Subscribe in a reader

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Subscribe to Unidentified Appellation by Email Top Blogs

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

2001 Chateauneuf du Pape Retrospective, Blind. Post your guesses.

8 years of age is hardly a round number, but I’ll admit it, Rich Stahmer and I were looking for excuses to drink abundant amounts of 2001 Chateauneuf du Pape. 2001 is a good vintage to galvanize the troops, considering it has the ironclad structure to keep the attention of traditional palates, while fleshing out enough fruit flavors for those of the primary persuasion. There have been flashes of evidence that the vintage was beginning to come out of its slumber, followed by bottles that made me feel out of my mind for imagining that was the case. A modest group of about 9 of us took the wines to task, blazing through 18 or so bottles of 2001’s to gauge, wine by wine, just where each domaine was in its lifespan. 2 bottles a pop, single-blind, rendered us doubly blind and drunk by the end of the evening.

I will caveat these impressions by stating that the bottles were not treated w/ homogenous care. Some where judiciously decanted, others were immediately ingested. The tasting did incorporate just about every shape & style that the appellation produces, from the old guard of rough, rugged and raw to the new wave of the prim & polished. As you’ll see, the big boys were in attendance, yet the old standbys currently impressed the most.

The lone white of the evening, an ’01 Vieux Donjon, cleansed our palates w/ its flavors of baked apple, flowers and a coy, creamy coating. It’s always a roll of the dice w/ these intermediately aged white Rhones, but the Donjon was in fine form, w/ its primary fruit unearthing a bit of bottle-aged mineral cut for definition. The flights of three commenced w/ (#1) an exceptionally youthful, almost Syrah-like red. The nose was tight, w/ a burly, gutsy core of ash, damp earth and pepper notes brooding in the background. The flavors were undelineated and a bit chunky, wrapped in a firm grip of powerful tannin. The 2nd was a unilaterally modern spin, w/ exotically toned cola, candied orange peel and nutty dark fruits smoking through the senses. The palate was good, yet not dynamic, composed of flattering fruit wrapped in a modern womb, leaving a bland, vanilla impression. More time in the cellar may inject a bit more energy into this youngster. The flight was closed out w/ a spectacular wine (#3), shaving a smidge of brett seasoning atop its savory blend of fungally afflicted scents. The expansive, powerful entry was awash in sweet cassis and licorice notes, funneling through the palate to an exceptional synthesis of earth & polish. While I’ve had 3 previous bottles of this wine that were almost subversively bretty, this was a shining example & fired on all cylinders.

The 2nd flight, arguably the best of the evening, began w/ a potentially combustible wine (#4). I say this because its ripeness was at such a pitch it verged on tropical, yet it was paradoxically fresh, full of spicy garrigue, cassis, warm berries and earth notes. Full, fat and voluptuous, but a river of almost impossible acidity kept its flames from burning the house down. The following bottle (#5) was a tannic, seemingly Mourvedre-dominated tree of a wine, w/ beefy leather, pepper and licorice snap flavors contracting through a muscular, taut palate. This was one of those ‘monster breathing down your neck’ types of wines, and while I’ve tasted this wine on several occasions, this was the most serious showing to date. The flight ended w/ (#6) what was unanimously agreed upon to be the Janasse Chaupin, a blooming flower of fruit, awash in strawberry, raspberry, cola and anise notes that were as sweet and succulent as a lollipop lick. The wine was deliciously round, generous and sure had ample fruit to burn.

The 3rd flight was sparked by a modern plug (#7), smelling of creamy lactic notes which turned toasty and cassis laden in the mouth. Primary, full-bodied and impressive for its structure, this wine seems to not have budged from the womb. While I imagine this will maintain for several years to come, I wonder if it will ever reward patience w/ true evolution? The sandwich of the flight (#8) was my wine of the night, just an outrageous cornucopia of Kirsch liqueur, distilled in its purest, most potent form. Fabulously layered, tucking away nuance in each nook and buffing its corners w/ a velvety textured shine. Few wines can manage to be so subtlety striking when they are endowed w/ such sheer mass & power. The 9th wine was the evening’s first of two casualties in the form of a corked bottle of Tardieu Laurent VV (though some may have thanked the gods of cork for said incident).

