read the book. With the hiring of Pierre Rovani, Daniel Thomases, and now, David Schildknecht, to cover specific areas, it appears that Parker believes his recent prediction for Food and Wine, that is, that his influence will fade over the next ten years. I believe he based that prediction on the growth of internet wine sites which have a more comprehensive readership, and hence base of knowledge, and further, upon the fact that response time is nearly immediate from such sites. As has been suggested elsewhere, Parker appears to be moving from is guru mode into a mode where he is the protector and promoter of his brand. Assembling well-credentialed people upon whom the consumer can rely as having specialized knowledge and experience in the areas they cover, seems the best way to carry his brand into a time when his personal influence is waning. Best, Jim

Other people's wine: 1999 Diochon, Moulin-a-Vent: Rich and heady on first opening and stayed that way; smooth, concentrated, structure in the background and excellent length. Just picked up a case of this from a going-out-of-buiness sale for $12. Ready now but will last. 2000 Jadot, Moulin-a-Vent Chateau des Jacques: Same sale ($14); more focused and structured but still open and nicely complex; concentrated, more fruit driven than the previous wine but also more structured; strong finish. Will have a longer life than the Diochon but is approachable now. 2000 J. J. Cristoffel, Riesling Kabinett Urzinger Wurzgarten: Same sale ($10); floral and stone aromatics, light and fun across the palate but not without complexity; medium length finish. Even better as it comes to room temp. with good balance and some very pretty layers. Good now; good later. 1993 Lopez de Heredia, Vina Tondonia Rosado: Sherry and pomegranate with a distinct vinous character on both the nose and palate; at once both oxidzed and fresh but oddly disjointed and stretched on the palate; medium finish. Certainly, not for everyone but I enjoyed it as much for its idiosyncricity as lightweight delivery. Interesting rose. Best, Jim

2002 Barthod, Bourgogne Les Bons Bâtons: Shy aromatics in the black fruit, strawberry and spice spectrum; more open in the mouth with ripe, focused flavors that echo the nose, excellent concentration and balance, a silky texture and latent depth; medium length; a juicy and flavor-filled finish. Needs time and has remarkable potential, especially for the appellation. 1999 Siduri, Pinot Noir Shaw Vineyard: Another well-made and delicious Oregon pinot from this producer; along with fairly expansive fruit scents it has a lavender/stemmy/ash element in the nose that does not detract, but rather adds an earthy complexity; ripe fruit and balanced in the mouth with some pretty nuances that rise and fall as the wine is swallowed; good length and a clean, maturely complex finish. A distinctive bottle that went very well with left-over pork loin and fresh sweet corn. 1999 Paloma, Syrah: Dark fruit, raw meat and olive aromas; similar flavors, good balance, satin texture and long in the mouth. A pretty wine without even a hint of wood and still interesting complexity. Even better than a recent bottle of the 1997. Not many domestic syrahs are this well balanced and pure. 2002 Luneau-Papin, Muscadet Clos des Allées VV: Expansive yet clean aromatics of white fruit, mineral and fountain air (when you stand near a fountain or waterfall and breath deeply, there’s a clean, invigorating coolness; that’s what I mean); crisp on the palate but real viscosity and concentration, intense, balanced and oh, so long. As this warms to room temperature, it reminds me more and more of Chablis. Those wonderful, crisp flavors without hint of wood or over-extraction; lees stirring makes such a distinct difference in the profile of this wine and several other producer’s wines of this region. Once upon a time, Muscadets were surely thought of as a nice wine with shellfish or the like to be drunk on release; but wines like this are clear evidence that their range is wider and their appeal is much more comprehensive. A superb wine with many years of development in the cellar. And, unlike Chablis, less than $10/bottle. Best, Jim

