| Notes: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ] [ 20 ] [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 24 ] [ 25 ] [ 26 ] [ 27 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] [ 30 ] [ 31 ] [ 32 ] [ 33 ] [ 34 ] [ 35 ] [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] [ 41 ] [ 42 ] [ 43 ] [ 44 ] [ 45 ] [ 46 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ] [ 59 ] [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 63 ] [ 64 ] [ 65 ] [ 66 ] [ 67 ] [ 68 ] [ 69 ] [ 70 ] [ 71 ] [ 72 ] [ 73 ] [ 74 ] [ 75 ] [ 76 ] [ 77 ] [ 78 ] [ 79 ] [ 80 ] [ 81 ] [ 82 ] [ 83 ] [ 84 ] [ 85 ] [ 86 ] [ 87 ] [ 88 ] [ 89 ] [ 90 ] [ 91 ] [ 92 ] [ 93 ] [ 94 ] [ 95 ] [ 96 ] [ 97 ] [ 98 ] [ 99 ] [ 100 ] [ 101 ] [ 102 ] [ 103 ] [ 104 ] [ 105 ] [ 106 ] [ 107 ] [ 108 ] [ 109 ] [ 110 ] [ 111 ] [ 112 ] [ 113 ] [ 114 ] [ 115 ] [ 116 ] [ 117 ] |
VINTAGE TASTINGS - Roaring Twenties6/10/2009 12:00:00 AM I interrupt my recent trip to Hong Kong for an article I started writing before I left, one that I finally finished on my way back. I still do have one article left from HK in order to wrap things up for Book 2, Chapter 4 of Hong Kong Diaries, 2009. I will try to get to that one soon, famous last words, I know. Before I get started, I have to make a correction relative to a previous article recently written. I had mentioned the Roumier and Ponnelle connection, and that Georges Roumier had at some time made the wines for Ponnelle in the 40s or 50s. I was corrected by a close friend of Christophe Roumier’s who told me that Georges never made the wines for Ponnelle, and that they were made by Christophe’s other grandfather as his mother is a Ponnelle. I also have to give a little grief to the Big Ticket for hosting a great 1998 Bordeaux tasting on the same night as my Roaring Twenties dinner, and only giving everyone like three day’s notice. I would have loved to be there, big guy. I think he said the Chateau Camensac was wine of the night lol. Ok, now to our featured program, the Wine Workshop’s recent dinner at CRU, featuring a baker’s dozen of Bordeaux from the 1920s. The food was incredible as always. As fate would have it, there were a few more wines to be had, but we’ll get to that later. When it comes to claret and the 20th century, the ‘20s can certainly lay claim to ‘top decade’…as could the 40s, 50s, 80s and honorable mention to the 90s, but let’s get back to the 20s. The first flight was a pair of wines from a vintage I don’t think I have ever sampled, 1920. When planning this event, I was surprised to find out this was a highly-regarded vintage, one known for its acidity. You just never see wines from this vintage, and the two that we sourced were kind of random, the first being a 1920 Chateau Cantemerle. The nose was great, and the wine was still fresh. Cedar, horseradish, tangy citrus and dust bowls swirled around its nose. Its nose’s greatness was seconded by many, and a kiss of woodsy rainbow rounded out the aromas. The palate was round and soft, with nice citrus and wood flavors. ‘Still hangin’ on after all these years,’ I wrote. Someone observed ‘rose garden.’ DC Don then gushed, ‘this is like having sex with a 90 year-old,’ to which I replied, ‘I’ll take your word on that’ (90). A 1920 Baret was muddier in color, but still solid. Curious George noted ‘VA on the nose,’ meaning volatile acidity. George is definitely curious, as his love for wine takes him anywhere, anyplace he can, and he would rather try something new like these pair of 20s than things he has had two dozen times. Those who need a further clue about George think Bacchus plus Commanderie plus one of the great collections in America. Back to the, um, what’s it called, right, the Baret. Ed noted ‘vegemite,’ and there was a kiss of oxidation, but the wine wasn’t oxidized; it was the VA that George observed. The nose was open, musky and gamy, and it tasted fresh due to the high acidity. There were nice lemony flavors with pleasant dust and spice. George called the pair ‘amazing for two unclassified wines.’ Holly noted ‘morels, when you hang them up to dry for a while.’ The Cantemerle was definitely the favorite of the group, but the Baret was still solid and enjoyable (88). The 1921 Ducru Beaucaillou had this earthy, natural gas kick, almost like popcorn. George noted, ‘aluminum shavings and green olives.’ It was very toasty with a mellow palate, soft and easy, with a mercury-like flavor on the finish, along the lines of the aluminum to which George was referring. It mellowed with air and wasn’t as toasty in time. There were smooth, green olive flavors with kisses of horseradish and citrus, and then it got this great grilled endive quality (91). The 1924 Beychevelle was unfortunately corked, but its texture was the best of the first four. The flavors behind the corked quality were great; its fruit was deeper with nice cassis and flesh, as well as great balance (93A). We kept progressing in time, stopping two years later with a 1926 La Mission Haut Brion. Its nose was port city, like claret meets port. Ed noted ‘celery salt,’ and someone else noted ‘vegetable juice.’ It had aromas of earth, mushroom and truffle oil. The palate was round, soft and supple with a lemony squirt and beefy flavors, flirting with bouillon. The La Miss opened and gained with time, and while a couple wrote it off immediately due to its porty nature, I found it to be excellent (93). We had a couple of backup bottles on hand, just in case, so I felt like breaking one out to make up for the corked Beychevelle in the second flight. I can’t help myself when it comes to extra unopened bottles lying around, you know. We happened to have a 1924, too, a 1924 Sarget de Gruaud Larose. This was the second label of Gruaud, but it showed like the first. The label was scratched out and illegible, so maybe it was the Gruaud, after all. It came from the Graham Lyons cellar, and the neck tag insisted Sarget, so we will trust his impeccable records. Holly noted ‘nice structure,’ and the Curious one ‘pure definition.’ It had a classic nose full of cedar, cassis, leather and dust, and its palate was classic as well. Its palate was smooth, so elegant and refined, but it still had vim and zip, buttressed by cedar flavors. The Sarget was very stylish, like Brooke Astor with the memory (93). The 1928 Brane Cantenac was our first reconditioned bottle of the evening, but still had a complex nose with hints of anise, cassis and nut, an almond with the skin thing. Someone noted, ‘diaper.’ It was a touch metallic in the mouth at first, with some dirty water flavors, but it still came across fresh. The nose opened to the pruney side, like raisins soaking in a jar. The palate stayed (91). The 1928 Cos d’Estournel had a dirty nose with a touch of vegetable at first. Then it blossomed into a nice peanut character with hints of wax. Its flavors were the best of the night so far; great and classic in every way. Nut, interior, stone wall, caramel, ‘quince and persimmon’ (had to be George) were all there, and someone found it ‘fleshy like a marbled steak.’ This is what one expects out of a ’28; rich, balanced and long, it had all the components. This was one situation where ‘fat’ and ‘gains weight’ were compliments for this lingering and superb Cos (95). Someone found the 1928 Montrose to ‘smell like Venice.’ It was earthy and full of hay, but also perfumed, reticent compared to the others. DC Don noted, ‘fonde duc, those Moroccan courtyards where they have the tanneries and hash.’ That must have been where he met that 90 year-old lol. Mike noted ‘cigar box,’ and its structure came out more with time, as did its fruit, revealing nice red cherry flavors along with great dust and length. The minerally, edgy finish had definition and true grit to it, but this was not the best bottle of this wine that I have ever had. It did continue to grow on me, however (94+). When comparing the two St. Estephes, Holly noted that the Montrose spilled off the side of your tongue while the Cos was more upfront with its spicy and fleshy character. The 1928 Clos Fourtet was also reconditioned, and it had forward red fruit oil aromas along with band-aids, chocolate and earth. The palate was rich and lush, hearty and with lots of acid; the motor was definitely ‘souped up.’ Someone else noted the new motor thing happening, and added ‘with the grease seepin’ out.’ Flavors of wintergreen and nice earth were present on its finish, and the sweetness in its nose became more concentrated. This was long and sexy juice, a good job on the con, I mean recon :) (93). A rare 1928 L’Evangile had everyone serious for a Seoul second. George noted ‘liquid chocolate’ right away. This was forward, sexy stuff, super sticky, gamy, edgy and oily. The palate was rich and gamy with this rusty edge that somehow lacked rust. I noted tangy taffy flavors, Hilt did ‘brown sugar and peach cobblers,’ and the Scruffy Neurologist added ‘cinnamon butter toast.’ There was a lot going on, and a lot of sweet, complex fruit in this Evangile. Rich, long and leathery, I liked its vim but found it ultimately short of outstanding (94). The 1928 Cheval Blanc was my favorite nose of the evening by far. Mike noted, ‘burnt rubber,’ while George ‘roasted coffee.’ George pulled the Jedi Wine trick as everyone was repeating roasted coffee almost immediately. He is a jedi, of course, so that makes that ok. The Cheval was rich and delicious with nutty and caramel flavors that lasted longly, longingly and longestly. Holly hailed it as ‘NAMMERS,’ aka indescribably delicious. It’s a down south thing, I think. George had ‘melted silk’ in his mouth, and those were not panties, I swear. He continued how the Cheval ‘clinged to all the nooks and crannies in your mouth.’ Bill hailed it as ‘a warm embrace, not a taste but a feeling.’ I gently asked him to take his head off my shoulders, and quickly moved on to find great definition; it was so long and so balanced, yet light on its feet, but rich in its flavors and still endless on its finish. George officially felt encouraged after such a special bottle (97). A pair of ‘29s marked the last flight, beginning with the 1929 La Lagune, a bottle that was reconditioned in November of 2008. ‘Minty’ and ‘strawberry’ came from the crowd. It was a little horsey, a little gamy and a little zippy. There was a little candy store in this rich wine. There was this exotic, woodsy edge, almost like gingerbread meets teriyaki. The wine was very good, but it was a bit ‘clinical,’ as one put it, a la hospital, a function of its doctored nature, of course (92). The last wine of our official program was a glorious bottle of 1929 Margaux, a bottle that would leave us thankful for curiosity, and continue to condition us to love those things original. David observed ‘French polish’ of antique furniture in the nose, and it was there along with mint, caraway, julep and wild field full of dandelion. The wine was incredibly sensual, caressing in its personality and fresh in its nature. George commented, ‘so Margaux, with its hint of violets.’ It was lush with great, tender fruit, and a tea-like complexity developed. It was only fitting that the one bottle from George’s cellar rounded out the night in fine fashion (95). But the night was not over yet… Upstairs, Big Mike had gathered with a small group of friends and family celebrating his run for governor in 2010. Either that, or he got a new puppy, I can’t remember exactly, but it was cause for celebration, and Big Boy, Airplane Eddie, Neal Diamonds, Sir Robert Bohr and others were present already, and I slipped upstairs with a bottle of 1928 Pichon Lalande, my extra backup bottle even though there was no need for it downstairs. I passed out Pichon with political fervor, making sure everyone I knew got a taste and then some. The Pichon was in a perfect spot, beautiful and graceful, timeless yet coming into its time both at once. Elegance and style married like its cassis and pencil, and its tender, sweet finish left me yearning for more (95). Dueling jeros were next; jeros of 1971 DRC Grands Echezeaux and 1971 DRC Richebourg. Like whoaaaaa. They were both fantastic bottles, and on this night, I gave the slightest of edges to the Grands Echezeaux, and Air Jordan, the Duchess of Bohr, agreed with me. They both were long and rich; both full of tar, rose and leather; both menthol on skates…but the Grands Ech had more power and stuffing. Obviously, this is not a universal occurrence when these two are served together, especially jeros, which probably have been served together maybe once, twice, three times a lady in the course of history? Who knows, could it have been the first time ever? History check, please. Airplane Eddie found the Richebourg ‘cleaner.’ I found it (95J) and the Grands Ech (96J). There were two magnums of 1999 Roulot Meursault Perrieres served, and I got to try from both. The first was decanted two hours prior and was quite clean with yellow fruits and light toast (93M), while the second one, opened much more recently, had more character. It was richer, larger and a butter bomb in that elegant Burgundy way. I guess time doesn’t always do a white Burgundy good (94M). A jero of 1988 Bollinger RD was very good; lemony, bready, yeasty, zesty, zippy and clean, it was nice but a touch simple as RD’s can be (92J). There was some Giacosa wine served at the end, and it was outstanding stuff, but I didn’t quite write down the right stuff enough. I will dig further, and save those notes for when I can identify the Unidentifiable Giacosa Object. For now, it goes into the bucket with the hundreds of other nights, the ‘never got written’ bin, the ‘put me in coach’ basin, the ‘if only writing this stuff created income’ box lol. The great thing about Bordeaux is its age-ability and the fact that it is about the only thing left from the ‘20s that can still roar. This night was a true testament to the ‘tough as nails’ x-factor that makes Bordeaux so great, and cheers to Big Mike for providing the hammer to close out this magical evening in the finest of fashions. FIN JK
