On the nose, there’s something approaching canned pineapple or peaches mixing it up with the distinct smells of an aged riesling – but only a little. Although there is a whack of kerosene stank, it’s quickly subdued by something of a cosmetic, talcum powder note that reminds me of Victorian drawing rooms and dust.
Rich and mouthfilling, the wine jumps to a finish of spiced pears, but not before touching on all kinds of stone fruit notes, largely in the direction of Asian pears and fresh peaches. The trick here is the finish, which is distinctly savory and powdery soft. Still, there’s also a core of sweet, ripe fruit here that’s quite appealing; this may be “dry” but it’s not quite dry in the way that Clare rieslings are dry. It’s also not lieblich in the way that yesterday’s Finger Lakes riesling was – it’s as if there’s at least a suggestion of some sugar to balance out the acidity here. It’s very well judged and seems to have a distinct sense of place that the New York riesling was lacking just a bit. Then again, it’s a different price range, so it’s also theoretically possible that it’s simply a matter of getting what you pay for. Who knows?