I'm speechless. ← Well, not quite. Best, Jim

2000 Belle Pente, Pinot Noir Wahle Vineyard: This wine has not integrated yet, as it comes at the taster in pieces; some blue/black fruit, flowers, herbs, spice and oak all come to the fore at times during the bottle. But there is also an earthiness, as well as good concentration and balance, that is evident at all times and, I think, this bodes well for its future. Hold. 2004 Clos Roche Blanche, Pineau D’Aunis: Light salmon color and, unlike previous bottles, this was ripe, bright and crystalline on the palate. Prior tastes were a bit on the thin and shrill side but this one was really wonderful; lightweight, flavorful, perfectly balanced and nicely textured. Yummy stuff. 1999 Siduri, Pinot Noir Muirfield Vineyard: A nice surprise, this smells like a good Chambolle or Morey 1er; tastes full flavored, integrated, cleanly textured and very well balanced despite its 14.1% alcohol. This producer’s Oregon pinots can really be something special. Shows well now but can last and was excellent with a pasta, squash and cheese dish. 1996 Terre Rouge, Syrah Sentinel Oak Vineyard, Pyramid Block: From the Shenandoah Valley of the Amador Foothills, CA; 14.5% alcohol. This is, from first sip, excellent syrah, reminiscent of other fine syrahs (especially Hermitage) but at the same time distinctive to itself. Previous bottles tasted since release have been hard and giving very little indication (other than structural) of what this wine would become. Now, it has expansive and fairly complex aromatics showing mostly black fruit, parched earth and spice tones; deep, rich, juicy, concentration with no heaviness, integrated yet with nuance, good balance, grip and persistence. A complete wine that gives little indication of its alcohol (other than body) and has not been over-manipulated or over-oaked. Has years of life ahead. Was outstanding with grilled Portobello sandwiches with fresh mozzarella and heirloom tomato slices. 2003 Sang des Cailloux, Vacqueras Cuvée Azalaïs: Sweet fruit and salty minerality with some floral aromatics and a smooth texture. A wine that one can get enough of before the bottle is done in that the sweetness is not entirely balanced by the saline. Not that the juice isn’t actually balanced but the flavors are not. Good with grilled pork loin and green lentils. Best, Jim

2003 Terres Dorees (J.P. Brun), Beaujolais Blanc: Pear and apple nose with lovely clean flavors, light-weight and crisp but no lack of concentration; crisp, clean finish. Excellent quality for less than $10. Bravo! With broiled wild salmon: 2003 Felton Road, Pinot Noir (NZ): Rosemary and strong black raspberry smells and a distinct fruit sweetness on both the nose and palate with good cut and concentration; medium finish. A bit too young to evaluate but the sweetness borders on candied – not a good sign in my book. Screw-cap. and, 2001 Patz and Hall, Pinot Noir Hyde Vineyard: Similar profile to the foregoing wine on both the nose and palate but toned down and with some earth tones, not as much cut but not as sweet either. Probably the better wine overall, but lacking the concentration of the Felton Road. (Aside: I understand the allure of both of these wines; the fruit is emphasized and each has ample weight and smooth textures in the mouth. But for me, these are less food friendly than I like, show little complexity and are more a “cocktail” style of wine. One glass is all I really wanted. I think I am better served in Burgundy and, to some extent, Oregon.) 2000 Nikolaihof, Riesling Smaragd Im Weinebirge: Showing beautifully now with fine, classy aromatics and very strong, pure flavors; lots of cut, sustain and perfect balance. A wine to savor with or without food. Very of its place. 1999 Verset, Cornas: Funky stuff with a cat poop and ash tray nose; nuanced, ripe fruit with all sorts of complexity, evident structure and a slightly drying finish. With Portobello and mozzarella sandwiches, exquisite. Wild, untamed wine that is not for everyone but I adore it. Verset and Allemand are making some really amazing juice in Cornas. Best, Jim

1997 Howard Park, Riesling (Western Australia): The label indicates 12% alcohol and that only free run juice was used. I don’t get to say this very often – this wine was a unique and memorable experience. It smelled like mustard seed with just hints of fruit and mineral. It tasted of lime skin, white fruit, spice and very light earth tones. It was bone dry and never strayed toward the German model of the grape but it still had a focused richness which was but a single part of a complex, linear and arresting palate. The finish was long, clean, mouthwatering and complex. Idiosyncratic, interesting, complex; take your pick. But this bottle only reinforces my belief that the most consistently authentic and age-worthy wines coming from Australia are rieslings. Thanks Michele. 2002 Clos de la Roilette (Coudert), Fleurie: About the simplest way to put this is that this wine is currency at my house. You want to trade for something or buy it? Bring this wine. Diane loves it, I love it, and I almost don’t understand people who don’t. A delicious, long and wondrous future waits. 2003 Burgans, Albariño: A bit sour right out of the bottle, it smoothes out over time and delivers ripe, white fruit flavors and a crisp structure in a thoroughly quaffable package. 1997 Paloma, Syrah: At first blush, deceptively forward and simple but with air-time, both structure and complexity begin to show. Certainly, California in style (sans wood) but seems to have more layers than I would have expected. Maybe I opened this too early?! And, a dinner with friends: With Edamame beans as appetizer: NV Marques de Monistrol, Cava Brut Selection Especial: Wonderful, earthy bubbly with good sustain and a $6 price tag. This is no brainer juice. With squash and corn soup: NV Gazela, Vinho Verde: Light, bright, slightly spritzy and ever so slightly sweet; and perfect with the dish. 9% alcohol – oh yeah! With grilled duck breast and baby greens: 1993 Christian Clerget, Echézeaux: At peak, with broad aromatics of black fruit and accents in the sauvage register; good depth and breadth of flavors, fairly well resolved structure and excellent textures in the mouth; with a long, very slightly drying finish. Superb wine, at peak and ideally suited for the dish. Thanks John. With assorted aged cheeses: 1999 Jasmin, Côte Rôtie: Yes, it’s a baby but it’s also a stellar beverage that shows, even now, its terroir and finesse as well as its depth of flavors and lightness of spirit; aromatic, distinctive, showing young and destined to be a truly great wine. No better example of the feminine side of the appellation exists. Best, Jim

