A well-made, balanced Riesling with good typicity, but nothing particularly striking or special about it. Maybe the problem is that I’ve developed my palate for Riesling mostly with fuller bodied German Auslese or Spatlese, and this is just a bit lighter in style than I am used to. I’d like a bit more at the price. Wine Spectator rated this 92, but I just don't see it. The WS review was from 2005, and even though they said drink until 2012, perhaps it is fading already. But looking back over my notes, I see that I had this a couple of years ago and rated it 89 back then. I'd be curious to find out what anyone else thinks - is it me or WS that is off? Or is it just a matter of preferences?Price: $34.10
Score: 88
Value: 2/5
Region: Alsace
UPC: 3263530024442
Posts
Even though the WS is suppose to be blind judging, I find terms on the bottle like Grand Cru make its way into the point system. But more importantly a personal preference like a fuller style of Riesling is probably a reason. Overall, when it comes to WS or such, its a good starting place to explore regions I am not familiar with or to support pre-conceived notions or lastly to justify expensive purchases, but for me never to question my own preferences. The Yankees may win the World series, but that doesn't mean I'll root for them.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes like to push my preferences and give something a second chance if someone else really likes it (especially when the someone else is Kelly).
ReplyDeleteBut in this case I more wondering whether this is really what a 92 rated wine in this style tastes like. Maybe I just don't like the style as much, but maybe the WS taster was just having an off day and scored it too high. So I'd be interested if someone familiar with the style can tell me whether a fair score is closer to 88 or 92.