Archive for January, 2014

Erin Pours Wines From New Zealand and New York at The Musket Room

January 21, 2014 Leave a comment


When Jenn and I sat down at the bar of The Musket Room it was sommelier Erin Barbour Scala who immediately placed glasses in front of us.  It is through her previous work at Public and her wine blog Thinking Drinking that Erin and I have become friends.  Erin decided to start us with a flight of three New Zealand white wines.  I typically taste wines that I have selected so to taste interesting wines picked by someone else is a treat.


The 2009 Quartz Reef, Vintage Methode Traditionelle was quite an opener.  Its upbringing in oak and even, perhaps, the hand riddling, produced a beautiful sparkling wine evocative of Champagne.  That I may not have been able to place this as a wine from New Zealand may be due to my inexperience but I would readily open a bottle for my friends.  Erin noted that the 2011 Millton, Chenin Blanc, Te Arai Vineyard would change in the glass.  I was diverted by having my first taste of Chenin Blanc from New Zealand but Jenn was beguiled by the oscillation between waxy fruit, sage, and perfume.  Jenn grew up in New Mexico so she finds aromas of sage particularly attractive.  That she loved the Chenin Blanc over the larger, oak influenced 2009 Mountford Estate, Chardonnay is a bit telling.  For me the Mountford was a little too overt.  The 2009 Urlar, Pinot Noir mixed some complexity with higher-toned berries and citrus.  Of similar intensity the 2010 Paumanok Vineyards, Merlot showed a nice mix of grapey fruit and cinnamon spice.  To finish with the Channing Daughters Winery, VerVino Vermouth-Variation 3 served on the rocks was a complete surprise.  I did not take any note, instead I sipped it as I chatted with Barbara Lambert and Erin.  Erin and I have been discussing our next Online Symposium, we solidified our next topic that night so stay tuned.


2009 Quartz Reef, Vintage Methode Traditionelle, Central Otago
Imported by Station Imports.  This wine is a blend of 87% Chardonnay and 13% Pinot Noir which was aged on the lees for 4 years.  Alcohol 12.5%. The nose was textured with aromas of a little sweet spice and wood notes.  There were slightly firm bubbles in the mouth with dissipated in to a firm mousse.  The acidity was supportive throughout.  The flavors were tangy and chalky with grip, spices, and a juicy aftertaste.  A pleasure to drink.


2011 Millton, Chenin Blanc, Te Arai Vineyard, Gisborne
Imported by Verity Wine Partners.  This wine is 100% Chenin Blanc sourced from the Te Arai Vineyard which was planted in 1984.  It was fermented and aged in a mixture of demi muids and stainless steel tanks.  Alcohol 11.5%.  There was an evolving nose of waxy aromas, sage, and perfume.  The nose really steps out of the glass.   The flavors were a bit more fresh in the mouth than I expected with apple fruit and lots of grippy acidity flavors.  The flavors started apple-like then became sweeter.  An interesting wine.


2009 Mountford Estate, Chardonnay, Waipara Valley
Imported by Fruit of the Vine Inc.  Alcohol 14.5%. The nose was clearly barrel influenced Chardonnay with ripe yellow fruit.  In the mouth were butterscotch flavors, good acidity, and a bit sharper towards the end with apple acidity.  I thought the oak a little too overt for my preference.


2010 Urlar, Pinot Noir, Wairarapa
Imported by Atlas Imports.  This wine is 100% Pinot Noir fermented in oak cuves then aged for 25% new French oak barriques.  Alcohol 14%.  There was a complex nose of higher-toned berries, citrus, and “under brush”.  It took on a citrus aromas with air.  In the mouth were firmer flavors but delivered with good length.  It had nice cranberry notes yielding both fruit flavors and complexity.


2010 Paumanok Vineyards, Merlot, North Fork
This wine is 100% Merlot.  There was a slightly sweet, restrained nose.  In the mouth were grapey flavors, cinnamon spice, and chewy tannins.  The firmer structure made way to acidity in the aftertaste.


NV Channing Daughters Winery, VerVino Vermouth-Variation 3, Long Island
Alcohol 19%.  Served on the rocks this was a balanced, light red wine with a floral and herbal mixture.  No notes taken but I enjoyed sipping from my glass as I chatted.


