Enjoyed dinner with friends last evening at a local Dallas restaurant.

The first bottle we had was a 2000 Keegan, Russian River. This was an excellant wine, very full, Burgundian basically, rich mouthfeel, lightly oaked, wonderful aroma. This is one I would certainly consider adding to my celllar.

The second bottle was a 2000 Ramey, also Russian River. We were not very impressed with this wine. It bordered on tart, limited on any special aromas, not on par with the Keegan at all. One of my guests even left his glass partially full.

Regretably there was only one bottle of the Keegan in the house.

Really? I really liked the 1999 Ramey (92, I think). But, it's the 2000 so...

Yes, Ramey was a disappointment. WS had it as an 88. I'd say that is high.

My first experience with either of these wines, but I was veryu surprized by the Ramey.

As we are all painfully aware, 2000 is an inconsistent vintage. I would agree that Ramey was one of those wines that showed slippage in 2000. But I thought the 88 rating was fair. The Carneros bottling showed a little better, I thought. I haven't tried the 2000 Hyde or Hudson yet, but FWIW, the '99 Hyde was one of my favorite wines of last year. Unfortunately, I have none left.