The 10th wine of the evening had to be the only real lightning rod of controversy that I did not expect, and I preface this by stating I’ve had the wine on 2 other occasions and adored it. The nose struck me as blowzy & amorphous, w/ that contemptuous quality of Zinfandel that has been hanging on the vine a bit too long for its own good. While not raisined in its flavors, it struck me as flaccid, trickling out to a shallow, closed finish. I’ve had several Grenache based wines that go through awkward, structure-less phases not dissimilar to this one, but what blew my mind was that half of the table really enjoyed it, with the other half firmly in my camp. Those that enjoyed it thought it was Rayas, which I actually could see, but I couldn’t get past the fact that they wanted to bathe their tongues in such swill. The middle of the flight was another rock star (#11), completely loaded to the gills w/ jaw-dropping layers of cherry liqueur, pepper, cedar and spice rack notes. The entry could be described as one helluva juicy slab of flesh, yet the structure & sinew obviously need a bit more time to unfurl their virtues. The flight was closed out w/ (#12) a very well made, modern styled red that exhibited sweet, red berry fruit, rounded off w/ excellent polish and refinement.

The ripeness in lucky #13 seemed to stick out from the crowd, w/ an almost Priorat-like mélange of fig, caramelized berry and licorice notes. The sweetness of the fruit was held in check by round, yet sturdy tannins. This was followed by one of the evening’s best (#14), a terrifically poised bottle of Chateauneuf, full of aged beef, pepper, spicy cassis and damp earth notes. An enveloping, full-bodied palate, rife w/ power, carried its raw guts on a wave of ethereal ease, challenging for wine of the night. The 15th & 16th wines of the evening provided an interesting contrast, opening w/ 15’s succulent black raspberry & cocoa notes filling out a sharp, yet equally caressing palate. The wine was lovely, exemplifying a sense of ease & grace. The 16th was a backyard bruiser, w/ Gigondas like grip. The tannic torrent of sandalwood, red currant and leather notes spackled the palate. While a bit clunky & pregnant w/ a bellyful of brett, it was appealing for its unadorned honesty & savage, gamey flavors. There was a cry or two from the crowd that this wine was ‘spoofy,’ to which I responded ‘you’re spoofy.’ I felt such conviction w/ my guess for number 15 that I made a wager involving my testicles. Alas, the beauty of being drunk and cocky w/o fear of consequence.

The liver gods must have communicated w/ the TCA gods, rendering the 17th bottle, a Les Cailloux, idle w/ newspaper trimmings & mold spores. Hepatically safe, but a gustatory grimace nonetheless. Suzanne Camhi donated a bottle of ’89 Jurancon, of which I do not recall the producer or its flavor profile. The scents of a quadruple espresso dominated my dessert, as the heady bliss of an evening of Chateauneuf had begun to take its toll.

After much debate, we decided to not unveil any of the wines until the evening was over (to keep things as broad as possible & to prevent the process of removing wines from the mental checklist flight by flight). Now I can say, w/ a fair amount of confidence, that my opinions were not entirely aloof from the group (save for number 10, which was 50/50). Remember that my palate enjoys both ends of the style spectrum, so I will not look at a modernly spun wine w/ any amount of disdain if I find that it is done well. Now it is time to single blind you. I’ll list the wines that were tasted, and let me know which you think is which (you don’t have to guess them all, but if you have any amount of conviction on a wine or two, throw out your opinions). I’m doing this simply to demonstrate how blind tasting changes the sensory game. Instead of seeing the label of a Barroche Pure and looking for Grenache characteristics, we could only ‘look’ for Chateauneuf characteristics (if it were double blind, we could only ‘look’ for wine characteristics). Perhaps removing the labels allowed our senses to process the wines differently? I’m not necessarily sure if it enabled me to taste the wines more clearly, but I am sure it made me dig a bit deeper (so deeply that I got lost?).

Precision in wine tasting can be made into somewhat of a joke, particularly in cases such as a winemaker not recognizing their own wine, but I do wonder if my impressions of certain wines in the tasting would have been different had I known their identity beforehand. I don’t think I would have had apologies for label love, but I do feel my impressions would have been….different, not necessarily better. A geek’s knowledge base & experiential resume can work against him/her, particularly when considering what a particular wine ‘should taste like,’ as opposed to what it ‘does taste like.’ The problem I have w/ this blind or non-blind debate is that I see benefit in both sides, perhaps putting my decision firmly in the ‘both’ camp. That being said, I hope you enjoyed the raw impressions & I look forward to your guesswork.