Historic Tasting Notes for Californian Wines From the Early 1880s

January 20, 2014 Leave a comment


I find the 19th century tasting notes of Californian wine samples and wines produced from grape samples quite interesting.   Through their defined format they detail the successes and many failures of the early trials from a number of different producers.  I have selected several tasting notes from more favorable received wines listed in the Report of the Viticultural Work During the Seasons 1883-4 and 1884-5 (1886).[1] These notes focus on color, bouquet, flavor, acidity, astringency, condition, and dilution.  To me they demonstrate that with the complete lack of aroma or flavor specific adjectives, taken as a group, you would have no idea how a wine made from Grossblaue would taste different from a Cabernet Sauvignon based one.  Tasting notes aside how exciting to taste such diverse wines as Black Burgundy, Blaue Elbing, Burger, Grenache, and Scuppernong.

No. 174. Zinfandel, 1880.
From J. H. Drummond, Glen Ellen.  From red hill land.  Color of sample not very deep; condition, bright; acid and astringency, both light; body, medium; bouquet not strong, but flavor vinous and claret-like.  The color, after the wine has been diluted with one half its bulk of water, remains quite stable, and the general quality good.

No. 151. Malbeck, 1884 (Ch. Le Franc, New Almaden Vineyard.)
Condition of the sample, bright; color, intense purple-red; astringency, high; acid, medium. The bouquet could not be judged from sample.  Flavor, vinous, agreeable; general quality; good.

No. 144. Grossblaue, 1883.
From H. W. Crabb, Oakville.  A wine of intense purple color, so much so that the color holds good after the wine has been diluted with its own bulk of water.  Bouquet is undeveloped, but promises well.  Flavor, vinous; acid, light; astringency very decided, but agreeable; body, good; condition bright.
Wine is too astringent for use by itself, but excellent for blending.

No. 139. Cabernet Sauvignon, 1882.
From H. W. Crabb, Oakville.  Wine of moderately dark garnet color, with a vinous flavor, accompanied by a perceptible, light bouquet; fair acid and medium astringency.  Body, good; condition, clear. The wine promises very well.

No. 118. Feher Szagos, 1884.
From R. Barton, Fresno.  Bouquet fairly developed; body, heavy; acid, medium; flavor, vinous,  nutty; color, pale straw; a very fair, drinkable wine.

No. 160. Trousseau, 1883 (From M. Denicke, Fresno.)
A clear, medium-bodied wine of a moderately deep garnet color, decided acid and astringency, and vinous flavor; bouquet is decided and fruity, accompanied by an alcoholic odor.  After diluting with fifty per cent water, the wine is very good, and fair after one hundred per cent of water has been added.

Chauche Gris, 1884. (From R. Barton, Fresno)
A light topaz-colored wine, of heavy body; medium acid; clean vinous flavor, accompanied by very characteristic bouquet.

Herbacious Grafting [2]

[1] Report of the Viticultural Work During the Seasons 1883-4 and 1884-5. 1886. URL:
[2] Annual Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners.  1888. URL:

Categories: History of Wine

2000 Bois De Boursan and Raymond Usseglio CdP

January 17, 2014 Leave a comment

It can be very satisfying to drink a mature Chateauneuf du Pape  from a base cuvee as this post demonstrates.  My favorite of the pair of wines featured in today’s post is the 2000 Domaine Bois de Boursan.  The nose was aromatic and classic as soon as the wine hit the decanter.  With a little bit of air it became a very satisfying wine to drink, while it will last I see no reason to hold back.  Several years ago I had purchased several bottles of the 2000 Domaine Raymond Usseglio & Fils.  It has been a maddening purchase since many bottles have been corked.  I opened my last bottle over the holidays and was at first petrified because the cork stank.  Fortunately the decanted wine was free from defect.  It was modest yet complete and should be drunk up.  The cork did exhibit something I have never seen bore.  The next day the external end turned yellow!  It looks horrible compared to the Boursan cork.  These wines were purchased at MacArthur Beverages.


2000 Domaine Bois de Boursan, Chateauneuf du Pape
Imported by MacArthur Liquors.  This wine is a blend of 65% Grenache, 15% Syrah, 15% Mourvedre, and 5% Counoise, Cinsault.  Alcohol 13.5%.  There was a classic and gorgeous CdP nose of ripe fruit and garrigue which was fairly deep.  The initial flavors followed the nose but were even fresher.  There was black and red fruit, watering acidity, and still some structure.  There were old wood notes and blacker minerals in the finish.  With air it took on a chewy structure and became “thicker” as Jenn commented.  There was an earthy aftertaste of good length.  **** Now-2019.


