Betsy has worked the last 3 nights (with rehearsals and a matinee
beforehand), so I've been on my own. Too lazy to shop, I'm been
denuding our freezer of meat.

With some veal simmered in white wine, the 2002 Manciat Macon-Charnay
Vieilles Vignes. This was a surprise for me - instead of the crisp
clean Chardonnay I expected, this came across much bigger, with a bit
of vanilla/butterscotch. There is ample acidity, but this is more fruit
and oak driven than I expected. More like a Meursault to my mind than a
Macon. Nice minerally finish, a very nice wine, just not what I
expected. B++

With lamb chops, the 2002 Gloria (St Julien) from 375 ml. Ripe and
forward for a 2002, there's red and black currant fruit, with noticable
toasty oak that turns cedary with air and time. A little tannic at the
moment, but a nice showing. Wish I had grabbed when Zachys had for $18,
but still a deal elsewhere in low $20s. B+

With roast chicken, the 2004 Schloss Gobelsburg "Gobelsburger" Gruner
Veltliner (Langenlois). Nice green apple and green du Puy lentil
character, just a touch of white pepper. Clearly GruVe, but
unfortunately a bit dilute. Light-bodied, I just wish there was a
little more there. B/B-

Over several nights, the 2000 Sainte-Colombe (Cotes de Castillon). Oak
has settled down in this, and tannins too. Nice ripe round red fruit, a
pleasant if uncomplicated Right Banker. B

Also stopped by Zachys yesterday. They were having a big tasting -lots
of wines, with in most cases winemakers or owners in attendance. I
didn't have a lot of time, but visited a few wines:
1995 Salon - yeasty, with a chalkiness that reminded me of GC Chablis.
Approachable, but needs time.
A couple of '04 Kim Crawfords were ok.
Archery Summit: 2002 Red Hills PN and 2003 Renegade Ridge PN. Both
pretty heavy-handed with the oak. I refer the '02 Red Hills which
seemed to have better acidity than the rather flabby '03 Renegade
Ridge. At $70 & $60 each I'm definitely not a buyer.
I did enjoy the Palmer table. The 2003 Alter Ego reminded me of the
2000, a less structured style than the Palmer, but a nice fleshy full
Margaux. The 2003 Palmer was also fruit-forward and round, though not
in the least flabby. Some tannins need to integrate, but this has the
making of good Bordeaux, not the caricature overripe wine I feared. The
2002 showed much as it did at a 2002 horizontal - tannic, lots of red
fruit, surprising acidity. Needs lots of time. The 2001 was a little
easier to appreciate right now- the tannins seemed finer/smoother,
there's a real spicy note to the blackberry and raspberry fruit. But
the best one on the table was the 1996 - big and brooding, but with
grace.

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of
consistency.

The Arlington, VA Costco had the Chateau Gloria for $28 for 750 ml.
Bought 3 there and I think that was a good deal.

Palmer Alter Ego is going for $44 here. How does that compare as far as
price at Zachy's>

In article .com>,
"DaleW" > wrote:

> Betsy has worked the last 3 nights (with rehearsals and a matinee
> beforehand), so I've been on my own. Too lazy to shop, I'm been
> denuding our freezer of meat.
>
> With some veal simmered in white wine, the 2002 Manciat Macon-Charnay
> Vieilles Vignes. This was a surprise for me - instead of the crisp
> clean Chardonnay I expected, this came across much bigger, with a bit
> of vanilla/butterscotch. There is ample acidity, but this is more fruit
> and oak driven than I expected. More like a Meursault to my mind than a
> Macon. Nice minerally finish, a very nice wine, just not what I
> expected. B++
>
> With lamb chops, the 2002 Gloria (St Julien) from 375 ml. Ripe and
> forward for a 2002, there's red and black currant fruit, with noticable
> toasty oak that turns cedary with air and time. A little tannic at the
> moment, but a nice showing. Wish I had grabbed when Zachys had for $18,
> but still a deal elsewhere in low $20s. B+
>
> With roast chicken, the 2004 Schloss Gobelsburg "Gobelsburger" Gruner
> Veltliner (Langenlois). Nice green apple and green du Puy lentil
> character, just a touch of white pepper. Clearly GruVe, but
> unfortunately a bit dilute. Light-bodied, I just wish there was a
> little more there. B/B-
>
> Over several nights, the 2000 Sainte-Colombe (Cotes de Castillon). Oak
> has settled down in this, and tannins too. Nice ripe round red fruit, a
> pleasant if uncomplicated Right Banker. B
>
> Also stopped by Zachys yesterday. They were having a big tasting -lots
> of wines, with in most cases winemakers or owners in attendance. I
> didn't have a lot of time, but visited a few wines:
> 1995 Salon - yeasty, with a chalkiness that reminded me of GC Chablis.
> Approachable, but needs time.
> A couple of '04 Kim Crawfords were ok.
> Archery Summit: 2002 Red Hills PN and 2003 Renegade Ridge PN. Both
> pretty heavy-handed with the oak. I refer the '02 Red Hills which
> seemed to have better acidity than the rather flabby '03 Renegade
> Ridge. At $70 & $60 each I'm definitely not a buyer.
> I did enjoy the Palmer table. The 2003 Alter Ego reminded me of the
> 2000, a less structured style than the Palmer, but a nice fleshy full
> Margaux. The 2003 Palmer was also fruit-forward and round, though not
> in the least flabby. Some tannins need to integrate, but this has the
> making of good Bordeaux, not the caricature overripe wine I feared. The
> 2002 showed much as it did at a 2002 horizontal - tannic, lots of red
> fruit, surprising acidity. Needs lots of time. The 2001 was a little
> easier to appreciate right now- the tannins seemed finer/smoother,
> there's a real spicy note to the blackberry and raspberry fruit. But
> the best one on the table was the 1996 - big and brooding, but with
> grace.
>
> Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
> wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
> drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
> promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of
> consistency.
>

Zachys was:
2003 Alter Ego $34
2003 Palmer $110
2002 Palmer $80
2001 Palmer $115
1996 Palmer $110
Which strikes me as peculiar - 2001 costs more than 2003 or 1996?

Why should that be?

In article . com>,
"DaleW" > wrote:

> Zachys was:
> 2003 Alter Ego $34
> 2003 Palmer $110
> 2002 Palmer $80
> 2001 Palmer $115
> 1996 Palmer $110
> Which strikes me as peculiar - 2001 costs more than 2003 or 1996?
>