back to top VINTAGE TASTINGS - Hong Kong Diaries 2009, BYO5/29/2009 12:00:00 AM Last night saw sixty of Hong Kong’s finest collectors gather in a celebration of fine and rare wines, BYO style. This was a first for most of the guests and a new concept; one could tell that everyone wasn’t really sure what to expect at first, but once everyone settled in and got some ground rules, a great time and some great wines were had by all. The rules for a good BYO are simple: 1) get a list of what everyone is bringing in advance; 2) seat everyone together based on said wines; 3) encourage everyone to pour out half of their bottle at their table and then trade with other tables the rest of the bottle; 4) remind everyone not to grab other people’s bottles without asking :) I found myself surrounded by some of the world’s greatest wines early on, and made sure I got to know them before sampling some of the rest of the room’s selections. I also made sure to make my rounds of giving before I made my rounds of receiving, always a good BYO host rule of thumb. The night got off to a great start with a 1986 DRC Montrachet. What was even more special is that it came from a parcel of ten cases purchased twenty years ago! About five are left. Taiwan was in the house, and many thanks to my good friend for his generosity, and everyone’s for that matter. The nose was fabulous in an ’86 way – sweet and buttery with lots of wild corn and clear botrytis. There was a little waterfall edge and a touch of benevolent alley. Its flavors were similar, adding some light cement and a bit of butter that has been out on a hot summer day all afternoon. Kisses of caramel rounded out the flavor profile along with game and candle wax, and the acidity was superb and the best ’86 impression that I have had in a while. It is always a good thing to have those unmoved, purchased upon release bottles (95). The only other white at my table was a 1992 Ramonet Batard Montrachet. While 1992 is a vintage that is starting to pass its prime for many white Burgundies, this Ramonet was still far from maturity. I don’t know what he did in 1992 that makes his wines stand out so much from the rest of the pack (with Leflaive right behind it), but the acidity in the 1992 Batard was mind-blowing. It was as fresh as fresh can be, taut, minerally and zippy with incredible white fruit flavors and an endless finish. Smoke and minerals were everywhere; this was a fiery wine that could burn down any wine lover’s palate (95+). A rare 1961 Latour Haut Brion was excellent, full of gravel, smoke, slate and dirt, slowly revealing a bit of a BBQ edge. There was lots of cement to the palate, and black fruits emerged in time. Samantha noted ‘hickory,’ and someone else ‘high acidity.’ There were still lots of tannins and life left in this ’61 (93). That red was a warm-up, as we got very serious, very quickly, beginning with the 1989 Petrus. A 1990 would follow, as would a 1990 Le Pin. Now that’s a flight! The ’89 was spectacular and the wine of the night. It had a big, bold nose with lots of t ‘n a, chocolate, earth and black and purple fruits. It was so thick yet so fine. The palate was insanely good, so chocolaty and thick, absolutely delicious. Hendra also commented, ‘more chocolaty and hot.’ This is a staggering wine and a great time to be buying it since the price has practically dropped in half over the past year (99). I know that the 1989 versus 1990 Petrus is supposed to be a great debate, but to be honest, it isn’t even close. The 1990 Petrus was still an outstanding wine, but the ’89 has just clearly distanced itself from the ’90. The ’90 was minty with a fleshier nose, possessing more red fruits and green olives. It was a bit milkshaky, with secondary aromas of grain and bran. Its flavors were more yeasty, and the palate was still long and elegant, but it left a little sister impression after the 1989 (95). The 1990 Le Pin was very fragrant in an aggressive way. Aromas of green bean combined with wild, exotic tropical fruits into a unique and ‘sexy’ style. The palate was very shut down at the moment for me, and although it rounded out, it left me with a mellow, soft, tender and easy impression, which was not the case the last time I had this wine late last year, when I rated it 96 points. This bottle needed more time, and will surely get better (94+). The 1982 Lafleur had a rich, creamy and sexy nose in that kinky Lafleur way. Aromas of coconut, green olives and a rainbow of black, purple and red fruits rounded out the nose, although there was more structure here than other memories that I have of this wine, which can often be super fleshy and wide open. This one still had a long way to go. Hendra hailed it as ‘all seasons – any place, any time’ (97). The last couple of bottles I had at my table were Burgundies, beginning with a 1999 DRC Richebourg. 1999 plus DRC always equals greatness. Aubert de Villaine and company really hit the bullseye in 1999. The Richebourg’s nose was fleshy, young and zippy, full of violets, lavender and minerals with the encrusted diamonds. The nose was super sexy, oily and ‘just like the 1990,’ per one who would know. The 1990 has a little more power at this stage I think, but the 1999 is even more seductive (97). Last but not least before I ventured out into the room to receive was a 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes. The Ponsot was a bit milky and yeasty at first, but it blew off into a powerful concoction of menthol, oil, black fruits and yeast without the milk. Its flavors were distinctively black; olives and fruits. It left a midnight impression, lingering on its long and thick finish, which was both slaty and edgy. Concentration was king for this 1990 (97). The rest of the night was a bit of rapid fire, but all friendly fire thankfully. Forgive the lack of notes, but with a tasting in three hours and the seating for tomorrow’s auction still to be finished, I will have to defer my observations until the next article – I will get to them, I promise! It will be a few paragraphs of recapping, as snapshots were really all that could be taken at this time. Look for a more detailed recap of the rest of the wines in my next article. For now, the scores… 1989 Cheval Blanc (94) The great thing about a BYO is the diversity of wines and the sheer spontaneity of it all. It was a great assortment of great wines, and most importantly, a great mix of people. I look forward to the next one! FIN JK Greetings from Hong Kong. I have been here already for two nights, and it has been non-stop upon my arrival. I still haven’t quite learned how to overcome my jet lag that quickly, but the energy of HK is about as good a remedy as one can find. The city is buzzing and alive, and I can feel the wine power! We are expecting close to 300 people yet again this Saturday for the auction, and I am excited for another active day on the sales floor. But first, we drink. The passion for wine here is second to none, and I started with an intimate dinner Tuesday night hosted by my friend Peter. Everything comes down to mathematics, and the equation for this past Tuesday was four wines, nine bottles, nine people and eleven courses. There were multiple bottles (and one magnum) of each wine, as quantity is as important as quality for many here. The meal was a very traditional Chinese one, and a special one, so I will make some rare food notes here as well at the end. We started with three bottles of 1996 Krug and many toasts. The Krug was outstanding as usual, more balanced and fat than some recent memories. There was great toast to it and a creamy, uplifting personality. Extremely complex, the 1996 Krug is one to bank on for the next century (96). A magnum of 2001 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne was excellent, buttery and smoky with its aromas, smooth and sexy in its personality. Rich, lush yet tender, the palate had medium-weight and nice butter and waterfall flavors. Its finish was round and sensual, and it was quite enjoyable (93M). There were two bottles of 1982 La Mission Haut Brion, and they were both classic. The first thing I noticed was the minerality and musk on top of its pungent core of claret. It had great smoke, smokehouse and even a little barbecue to it, with strong cassis elements underneath. The palate was full of iron and band-aid flavors, wrapped around a great plum core. The acidity was superb, so long and fine, zipping and zapping its way down my hatch. It had that great Graves flavor, that smoke and gravel, and these were perfect bottles, with the structure of the vintage coming first, but the fruit still packed in there. Vincent admired its balance. Both bottles were still very young (97). There were three bottles of 1989 Lafleur, and I took notes bottle by bottle for academic purposes, of course. The 1989 remains one of my favorite Lafleurs…ever. These were no exception. The first bottle was wound and classic, with someone noting ‘raspberry cheesecake.’ There was some iron green goodness here, but it was a bit closed. The second bottle was more expressive, with still black as night fruit, forest, minerals, tannins, alcohol and long acid. It was big and brawny but agile on its finish, tea-like with its tannins and true grit personified. Flavors of plum, black fruits, spice and forest lingered on this fine, long wine. The third bottle was the most impressive, possessing the most power. These all came from the same case, mind you. It was almost a mix of the first two, but its tannins and alcohol were monumental. ‘Rich, rich, lush, lush…wow’ summed it up. My ratings varied from 95+, 96 to 98 points in that order, with the third bottle being the 98 (95-98). A bit about the food, which was one of my most memorable meals in Hong Kong so far. We started with boneless barbecued pork, which is about as addictive as meat can get. I could have eaten a bucket of it! So delicious! The next course was my first Conch, and I was advised to eat it quickly while it is warm, before it gets too rubbery. Conch is very rare and difficult to come by, and it was an experience. The third course was a massive prawn, one of the best I have ever had, crunchy and meaty, just perfect. We were onto my first fried shark fin, another first for me, fried with some vegetables and/or noodles and another absolutely addictive dish. The abalone was another first for me, and not really my cup of tea, made with a brown, gravy-like sauce that would also have gone well with beef. Apparently people risk their lives to get the abalone, so I tried it :) . The truffle consomme that followed was out of this world good. That is what I want for lunch all winter. A steamed yellow grouper was about as fresh as fish can be, and then the Chinese monk’s duck made with eight different accompaniments had me converting. By now, I was starting to sink into my chair, and after the crispy egg noodle with shredded chicken and sautéed rice noodle with shredded beef, I had to raise the flag. That beef dish was another one I could just eat day after day and never get bored of. Unbelievably great! We ended with the Ching Dynasty Imperial soup, a rare dessert for me, but this was one meal where I would not let a course pass me by. This was a special meal, and the quality of the food was certainly a match for the wines. Wednesday night would be one devoted to Musigny; there is Burgundy alive and well in Hong Kong, too! That news will be fit to print tomorrow. FIN JK
My second night in Hong Kong was devoted to Musigny, thanks to an anonymous and most generous benefactor. Yes, Burgundy is alive and well in Hong Kong, and I couldn’t think of a better terroir to prove that point. We started with a Champagne and a white before getting into the main event, the Champagne being a 1982 Salon. The Salon had a yeasty nose that was big, rich and bready. It was very fragrant, tangy yet complex. The palate was oily and meaty, almost beefy, big and citrusy with outstanding acidity. Tangy, zippy and gamy, the ’82 was rich and tasty with vanilla cream flavors. At the end of the night, the Salon was still strong, losing its bubbles but becoming decadently delicious and still great (95). The 2004 Raveneau Chablis Montee de Tonnerre was very open, with a minty and anise-y centerpoint, while Kris observed ‘white lychee and pear.’ Round, minty and delicious, the palate had a nice, feminine side to its acidity. Someone noted ‘sweet and sour apple,’ and another its ‘fresh, good structure.’ Premier Cru Chablis’ are great values – oops, put that cat back in the bag (93). On to the Moose…we started with a flight of ‘young’ wines, its starting point being a pair of 1993s. A 1993 Drouhin Musigny was one of the best bottles of this I have had. I looked up two prior bottles and found that I rated them each 92 points, but this one was significantly better. Yeast was the first thing I noticed, but it quickly blew off into the classic underbrush of 1993. Black fruits, a great nut glaze and excellent sun-baked earth rounded out the nose. Richard admired ‘that ’93 tautness,’ and it was really driven by its mineral and earth qualities. It opened wonderfully and became more exotic with a stir-fried sweetness and actual fruit, holding its acidity for the entire evening. It all comes down to the bottle (94+). The 1993 Jadot Musigny had more hay in the nose and a bit of stinky barn and green pepper. There were also band-aids there, and good ‘catbox.’ The Jadot had a lot of power, noticeably so after the Drouhin. Some baked bread came out as well as gamy, black flavors and a lot of t ‘n a. Hendra also observed ‘more power,’ and Kris liked its ‘fleshy side of Musigny.’ It had a long, earthy finish, and the tannins and acid of the vintage showed their stuff there, coming out even more in the belly. There was more wood here, integrated yet big, as well as more animal (93). At first, Richard and I were admiring the 1990 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes and how it was one of the better bottles of this that we had both had. Hendra remarked how it was ‘always this way,’ but this bottle was not stewed or woodsy as others can be. It was zippy with Worcestershire aromas, a bit of celery salt and excellent t ‘n a. It had the best finish of the flight, and its acidity was noteworthy. It squared up a bit in the glass, however, and got more cedary, and the second impression was less than the first. Richard agreed. Its structure was still excellent, but this wine might continue to be a perplexing one for a while (93+). The second flight began with a rare 1989 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes. It had a minty nose, very forward with its wild fruits, olives and forest aromas. The palate was rich and its acidity long, with that gamy ’89, rich, ripe style. Tasty and balanced, there were significant earth and iron flavors to go with some autumnal and forest floor ones. Kris said it ‘sparkled,’ and it was fresh on its feet, dancing in the mouth. It didn’t get any better in the glass, but it was on a couple of people’s ‘top three’ wines for the night (94). The next wine was one of my two wines of the night, a 1988 Roumier Musigny. Richard noted ‘a little more substance and linearity.’ Its nose was deep personified, or winified, I suppose. There was great perfume and breed to its sexy and unraveling nose. There was cedar, forest and a pinch of menthol. Its flavors were also deep, just singing, rippling with minerals and acidity on its thick finish. There was actually fruit here for this ’88, which is not often the case in this tannic vintage, and there was enough fruit to stand up to the tannins. Red fruits emerged, and its woodsy complexity was just right, creeping in with time (96). The 1985 Drouhin Musigny was again a better bottle than the last time I had this wine just three months ago. What’s up with Drouhin showing better in Hong Kong? Maybe it likes the humidity here. It was the most open of this flight, in ’85 fashion, sweet and gamy and full of Pinot fruit. Caramel kisses and damp earth rounded out its nutty nose. Paul agreed this was a better bottle than the one he had recently as well; in fact, I think it was the same bottle we shared in New York, or same batch. This bottle was in a perfect spot and still ascending (95). We then took it way back in time with an outstanding 1952 Bichot Musigny. At first, it was a bit gassy in the nose, with a touch of toilet in there, but it opened quickly into wheat, grass and herbs. The palate was delicious and way ahead of the nose with its nutty, oily texture. It was also rich and chocolaty, possibly a bit adulterated but so good, who cares? There was this vanilla ice cream deliciousness, and one said he heard rumors that Bichot bought their Musigny from Vogue during this period. It kept flirting so much with outstanding, I finally gave it to it (95). A 1952 Remoissenet Musigny had green fruit in a fresh way and a nutty nose. The palate was more milky with some red fruit there, and a sweet flash in a tree bark, cedar and herbal direction. It was simpler but still good (90). Unfortunately, the last wine in this flight was an oxidized 1952 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes (DQ). The next pair more than made up for it, beginning with a 1949 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny. It was many people’s wine of the night. Richard crowned it ‘amazing’ right away, and its nose was indubitably great, pungent and with aromas of olives, citrus, rich black and red fruits, cola and cream soda. The palate seemed rich for ’49 but was still elegant on its finish. There were great flavors of sweet plum and purple. There was more posture and style versus the ’47 that would follow, and it got more mentholated in the glass (96). The 1947 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny was ‘porty’ to one and ‘very sweet’ to another. It was definitely keeping with the hot style of 1947 with its sweetness, as 1947 was one of the hottest years ever on record in the 20th century in Burgundy, I believe. The nose was again great, full of sweet cream and touches of earth and citrus. The palate was lush and earthy, still zippy, concentrated with sweet purple flavors and great spice. It was so sweet that it seemed almost chapitalized, a bit negociant in personality. I am not sure if these were negociant bottles or not. While the ’49 was more demure and distinguished, one couldn’t help but like the ’47 and its skinny dipping personality (94). It was a grand finale to a monumental evening of Musigny. The Roumier and ’49 Liger-Belair were on the top of most people’s lists, but the Bichot definitely got a lot of consideration, too. There were a few honorable mentions for the Mugnier and ’85 Drouhin as well. It is good to see Burgundy alive and well in Hong Kong. Thursday night would be our first BYO dinner in HK, and I would have 35 notes before all was said and through, including many Burgundies, although Bordeaux did dominate the landscape provided by the 60 guests. About nine of the wines took me two hours to enjoy, and then the rest in a blitz at the end. Stay tuned! FIN JK Recently and on separate occasions, I had the good fortune of experiencing two of Bordeaux’s most heralded vintages in the past twenty-five years, 1986 and 2005. First, let’s talk about 1986. One recollected how originally 1986 was in the shadow of 1985; the wines were hard, and Broadbent gave ’86 four stars after ‘85’s five. 1986 Bordeaux have proven to be long-distance runners, although detractors will say that they will always be too hard and never come around, that there isn’t enough fruit to integrate with the tannins. Let’s see what the wines had to say. The ‘warm-up’ was a 1986 Meyney. The Meyney had a nice nose, with aromas of green bean, carob, hay and a little benevolent animal. Its profile was dark and nutty overall. The palate was round, also nutty and also with carob flavors, possessing nice spice and still flashy on its finish – I did notice some heat. There were a touch of bitters to its flavors, along with earth and slate on its finish. I liked it overall, even though it fell a step out of balance with time. It was soft and tender, tasty stuff that everyone was loving. Someone remarked it was ‘spiny, with a touch of wood and a surprising amount of legs.’ It was a good show for this good value (90). A flight of two Pomerols was next, beginning with the 1986 Lafleur. The Lafleur had a kinky and sexy nose, that tutti-frutti side of Lafleur that comes out more in certain vintages. Aromas of sweet grape, game, musk, white chocolate and a hint of caraway were all present. The palate was big and thick with rocky and black fruit flavors, unraveling with slow and squeezing tannins. A hint of motor oil and prune rounded out this delicious boa constrictor of a wine, and there was enough acidity to match (95). The 1986 Trotanoy was not a match for the Lafleur. It was gamy like the Lafleur, but more figgy. Aromas of carob, caramel and wild boar were followed by round, figgy flavors and a soft and smooth palate. There was nice slate and spice around its edges, and still a touch of heat like a fire that is starting to dwindle. It was pleasant and pleasing, and Julieanne liked the Trot ‘better now’ (91). The second flight led off with the 1986 Talbot. There were lots of green beans and olives in the nose, which was a bit waxy and spiny, though also clean. Some tickling crushed red fruits rounded out the nose, which also had a little bathwater edge to it. The palate was much more classic; it had sweet, tasty and nutty fruit and a spicy palate that had mineral, earth and game flavors. Sweet cassis, nut and caramel flavors were also there. It was thick in the mouth but balanced, classic and delicious despite a bit of awkwardness to its aromatics (93). The Talbot was followed by its sibling, the 1986 Gruaud Larose, which also had a bit of that bathwater to it at first. Someone hailed the nose ‘more voluptuous.’ The nose became perfumed and also developed aromas of cola, cherry and wool, and it left a clean and spiny impression. The palate had the minerals, earth, game, carob and cassis. It was smokier and bigger than the Talbot but still distinguished, stylish and long (94). The 1986 Leoville Las Cases had a big nose and was blacker and inkier. Its purple fruit was decadent and its musk great, and it also had a sexy vanilla quality to it. The palate was rich, long and thick with a nice finish that had lots of unfolding tannins. The palate was refined, and Julieanne called it ‘a nice package.’ It was (95). It was at this point that I wrote how the ‘86s were so polished and soft and that this was a vintage that seemed to be finally coming into its own. The ‘odd bull’ of the Left Bank was next, which was called odd due to its high concentration of Merlot. The 1986 Pichon Lalande had aromas of green bean, cleaner, roasted hazelnuts, roasted walnuts and pencil shavings. Its nose was meaty and musky, while its palate was pretty, soft, round, sensual, tender…just beautiful. There were classic flavors, and its elegance and style could not be denied. In the end, this was one of the group’s favorite wines (95). The 1986 Cos d’Estournel had much more peanut brittle in the nose, along with coffee, spice, candle wax and beef. The palate was nutty and quite gamy for a Left Banker, with a pinch of sugar dropped in. It was toasty up front, but waxy on its finish. Lots of minerals and cigar lingered, and it was hailed as ‘rich and dense’ (94). It was on to the final flight of three, beginning with the 1986 Margaux, which was extremely spiny and the most wound wine of the night. There were lots of spice, minerals, leather, iron and gyro beef aromas. The palate was again more polished than I expected, especially given the nose. Flavors of carob, spice, dust, earth, leather and waterfall were all present on the palate, but there was a hole in the middle of this wine, or at least this bottle, that held it back (94). The last Left Bank wine was its most renowned, the 1986 Mouton Rothschild. Its nose was deep and dark, a touch stinky and gamey with a strong whiff of wood and cedar. The palate was also deep, dark and black with oceans of cassis, cedar and minerals. Its finish was by far the longest of the night. This was the only bottle that had a bit of that theoretical 1986 squareness, the only one that still said, ‘give me more time,’ but there was no doubting its raw materials (96+). The last wine of this fascinating retrospective was the 1986 Cheval Blanc. The Cheval had its classic wintergreen aroma, along with red fruits and green olives. There were great flavors of cranberry, strawberry, interior leather and curds n’ whey. It was tender and pretty, more open than the previous two wines, adding wintergreen and game flavors (93). So what to make of this tasting? Those that have 1986s in their cellar might want to get to know them again, although at least an hour or two of airtime probably makes a difference. Regardless, there was a lot more polish and tender qualities to this vintage now than I expected, certainly more than the last time I did a retrospective of 1986s about seven or eight years ago. That doesn’t mean that they won’t continue to age; it is important not to confuse power with ageability, and that is something that the Bordelais have been understanding for centuries. I just think that the ‘86s are starting to come into their own, and that its ‘hard’ reputation might not be as accurate as before. 2005 Bordeaux I guess the other retrospective that I recently did wasn’t really a retrospective, and more like an initial perspective. This was my first tasting of 2005 out of bottle, and while this heralded, potential all-time great vintage of Bordeaux needs no introduction, I wanted to reintroduce myself to these wines after their release. We began with a disappointing 2005 Pichon Lalande. Its nose was lightly roasted and nutty with aromas of coffee. While elegant, the dryness of its tannins and acidity jumped out. There were lighter, nutty flavors of black tea present, but it did not have the depth I have come to expect for this reliable Chateau (91). The 2005 Montrose had a bigger nose with much more fruit. It was concentrated and rich with big, buttery flavors, coffee again and some toast while Alexander The Great noted ‘bitters.’ Despite its bigness, it maintained elegance and had softness. Although its tannins were long, they were fine (94). The 2005 Ducru Beaucaillou was also big, more cedar city in the nose. There was big-time ‘vanilla bean,’ as someone noted. Tasty and nutty, it had mocha, vanilla and milkshake flavors. It continued to gain in the glass and get bigger (95+). Someone noted ‘mushroom’ in the 2005 Palmer. I did pick up on forest floor, but it was shier and more elegant in the nose. Alexander picked up on a little ‘blue cheese,’ but it was not pungent. It was perfumed and sexy, getting a little grapier as it opened. The palate was great, full of oil, leather, coffee and smoke flavors. There was exquisite balance to this superb wine. It really got my attention (97). The 2005 Cos d’Estournel quickly brought sexy back with its classic aromas of cedar, nut and caramel. While more elegant than expected, there were great flavors of cedar and what I call fireplace action. This was classic every which way, and it got two ‘fantastics’ from the crowd (96). The 2005 Leoville Las Cases was tight and a touch anise-y. Stony and cedary, its nose was much more reticent than the other ‘05s. The palate was also very stony, but its length and breed were outstanding. While a bit muted, and much more reserved already, the Las Cases was still serious stuff. Every case should come with a sign, ‘wake me when it’s over’ (95). We transitioned to the First Growths with a 2005 La Mission Haut Brion, arguably a First Growth in its own right. The La Mission was so exotic compared to the rest. There was great fruit here, and wild aromas like coconut and blueberry standing side by side with classics like charcoal, black currants and truffles. The flavors were also kinky and gamy with exotic marzipan, and its finish popped with more noticeable acidity than anything prior. It was a wild and crazy wine whose outstanding quality could not be denied, but I couldn’t help but wonder if all this exoticness would come back to haunt it later in life (96). The 2005 Mouton Rothschild was the first of our First Growths, and we had them all ready. Tar, smoke and a little marijuana green crept out of its nose. The flavors were mocha, and the wine was softer and easier. Someone called it simplistic, and while that might have been a bit harsh, it definitely under-impressed compared to some of the wines already sampled (94). The 2005 Latour had the nose of the night. There was fantastic and undeniable breed here. ‘Nutty nutty, long long and dry dry’ were my first notes. It had enough length to last through double overtime, and the marriage between its signature cedar and walnut aromas and flavors said, ‘happily ever after’ (97+). The 2005 Lafite Rothschild was a bit unusual at first, emitting this mentholated rub in the locker room vibe, which someone else likened to ‘barnyard.’ It did get more cedary and classic with time, but needed more coaxing. There was a soft and subtle minerality here that provided a beautiful backbone to the wine, like good posture. Its elegant style was overshadowed by the Latour in the beginning, but it, too, had undeniable breed and over time gained on the Latour, closing the gap. Its elegance and breed were ultimately remarkable (96). The 2005 Haut Brion was full of cigar smoke in the nose to go along with the usual suspects of tobacco, earth and black fruits. There was a tender quality to this powerful wine, which exerted its influence in a quiet and easy way. It was an Obamawine lol. Flavors of earth, tobacco and charcoal were more classically rendered than its sibling La Miss, and definitive bacon emerged in the nose, so much so that I wrote it in caps with an exclamation mark to boot like some hungry dog – BACON! The Haut Brion lived up to its lofty status (97). We closed with the 2005 Margaux, which was classic all the way. Cedar, cassis, earth and minerals abounded in its long, smoky and elegant nose. The palate was long, decadent and smoky. The Margaux ended up the evening in stylish fashion, as it is prone to do (96). So what about 2005? There is no doubting the quality of the vintage. It will be one of the all-time greats. The concentration of fruit is already legendary, and there are enough tannins and acidity to keep up for decades. Despite the concentration levels, the best wines have retained the hallmark elegance that makes claret lovers croon. What about the prices? Well, there is no doubt that they were expensive, the most expensive en primeur vintage that anyone has ever seen, or perhaps ever will. There has not been that initial secondary market bounce that most vintages have when bottles finally hit the marketplace, as consumers have said that they are already expensive enough, and the recent yet lessening economic uncertainty didn’t help. They are still selling, and their greatness cannot be denied. We’ll leave the rest up to the market. FIN JK
As we prepare for our second auction of the year in Hong Kong in 2009, I thought it was a good time to look back on a couple of most noteworthy events related to the great city of Hong Kong. The first event was a Champagne dinner before the auction, featuring a stellar selection of bubblies courtesy of the cellar of Robert Rosania. Rob was offering a slice of the world’s greatest Champagne collection in our last Hong Kong auction, and we wanted to make sure that the local clients who had already let us know that they were Champagne lovers had an opportunity to see what aged Champagne is all about. Rob’s cellar was up for the task, as usual, even when halfway around the world. A six-pack of 1996 Krug was the aperitif, and when that’s the aperitif, you know it’s going to be a good night. I didn’t take a note for that, as I was too busy meeting and greeting. The first official flight was one of Dom, beginning with a 1971 Dom Perignon. Aromas of cracked wheat and honey jumped out of its seductive nose. The palate was rich, long, dusty and spiny with great fizz. It was fresh, zippy and long, with excellent acidity. This was a superb bottle, absolutely delicious, brimming with white cola and honey flavors (96). A magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon was next. The ’75 was more herbal, but herbal in a good way. There were also more minerals here, with hints of granulated sugar and toast, along with some rye crisp. It was very fresh as well, more spiky in its acidity and drier in its personality. It was still excellent (93M). A magnum of 1985 Dom Perignon Rose was an infant by comparison. There were aromas of strawberry and some Pinot garden goodness. It was fresh and tangy, with a bit of hay flavors, like a roll in the barn. Very fresh and very young, I look forward to when it finally finds its way (95M). The second flight went back in time even further. A 1961 Pol Roger was still fresh, with a core of sweet and mature aromas. Honey, beer and caramel were dominant. The ’61 was rich, fleshy and round with caramel and honey flavors to match its aromas. There was more integration here than any of the Doms; the extra ten years had done the Pol Roger well. Its acidity was still special, and lots of vitamin flavors lingered on its finish (94). A 1962 Philipponnat Blanc de Blancs had a great cereal-like nose, like Frosted Flakes meets Corn Pops. This was not a Clos des Goisses bottle, just to be clear. There was exotic perfume and spice, almost jasmine, and its cereal qualities moved in an oatmeal direction. The palate was nice and yeasty with sugar cane flavors and a long finish (94). A magnum of 1964 Moet was probably the least exciting Champagne of the night, but still very good. Old Moets can be spectacular, particularly pre-Dom Perignon, during the first twenty years of the 20th century and even older, or so I am told. I have only had as far back as 1900. The ’64 was a magnum that had been redisgorged, not necessarily for the better. It was pungent and grassy both in the nose and mouth. Gamy and zippy, it was good but overshadowed on this special evening (92M). The last wine of this flight was a 1952 Louis Roederer - not Cristal. I always feel like I need to clarify that, remind everyone that Roederer makes Cristal, and also that the regular ‘Roederer’ bottlings are some of Champagne’s finest from the 1960s on back. The ’52 was long-legged, Mommy long legs. The nose was mature and warm, and the palate was rich with a meaty texture and a hint of bubbles left. More wine-like with delicious tea flavors, this bottle was on the mature side but still delicious (95). A Cristal followed, the 1969 Roederer Cristal. It, too, had pungency to it, more in a gamy way. The nose was a little oaky, as well as bready. The palate was rich, meaty and lush with vanilla wafer flavors, but the oak stayed on the palate and throughout the finish. It did grow on me and get more honeyed, but having had extraordinary bottles of ’69 Cris before, I can say that this wasn’t the best bottle. It wasn’t off, just a lesser batch, so to speak (93). The 1979 Roederer Cristal was a classic. The nose oozed greatness. Clean and pure, it was full of butter, scotch, butterscotch (yes all three!) and grain aromas, with a pinch of flower in a gourmet soap way. The palate was fresh and zippy, still young and mineral-driven (95+). A 1949 Pommery was served on its own, and deservedly so. It had gorgeous and sexy vanilla ice cream aromas. Its palate was sexy and smooth, round and delicious. This was great Champagne, special and honeyed (95). Krug, meet Salon. The 1973 Krug was from an original bottling, and had that signature Krug vanilla cream sex appeal. Quite tasty, it was full of Wasa rye crisp wafer flavors. This was breed Champagnified and Krug all the way. So good and so tasty, the Krug was round and rich with vanilla wafer flavors as well (95). The 1976 Salon was out of magnum, which probably gave it an edge. It was much tighter and more minerally with a pinch of white fruits and flowers fighting to be recognized. The palate was longer than the Krug, better, and racy beyond belief. Usually it is Krug that bullies everything else around, but the hallmark Salon acidity was still as sharp as a razor, and this magnum had enough freshness and zip to go for many more decades (96+M). The 1969 Krug Collection was so fresh, another grassy and pungent one. It was still a baby, endless in its acidity, as fresh as fresh can be, as Krug Collections are prone to be. It had perfect balance to its spice and length, and was a testament to the cellars at Krug (96). The 1979 Krug Collection was out of magnum, and showed more bread and toast in the nose. It was long, zippy and great as well. There were flavors of citrus tang, bread soaked in egg yolk and more lemon. Despite being a decade younger, there were almost more mature nuances to the ’79. Of course, its finish was long (95+M). We closed with the 1990 Krug Clos du Mesnil. If there was a fitting closer, it would be Clos du Mesnil, the vineyard equivalent in Champagne to Romanee Conti. The 1990 was so good, so young, like nails on a chalkboard in its pitch. A hint of oak needed some time to integrate, and the 1990 needs time in general to integrate. Its acidity reminded me of Wolverine, ready to destroy anything in its way. It had lots of flavors of earth, minerals and what I would call tombstone, as this Champagne laid to rest everything else (97). It was a spectacular evening of Champagne, a testament to how well it ages, and a testament once again to Rob’s cellar. I can’t wait for ‘the greatest Champagne dinner of all-time.’ We’ll keep you tuned in for that one. The other chapter of my Hong Kong diary actually took place in New York. One of our biggest clients in Hong Kong was passing through New York ten days after the auction, so we decided to give him an official New York City wine welcome. We were joined by the Angry Men’s first family, gentleman Jim and Little Miss Angry, as well as Alexander the Great, a welcome addition to any dining experience. We warmed up with a 1990 Dom Perignon, which was one of the better bottles of this that I have had recently. It was rich, nutty and beefy, a bit of a bruiser, but long and full of structure (95). A 1990 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche was full of aromas of honey, honeycomb and honeysuckle in its creamy nose. There was a hint of floral that Wendy likened to ‘grandma’s lilac perfume.’ Our friend noted ‘chinese herbs.’ It was more ready than I would have thought, buttery and full of ‘petrol flavors,’ as Wendy noted, and she also agreed that it was ‘definitely ready.’ Another guest at the restaurant to whom we gave a taste noted that it was ‘almost like a dessert wine’ due to its sweetness of fruit. There were nice yeast flavors on its sunsetting finish (94). The 1989 Haut Brion Blanc was a spectacular white. Its nose was pungent, full of glue, straw, cat’s pee and a pinch of twisted honeycomb. That Graves minerality reeked out of the glass. The palate was coy at first yet rich, very regal with tons of breed and acidity. This was the best young white Bordeaux that I had ever had. It retained its character throughout the evening and even became more complex, with more of its floral side coming out, along with jasmine tea, marzipan and coconut. It got more and more delicious as it opened with air (96+). We traveled to Burgundy with a 1993 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. The nose was milky, stemmy and earthy, and Jim noted ‘the scent of a woman.’ It was perfumed, in the lavender direction. Its flavors were on the ’93 side, full of leather, tree bark and earth. Its fruit was both black and purple in its personality, and its acidity really came out with time. It flexed and grew stronger, and a little mint came out. I vascillated between 94 and 95 points, and settled on (94+) as it just wasn’t giving me as much as I wanted just yet, at least from this bottle. Next in line was a 1964 DRC Richebourg, which happened to be the birthyear of our honored guest, so I guess it was fate! The Richebourg was open and hearty, rich and long in the nose. It had the garden, the mint and the menthol of old DRC. Wendy found it ‘meaty and smoky.’ The palate was rich and lengthy, hearty a la ’64. There was nice grit and meat, and Jim noted ‘iron,’ which I saw with a little more air. Gamy, mesquite flavors lingered on its rusty finish, and its acidity asserted itself more in the nose. Alexander liked it more on the nose than the palate, but I enjoyed it overall (94). We closed with a 1955 Mouton Rothschild, one of my favorite Moutons of the 20th century. Alexander noted ‘liquid lavender,’ and Wendy ‘red licorice.’ Its core of cassis was undeniable despite traces of wild grass around its edges. Wendy then continued her red fruit feelings with ‘raspberry.’ Our guest felt that it needed more time to open and that its aromas were secondary rather than primary for a wine of such an age, and perhaps we were a little eager to experience this wondrous wine. The palate was rich and big, long and still young, with great cobweb and old bark nuances (95). It was another special evening, and even though it was in New York, I could thank Hong Kong for it. In less than three weeks, we will be back in Hong Kong and with three special events already planned, I am sure I will have more to share soon. FIN JK