2000 Domaine Raymond Usseglio & Fils, Chateauneuf du Pape
Imported by Weygandt-Metzler.  This wine is a  blend of 75% Grenache, 15% Syrah, and 10% Mourvedre.  Alcohol 14%.  This bore tangy red fruit which was underpinned by deeper berry and cedar notes.  It was still fresh becoming a little leaner in the middle.  The acidity was integrated and a little watery.  There were some baking spices with a little grip in the finish.  It was both modest and complete.  *** Now-2017.


Charbono: From the “Vinous” 1883 H. W. Crabb to the Earthy 2009 Calder Wine Company

January 16, 2014 2 comments

Analyses of Charbono Samples [0]

I only knew that there was not much Charbono planted in California and nothing of its history.  Many sites and wine blogs detail that Charbono was introduced to California in the 1880s.  I believe it quite clear that it was introduced in the 1870s for there were some 70+ acres of Charbono planted in Santa Clara County alone prior to 1879.[1]  Shortly after it was first planted an article published in the New York Tribune on October 31, 1882, details the California vineyards during harvest time.[2]  The Chinese, Italian, French, and Portuguese laborers harvested the grapes including one vineyard of 600 acres planted with Charbono, Zinfandel, Malvoisie, Burger, Blanc Elben, and Muscatel.  In a letter to the editor from Eugene Morel from May 12, 1833, Mr. Morel noted that Charbono was “more correctly Corbeau”.[3]  The apparently quality of Charbono soon bore out in the papers.  In an article about the “Classification of Grape-vines delivered at the Viticultural Convention, San Francisco” in October, 1883, Charbono was ranked near the bottom with Black Malvasia, Chablis, Hungarian Green, Pied de Perdix, Grey Duchez, and Verdelho.[4]  That same month H. W. Crabb’s vineyard near Oakville yielded a “magnificent crop” of Charbono but the reporter could not “say that I admire its quality; the grape seems rough, coarse, and flat, although containing abundance of color.”[5]  Actual tasting notes of Crabb’s wines appear below.  Still, Charbono must have found its fans.  In September 1901, “lowland” Charbono sold for $16 per ton with Zinfandel at $14.50 as compared to Zinfandel from “foothill soil” at $16 per ton.[6]

Viticultural Statistics. [1]

Charbono appears in the annual reports of the California State Viticultural Commissioners as early as 1881.  In the December 22, 1880, report by Mr. Charles A Wetmore, Commissioner, it was clarified that Charbono and Trousseau were not Burgundy varieties rather they were from the Jura District, “which ranks nearly with but inferior to Burgundy.”[7] In 1884 the origins of Charbono were clarified in the Second Annual Report of the Chief Executive Viticultural Officer.[8]  It was stated that Charbono, sometimes spelled as Charbonneau, came from Jura together with Trousseau and Poulsard.  The leading name was Corbeau and it was imported by Mr. Drummond under the synonym Plant de Montmelian.  It was felt to dominate blends so it was not as flexible as Zinfandel and its future probably lay “to making of light cheap table clarets.” The following are early tasting notes for wine samples submitted to the Commission.

No. 154. Charbono, 1882.
From H. W. Crabb, Oakville.  Condition of sample is bright with a  moderately intense purple color, a rather light body, and a decided fruity bouquet; astringency adequate, and acid a little sharp.  The character of the wine somewhat impaired by the casky flavor.

No. 154 A. Charbono, 1883.
From H. W. Crabb, Oakville.  Sample is clear, medium-bodied, and of intense purple color; astringency, fair; acid, low; bouquet undeveloped; flavor fairly vinous.  Dilution with 50 per cent water results in a fair wine; with 100 per cent, only tolerable.

No. 155. Charbono blend, 1883.
From C. O. Butler, Hanford.  A clear wine of light garnet color, thin body, moderate acid, no bouquet, with an earthy unpleasant flavor, and mawkish aftertaste; astringency hardly perceptible.; though sound, evidently grown on alkali soil.