Blind wines tasted (save for the Cailloux & Tardieu Laurent TCA jobs that I spared you):
Vieux Donjon, Vieux Telegraphe, Pegau, Charvin, Clos des Papes, Beaucastel, Hommage Jacques Perrin, Marcoux, Boisrenard, Vatican Sixtine, Mourre du Tendre, Bois de Boursan Felix, Janasse Chaupin, Bonneau Celestins, Rayas

Wine rating
Vieux Donjon Blanc 90 points
#1 93++ points
#2 90 points
#3 97 points
#4 95 points
#5 95 points
#6 94 points
#7 94 points
#8 98 points
#9 NR
#10 76 points
#11 95 points
#12 93 points
#13 93 points
#14 97 points
#15 92 points
#16 88+ points
#17 NR

*As you can see, the wines performed very well as a whole.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

The best deal in Chateauneuf '07

....or at least damn near close to, has to be the Pierre Usseglio's entry-level Chateauneuf du Pape. I've tasted this wine on 3 previous occasions, but this is the first time I've sat and drank a full bottle over dinner. For all those trigger happy '07 folks, I highly recommend you load the barrel of this BB gun for your trips to the range well before firing the luxury weaponry.

The wine possesses immediate bands of complexity, w/ a vivid array of licorice, pepper, black raspberry and leather notes that leave the palate awash in layers of rich spiciness. Full bodied, well equipped and marvelously balanced, seemingly turning on a dime before catapulting to a long, lush finish, 94 points.

Give me 4 bottles of this over 1 bottle of Mon Aieul any day of the week. Color me sensible.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

An evening of 'bring your best Pomerol,' blind. A suprise winner...

This is the type of tasting format I feel I should participate in a lot more often. Pick an appellation, bring a wine from said appellation, blind the wines….best bottle has their dinner paid for by the losers of the evening. Think about it. Even if your bottle gets dusted, you’ll happily pay a bit extra for your buddy who one-upped you. Everyone drinks well, and the winner not only earns the bragging rights, but the invaluable gift of a guilt free cab ride home, their wallet as bloated as their liver inflamed.

Pomerol was a small enough appellation to keep the tasting format focused. The wines were all mostly Merlot (unfortunately no affluent soul anteed up for the Cab Franc heavy La Fleur), and the dichotomy of styles set the stage for the group’s typically disagreeable discourse throughout the evening. We didn’t safeguard against bottle duplication (I was convinced we’d all arrive w/ ’90 Petrus’ in paper bags), but luckily the format’s one flaw proved to be a positive, as the 2nd bottle of ’82 L’Evangile ended up replacing a grossly under-performing version, and the 2 bottles of ’00 La Conseillante bore little in common outside of their labels (my bottle, of course, was the superior of the two).

Things commenced w/ a volatile, hard red, which smelled of stewed prunes and tasted worse. Its sour hints of battery acid elucidated the wine’s identity immediately, as well pegged the ’82 L’Evangile almost in unison. I’m sure the aptitude of our guesswork was mildly enhanced by Izzy furiously tearing off the bag of his malodorous bottle, but I won’t bother w/ the minute details of the story, they’ll only cloud the facts. We proceeded to a pair of whites, both from unknown origins, procured by Ben Goldberg generously. Considering the source, we all pegged them as Fevres before even sticking our noses in the glasses. The first of the pair must have been an eccentric vintage at best if it was indeed Chez Fevre, as the nose had an exposed quality to it. The oxidative, nutty notes then shifted to a drier, chalky disposition in the palate. The wine was quirky, w/ potential provenance issues, yet still possessed a sense of class that made the ’94 Pape Clement Blanc uniquely likable, in spite of its imperfections. The latter of the two whites had such a blatant coconut oil characteristic that I found it difficult get past at first. Thankfully, the suntan lotion from the beach blew off in the breeze, as the Semillon-driven lime, green tea and ginger flavors turned focused and pebbly, whispering over the palate to a honeyed, persistent finish. While this bottle of ’94 Laville Haut Brion Blanc was a leaner, less compelling sample than I’ve had in the past, a bit of airtime let its breed shine through lucidly.