Exactly. The words 'for me' are everything. Best, Jim

John, For sake of argument, lets leave 'scoring' out of your example (I will get distracted). Let's just say that if I like a wine I should say so. And, if in your experience, you usually like the wines I do, that might make it easier for you to buy that wine. Will that work for you? I provide more than just saying I like it because I think I can convey more than that. I don't do it just to compare the wine to a hypothetical standard, although sometimes I do compare it to other wines. I don't say more because I am trying to convince anyone it is a great wine, although I may be trying to describe the impact the wine has on me and that it may be wonderful. I know that's convuluted and certainly paradoxical, but I think some feel for the experience can be conveyed in words without any attempt to state a universal truth about the wine. Here's a note that I love. The note was entitled "a little proseco:" "NV Toffoli Prosecco ($10-12) I had just finished shopping at Trader Joe's for my weekly pantry maintenance, when I saw a fifty-ish man in a floral print shirt, Dockers and old loafers hop up on the back of his cart. He proceeded to ride along the gentle slope right to his car. Following his example (and much to three year old Michael's delight) I did the same. Just that bit of breeze and fun on a hot, muggy day made me feel refreshed. The fellow shot me a knowing smile and drove off. It was a brief encounter, but it still makes me happy. I should do that more often. Happy summer, friends. LM" Obviously, this says nothing about the wine other than its name. But what it said to me was more than enough to perk my interest and convey the pleasure and increased awareness that such an experience can offer. A stretch? Yes - but one worth considering, IMO. Best, Jim

Nope, I can't go there. Tempranillo is produced in such a wide variety of styles that I would be amazed if any set standard could be discerned. Jovan styles are very much in the lightweight, quaffable style and not even remotely similar to Vega Sicilia; does that make one better according to whatever standard we are comparing it to? Is one standard better than the other? Is one style better than the other? Does one deserve more points than the other? Are there separate standards for different styles? For different wine-making treatments within a single style? Ad infinitum . . . (BTW, I like the Beaujolais style better than Vega Sicilia so my "should" would be headed in the opposite direction.) Comparison to other's evaluations seems to me to be the slippery slope. First we must identify our peers and then those we respect. This leads to some pretty fine distinctions (subjective distinctions I might add) and moreover, the elimination of those in the standard setting that do not share our evaluations, for whatever reason deemed sufficient to exclude their opinions. Am I splitting hairs? Yes, indeed but I think that the setting of objective standards as to quality leads to hair splitting that winds-up back where we started; with the individual standing alone as the only real source of experience and comparative evaluation, ie., preference. Best, Jim