Charbono continues to appear in viticultural reports for decades.  Inglenook has long grown Charbono, Gustave Niebaum reportedly brought root stock over shortly after founding Inglenook Vineyards in 1879.  In 1941, A. M. & J. Solari of New Orleans sold a variety of wines selected by Frank Schoonmaker, including the wines of Inglenook.[9]  I have included several other wines to indicate the affordable price of the Inglenook Charbono as well as tasting notes.

1939 Widmer, Lake Elvira, New York $1.55 per bottle
A light fresh wine, not unlike a young Moselle.

1938 Martini, Mountain Folle Blanche, $1.40 per bottle
Dry and delicate. Not unlike a Chablis.

1934 Fountaingrove, Sonoma Pinot Noir, $.1.39 per bottle
Full-bodied, yet delicate in flavor.

1934 Inglenook, Napa Valley Charbono, $1.19 per bottle
This deep-colored, full-flavored red wine, made from the Charbono grape, is highly reminiscent of a robust Barola from the Italian Piedmont.

1934 Inglenook, Napa Valley Cabernet, $1.39 per bottle
A full-flavored Claret, made from the true Cabernet grape of Bordeaux, long considered to produce America’s finest red wine.

Some 100 years after Inglenook was founded the estate created a Charbono Society.  At the first dinner held in December 1981 it was noted that there were only three other producers: Papagni Vineyards, Parducci Vineyards, and Souverain.  After a flight of recent vintages Inglenook reached deep producing bottles back to 1941.  The 1941 had “both elegance and flavor and a pleasant, almost cedar like, nose.”  The 1959 had “a marvelously developed bottle bouquet replete with complexity.  Its flavor was clearly evident and it was elegant, aged in a soft, generous, easy-to-drink style that was a light.”

I recently found myself down in McLean, Virginia so I stopped by Chain Bridge Cellars where I happened to spy the 2009 Calder Wine Company, Charbono.  At $30 per bottle I was exceeding my typical purchase price but I rarely come across bottles of Charbono.  Summers Estate Wines reports there are 80 acres planted in California.  I was fortunate to taste the 2009 Summers Estate Wines, Charbono last year which I found full of “old-school flavors.”   The bottle from Calder drank best on the second night.  It was an incredibly approachable wine being billowy, meaty, and earthy.  I did wish it had a bit more verve but the flavors were so different I kept thinking of 19th century California.


2009 Calder Wine Company, Charbono, Napa Valley – $30
This wine is 100% Charbono sourced from 40 year old vines.  Alcohol 13.1%.  There was a meaty nose which was somewhat deep.  The wine tasted old with distinctive flavors that were meaty and soft.  It was very approachable with a billowy start followed by a light body, very soft midpalate, and finally some structure in the aftertaste.  It seemed to have less acidity.  With air it became savory and took on an earthy finish and moderate structure.  *** Now-2016.


[0] Report of the Viticultural Work During the Seasons 1883-4 and 1884-5. 1886. URL:
[1] Annual Report of the Chief Executive Viticultural Officer.  1882.  URL:
[2] Date: Tuesday, October 31, 1882                   Paper: New York Tribune (New York, NY)   Page: 7
[3] Date: Saturday, May 12, 1883          Paper: Fresno Republican Weekly (Fresno, CA)   Page: 4
[4] Date: Saturday, October 6, 1883     Paper: Fresno Republican Weekly (Fresno, CA)   Page: 4
[5] Date: Wednesday, October 10, 1883             Paper: San Francisco Bulletin (San Francisco, CA)   Volume: LVII   Issue: 3   Page: 1
[6] Date: Saturday, September 7, 1901                Paper: Riverside Independent Enterprise (Riverside, CA)   Page: 5
[7] Annual Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners. 1881. URL:
[8] Second Annual Report of the Chief Executive Viticultural Officer.  1884. URL:
[9] Date: Sunday, June 15, 1941            Paper: Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)   Page: 2

The Consideration of the Calories and Alcohol Content of Wine in Treating Tuberculosis and Diabetes

January 15, 2014 Leave a comment



The two posts published today represent a brief look at the history of the consideration of calories in wine; a placeholder for future research.  They are also an opportunity to publish scientific charts related to wine which I always find interesting.  In my previous post The Calories in Wine as Part of Field Rations During World War I I briefly illustrated how caloric intake due to wine was studied as a part of army rations.  It was also studied with respect to medical conditions including diabetes and tuberculosis.  Frederick Forchheimer felt the high caloric content of alcohol made “it a valuable adjunct in the dietetic treatment.”[2]  In referencing von Noorden he writes, “it compensates the diabetic patient for other deprivations.”  Wine which were lower in carbohydrates thus low in sugar were preferable including Moselle, Rhine, and red wines.  Port, Madeira, and Tokay were expressly forbidden.