The Pomerol flights started off strong, as the beautifully rendered, classy aromas of the first wine filled the room. The pure rose petal, cedar, black truffle and cherry scents hooked us all like fresh water rainbows to a fly. The attack was lithe, carrying its energy through to the round, supple flavors that caressed the palate like cashmere. The 1990 L’Evangile seemed emblematic of just about all I search for in Pomerol, refined, yet flirty. This was followed up by a wine we almost all agreed was a 2000, though a few unhappy palates reproached it w/ the dreaded ‘2003’ moniker (I’m noticing that these types of comparisons tend to happen when you toss an ’00 after a mature vintage of whatever). The nose had a roasted element to it that was more along the lines of espresso than burned fruit, w/ melted licorice, spicy oak and a deep core of black fruits lurking underneath. In spite of its youthful exuberance, the palate proved to be closed, yet its suave integration of oak and rich fruit led me to confidently believe that the ’00 Bon Pasteur was going places. The third wine of the group, ’82 L’Evangile (initially a gratuitous second sampling, but a savior in final analysis), had a savage brute of a nose, slathering rust, wild fungal essences, cold steel and currant notes up and down the stem. The chewy entry funneled juicy bits of savory fruit from the attack to the back end, leaving a resolved, tertiary impression on the palate. Our one gripe was that the finish ebbed a tad too quickly, lacking the follow through of the truly great ones.

We steamed on, as the fourth wine exhibited the most sour, citric flavors, w/ mouth-puckering cranberry and cherry notes narrowing to an angular, somewhat unformed finish. Its youth was astounding, yet the ’70 VCC demands a salty dish to neutralize some of its vigorously acidic backbone. Mr. Hyde followed as number 5, immediately convincing us that we’d struck the ringer bell. The brooding, opaque color saturation intimidated its neighbors, as did the profanity muttered from its nose. The scents of iodine, salt, sweet oak, warm ganache and cassis stuck out like splintered thumbs, yet the wine’s characteristics were not w/o charm. The Blankiet Paradise Hills Vineyard ’02 is an outstanding wine in its own right. It’s a heady, powerful Merlot, but has a succulent, gorgeous belly of fruit that is best tasted w/ its peers (or alone, for that matter). Wines like this show a tad hot and aloof when compared to lower voltage Bordeaux, and their inherent irregularity skews the overall impression of the wines unfavorably.

We swam back to Pomerol, with the sappy, sweet berry driven bouquet of the sixth wine leading us back across the Gironde. The middle weight frame submerged whatever tannin it had left, fanning out caramelized strawberry fruit flavors to a fine spackle over the palate. The ’82 Petit Village took a walk on the kinky side, demonstrating the many gears of the Pomerol chassis. I motored over to the seventh wine, stopping abruptly once my nostrils caught the tantalizing wave of scents seeping from the glass. A pure rush of cherry liqueur, freshly picked herbs, Asian spices and menthol flowed immaculately, rushing through the senses in a primal torrent. Once the juice hit my lips I seemed to experience it fragmentally; layer upon layer, w/ its flawlessly polished texture, exotic depth and a finish that hummed along like a purring kitten. While the ’90 La Fleur de Gay is a small production cuvee and scarcely seen on retail shelves, it is a treasure worth the trek, that is if our bottle was any indication of the wine’s actual quality.

The last 3 wines were all spawn from the 2000 vintage, w/ the first leaving me immediately seduced (though I was on a bit of an island in that regard). Its decadent, subtly sweet bouquet of toffee, crème de cassis, caramel and damp earth notes were divine. The palate brought forth a velvety rush of pure pleasure. While the ’00 La Fleur Petrus currently tips the hedonism scales in the middle weight section, I imagine it will provide ethereal bliss in the decades to come. The last two wines happened to be the same wine, though no one’s palate seemed to get the memo until it was far too late to recant. The first, easily the superior wine (perhaps because it was the one I brought), was a seamless package of stubborn youth, w/ a dollop of chocolaty toast atop its cassis and plum fruit that were still neonatal, yet pure and richly textured. The second bottle of ’00 La Conseillante seemed a touch more top-heavy, w/ a pronounced cola note to the aforementioned profile of the first bottle. While this performance appeared to be a bit gassed in competition, my chicken-scratched notes blurb ‘needs time’ on two occasions for this bottle. Perhaps Izzy didn’t decant his bottle as long as I?