On the first of May, Big Boy and I got together with Jacksonville’s number one collector for a late dinner in New York City. Then again, he is the only guy I know in Jacksonville :) . It was four of us, as he had a friend with him, so we only had about a dozen bottles with us. She didn’t drink that much, so we ultimately opened only nine. San Francisco has a new restaurant home for fine wine, and it is called RN 74. I was there for the opening weekend of this heralded collaboration between Michael Mina, Raj Parr and collector Wilf Jaeger. Wilf provided the core of the wine list, and since he is one of America’s premier collectors, the list has immediately become one of the finest in the country, rivaling such New York legends as Cru and Veritas. In addition, there are many great deals to be had on the list, of which we took advantage. The food was also excellent, with a bistro-type feel infused with haute cuisine courtesy of Michael and Wilf. Wilf, a self-trained chef who loves to cook as much as he loves to collect, was also very involved in the menu, and everything was delicious. The restaurant was packed, the mood festive, and it was time to drink. There were a few familiar facelifts in the crowd, and I was joined by my friend Chris, who generously brought a 1978 DRC La Tache with him. We’ll get to that shortly. We started with some whites and a 1969 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche, from a batch that Wilf got directly from Drouhin’s cellars. The nose was gorgeous, with a honeycomb core along with aromas of almond and cola nut. It was exotic and tropical with a cocoa buttery nose. The palate was polished and round with nice vigor and a tongue twisting finish, possessing excellent definition. Chris admired its ‘almost Champagne-like’ qualities, also noting ‘apple.’ There were also excellent citrus flavors, and the aromas carried over the palate, providing a layer of kink and complexity. There was still ‘nice acid,’ and toast emerged on the finish of this tasty and leathery white, which held in the glass admirably. It bloomed in the orange direction, as its few cobwebs dusted themselves off over time (95). We followed with a 1979 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet. Both of these whites were off the list, by the way. The Leflaive was singing in the nose, full of wheat, corn syrup, caramel, bittersweet orange, wax, yeast and honey aromas. There was great poise and balance on the palate, which possessed definition and class, along with grace and agility. It was another testament to the greatness of 1979 in white Burgundy, the vintage of the decade for white and arguably one of its finest all time. Wilf even hailed ’79 as his ‘favorite white Burgundy vintage.’ The wine stayed tasty, with more honeycomb flavors emerging, and the Leflaive kept lifting to higher and higher ground. What a wine (96+). Sufferin’ Sandy was in the crowd, and he had brought with him a 1999 Ramonet Montrachet, a wine that I just had the Monday prior. When it rains, it pours. The nose was minty and full of corn stalk, wound and tight with nerves of steel. This bottle was much more powerful than the bottle I had had Monday, which was a bit shut down. Despite being wound, this bottle was still expressive, and its palate rippled with minerals. Flavors of butter and corn stalk joined the minerals on the palate, which had a minty finish. There was race car-like power and definition here (95+). We had a pair of 1978s on tap next, but Sandy interrupted our programming with a magnum of 1996 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux. ‘Young, young, young and so tight,’ observed Chris at first, and yes, he was talking about the wine. Wilf found it ‘impressive.’ This magnum was not marred by some of the sulfur or gas that I had previously encountered a couple of times with this wine, which was good news for me, as I had almost written this vintage of Jayer Cros P off. It was staggeringly concentrated, especially for a 1996, and flirted with a California impression. Aromas of anise and black cherry jam dominated the nose, which was almost Chunky soupy with its thickness. The palate was very wound and very New World, with a thick finish and lots of cola flavors. There was a muscly, monolithic edge to this infant of a red (95+M). We finally made our way to the 1978 DRC La Tache, which was one of the best bottles of this that I have ever had, and one of the best bottles of La Tache period that Wilf has had over the past few years. 1978 is a vintage that many DRC lovers like to bash a little, but this bottle would have silenced any critic. The nose dripped with menthol, mint and game, displaying intense depth and richness. The palate was thick and creamy, tasty and still minty, with long, long acidity. Overall, the flavors were on the earthy side, but since this earth was La Tache, that was a very good thing. It had a mother’s milk goodness to its palate, and its acidity seemed endless. Some duck confit brought out ridiculous black olive flavors, and words like ‘catnip, syrup, flesh and goodness’ rounded out my notes (96+). Unfortunately, a bottle of 1978 Henri Jayer Cros Parantoux was oxidized. Ouch (DQ). We plucked a 1947 Drouhin Chambertin off the list next, whose nose was unfortunately slightly musty and corked, although Wilf and Raj found it ‘more mushroomy.’ The palate was still outstanding, rich and fat with amazing concentration. Beef bouillon and garden flavors graced the palate. Wilf commented how ‘1947 reminds me of 1996 with its high acid, but has more bulk.’ It had that old edge to it despite all its fresh qualities, and oat and tea flavors rounded out its hearty and citrusy palate, and Raj added, ‘coffee.’ It was quite reductive in all its raw materials, and it did continue to improve, almost overcoming its musty qualities. It was still a good drink, let’s put it that way. Wilf continued on his vintage analysis when asked about 1995, comparing that to 1976, although he did say that there were a handful of great 1995s for the producers who waited to pick after everyone else, mainly Roumier, Rousseau and DRC. Surprise, surprise (95A). We changed gears with a 1970 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape on Wilf’s recommendation as one of his favorite, old Beaucastels. I was just commenting how much I love old Beucastel, and how someone got a great buy at last week’s auction for a case of 1966 that hammered at $4000, and I couldn’t resist trying the ’70 for the first time, especially for the price it was on the list. It was a ‘wow’ wine, much blacker in style than any of the Burgundies, thick and oozing aromas of slate, which carried over to the palate along with olives, garrigue, spice and black cherry flavors. Its mineral components were mega, and its power for its age also most noteworthy. The wine was still inky! Smoke and wax rounded out this incredible Rhone (96). We decided to refresh ourselves with some 1973 Pol Roger, which was interesting yet quite yeasty. The nose was gamy and full of stewed white fruits, along with some ‘wet bed’ per Chris. There was good freshness in the mouth with some white blossom flavors, but also some back alley ones. White chocolate wafer flavors emerged, as some air helped this older bubbly find itself in the glass (93). The last wine on this extraordinary evening was a 1989 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet Les Ruchottes. We had intended to have an ’89 white earlier to complete our ‘on the nines’ white flight, but didn’t quite get around to it until now. This has always been one of my ‘pet’ white Burgundies, delivering grand cru complexity at a premier cru price, and this ’89 didn’t disappoint. In fact, it exceeded my expectations as I thought we might start to see some effects of age on it, but this bottle was perfect. Its nose was classic Ramonet – rich, buttery and minty. There was deep fat here in a buttery, corny way. Its minty and (good) herbal flavors came to me as rosemary mint jelly – that was it, wow! There was also honeysuckle, although Chris found a little benevolent ‘catbox.’ Someone admired its sweetness, and there were flavors of Corn Pops there (95). It was a fitting opening to what will be a must destination in San Francisco for every wine lover. FIN JK
Thursday night was the pre-paulee dinner, hosted by Senor Johnnes at the Bouley Test Kitchen, where David Bouley, Daniel Boulud and Michel Troisgros were all in the same kitchen chefing it up for the eager attendees. This year, the honored vignerons were Veronique Drouhin and Jean-Francois Coche-Dury. This would mark Coche’s first trip ever to America, but alas, the fates were not kind, and unfortunately his father passed away right before he was scheduled to come, so he had to cancel. Our condolences to Jean-Francois. Part III was this past Friday night, which was basically the first session of our most recent auction. We had scheduled our auction for the weekend of La Paulee and hailed the sale ‘The Road to Burgundy,’ which worked especially well thanks to the great cellars of Roger Stein and Wilf Jaeger, and a few anonymous others. Anyone that has been to an Acker sale, especially an Acker evening sale, knows that we, and those that come to our sales in person, like to enjoy one or twenty glasses of wine during the course of an auction. BYO is always welcome now, and many great collectors and generous souls made their way to CRU for what would be another extraordinary evening. On this special night, I would sample thirty-eight wines, and I was working. So this article will be more academic than literary, as I only had enough time to write down the names of the wines and my scores of them, although I will share some thoughts on most of the wines in a few paragraphs at the end. Here were the wines I had, in order, and their respective scores. 1996 Fourrier Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques (92) 1990 Dom Perignon (93) 1996 Ramonet Montrachet (95) 1995 Krug Clos du Mesnil (95+) 1955 Charles Heidseick (DQ) 1996 Dom Perignon Rose (93) 1985 Dom Perignon Rose (95) 1993 Pousse D’Or Volnay Bousse d’Or (94) 2000 Lafon Meursault Perrieres (93) 1990 Drouhin Montrachet ‘Laguiche’ (93A) 2000 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet (95) 2000 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet Les Ruchottes (93) 1995 Krug Clos d’Ambonnay (93) 1990 Ponsot Chapelle Chambertin (94+) 1990 Vogue Musigny V.V. (93) 2000 Thierry Manin Champagne (92) 1990 Haut Brion (95) 1991 Dujac Clos de la Roche (93) 1989 La Fleur de Gay (94) 2004 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet (95) 1997 Meo Camuzet Vosne Romanee Les Brulees (91J) 1962 DRC Richebourg (97+) 2003 Roulot Meursault Perrieres (92) 1993 Pousse d’Or Pommard Les Jarollieres (91) 1988 Gaja Sori Tilden (93) 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (96) 1980 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (94) 1986 Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva (93) 1990 Cos d’Estournel (93) 1999 Mugneret Ruchottes Chambertin (95) 1962 Vogue Musigny V.V. (98) 1971 DRC Grands Echezeaux (97) 1990 Bollinger V.V.F. (94) 1970 Bollinger V.V.F. (DQ) 1982 Salon (93A) 1988 Vogue Chambolle Musigny Amoureuses (93M) 1991 Leroy Clos de la Roche (94) 1969 Salon (97) Where to begin? How about the two 1995 Krugs. I was in the minority when it came to preferring the ’95 Mesnil over the d’Ambonnay, then again, I don’t own any anymore lol. I didn’t get to cuddle up with the d’Ambonnay that closely, but this was the second time that I have had it, and it comes across much more elegantly than the Mesnil. Elegance is not a bad thing, but the Mesnil just had more power, more acidity, more length, just more. The d’Ambonnay might have had more drinkability, more approachability, more finesse, but I would be surprised if it outlasted the Mesnil. How about another pair of distinguished bubblies? The ’85 Dom Rose was so much more open than the 1996. It seemed more than ten years between the two. I have always loved the 1985 although this one hinted at a faster evolution than I last recall; the 1996 is very wound, a bit tart and not as racy as other 1996s. We shall see how it develops. Pairs seem to be the theme here. The 1993 Pousse d’Or Volnay was absolutely delicious. What a great wine. Man, do I love Volnay. Talk about the best value appellation in all of Burgundy. The Volany still has plenty of life left in it. The Pommard was still very good, just, well, more like Pommard – a bit bruising, less complex, more monolithic – not all thumbs, but more thumbs. The 2000 whites were all really good, with the Leflaive distancing itself from the pack. What else is new? It did have the Grand Cru handicap in its favor, though. 