95+ wine tasting 1998

The tasting were divided into 3 flights, a white flight with 4 wines, a red flight with 12 wines and a sweet white flight with 2 wines.

The white flight

Fine golden colour. A closed feeling in the nose that was not expected from the powerful colour. Here are also great pureness and a tone of butter. The taste is full-bodied and again is contradictory to the nose. Long, thick, warm after-taste with lovely acidity. The tasters, including myself, gave the wine between 93 and 95 and expected perhaps even better score when the wine becomes fully mature. Robert Parker always judges wines at their expected peak, so we were agreed.

Medium yellow colour. A lovely herbaceous smell is combined with juicy thick Chardonnay. Maybe somewhat stiff, and maybe a little high in oak smell. The taste is even better, full-bodied, crisp, smoky components, with oak in perfect proportions. Most of the tasters did put between 96 and 98 points for the wine, which are slightly more the Robert Parker's 96 points.

Deep and bright yellow colour. The smell contained herbs and minerals. Also diesel and paraffin oil. The taste was a little sweet from perfect integrated sugar. Very well made with a long after-taste. Here two different ways of interpreting wine was evident, one school claiming that Alsace Riesling must be bone dry and the other accepting the sweetness. The former putting 92 points for the wine. The other school, me included, put 96 to 97 points, which corresponds well with Robert Parker's judgement.

Deep and pure yellow gold colour. Majestic Gewutztraminer without stinking perfume like simple ones. The taste was maybe a little lean in the context of the other wines, but the after-taste was on par. Low acidity but no ageing problems. As for the Alsace wine above, the two schools arise once again and with the equal outcome of points, 92 and 96-97 respectively.

The red flight

Medium density, a rather young ruby colour and somewhat amber in the edge. A tight, elegant and pure smell, and a hint of strawberries. A robust taste ending up with a long after taste. Somewhat unbalanced due to excessive acidity, thus forming two schools of judgement. One school was afraid of the high acidity level and the future fruit of the wine, and the other school was just recognising the wine too young with good development potential. The "high acidity" school gave 91 points and the other 95 points. I myself was somewhere in between. Few were at the height of Robert Parker.

Middle deep, ruby colour. First a little muddy, which goes away by airing. The smell had some cherry and liquorice components. The taste was sturdy in bottom and mid-range but lacked gewgaws to remember. Two schools emerged, one that did not like that pronounced tannins and the other accepting the style. The tannin-avoiding part gave approximately 92 point and the other circa 96 points, rather similar to Robert Parker. Also here I was doubtful, but I bet on the tannins to get soft enough when matured.

Very dark, youthful ruby. Unmistakable high classy Cabernet with sweaty horse and cedar wood. Although a little closed it is a glorious nose. The taste was as expected but not that top flight as the nose, but outstanding in harmony and balance. This was one of the surprising stars of the evening and most of the guests were fooled to guess Bordeaux. It was scored 96 - 98 by most and even 99 from myself. I bought a case of this wine on Systembolaget's "en primeur" sale of the 1995, lucky me.

Dark, brick colour. A certain sweetness and lushness on the nose. Friendly and polite. The taste was better, but tight and dry with a solid bottom. This was the sensation of the evening, not many were able to place this in Bordeaux. And furthermore, no one did score it higher than 95 points (as my self) and some only giving it 92 points. Clearly, here all of us did disagree with Robert Parker. Is it possible that this wine ever turn out to be a 99-pointer?

Medium deep, brick red. Strong, lovely smell, lush and personal. Just as original and dynamic in the taste. Not very fat, but very clean and well made, with an initial maturity. This was one of my favourite wines, which I scored to 99 points. Most of my guests had it to be a 96-point wine, but a few were afraid of a slight oxidation tone they perceived.

A dark, brick coloured appearance. A rich nose emerging from Cabernet or Shiraz. Dry smell but not without charm. A little harsh on the palate but the fruit succeed to manage. A solid wine. Most of us gave it around 96 points, like Robert Parker. Note that he has not judged this wine explicitly but has compared it to the same wine of the 1987 vintage, which he gave 95 points.

Dark and ruby red colour. The nose is sensual with flirty, lush fruit. It is also open, accessible and generous. On the same strike regarding the taste, dynamic, well made and wonderful. This was clearly one of the best wines and got ratings between 95 and 97 and even 98 from myself. But it did not wipe the floor with it peers of the evening.

Dark, ruby red colour. Massive and powerful nose, but still so warm and smooth. A lot of blackberries. The taste has the ultimate combination of power and elegance that is so seldom recognised. Completely lovely. Everyone put between 96 and 98, while Robert Parker has assigned 96+ to it. I bet on that this wine ends up on 99 to 100 when it has begun to mature.

Dark, ruby red colour. It is rather shy in its nose, with coarse fruit. Makes it difficult to understand. The taste is tight and backward and not a wine for me. Most of the participants did put 95 to 96 on this wine, but I was more suspicious with my 93 points. Hopefully the 100% Grenache will mature in a more gentle way than Cabernet or Shiraz.

Dark, ruby red colour. The nose is so vigorous, with both power and elegance. It is solid and complete, with good integrated oak. The taste is without any compromise, strong, fruity and as complete as the smell. If not the best so one of the best wines. Most gave the wine around 98 points, as Robert Parker has. It should not surprise me if this wine ends up with 99 to 100 points when its quality level becomes apparent.

Dark, ruby red colour. One can recognise a special but nice smell of parsley and mint. The smell is also a little sweet from oak, very subtle. The taste is very French with a lot of charm on a powerful bottom. All tasters agreed on 97 points, which is in line with Robert Parker.

Rather dark ruby colour. Has this wine a slightly oxidised nose or is it just white pepper? In any case the nose was difficult to judge. The taste were tough and unyielding, and did not please me. It was difficult to decide whether the wine was oxidised or not, so the score became dependant on how much one was disturbed. The judgement varied between 90 and 95 point and I was in the middle. This was one of the few wines that were very different judged by us and Robert Parker. Was this just a bad bottle?

It was getting late when these wines were served so we did not keep on writing in our protocols. The description and judgements thus are less precise then these are above.

Deep gold colour. Classic "björnklister" and vibrant acidity. It is classic also in the taste. This was considered a nice and typical Sauternes wine. The tasters agreed on a 95-points wine.

Deep gold colour. It is youthful and aromatic in the nose. The taste is unbelievably thick in the mouth so the eyes got filled with tears, either you liked it or not. The participants ranked this wine as better then the Sauterne above, not bad from an Austrian wine.

Conclusion

I think that Robert Parker is really reliable and consistent. As seen above, the deviations between our judgement and his are all understandable considered all norms or schools being used, but with one exception - the Lafite-Rothschild. Given the norm of Robert Parker, it  is impossible to understand how his judgement can result in 99 points.