Either way, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I’d be remiss to not dole out kudos to Ben Goldberg for donating the two white Bordeaux...and, eh-hem, bringing our unanimous wine of the night, the ’90 La Fleur de Gay. The least we could do was buy the guy dinner in return Perhaps the format for the next tasting will punish the loser instead of awarding the winner. What do you guys think of the loser buying everyone's dinner?

Wine Rating
1994 Pape Clement Blanc 86 points
1994 Laville Haut Brion Blanc 90 points
1990 L'Evangile 94 points
2000 La Bon Pasteur 93+ points
1982 L'Evangile 93 points
1970 VCC 84 points
2002 Blankiet Paradise Hills 91+ points
1982 Petit Village 92 points
1990 La Fleur de Gay 98 points
2000 La Fleur Petrus 96 points
2000 La Conseillante 95 points, 92+ points (second bottle)
*Image from

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

An eclectic line-up of double blinded wines, tasted w/ Napa's Mike Hirby & company

Ben Sherwin put together a cozy gathering of geeks at the behest of his friend Mike Hirby, the winemaker of Relic and Realm fame. Mike is an easy going, engaged connoisseur & we had the pleasure of enjoying his brief furlow in New York at Dovetail in the upper west side (Sherwin and his damned west side). I ignorantly confused Mike w/ Juan Mercado multiple times, yet Mike took it in stride, and when I asked him if experimenting w/ such a variety of styles would render his brand diffuse, he replied ‘probably, I guess. But then again, I really don’t care about that, I like a bunch of different styles of wines and that’s what I intend on making.’ I liked him immediately. While Mike was generous enough to pour a few of his more inventive bottlings, the order of the night was more of a blind grab bag. I’d imagine there was a bit of rhyme and reason to this tasting, as we’d originally slated ‘Bordeaux blends w/ Mike Hirby’ as a makeshift theme, but it was followed rather loosely. Considering that Ben Goldberg did not bring a white (his customary bottle of Fevre Chablis) and Paul Jaouen wasn’t in attendance (w/ his super-secret blind bottle of Musar), we were in a tough way in terms of guesses. I hedged my bets, refraining from my customary spew of the usual suspects.

We began with a pair of whites; the first was Izzy’s idiosyncratic gem that smelled of wax, bee pollen and a mélange of other Savennieres-like delights. The wine’s real virtue lied in its flavors, which were a creamy, enveloping mixture of quince paste, ginger & honeysuckle, littered in chalk dust and exploding w/ uber-complexity. Full and long, with its multi-layered, almost chewy texture turning heads across the table. I settled on an older Chave Hermitage Blanc, as I have had a handful of mature samples that seemed akin in profile. I was wrong, but only a stone’s throw away, as it was the ’99 Beaucastel VV, a wine which I reveled in my incorrectness, sneaking multiple pours as the night went on. We juxtaposed the Beaucastel (my first ‘mature’ sampling of Beau, as my other tastes have all been babies) w/ Mike’s Relic ‘Sage’ ’08, an innovative blend of 50% Chardonnay, 25% Viognier and a smattering of Rousssanne and Marsanne. While 70% of the oak usesd for Sage was new, it was well concealed, displaying the poise and balance one hardly expects from a wine of this alcohol content (15%+?). The floral, tangerine blossom notes stay light on their feet, whispering across the palate, letting the wine’s nutty edge take over to a strong finish.

The two Relic Pinot Noirs couldn’t have been more distinct. The first, the ’07 Tradition, originated from the Alder Springs site in Mendocino. The tradition is a 50% whole cluster job, which was housed in 3 year old oak barrels during elevage. The wine was a really spicy, earthy concoction that kept its strawberry, olive and cola notes at bay w/ an old world twist, emphasizing severe minerality and crunchy acidity. Fans of Whitcraft’s Pinot Noir line-up are likely to find pleasure in this wine. The sleazier ’08 Sonoma Coast speaks more to the New World folks, w/ lovely red berry fruit, buffered by sea breeze and rose petal notes that I found immediately attractive. I found it to be an exceptionally pure, super-suave effort, yet I seemed to be alone at the table in my adoration (damn those old world palates that caved so easily for the whole cluster of the tradition!). That said, each respective style is crafted well, so diametrically opposed palates are likely to find one wine that suits their taste buds, while the other is sure to elicit indigestion.

