(A March 2006 post that apparently went lost and that I repost here on request.)
Albino and Andrea invited Oliver and me for Pizza again. Before dinner, we (finally!) tasted the four sample bottles our friend Márta Wille-Baumkauff had brought along a long time ago (last October) and on which we had promised a speedy feedback ;^)
These are wines by Attila Németh in Gyöngyöstarján, presumably of Márta’s acquaintance. I am sorry to confess my Hungarian has not improved much since we started visiting the region, so I could not tell you if „Mátraaljai Borvidék“ does indeed tell us about the A.O.C. these wines come from, as I suspect it might. The tasting notes include what information we felt confident enough to translate. If I remember correctly, what Márta said was that the vineyards once belonged to Löwenstein.
For my "verbal rating system", see postscript, if necessary.
Németh Pince Chardonnay Veresföldi 2002
Medium yellow-green colour. The 14% alcohol shows, could definitely be more integrated. Underripe lime and green banana, a lactic sour milk aroma, not too concentrated, flat mid-palate, a bit dusty and bitter, not especially acidic, recurring bitterness on the finish, medium length at best. No Chardonnay exotism to the fruit, Oliver said. Light but fairly high in alcohol, is what I thought. Good only. But note Albino said he found it somewhat Sancerre-like in overall character (which in a way it was, lacking variety typicality) and might have rated it as high as 87 points!
Németh Pince Sárga Muskotály Diós dülö 2002
Lactic butter milk touch, liqueur-like fermented tangerine, pine and resin thereof, balm mint. Stinging nettle, as Andrea noted. Apricot and honey on the nose, Oliver added. Medium sweetness, not too ripe, lightly bitter beneath a smooth enough surface, alcohol integration is not too great. Barely medium length. Clearly best on the nose. About 80 points is what Albino would have rated this, and I agree (only that I did not see much difference in quality between this off-dry Muscat de Lunel and the dry Chardonnay). Good only.
Németh Pince Hárslevelü Cserepes dülö 2003
From 500 ml bottle. Harvested on December 9, contains 140 g/l residual sugar at 10.5% alcohol. Strawy golden colour, minor green reflections. Quite thick and sugary viscous, smooth mouthfeel. Strawy quince to linden flower honey, bit liqueur-like on the finish, which could be more consistent and persistent. Finesse notes of simmered yellow bell pepper, dried banana, pine, red Thai basil and sage blossom. A touch of seasoned apple, as Albino noted, but utterly free from rancio foulness, a very modern-styled wine he felt closest in character to a Neusiedlersee sticky, also due to rather subdued minerality. Soft acidity and bitter note. Oliver felt it lacked „nervosité“ for a sweet wine and would have rated it merely 83-84 points (he did not find this more successful than the Muscat de Lunel), but it was both a better balanced, more complete wine as well as the greater relative success: it is, after all, a nicely typical Hárslevelü, a variety that has the tendency to produce floral but soft and low acid wine. Of these sample bottles this was the only wine I found so tasty I poured myself a second glass. Very good.
Németh Pince Kékfrankos Cserepes dülö 2003
Almost opaque purple-black, watery at the rim. A wine one could use to teach a basic misunderstanding I often observe at trade tastings: that concentration and extraction is one and the same thing. Best on the nose clean and pure with oak, a little black elderberry and blackberry, then oaky, light and over-extracted, with oak tannin and watery fruit on the palate, medium-short on the finish. As if from a notoriously light vintage, which is hard to believe 2003 was anywhere in Europe! Albino is quite right that any Austrian Blaufränkisch we have so far had was denser and more massive, and we have yet to like any well enough, not buy a bottle, but to drink more than a glass with pleasure! Barely good quality.
La Spinetta Barbaresco Vigneto Starderi 2001
Thanks to Oliver. Unfortunately he is not able to explain to me what the Vürsù in bold capital golden letters on the label means. It has got to be some dialect expression. Fresh, medium-deep ruby-black. Black cherry a little crystallised prune, some tarry oak. Some juiciness, a little cured meat. Some of the variety-typical old English rose aroma. Oak tannin, blood orange acidity. Concentrated enough although not on the level of the 1996s here, this could use more mid-palate density. Oliver likes it because he finds it less rustic than earlier vintages, I believe it is simply less structured and ageworthy, only seemingly more stylish. Got a bit sweeter with airing. Excellent plus? The problem here, needless to emphasize perhaps, is Rivetti’s pricing policy, the wines themselves can be promising enough. Priced too closely to the handful (the quartet, as I am starting to call them) top producers and never quite as good, there is so far no reason to make room for Spinetta in one’s budget. Their wines just need to be either a fraction less expensive or deeper, showing more character and individuality.
Podere Rocche dei Manzoni Barolo Riserva Vigna Big 1985
Thanks to Oliver. Bottle #06777 of 9785 plus 1227 magnums made. Aged four years in barrique, but what oak there once may have been is now fully integrated. Garnet-ruby-black, medium-slight watery orange at the rim. Marzipan, the Malaga-like orange pointing to a Nebbiolo’s full maturity, stale lemon and dried bee’s wax. Medium sweetness of fruit (the decadent „sweetness of the death“, as our friend Marc often calls it), medium length. Seems fully mature despite some tightness and hardness to the minor amount of tannin that is left, which, as in most Nebbiolos, will not resolve before the remainder of the fruit fades completely. But a pretty 1985 (a vintage that, after all, has kept its early promise only in a handful exceptional cases). About outstanding minus, drink up!
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
P.S.
I have given up using numerical scores on this board (in order to avoid e-mails solely concentrating on the virtues of numerical rating, since I'd really rather talk about the wines themselves). For those who have problems interpreting my "verbal scoring", the numerical correspondences are as follows:
79 and below = NOT GOOD (i.e. no need to figure out exactly)
80 – 84 = GOOD (same as 16 and over in the European 20-point system)
85 – 89 = VERY GOOD (same as 17 and over; I sometimes use EXCELLENT or ALMOST-OUTSTANDING to indicate 88 – 89)
90 – 94 = OUTSTANDING (same as 18 and over)
95 – 99 = GREAT (or CLASSIC, same as 19 and over; I sometimes use NEAR-PERFECT to indicate a 98 – 99 score)
100 = PERFECT (20/20)
Note I will rarely buy wine below my own EXCELLENT rating (that's where wine really starts standing out for individuality from the mass of technically impeccably-made wines) except for an occasional and there truly exceptional QPR (I must insist any wine in the VERY GOOD category with me is serious stuff, way above average wine, that I still wouldn't buy because I've got to somehow limit my wine buying). But if a wine is costly, it had better be at least OUTSTANDING!