2000 whites are great to drink now, and they will probably last longer than some people give them credit. I am not the only white Burgundy lover to think that. Wait a second, the way action has been for the category, I am the only white Burgundy lover left :). The Ponsots were all stellar. The best vintages of Ponsot are always the best, and 1990, 1985 and 1980 fit that equation. The 1985 is one of the best Ponsots ever, and didn’t disappoint. It was chunky and thick, but incredibly agile as well. The 1980 was grace in a glass, much more feminine and elegant, but still all about the Burgundy. It was big brother versus little sister, and we all know who usually wins that matchup. The 1990 was no slouch, from the forgotten Ponsot grand cru. It is another vintage where Ponsot separates his wines from the pack. The other handful of 1990s were all Bordeaux. The Haut Brion was outstanding as always, while the Vogue Musigny was a cross-dresser of a wine – a Bordeaux posing as a Burgundy ha ha. The Cos can be excellent, and no one love Cos more than me. While La Mission should be considered a First Growth already, Cos would be the first second knocking at the door. However, this bottle, while still excellent, was less thrilling than other ’90 Cosses (how does one pluralize that?) that I have had. The only other Bordeaux was delicious, an ’89 Fleur de Gay. Pomerols not named Petrus or Lafleur still seem to be taken for granted – why is that again? Not by me, and any Bordeaux lover who doesn’t buy the L’Evangiles, the Trotanoys, the L’Eglise Clinets, the etc etc’s needs to love a little more often if they love themselves. Of the remaining red Burgundies, the Mugneret Ruchottes stood out the most. That’s why Sir Robert Bohr always buys them, I concluded lol. Mugneret seems to be making some of the best, unknown, top-flight reds in Burgundy. The ’91 Dujac was gorgeous, one of the better ‘91s that I have had of late, really beautiful stuff, although 1991 is not in the upper echelon as far as vintages go. The other ’91, the Leroy Clos de la Roche, showed why Leroy can be great, particularly in 1991, 1993 and 1996. Vintages that are full of fruit don’t play well into her hand all the time, though. The Meo Brulees was roasted and overblown, showing more of the weaker rather than the stronger qualities of the 1997 vintage – it was still very good, but the points aren’t going up any time soon. The ’88 Vogue mag was rock solid, a pleasing ’88 that was big and brawny but still had a brain. And then there were the ‘62s…and the ’71. What wines! Thank goodness the price on all these ancient superstars has fallen more than anything else, because now everyone is just drinking them. Both ‘62s were just flat-out incredible, best wines of my life category, both riding the ’62 wave as high as it can go. While some ‘62s are starting to gracefully plateau, these two both felt like they were still on the way up. They are wines around which to make travel arrangements. I might be sold bold as to call 1971 the greatest vintage of all-time for DRC. Ok, ok, I know, 1934, 1945, 1962, maybe even 1999…I can’t get into anything much older or younger for this discussion at the moment. 1971 is unquestionably one of the top five vintages for DRC…ever. One of the most pleasant surprises was the ’86 Giacosa, which was excellent. I am not sure I have ever even had an Italian wine from 1986, but this was a good place to start. The ’88 Gaja was also very solid. I have never had a bad bottle of Gaja; they always answer the call. Lastly, the 1969 Salon was spectacular. Old bottles of Salon are the ones, along with Cristal, that can stand up face to face and toe to toe with Krug. Salon and Krug have more structure; Cristal is the sexiest, but Salon and Krug can just bully anything and everything else around them, and that is what this ’69 did. It had the rocket’s white glare, the bombs bursting in my mouth, and it stayed true and carried me through the rest of the night. There’s only one cat that’s pulling that wine out of his hat, and everyone knows who that is. There was a Paulee party uptown, but I had nothing left. More to precede. FIN JK And on the fifth day, I couldn’t get up. After four consecutive nights with an average return home time of 2:30am, sandwiched around and in-between a 2-day auction, let’s just say that the energy levels are a bit low. It was an epic week of Olympic wine proportions, and it was great to see New York and many from outside the city out, about and enjoying life to the fullest. By the way, the auction went really well, probably about 95% sold. The wine market has stabilized quickly. Now it is up for the producers to pay close attention to their release prices and adjust accordingly as well. But I digress…this week came about due to ‘La Paulee,’ the world’s greatest celebration of Burgundy, organized and orchestrated by Restaurant Daniel’s Daniel Johnnes. Months of preparation finally came to fruition, and a special thanks has to go out to Daniel for making this event happen again. In a time when people need more reasons to celebrate, Daniel helped put a smile on a thousand faces, ear to ear, all week long. It is tough enough to organize a dinner for 20 people, let alone 400, with other numerous events around it. Thank you again, Daniel. Many of you might remember last year’s articles from the La Paulee in San Francisco, where I wrote up the first three nights, only to lose my notes from the last night, the grand finale, and the 52 wines that I had tasted. With that in mind, I have decided to write up Saturday night’s finale first this year. There was a war room of wine assembled in the back for our table, far too many bottles to drink, but they sure were fun to look at altogether. A glass of 1975 Krug out of magnum kicked things off. I must admit, I was feeling a bit queasy from the three previous nights, and did not even drink a drop at Saturday’s live auction during the day. Small sips, small sips, I kept saying to myself, and after a few of those, I was feeling better :). What is that called, hair of the dog? The ’75 Krug was green apple city in the nose, citrusy and taut, with yellow fruits in tow behind. There was nice spritz to this perfect mag, and yeast and wheat emerged in the nose as it unfolded. It was rich, tasty and tangy, about as good as it gets for the vintage. Yes, it was Big Boy style (94M). A 1976 Salon magnum took it up a notch and left the Krug at the station. The Salon just rocked and rolled from the very first instant, its nose racy and zippy, long and full of white crystallized fruits and distinct edge. The acidity was still monumental, and its youthful energy said top five pick in the draft, even at age 32. It had an endless finish and made everyone who sipped it more alert (96+M). Augie slipped me a 1996 Lafon Meursault Perrieres on the way back from the war room. It was classic, round, rich and pretty full of white, delicately sweet fruit, also possessing great, smoky flavors. There was great balance, and while it was a bit softer and more mature than I expected, there was still hidden acidity, woven beautifully into the wine’s elegant style (94). A 2005 Etienne de Montille Puligny Montrachet Le Cailleret was sweet, subtle and round, easy and tropical but just way too young for me to properly evaluate. I was already in the old wine zone (90+?). Unfortunately, a 1996 Niellon Batard Montrachet was prematurely oxidized (DQ). A 1992 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was as good as 1992 gets, and was still showing why Leflaive made the wines of the vintage in 1992. Acidity still sparkled throughout the wine, and while there was a hint of that forward, 1992 stew, it was delightfully floral and smoky, with a long, fine finish and had plenty of stuffing left to last another decade. Butter, citrus, smoke and class resonated in the glass. Neil called it ‘killer,’ and thank you Eddie (96). Wilf pulled out one of his off-the-trodden path beauties, a magnum of 1990 Gagnard-Delagrange Montrachet. It was drinking beautifully, round and rich but silky and fine. Its nose was lemony while its palate was full of bread and water flavors, full of smoke and circumstance, in a good spot (92M). A jeroboam (a double-magnum by definition for Burgundy) of 2002 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche was singing, something not easy to do amongst the 15 or so singing Paulee-ers imported to sing old French drinking songs throughout the weekend. There was great spice and smoke in the nose; it really jumped out more than any other white so far, helped by its youth and by its bottle format, no doubt. There were great, yellow fruit and smoky flavors here, and the wine was full of both muscle and grace. Its finish was long like three-hour movies that you still don’t want to end (95J). A trio of Coche Perrieres magically appeared as I frantically tried to keep up with my bearings, as wines were coming faster than I could take notes. I re-organized my glasses and made sure I knew what was what, and then proceeded with the 1985 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. On Thursday, we had had a trio of Perrieres as well, officially making this a good week based on that fact alone. That was night two, coming to a theater near you soon. The ’85 was a little yeasty and dirty in the nose, still nutty, toasty and smoky. It was very round, full of white earth, spare rib and white chocolate aromas. There were earthy flavors of white ice fruits, and Tom and Etienne preferred the ’85 most overall (93). I, along with The Duke, Neil and others preferred the 1990 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. The nose was perfect, a ‘laser’ as Neil pinpointed. Qualities of toast, kernel, white fruit and flowers were divine, its perfume lingering like the scent of a woman. Its flavors were round and rich, vitaminy and singing. There was great spice to this long and vigorous ’90, which was stellar all the way (96+). The 1992 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was rounder and more typical of the vintage, showing cracks in the armor. Yeasty flavors were more similar to 1985, but the ’92 was softer and rounder despite being seven years younger, and its flavors were more watery overall. The wine was still very good, but the least of the three (92). A magnum of 1982 DRC Montrachet came knocking thanks to Jonathan, and everyone eagerly answered the door. The nose was open and aromatic, round and sweet with smoky and buttery tendencies. Additional aromas of white mesquite, iodine and hospital gauze emerged in this complex white. The palate was rich, round, smoky and buttery, although a bit yeasty with a touch of morning mouth flavors. Mike and Rob hailed it as the best white so far (94M). Chet glided on by with a glass of 2000 Lafon Montrachet. Merci beaucoup. The temperature was a bit warmer than any of the other whites so far, probably on purpose knowing Chet, and the Lafon was pleasant and clean like 2000s are supposed to be, although simpler than I wanted it to be given how much I adore the vintage for whites. It was dusty and chalky with nice limestone flavors (93). A magnum of 1986 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche was ripe, round and open, showing the vintage’s best qualities adeptly. The nose was full of butter and rainwater, perhaps a touch of rot in a good way. There was still nice definition on its long, crystalized finish (94M). My magnum of 1993 DRC Montrachet was next, whose nose was super smoky, gamy and zippy with great aromatics of yeast, fruit and flowers. Its flavors were yeasty and tasty with great structure. This ’93 was chunky, oily and long, still with finesse on its finish. It was a great showing for a 1993 white, the vintage where everyone knows the reds now, but that everyone who knows should know the whites. It might be tough to find a more pleasurable vintage to enjoy at the moment from the decade, with the exception of 1990 (95M). Bad Boy Bruce kept the Champagne torch lit very brightly on this evening, beginning with a perfect 1966 Dom Perignon. The ’66 was clean, clear, fresh, dusty, limy and vigorous. It was hitting on all cylinders and still had plenty of life to go. Its great balance, long finish and bubbles were not to be ignored (96). Bobby came around with a jero of 1996 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet Les Ruchottes. It was showing quite well out of jero, standing up to some of its grand cru counterparts. Steely and fresh, there were great, zippy and lemony aromas and flavors, and a buttery core. Hints of mint rounded out this jero, which was really good and flirting with outstanding (94J). A 1983 Ramonet Montrachet had that ’83 style – forward, slightly sweet, clean and lighter in style than some of the other ‘80s whites so far. There was a hint of rot here, but its finish was thick and long, its terroir flexing its muscles, lingering into the night (94). The last white on this incredible evening was a 1993 Carillon Bienvenues Batard Montrachet, a cult white amongst those that know. The Carillon was tropical, smoky, exotic and tasty, showing gamy flavors that were again in a just right spot, another ’93 white making things alright. Thanks Dave (93). Nineteen whites and Champagnes were down the hatch, and I was feeling great, as in not inebriated, fully in control, and ready to continue. Then came the reds. A pair of 1964s kicked off the reds, the first being a magnum of 1964 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. Thursday night also saw a flight of these, vintages to be remembered later, but none as glorious as the ’64. Aromas of sweet cherry, animal and old barn wood seeped out of the nose. Grainy in the mouth, it was long and full of rose flavors, super sweet and hearty like good ‘64s are, showing lots of acidity and staying bright in the glass. Big Mike was loving the ’64 rock ‘n roll style (94+M). The 1964 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes was a contrast in style, showing more elegance and finesse. It was also sweet in the nose, showing more game and cherry, and still very decadent. It was super sexy and satiny in the mouth, and its acidity was superior to that of the Amoureuses. Chris also noted its acid, finding it ‘still young.’ The Vogue kept gaining and expanding, showing off a little peacock’s tail on its finish (96). Oops, there was one more white, a 2001 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne, whose nose was reeking smoky greatness with very forward and dominating aromatics. Kernel was pop, popping out of its toasty personality. Long, thick, sugary and gamy, the ’01 was a bit more tits than ass at the moment, but still pretty sexy (94+). Unfortunately, a magnum of 1959 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes was off (DQ). A 1964 DRC Romanee Conti magnum wasn’t off, but it was a bit softer and shy than I expected based on my experience with the vintage and specifically the DRCs. There were dusty old flavors and aromas, more on the book and earth side, possessing a lot of classic qualities without the power that should go with it. The wine was what it was, perhaps just not the best barrel. Since DRC did bottle barrel by barrel back then, bottle variation is to be expected (93M). The next bottle took center stage and was ultimately one of the top three or four wines of the night, if not wine number one, this jeroboam of 1952 DRC Romanee Conti. Not too many people have these bottles to even think about bringing, but Big Boy is one of them, and his generosity was on full display with this incredible bottle. ‘Wooooooooooo’ celebrated the ‘King of the Business’ after one sniff. The ’52 was spot on, exactly as I remembered it to be. Its nose was perfect, showing off the spice and spine that makes ’52 so special a vintage. Its concentration out of jeroboam was spectacular. Earthy, tangy and gamy aromas all spanked by citrus were fresh and forward. Its divine aromatics carried over to the palate, which was thick, creamy, decadent and again divine. It was incredibly complex, showing the A1 and the citrus flavors of great older Burgundy. This was the first wine I had to go for seconds, which would signify the beginning of my own personal decline despite the heights that the ’52 achieved (98J). A 1959 Drouhin Musigny had the unfortunate luck of following up the RC, and while chunky and earthy, full of dense black fruits and displaying the forward, roasted character of ’59, it was left inhaling the fumes of the RC (93). The Duke pulled out a magnum of 1966 DRC Grands Echezeaux, whose nose was full of Chinese spice box. There were great dark chocolate aromas to go with its spice, and the wine was delicious and fat, dancing in the mouth with its long, spicy, edgy and flavorful profile (95M). A pair of infant 1991 Vogues generously found me thanks to Mr. 420. While appreciated and quality, it was near impossible to really dig deep into these wines after the depths already experienced. Once you go old, it is tough to go back! I actually preferred the 1991 Vogue Bonnes Mares (93) to the bottle of 1991 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes (92). The Bonnes Mares had more definition; they both seemed inky and beefy, but there was more earth and leather there than in the Musigny, which was rounder and less intense. Bad Boy Bruce was back with a magnum of 1947 Roederer Rose, which immediately cracked the top five club. It had a perfect nose full of divine rose aromas. Rich strawberry flavors and amazing spice were evident on its hearty and edgy palate, one that was decadently rich and also possessing big chocolate and superb earth flavors. Dusty, long and still spiffy at age 62, the Roederer rocked out with its…(97M) Big Mike pulled out another one of the evening’s showstoppers next, a Methusaleh of 1978 DRC La Tache. It was superb, as good as ’78 LT gets, full of rose hips and menthol and all the classic LT earthy sex appeal. The palate was meaty, spicy, earthy, long and rich. Having had this wine on at least a dozen occasions, I can safely say that this bottle was everything that it should have been and then some. For those out there that like to put down DRC in 1978, one sip would have converted you all! This Methusaleh was the Dr. Jekyll of DRC in this vintage, and with secondary traces of beef, garden and tomato, it delivered as much pleasure to those that had it as any other wine on this starry night. Thanks again Big Mike (97-I). Keith pulled out a rarity, a 1915 Michel Gaunoux Pommard Grands Epenots. It was a later release, a wine reconditioned from the domaine, really smoky and citrusy and full of wild flavors and benevolent cat pee. It was a bit aggressive in its reconditioned qualities, but still a very good wine, although not reflecting its age appropriately. He later gave me a glass of one of his wines of the night, an outstanding Pousse d’Or, but damned if I remember what it was exactly. Details hopefully will follow (91). A magnum of 1985 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux came to me courtesy of The Don, I believe, or at least because I finally made it over to his table. The nose seeped black fruits in that deep, dark Jayer way, along with minerals, earth, leather and crushed granite. The nose seemed endlessly deep, and the palate backed it up with rich yet still taut fruit, black and purple, along with leather and spice and everything nice, retaining an elegant, caressing finish. This was still a big wine by ’85 standards, and why Jayer is considered to have made some of the best wines from the vintage (95M). It was followed by a 1985 Henri Jayer Echezeaux, which on this night outshowed the Cros. It was similar in its fruit and flavor profile, but it possessed more structure, more acidity and gave a bigger overall impression. Perhaps on a night where fewer wines were sampled, or I had more time to get to taste each of these wines unfold, I might have preferred the Cros, but on this night, the rugged and full-bodied nature of the Echezeaux stood out more for me (95+). There was a corked magnum of 1962 Patriarche Pere et Fils Musigny (DQ). A 1961 Leroy Musigny Confrerie des Chevaliers du Tasteduvin bottling was earthy and tasty, but a bit rough around the edges. It had a lot of animal flavors and was on the browned side flavor-wise (92). It was quickly dismissed by an outstanding 1964 Bouchard Pere et Fils Romanee St. Vivant which Chet was carrying around. It was another case of good timing. This was special stuff, thick and chunky yet agile, full of great red fruit flavors along with a nice sprinkle of brown sugar. Yum (95). Bad Boy Bruce soon became this game’s version of ‘Champagne Hero’ with a bottle of 1961 Krug from an original case. This was pretty much everything one could ask for in a Champagne. With breed like Queen Elizabeth and a finish that would make Hollywood proud, this was one hell of a Champagne. The nose was full of white fruits, minerals, crushed ice and decadent musk. What set the Krug apart was the structure, the penetrating acidity, the endless finish, and the accompanying freshness accordingly. There is Champagne, and there is Krug (98). Next up was an incredible magnum of 1971 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. This was the second wine that I had seconds of, and that is saying something. It was about time I had some Rousseau, and what a way to make an entrance. Ripe red fruits, decadent spice, along with traces of tree bark, leather, earth and citrus were all there. The density of the wine, both in the nose and on the palate, was extraordinary. It lingered like good memories, and always seems to be a wine that delivers truth, justice and happiness for all (97+M). It was about time that I had some Roumier, and the magnum of 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares Vieilles Vignes was another great way to make an entrance. This magnum was epic in its presence, its nose coiled like a vampire just starting to sense nightfall. Practically black in its personality, there was still mature qualities unraveling in this decidedly youthful red. The t ‘n a were extraordinary, and behind the densely packed aromas of earth and stems, slowly other parts of the rainbow of fruits emerged, red and purple to be precise. The tannins were bodybuilders amongst boys, partly because of the youth of the wine relative to most others sampled, but also because they stood out in any crowd. The fact that we were talking 1988, a tannic year, certainly helped. The depth, the breed, the style – everything was spectacular in this magnum, which took every bottle that I had ever had up a notch. It literally blew me away…(98M) …as I think it was the last wine I had before leaving for CRU, which was packed to the gills for an afterparty that lasted much longer than I did…the notes got pretty blurry from this point on, must have been all that fresh air on the way to CRU… A bottle of 1966 DRC Grands Echezeaux was pretty much the same as the magnum. See earlier in this story… A 1961 DRC La Tache was rich but a bit figgy, gamier than another great bottle I had recently, perhaps a touch affected, or maybe that was me. There was nice concentration and still some hallmark acidity of the vintage, but not as much as I remembered (93A?). A 1983 DRC La Tache was another testament to the fact that there is quality out there in 1983. I have been having a lot of luck with this forgotten and sometimes maligned vintage, which is probably because Parker liked them so much upon release, and we know how those Burgundy lovers like to play the other side of that fence. I enjoy a good 1983, and the La Tache was a great one. Open aromas of menthol, wintry red fruits and lighter earth, combined with a fleshy palate and solid acidity, made for an excellent overall experience. Out of magnum this wine can be outstanding (94). A 1983 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes was a nice pair with the La Tache, a bit heartier and rougher around the edges, denser and blacker in style although still excellent. ‘Where’s the beef’ is a question Ponsot rarely has to answer (93+). There was a 1982 Bollinger RD, disgorged in 1995. It was simple and easy, solid and pleasant but not thrilling (91). There were four more wines I took notes for, forty-nine notes in all. As it turned out, the remainders were all Champagne. Big Boy was holding court, and I was starting to fade. I kept on my game face and tried to march onwards, and I did for a crazy magnum of 1923 Veuve Clicquot, which had the black truffle oil nose similar to some of the Bollingers that I have had from this same era. ‘Sugarmeister’ and ‘rotten game’ came from someone or somewhere…I neglected to write down a score, sorry I did write down a score for the magnum of 1953 Krug, another spectacular bottle of Krug. Could the best producer on this historic night of Burgundy have been Krug? Shhhhhhhhhhhh. Ok, DRC was right there too (97M). There was a magnum of 1979 Cristal (95M) and some 1996 Dom Perignon Rose (93+), but by this time everything started to become irrelevant. All I could remember was trying to eat and drink water over and over to get my balance, but neither really did the trick. It was time to go, and that’s just what I did. It was another epic night, although it wasn’t an epic Sunday morning. Thanks to Daniel Johnnes and the great collectors who assembled in the name of Burgundy. Viva La Paulee! FIN JK Football season is over, and wintry Sundays sans football need a purpose. This past Sunday, lunch with a client and friends was just what the doctor ordered, especially considering what was pulled out of the plentiful cellar. A recent evening spent with Mr. Roger Stein, who’s collection is being offered this weekend, had us sampling a couple of Roulots and Ponsots, in that order. The four wines we sampled were beautiful reminders of why Burgundies are some of the greatest wines on Earth, and often the most contested. These two producers are at the top of their game, and as this evening would prove, have been there for years. Recently I had the opportunity to taste through the 2006 DRC portfolio at a tasting held for select members of the wine media and trade in New York City. The event celebrated the release of the 2006s and was hosted by the always distinguished Aubert de Villaine, who guided us through the tasting as skillfully as he navigates through any given vintage. This was my most detailed snapshot into this ‘shadow’ year, lost in the shuffle of 2005, but a vintage that has already endeared itself to many Burgundian connoisseurs. One collector recently told me 2006 will be like 1993, where everyone overlooks it for awhile and then all of a sudden, ten years later, everyone will want it. Based on this tasting, I couldn’t disagree with that prognostication. First, a few notes paraphrased from DRC about the 2006 vintage… Climactic conditions in 2006 were a bit wild and initially a source of anguish for many, but at the end of the season, optimism and confidence were restored. A long and unusual heat wave in July blocked the vegetative cycle of the vine, and an exceptionally cool and rainy August resulted in conditions favorable to botrytis, unseen since 1986. However, September brought hot weather, with barely any rain (only on the 23rd and 24th), and these perfect conditions allowed the vines to efficiently use the reserves of the rains of August in the soil. Ultimately, the grapes were as ripe as in 2005 at the time of harvest, at least for DRC. While 2006 was difficult, it ultimately gave winemakers the tools to make great wines, provided that they harvested before botrytis set in too deeply. Low yields were also important to permit the grapes to achieve an early maturity for the same reason. Sorting was also crucial due to botrytis. The Richebourg was the first vineyard to be harvested on September 20th; Echezeaux was the last to be completed on the 27th. “If one can speak of a striking general character for this vintage, it is, indeed, purity: purity of aromas, purity of taste, purity of general expression, which is completely different from that of 2005, (which was) a rather bright, spectacular, symphonic vintage. In 2006 we hear chamber music with more discreet notes, but subtle and complex.” Let the 2006 DRC Vosne Romanee Cuvee Duvault Blochet begin. Purity did, indeed, jump out first. Cinnamon and spice were next, followed by taut black cherry, forest floor and a healthy whiff of healthy wood, cedar and mahogany to be exact. A hint of green olives rounded out the nose. The palate was round with gamy flavors, clean and silky overall. Flavors of stem, cinnamon, earth went with the cherry and rose. In retrospect, the Vosne Romanee was light, but light on its feet and dancing in the mouth (90). The 2006 DRC Echezeaux had a deeper, blacker nose with more crushed mint and rubber tire there. Cedar slowly slithered out, blending in with the rubber along with some matchbox, lit match, lavender and a purplish, floral complexity. The palate was rounder and lusher than the Vosne, and just delicious, with flavors of beet root, rhubarb, cherry, spice, cedar, mahogany and grilled meat. For sheer sex appeal, the Echezeaux was excellent (93). The nose on the 2006 DRC Grands Echezeaux continued the progression nicely with an even deeper personality. It was more coiled and wound, with more structure showing, along with lots of cedar and spice. It