As for the blind reds, we began w/ mine, which stank up the place, but only for a moment. Once the sultry spoilage yeast baked off, a lovely bouquet of mushroom, lead pencil, black currant and savory spice strut from the stem. The wine’s sophisticated and classy side was demonstrated in the palate, w/ firm, yet regal tannins holding sway over the belly of dark fruit for now, yet its length and definition bode well for the cellar. Guesses were all over the place, from Napa, to Bordeaux to South America (Mike pegged it as Chilean, which I thought insightful, albeit erroneous), and so I teased out that it was a 2003 from Europe, which brought the pundits to their knees. The Super Tuscan Oreno, from Tenuta Sette Ponti, held its own, a producer that I love, yet a wine I don’t often drink. This was followed up by Jim’s lip smacking, almost Burgundian red, w/ its smoky cherry and pomegranate flavors that shed nary a tannin in the mouth. Its acidity and freshness were the most prominent features, and intelligible guesses were nil. The 2000 Granges des Peres baffled me w/ its lean, yet crisp profile that belied its pedigree and cepage.

Another Relic slid its way into the tasting, the ’07 Artefact from Napa, with its grounded, authentic profile of sweet black currant, gravel and pepper. Finely grained tannins lead the way to a long, full-flavored finish. This strong effort was followed by the grossest offender of the tasting. Wine’s seldom piss me off, simply because I don’t take their performances personally, and I tend to have a broad enough palate to stomach well made juice from a bevy of distinct styles. That said, I found the ’05 Amuse Bouche not only insipid, but borderline offensive in its ribald tone. A blocky amorphous drool of fudge toast smarted from the glass, with enough volatile acidity to penetrate marble. The wine reminded me of cheap birthday cake frosting, flogged w/ artificial colors and grotesquely sweetened by sugar, yet without the cakey dough to offset its cloy. This utterly false wine product bears no class & is as obvious as aspartame.

The following two bottles both bore California origins, w/ the first showing its age. The nose of sawdust, old cedar, sweet balsamic and red currants was more attractive (or tolerable) to others than myself. Its flavors were filtered through a salad shooter, turning a touch desiccated on the lean finish. The second was a heartier, dense wine that brought an old Dunn to mind. The savory scents of mushroom, seared meat, anise and spicy cherries turned packed and gutsy in the palate, maintaining quite a bit of muscle through the firm finish. The vintage guess, 1986, turned out to be spot on for the Spottswoode & Montelena, though our minds were improperly set on the Medoc.

The final two samples from the Hirby express were the ’07 Realm To Kolan & a barrel sample of the ’08 Relic Rock Ledge. The To Kalon’s high pedigree was immediately evident, with its decadent scents of espresso roast, melted chocolate & crème de cassis. The ’07 is a rich, full-bodied mouthful of Cabernet, w/ sweet, free flowing flavors that had the hallmark To Kalon texture and an almost ethereal grace from start to finish. The Rock Ledge was a primal, powerfully imbued wave of bittersweet cocoa and blue fruit, pushed by high quality tannins to a long, lusty finish. We wrapped up the evening, thanks to the generosity of Izzy, w/ a ’93 D’Yquem. The ’93 was keenly selected by Izzy’s logic, whereas a bad red Bordeaux vintage is sure to yield a top flight year for Sauternes. The ‘93 had to be the closest thing I’ve had to a ‘mature’ D’Yquem that I’ve sampled, or at least the first blatantly tertiary one. This is a Sauternes of exquisite texture and nuance, w/ salted nut, saffron, cedar and honeysuckle notes filling out the middle-weight, persistent profile. It appears that the botrytis wasn’t abundant in’ 93, suppressing the typical dried apricot and peach from the belly of the wine, yet I enjoyed it from a more provocative standpoint nonetheless.

Wine Rating
Beaucastel VV 95
Relic Sage 91
Relic Pinot Noir Tradition ’07 92
Relic Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast ’08 93
Oreno ’03 94
Grange des Peres ’00 88
Relic Artefact ’07 91
Amuse Bouche ’05 61
Spottswoode ’86 71
Montelena ’86 89
Realm To Kolan ’07 94+
Relic Rock Ledge ’08 92+
D’Yquem ’93 91