Percent Content of Alcohol [3]

Percent Content of Alcohol [3]

Georg Cornet wrote favorably of the use of alcohol as a drug.  He felt the positive effects included stimulating the appetite, hastening gastric digestion, helping the absorption of fats, stimulating the heart and the central nervous system.  Due to the potential for “terrible consequences” he advocated regulating the dose given to the patient.  A small glass of “strong southern wine” was recommended in the forenoon to stimulate the appetite.  This was followed by one or two glasses of light red or white wine both in the afternoon and evening.  It looking through various charts wines such as Port, Madeira, Malaga, and Sherry were often ranked towards the top in terms of alcohol by percent and calories.  However, Greek wines appear to be an exception with the potentially highest calorie value!

Alcoholic Beverages.  [4] Image from Google Books.

Alcoholic Beverages. [4] Image from Google Books.

[1] Forchheimer, Frederick.  The Prophylaxis and Treatment of Internal Disease.  1910.  URL:
[2] Forchheimer, Frederick.  Forchheimer’s Therapeusis of Internal Diseases, Volume 2. 1920. URL:
[3] Cornet, Georg. Tuberculosis and Acute General Military Tuberculosis. 1904. URL:
[4] Locke, Edwin Allen.  Food Values.  1920. URL:

The Calories in Wine as Part of Field Rations During World War I

January 15, 2014 1 comment


Today we may be focused on weight loss causing us to search for the number of calories in a glass of wine.   Nearly a century ago, the study of army rations shed light on the consideration of calories in wine. French, Italian, and Russian soldiers received wine as part of their rations during World War 1.  Not every country included wine in rations for the English soldiers might have received rum, the Spanish brandy, and the German brandy, wine, or beer.  Post-war studies tabulate the results as calories per daily ration and not as calories per glass of wine.  Thus the French Normal ration included 250 mL of wine equal to 212 calories or 5.9% of total caloric intake, the French Strong ration included 375 mL of wine equal to 320 calories or 8.0% of total caloric intake, and the Italian Combating ration included 179 calories worth of wine or 5.4% of total caloric intake.[1]  From another source the pre-WWI Russian Peace ration included 3 oz. of wine equal to 223 calories or 3.8%-5.0% of total caloric intake and the Russian War ration included 4.3 oz. of wine equal to 362 calories or 7.9% – 10.9% of total caloric intake.[2]


The volumes of wine for the Russian Peace and War rations are clearly incorrect.  It appears that many studies of army rations are based on the work of Charles Woodruff who stated that the Russians received wine.[3]  It is impossible for 4.3 oz or 127 mL of wine to provide 362 calories and it is more likely that instead of wine he meant spirits.  If we calculate the Alcohol By Volume for the French Strong ration there would need to be 15.6% ABV to obtain 320 calories from 375 mL of completely dry wine.  That seems incredibly high for the period.  If we allow for a generous 13% ABV and 10 g/L of sugar then we only obtain 282 calories from 375 mL of wine.  The implication is that the wine would have been fortified and perhaps contain some residual sugar.  So the next time you count calories from the glasses of wine you drink at dinner recall that it was once an essential part of a soldier’s diet.