John, Surely this is the counter to my theory and your points (no pun intented) are well taken. And I suppose that if you say this or that wine has the color of lemonade, makes my mouth water, goes well with pasta prima vera, smells and tastes like chardonnay, you have conveyed some useful information to the reader. Nonetheless, I think there are difficulties in explaining what chardonnay tastes like in any universal sense. One can say a wine smells like oak even though the wine may never have seen a barrel. Or that it seems to have high acidity even though the wine's ph says otherwise. These things happen and your idea of acidity, oak and chardonnay may be entirely different than mine. Even so, there is some common ground in such descriptions - although, I would argue that it is substantially smaller then one might think at first blush. But when one assigns points, stars or puffs, I think the whole process breaks down. Such quantifiers imply not only intrinsic value but universiality - and that is too much for me to sit idle by and not challenge. Honestly, a little more chaos in areas of subjective judgment might just lead to a little more tolerance. Which I tried to address in my initial post when I said once a wine is deemed sound then personal preference takes over. And I would argue the flip-side of that coin; that such descriptions are vague and imprecise because subjective measurements are vague and imprecise when used to communicate ones feelings and impressions. One man's austere is another's focused, if you will. I'm not saying that any descriptive language can't be subverted to one's own ends; clearly it can, but I strongly believe that sterilized attempts at objective statements of fact have no place in the description of Clos St. Hune anymore than they do when the subject is the works of Mozart or Hockney. Rather, tell me what you feel and why; tell me the emotional effect it has on you, compare it to other such feelings and moments of emotional power - and let me judge for myself if that is the path I want to take or not. In any event, thank-you for articulating one of the arguments against my position; hopefully those who read both our comments will make up their own mind. Best, Jim

If Douglas Adams can quantify life, the universe and everything with a 42, I have no doubt Leo could get me right with arithmatic. And with the same validity. Best, Jim

Daniel, Your point is not lost on me. I write tasting notes and do hope that those who know me and my palate gleen something objective from them. But I wonder from time to time if I am only fooling myself. Likely folks are learning more about me than the wine. If the example is that I like a certain Emerald Riesling despite the fact that it does not adhere to any standard for the variety or terroir, those standards are irrelevant to me. Your evaluation of the wine and comments, as a professional critic (or mine as an enthusiast), that the wine does or does not meet certain standards may be of some value to others who have not tasted the wine (and know your work and my rantings) but, even there, I have some difficulty with the concept. Where do standards for Emerald Riesling arise? Do some people/critics have differing standards? Does an Emerald Riesling grown in Virginia have a different set of standards than one from the Finger Lakes? And so on . . . In the final analysis, I believe that objective standards for wine evaluation are red herrings; they are meant to profess objective knowledge about a matter that is either wholey subjective or so subjective as to make any objective comment of little use. Or, at least, that's my theory. And I do admit that I am in a very small minority. BTW, one of the finest tasting notes I ever read never described the wine - rather it described the feelings the taster had through imagery and adjectives. I say it was one of the finest because it made no attempt to impart facts but concentrated 100% on the feelings of the taster when he drank the wine. And I wanted those same feelings; communication acheived. Were that I could follow such a lead. 'Hopeless romantic? Best, Jim

John, Your points are well taken. Regarding scoring; I do have difficulty with points or any attempt to quantify quality. That may work very well if the only person involved in the tasting and scoring is you, but I do not believe it translates beyond that. Whereas, using the language to describe a wine is a more descriptive, more subjective and does not appear to be an attempt at precision. If you will, it qualifies quality rather than quantifies it. Perhaps, that is hair-splitting, but I am much more comfortable with verbal opinion than I am with numbers, stars or puffs. Regarding Enologix; I guess it boils down to the use of the term 'better' in the concept 'better wines.' Better to whom? IMO, once a wine is determined to be sound (unflawed) then there is never a time when one wine is better than another in the universal sense. For you it may be, for me it may be, but for everyone, that's nonsense. When it comes to quality, the one universal truth I can hang my hat on is that the best wine in the world is the wine you like best. Of course, much of this is likely taking this all a bit too serious, but here we are, doing just that. Best, Jim

