I tried this at a blind tasting last Saturday. I correctly guessed that it was a Southern Rhone but it was because of the brett I detected on the nose. WS gave this wine a score of 91 and I must disagree with that score. This was the worst 2000 CdP I have tasted so far. The nose had a sickly stale fruit smell in addition to the hint of brett. I found the wine to be awkward with bitter fruit and cardboard notes. I tried the wine a 2nd time after the producer, wine and vintage were revealed to confirm my impression. I discussed this wine with another board member who was at the tasting and the store manager and none of us felt the wine was corked. 77 points.

VM

That board member would be me. I liked the nose. It had some strong strawberry notes, and an earthy, mushroomy edge. But, yuck, belly no like the bitter fruit and spice on the finish. I thought it was a poorly constructed california Pinot Noir. It smelled nice, I gave it an 82.

As for being corked, I usually find flawed bottles more through the nose and I didn't find cardboard, musty, dull scents here. Maybe the wine just sucks and WS misrated it?

BTW - what is brett?

Brett is a barnyard type odor or taste often found in Rhone wines. It is often associated with unclean cellars or winemaking procedures.

VM

I had the wine too and found it average - gave it an 85 - I agree with your Brett impression but I actually like this in a wine.

I find that the WS is very volatile on rating Southern/Northern Rhones. I often disagree with them. I much prefer IWC and WA for these who seem more consistent with my views. Has anyone find this to be true?

A good example is their wine of the year: I had the CDP by Guigal, but I would have given it a 89-90 and there are plenty of better examples in the Rhone. Guigal's own cote rotie brune et blonde 1999 is in my opinion, more deserving.

Jeff,

I agree that Brett is not always objectionable. If it is mild and confined to the nose then I do not mind it and in some cases find it to be positive. Whenever it is carried into the taste, I have found it objectionable.

VM

There’s ONLY one way to drink a 99 point WS rated Rhone wine. First, grab the WS Rhone issue firmly with your left hand. Toss said issue over your right shoulder while swirling vigorously. Bite down on a chilled lemon slice and immediately throw back the wine. The pour should not be a large one due to the fact that you want the wine to have minimum contact with your palate.

We still enjoy the WS on occasion, when the focus is on CA cab/merlot, but their Rhone coverage is worse than pedestrian. My ‘steal of 2002’ happened to be a six of the 2000 Domaine de la Vieille Julienne that the WS rated 78 points. This is an amazing wine for the price ($23) and folks should seek out with extreme prejudice. A few days ago I was purging some of my old WS mags and I stumbled upon their recommended drinking window for the 1996 J. L. Chave Rouge. The ceiling stated was 2003. This is a wine we opened just a few weeks ago and IMHO it’s THREE YEARS away before coming into the primetime drinking window.

Hey, even a blind pig finds an acorn every so often (’99 Pegau) but for the most part it’s ‘buyer beware’ when trusting the WS and their Rhone recs.

Cheers,

[This message was edited by loose cluster on Feb 11, 2003 at 08:54 PM.]

Thanks for the warning on the R Usseglio...

I agree that WS ratings for Rhone are not to be trusted. This is the only area where I feel that their ratings are really "off" (beyond just differences in taste or overzealousness - ie Suckling on 97 Brunnellos).

I also picked up the 2000 Vieille Julienne - though have yet to try it. I expect it to be wonderful (recommended drinking window?) My rational for buying it and for this belief are based on the performance/rating of the (much) more expensive "Veilles Vignes" - 96-99!!(and that the normal cuvee was rated very well by Parker - 92-94 - can't go wrong IMO...) - and my belief that the 2000 vintage is outstanding - mainly based on the quality of the Cotes du Rhone and other CndPs & Gigs that I have had to date. (And of course the very reasonable price (best I've seen it is $29)

And while I agree that the 99 Guigal CndP is nothing special (its OK) - the 2000 is pretty awesome - IMO - and is drinking incredibly well for a young CndP. It doesn't strike me as necessarily a long term ager - but it is amazingly smooth, rich, balanced (not too acidic at all) and fruit foreward - a great drink for $20 or so.