[1] Funk, Elmer H. “Disorder of Nutrition and Metabolism” Progressive Medicine.  1920. URL:
[2] Thompson, William Gilman.  Practical Dietetics, with Special Reference to Diet in Disease. 1902. URL:
[3] Woodruff, Charles E. “The United States and Foreign Army Rations Compared” Medical Record, Volume 55.  May 20, 1899. URL:
[4] Fitch, William Edward.  Dietotherapy, Volume 2. 1922. URL:

Hanging Out In Lou’s Tasting Room

January 14, 2014 Leave a comment

This past Sunday afternoon Lou and I gathered in his tasting room just outside of his wine cellar.  There was no particular theme for the afternoon but I did think the mini-flight of 2002 Auslese would be good fun for him.  So I brown bagged those three half-bottles.  We started with the 2012 Hermann, J. Wiemer, Riesling Dry to acclimate our palates.  Lou had recently enjoyed a glass while dining out so a bottle naturally found its way into his cellar.  This was a well-made distinctive Riesling.  I lost the battle drawing the cork from the 2002 Emrich-Schönleber, Monzinger Halenberg, Riesling Auslese.  I had to dig it out with the screw and after clearing a passage for the wine a large chunk of cork remained impossibly bonded to the inside of the neck, it had never budged despite my heavy-handed approach.  The wine itself was full of cider flavor showing old notes beyond full maturity that were a little off-putting for me.  Much better and in retrospect clearly Scheurebe (or should I write not Riesling) was the 2002 Weingut Ed. Weegmüller, Haardter Mandelring, Scheurebe Auslese.  Lively, viscous, complex, and still on the upslope.  Definitely worth buying.  The 2002 Weingut Ed. Weegmüller, Haardter Herzog, Riesling Auslese was really good too.  There was a tension between youth and maturity with Lou particularly liking the tart finish.  This was less overt the the Scheurebe, taking more time to open up and actually drank well on the second night.

Our switch to red wine was foiled by a badly corked half-bottle of 1998 Brigaldara, Amarone dell Valpolicella Classico.  Shame.  Fortunately the 2005 Pax, Syrah, Castelli-Knight Ranch was coming into its own in the decanter.  It always sported a great nose but at first the flavors were a touch austere but this perfectly matched the black fruit and drying tannins.  Jenn and I tried it again several hours later when it had come together by taking on a little flesh and a racy quality.  I think this should be cellared more.  What I particularly liked about all of the wines we tried is that they each presented aromas and flavors I do not encounter on a daily basis.  Curious wines for a Sunday afternoon!


2012 Hermann, J. Wiemer, Riesling, Dry, Finger Lakes
This wine is 100% Riesling.  Alcohol 12%.  There was moderate, lively ripeness to the flavors with notes of stones.  Clearly new world it remained lively on the tongue.  There were chalk notes and a refreshing aftertaste.  On its own the touch of sweetness to the fruit is evident as well as grapefruit notes.  ** Now-2015.


2002 Emrich-Schönleber, Monzinger Halenberg, Riesling Auslese, Nahe – $25 (375 mL)
Imported by Chapin Cellars.  Alcohol 9.5%.  The color was a medium amber.  The nose bore older aromas, cider, and hints of plain oldness.  In the mouth there were definite flavors of apple cider.  Due to less viscosity and residual sugar the acidity showed better.  Rather advanced and not too exciting.  * Now.


2002 Weingut Ed. Weegmüller, Haardter Mandelring, Scheurebe Auslese, Pflaz – $29 (375 mL)
Imported by Terry Theise.  Alcohol 9%.  The color was a medium to dark lively yellow.  There was a good nose of peach and nectarine with fresh aromas.  In the mouth were stone fruits marmalade, viscosity, and some grip.  The acidity was balanced and integrated.  Towards the finish the wine became fresh with levity, complexity and gentleness.  On the second night there was a bit more apricot note, good weight, and a touch of salty flavor.  This is drinking well nose.  ****  Now-2024.


2002 Weingut Ed. Weegmüller, Haardter Herzog, Riesling Auslese, Pfalz – $28 (375 mL)
Imported by Terry Theise.  Alcohol 8%.  This was amber in color and actually the darkness.  There was a very aromatic nose of marmalade.  In the mouth there was brighter acidity, a little wood note, and mature flavors.  It still had some freshness of youth.  There was some residual sugar with good viscosity.  It was tart in the finish with a tangy aftertaste.  A nice wine.  **** Now-2020.


2005 Pax, Syrah, Castelli-Knight Ranch, Russian River Valley
Alcohol 14.9%.  There was a good nose with fresh smoke aromas.  The wine had a salty entry with pencil lead mixing with black fruit and drying tannins.  It was a little austere at first but I thought this matched the black fruit and tannins.  There was a core of dried herbs and a little liquor heat in the finish.  With air the stones and watering acidity was matched by more flesh and a racy component.  ***(*) Now-2020.