Unfortunately there wasn't a lot on the list that sounded good, but after much discussion, we ended up ordering a bottle of the Achaval Ferrer Malbec. The last few times I've had malbec it has not been good (o.k., outside of the amazing stuff I tried at Paul Hobbs). I get the feeling that it's become a bit too popular too fast, and thus over planted. However, I'd never tried this particular malbec and it wasn't too pricey, so I figured why not. I don't think the bottle was bad, but the nose seemed to indicate otherwise and there was little flavor but tannins and acid in the glass. Over the course of the evening, the tannins mellowed a bit and I could get some berry goodness, but it was limited.
I came home tonight to look up the wine and found that Robert Parker had given the 2006 a 92 and Wine Spectator had given the wine a 91 (we drank the 2007). I sure hope that I was mistaken and that we got a bad bottle.
Then again, it goes to show that every palette is different and what may move the Wine Spectator and Robert Parker may not move me (or you) - even if they are the experts. Wine is a subjective taste in the best way possible so don't believe you like something because someone (like me) tells you you're supposed to. Like what you like and drink what you like (unless it's white zin in which we need to have a talk).
Until the next bottle is uncorked -- Cheers,