I get a number of questions about my tasting notes, and how initial impressions eventually become fleshed out into a published score. In the interest of full disclosure, the average tasting note takes about 12-15 minutes to craft. First, there are raw sensorial impressions, which are recorded associatively and uncritically; when possible, I will revisit a wine an hour or so later to make sure my initial reaction is a candid and representative snapshot of a given wine's character; finally, I take a few minutes to reflect on a wine's potential with food, as well its chances of improving through skilled and attentive cellaring. Occasionally, I like to publish tasting notes before they have been heavily edited and remain embryonic and primary. What follows here are first impressions from a private tasting with Baker Dristributing. During the tasting, many of these wines were set aside and tasted blind later to assure accuracy as well as the legitimacy of my projections. Under blind circumstances, I correctly identified and ascribed an identical score to each wine, making these notes worthy of taking final form.
2009 Louis Michel & Fils Chablis (85)
-chalky minerals, composed stone fruits; lacks concentration and focus on the palate, rounded and fleshy but not surprising given the vintage; tropical and melony; textured and reasonably balanced; voluminous
2009 Macon-Uchizy Les Maranches (82)
-peach, green apple, flowers; forgettable palate, unfocused again and monolithic…yields are simply too high, diluted
2010 Chateau Fage Graves de Vayres (82)
extraordinarily unpleasant nose; volatile and "chemically altered"; very low in acid, lack of balance = flabby, insipid, short, uninteresting
2007 Celeste (88+)
-sweet black cherries, tobacco, chocolate, hints at game with air; mid-weight and lush; nice finish, doesn't try to do too much, unpretentious and stays within itself; a silky, seamless style that is showing beautifully now
2006 Gravier Figeac (86)
-hints at prunes and bacon fat, worn leather, there is definitely some oak here; palate conveys St. Emilion typicity, though with mostly overripe Merlot character
2006 La Couronne (83)
-earthy minerals initially (!), herbs, a touch stalky and vegetal on the nose, but not overdone; another overripe, hot messy palate, surprising given the deliciousness of the 2005; the fruit is cooked and not fresh, lots of oak and very dry
2008 Deep Sea Central Coast Red (84)
-forest floor/underbrush, crushed overripe blackberries, but not stewed; a big, massive, pillowy effort with fine-grained tannins; candied on the palate and easydrinking; not a fresh style; the "big fruit" crowd will line up for this
2008 Penfolds bin 207 Cabernet Sauvignon (82?)
-fresh mint, icebreakers gum, chocolate, like a chocolate mint ice cream cake from baskin robins…just no fruit whatsoever…a lot of people will like that style, i'm just not one of them
2009 Penfold bin 128 Shiraz (84?)
-charred meats, almost brown sauceesque, with absolutely no fruit on the nose, rosemary; more sappy than the cabernet, lots of oak, savory and almost animal-like...notes of blood and earth…where is the fruit, and what makes this delicious or fun to drink?
2010 Penfold Bin 2 Shiraz/Mourvedre (81)
-chocolate, plums and oak, rich, syrupy, simple and not what I like about wine AT ALL
2005 Larose-Trintaudon (84)
-satisfyingly ripe despite the herbs and leathery component; deep, nearly layered, with enough fruit despite the oak and herbal pungency, hints at black olives toward the back end; cassis and oaky in the end with a little staying power although the aftertase is unfriendly
2009 Chocolate Block South Africa (90)
fresh fennel, lavender, blue fruits, reasonably composed but not exactly a shining example of clarity; a much better palate, licorice-tinged cleanly ripe fruits and welcome intensity and grace, seamless on the back end, rather lengthy; shows lovely balance, there is plenty of fruit and a touch of savory depth; wine of the day
