WTN: 2003 Van Volxem Saar Riesling Spätlese Alte Reben

[David M. Bueker]

Continuing my exploration of 2003 German Rieslings, this Van Volxem is surprising, and not in a good way. It's watery on the nose, as if a really nice wine has been diluted, and somewhat flat on the palate, yet at the back end retains a sense of Saar identity. I am not sure what to make of this wine, other than it did not provide satisfaction on this night.

I didn't realize there was a generic/non-site Spatlese from Van Volxem.
Either way, that sounds quite disappointing - and I'm very surprised to hear about that wateriness/diluted feeling in an 03, that too a Van Volxem (where the wines generally tend to show deeper, more intense flavours than most of their other Saar or Mosel counterparts).

[David M. Bueker]

I think your characterization of Van Volxem is stretching the point.

I think your characterization of Van Volxem is stretching the point.

Doesn't Van Volxem go for longer hang time/riper grapes?

[David M. Bueker]

I think your characterization of Van Volxem is stretching the point.

Doesn't Van Volxem go for longer hang time/riper grapes?

Yes, but I don't find the flavors any deeper than other producers, just more towards tropical flavors. I don't subscribe to the (self-generated by Roman) Van Volxem hype.

Yes, but I don't find the flavors any deeper than other producers, just more towards tropical flavors. I don't subscribe to the (self-generated by Roman) Van Volxem hype.

I agree, "deep" is not the word I would choose either. I just wanted you to elaborate on your point to make sure I knew what you meant. But this (and Salil's comment) may just be semantic differences.

[David M. Bueker]

Well in any event, I put Van Volxem and Keller in the same over-hyped boat.

hype is just a by-product of buying wines based on someone else's opinion. If you try before you buy, "hype" is irrelevant (as are scores, reviews, etc.) and you have nobody but yourself to blame if you find out you don't like something down the road.

And to characterize any winery by their 2003s seems silly to me. Nobody know what to do, how to make wine, etc. in that year because the vintage conditions were substantially different from anything anyone had experienced in the past, as nearly every producer I visited (Germany/Burgundy/Alsace/Rhone) said. So you ended up with a lot of freakish wines and a lot of winemakers with a much better sense of what they would do if another year like 2003 came along - to make better wines. Let's hope they don't need to use that page in their notebook again for a very long time.

[David M. Bueker]

I actually tasted the 2003s from Van Volxem at the Theise DI event. Believe me they tasted nothing like last night's bottle. If they had I would never have bought them.

Not only did winemakers have no idea what to do in 2003, drinkers had no frame of reference either. Some 2003s that were ponderous have turned out to be much better, while others that seemed to be better than the norm have crashed and burned.

I think your characterization of Van Volxem is stretching the point.

Doesn't Van Volxem go for longer hang time/riper grapes?

Yes, but I don't find the flavors any deeper than other producers, just more towards tropical flavors. I don't subscribe to the (self-generated by Roman) Van Volxem hype.

After tasting a range of van Volxem wines at Roman's place a few years ago, my main observation was that I wouldn't have guessed that any of them came from the Saar due to an atypical fatness.

[David M. Bueker]

To be fair to the wine I opened, it was much better last night, but still had that odd watery note up front, even if it had come together on the finish.

And to complement TIm's comment, I would never guess Saar if served this wine in a blind setting. Pfalz maybe, but not Saar.