For those who have access to the N.Y. Times Sunday Magazine this week, on page 36 begins an article about a company called Enlogix, which arose in 1993, and its owner and principal architect, Leo McCloskey. Evidently, Mr. McCloskey has discovered the secret formula which makes any wine capable of scoring 90+ points from the noted critics in the industry and hence, more valuable in the marketplace. To quote the article’s author, David Darlington, Mr. McCloskey, “. . . insists that high-scoring wines can, through chemical analysis, be scientifically proved to be the best wines on the market. In other words, there is accounting for taste.” In brief, Enologix divides wines into four categories. For reds, style 1 is pale in color and low in tannin (pinot noir, mostly); style 2 is pale in color but higher in tannin (eg. Barolo); style 3 is dark in color and high in tannin (many cabernet sauvignons and Bordeaux); and, style 4 which is dark in color and lower in tannin. The last category is where one finds the majority of successful, flagship mainstream wines, the most elegant and popular wines in the world, according to McCloskey. And clearly, this is the category that is most favored by wine critics with their scores and the one that winemaker’s should aspire to. One of the most interesting and compelling quotes attributed to McCloskey is that, “By 1990 everybody was discrediting the Score, but I saw that the critics were going to win because Americans wanted to reduce their risk of purchase and winemakers weren’t filling the information void.” Mr. McCloskey’s ideas are prevalent in the industry and his client list includes such wineries as Beaulieu, Benziger, Diamond Creek, Merry Edwards, Niebaum-Coppola, Ridge, St. Francis, Sebastiani and Chappellet. Apparently, there are many more clients that wish to remain anonymous. Some of those skeptical of his ideas include Randall Graham, Joel Peterson and Roger Boulton, a professor of oenology at U.C. Davis. The article, though certainly brief, is a good read and tracks the history of Enologix and its proprietor in the industry. It is, IMO, more factual than critical but tries to be somewhat even-handed. Worth a read, I’d say. Best, Jim

Bill, In what must be akin to the harmonic convergence, I too had the 98 Couhins yesterday and posted a note in "Dinner with friends." Not my favorite sauvignon. Best, Jim

This was our first larger-than-four dinner party at the new house and as our friends arrived, Diane put out a bowl of red lentil spread with crackers, pistachios and herbed peach slices. To accompany, flutes of the NV Marques de Monistrol, Cava Brut Reserva Selection Especial were offered; light frothy and earthily flavorful. Our first course was angel hair pasta with olive oil, lemon and herbs. We opened a bottle of the 1998 Château Couhins-Lurton, Bordeaux Blanc, one of the few 100% sauvignon white Bordeaux and although it worked with the dish, it seemed to lack any real depth and the oak smells and flavors were obvious. One taster said it smelled of cinnamon stick which is a bit kinder than my appraisal. When a bowl of squash soup with gorgonzola arrived, we tried the 1998 Zind-Humbrecht, Riesling Clos Hauser which was excellent with the soup in its boisterous, slightly sweet attack but bone dry finish, way. A big wine and texturally weighty but plenty of acidity, too. Thanks Michele. The entrée was a composed salad of baby greens, chopped tomatoes, sweet corn, herbs and boiled shrimp with some kind of light dressing that did not compete with the wine but certainly livened-up the dish. A 2004 Dom. de la Pepière, Muscadet was just superb; plenty of cut and still light enough to let the fresh flavors shine through. Buying Blackwoodian quantities of this is one of the smarter things I’ve done. Several cheeses finished the meal; some aged gouda, aged goat cheese and a triple cream from Australia (the name of which escapes me); along with two red wines. The 1986 Heitz Cellars, Cabernet Sauvignon Martha’s Vineyard is among the most intensely aromatic wines I have known. The eucalyptus so prevalent in this bottling has morphed into some earthy, organic odor and the fruit is still tooth stainingly powerful. At once complex and focused, this was an extraordinary experience. Thanks Jason. Whereas, the 1992 Dom. Prieuré Roch, Clos de Vougeot was translucent, soft and oh, so gentle on the palate. It is past its best but that best must have been very good as it has a fine, complex, lilting nose and a completely resolved, decaying fruit palate that gradually fades away beautifully. Thanks John. The first of many such dinners, I hope. Best, Jim

Mary, Maybe I am misunderstanding here, but what I would shop for isn't really the point - or is it? If I am an average consumer, the effort I see as needed to separate me from those who are satisfied with commercial wine is really pretty easy; go to a tasting (or several), read an article or book, go on-line and follow what others are saying. By doing these simple things, you start to get a different perspective on wine buying and, if you are brave enough to ask questions, whether on-line or at a retail store, you get get some inter-active learning going. For me personally, I do all of the above but I also visit wineries and people in the business, get together with fellow enthusiasts and ask questions of anyone that can respond. And I have been doing that studiously for 15 years and off and on for 30. I also keep notes and try to taste any and everything; bad or good. I do not follow the critics nor do I attempt to identify overall trends; I simple don't care about either. I trust only my own palate and I understand that some things I taste I will not like - but because I have tasted them, I will know why. Certainly, Mondavi, Sutter Home and others are not usually my cup of vino, but I don't begrudge them their place in the economy. I prefer to ignore them and seek out producers that give me something special. I suppose that, if more people did that, they too would make wine I like. Best, Jim