had bigger and exotic tendencies, almost peach or mango but not quite either, maybe apricot? It was flirting in those directions, and also had big-time rose and oil there. It was rusty in its vigor, but not much bigger than the Echezeaux as I expected. It was upfront but lacked the open quality of the Ech, but made up for it with its structure. That rubber tire emerged on its gritty finish with lots of earth, beef and cedar flavors. Overall, it had a much blacker style than the Ech and although not as delicious and sexy as the Ech, it had better long-term potential (93). The 2006 DRC Romanee St. Vivant had a bright nose and lots of cloves to go with its cinnamon, along with nutmeg; it was a veritable spice cabinet. There was high pitch to its spice, and a little baked Grandma goodness. The palate was the roundest and most balanced; in fact, the balance was exquisite, yet there was still stuffing. There was a leathery finish with a peacock’s tail, very coating. There were pure red fruits and a sturdy finish, and it stayed agile in the glass (94). The 2006 DRC Richebourg was stinkier than anything so far, with a bit of animal, wet hay and grass here. It was wild yet fleshy, full of character, the wine that wanted to stay up all night. Musk and a pungent goodness were present along with black fruits. The palate was cleaner and lighter than I expected, frankly a bit disappointing after the RSV, and a rare time when the RSV outshined its bigger brother. The palate was a bit watery upfront, still with nice, rosy flavors. There were some classic stems and cedar, and it did gain a bit in the glass, fattening and fleshing out (93). Ahhhh, the 2006 DRC La Tache. Here kitty, kitty. Life is too short not to drink La Tache…often. The 2006 was phenomenal. The breed and structure were a most noticeable step up. It was wound, giving me a medical emergency impression with its clean minerality and intensity. Some band-aids joined the party to patch things up, along with a little bread, rose, vitamins and bull’s blood. The concentration on the palate shattered everything prior and made me feel I should lower every other wine’s score by a point! It was so flavorful, full of great fruit and all the colors, also with incredible stems and vitamins. There was serious length to this ‘serious shit,’ which was denser and bigger and more brooding than anything else (96). The 2006 DRC Romanee Conti was neither last nor least. It was much more sensual and elegant than the LT in the nose, with more subtlety and complexity, though. It was more toasty, with aromas of cinnamon, baked bread, stemmy goodness, black cherry and also a glazed goodness. The palate had incredible spice and foresty fun; it hit the highest note on the piano. There was a divine delicacy to the RC, its palate endless like a ballerina who never leaves its toes. Aubert noted the ‘justability’ of the RC versus the ‘masculinity’ of the RC (95). The 2006 DRC Montrachet was one white that could follow up any flight of reds. That hint of botrytis that the growers had to deal with in 2006 was more evident in the Montrachet. The nose was sweet, aromatic and tropical as only the DRC seems to be as far as white Burgs go. Aromas of candy cane and a minty sweet core were self-evident, but there were also great structure components to complement its sweetness. The palate was rich, buttery and lush, with butter dominating and tropical sweetness coming in second. Guava and mineral flavors rounded out this outstanding white (95). So there you have it, 2006, admittedly looking down from 20,000 feet, but I am convinced this will be a true connoisseur’s vintage for many years to come, and one to have in the cellar for the most passionate of Burgundy lovers. What was interesting about the DRCs was the fact that it was an underdog year; Ech outshowing the GE, RSV over Richebourg, and LT out-muscling the RC, at least at this stage. Go Knicks :) FIN JK The Inspector and The Don got together soon after Don’s Birthday bash for a small retrospective of 1973 whites. Even though I was a bit under the weather, I couldn’t resist such an invitation. We were joined by Nick and Geoffrey, and it was one of those rare evenings where the whites ended up being older and rarer than the reds. We still started with the whites, of course. A 1973 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche had aromas of old honeycomb, wax, dried nut, yeast and orange marmalade. Secondary aromas of minerals, ale and white meat joined the party. The palate was round and waxy, old but not bad, with hints of dirt, stone and earth flavors. Geoffrey and Doug noted a touch of botrytis, and caramel did come out with a touch of cotton candy. It was flirting with excellence but missing that extra definition, which seemed to come out after a little food, and it gained in its acidity. It was likened to a ‘dry Sauternes.’ Honey and a hint of floral ‘sexy back’ rounded out this mature yet pretty wine (93). The 1973 Lafon Montrachet had a big, bold nose, and Geoffrey was immediately preferring it to the Drouhin. There was almost cinnamon in the nose, along with aromas of tree bark, butter, game, smoke, toast and lemon. The palate was richer, lusher, toastier and longer, with a creamy, sexy quality. Geoffrey called it ‘gorgeous,’ and Doug ‘brilliant.’ The palate was round and rich, with flavors of cobwebs and nice texture and length. There was this almost cardboard edge that bothered me a little, but besides that this was a classic - fleshy, buttery and tasty stuff (95). We had a head-to-head showdown of 1973 DRC Montrachets, an original release versus the recent re-release from the Leroy cellars. The original had aromas of sweet acacia and honey, and then wildflower and lavender, almost like two pairs. Additional aromas of waterfall, morning dew, and more honey emerged. In the mouth, the DRC was rich, big and tasty with great acid. Doug added, ‘lemon spice cake.’ This was long and longer with extended vim and vigor, but it fell off a cliff after about 15 minutes, becoming overly yeasty and full of morning mouth flavors. I couldn’t tell if the bottle was slightly affected or not. It was spectacular at first, but became perplexing shortly thereafter (93A?). The re-release came across more artificially at first, with aromas of cinnamon and cleaner. Fresh and zippy, there was a hint of the original here but cinnamon dominated. The palate was round and long with nice acidity, and although this was leaner than the original, it did come across fresher. ‘One for the bitch,’ quipped the Inspector. He quickly got a call from headquarters and was instructed to attend sensitivity training the next morning. The re-release kept growing on me; it was clean and fresh, with almost a spritz-like zest, and the acidity was long. In the end, it came across pure and stylish, although it did need some time to find itself (95). Geoffrey and I preferred the ‘Lalou’ bottling of DRC, while Doug and Nick preferred the Lafon, although I did admit that if a 10 minute rule was in effect, the original DRC might have won. A 1985 Ramonet Montrachet was a welcome transition to the red wines. There was a yellow pungency to this wine, almost urine-like, but it was also buttery like a sautéed scallop with additional aromas of smoke and corn. Clean with aromas of smokehouse, sandalwood and charcoal, there was a lot going on here. Curdled flavors of rainwater and tang without the vitamin C were on the palate, along with white barbecue flavors. It was excellent but not as thrilling as other bottles of this wine that I have had (94). A 1991 DRC Grands Echezeaux had aromas of stems and bay water, salty and with additional aromas of dirty rose, beefaroni and lime. The palate was soft and polished, stemmy yet simple overall (91). I must have been complaining about collections when someone said the following, ‘Whenever your tailor starts bothering you about your debt, order four more new suits.’ I am not sure who said it, but I had to include it! The 1991 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg had a similar nose to the DRC. Milk, stems, rose were there, along with that tangy, salty bay water thing. There was more definition and substance here, and the Meo was quite earthy. Although 1991 has a bit of a sleeper reputation for the reds in Burgundy, this duo left me a bit under-impressed compared to their usual lofty status (93). We had to have one bottle of Rousseau to make up for its omission at Don’s birthday party, so we settled on a 1985 Rousseau Chambertin. The nose was classic 1985 with its sweet and nutty profile. Rich and gamy, the fruit was all about the cherry, but pruny as well. It was very aromatic, milky and foresty as well, with good bases of minerals and earth. Round, soft, easy and tender, the wine was gamy and friendly in the mouth, in a nice 1985 spot, but just missing a degree of ‘oomph’ that I was yearning. Nick and Geoffrey found it ‘fantastic’ (94). FIN JK
The first celebration of 2009 was a warm, welcome Happy Birthday for ‘The Don,’ the world’s pre-eminent collector of fine and rare Burgundy. If you had to bet on the size of Don’s collection, let’s just say that I would advise you to take the over! It was a milestone year being celebrated, and all I can tell you is that you probably wouldn’t want to drink much from his vintage, but you definitely would want to drink from his collection. He remains one of the most generous and passionate collectors in the world today. Many of New York’s top wine collectors were invited to gather at Veritas, which closed for the evening in order to celebrate ‘and many more.’ Bottles were coming from every angle, and it was tough to hold down a decent conversation, as everyone’s eyes were wandering around to make sure they didn’t miss the any new bottles being circulated. It could only be classified as ‘Wine Attention Overload Disorder.’ I managed to take 26 notes myself; my problem was that there were many magnums and many seconds; oops, I did it again. Everyone was welcomed with some 1996 Billecart Salmon Clos St. Hilaire, which was classic as always, racy like Nascar with its seemingly endless acidity. I am looking forward to drinking 1996 Champagnes for the rest of my life (96+). A jeroboam of 2004 Henri Boillot Chevalier Montrachet awaited. Henri was actually there, in fact. There was great musk to its nose and super aromatics. Very perfumed and nutty, it was also sweet, buttery and youthfully intoxicating. The palate was smooth and lush with nice citrus, bread and mineral flavors and a dusty finish, perhaps a touch closed out of jero (93+J). Sir Robert Bohr quickly offered up a 1986 Coche-Dury Meursault Chevaliers, which was very yeasty and nutty in the nose, bordering on a Chinese food impression. It was a bit dirty, still white meaty and nice, but starting to fade a bit and definitely very yeasty (91). The third wine of the night was offered up blind by Fred, and it was an amazing shocker. The nose was similar to the Coche except it was bigger, smokier and more open. There was also yeast here, but more balanced within the nose, as well as butter and game, and a just-right hint of stew. The palate was delicious, full of matchbook flavors, as well as morning dew, milk, earth and toast. We were all pleasantly stunned to find out it was a 1973 Domaine Leflaive Puligny Montrachet! Not a premier cru, just the village wine. It just goes to show you – producer, producer, producer (94). There was a mystery magnum that turned out to be an outstanding 1992 Sauzet Batard Montrachet, but damned if anyone knew the vintage at the time. It was super spiny, wound and intense per the style of Sauzet, full of acidity and strength in the nose. Classic anise rounded out this behemoth of a nose. The palate was full of spine as well, long and yeasty and full of personality and flavor. 1989? 1996? Those were initial guesses due to the tremendous structure, but it was actually a 1992, and about as much structure as I have seen from this maturing vintage and an amazing feat. Sauzet seems to be the forgotten upper echelon producer in the hierarchy of white Burgundy (96M). There was one more white wine for now, a 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault Chevaliers, which popped out of the glass as young Coche always does. Aromas of toast, kernel and a touch of cardboard (but not in a bad way) graced the nose. The palate was clean and fresh, tasty and full of kernel flavors and the big acid of the 1996 vintage (93). I managed a glass of 1966 Faiveley Latricieres Chambertin as I finally headed back from the bar, I believe courtesy of Geoffrey. Old Faiveleys are real jewels, especially the ‘Latriss,’ and this was no exception. The nose was sweet and musky, gamy and ripe with cherry oil aromas. Sexy and sultry, the ’66 had great candied and earthy flavors and was very, very tasty (95). 1985 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses out of magnum? Sure, why not. Aromas of forest floor, mushroom, earth, game and incredible nut all balanced together perfectly. The palate was also in a perfect spot, as many great ‘85s are right now. Round and succulent, there was still great definition, spine, spice and leather flavors to balance with its deep, deep, dark, dark cherry fruit. Still satiny smooth, I was most impressed by this wine out of magnum (96M). How about 1964 Pousse d’Or Volnay Les Caillerets out of jeroboam? Sure, why not. Although this jero was reconditioned and a recent release from the winery, it was about as good a job of reconditioning as one could hope for, providing both mature nuances and a fresh impression. The aromatics were great; leather, nut, minerals and stone stood on top of its sweet fruit. The flavors matched up well, and there were still mature game nuances along with excellent vigor, more so than if an original bottle, I’m sure. ‘Exquisite’ still summed it up (94J). I grabbed a 1971 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses off the list before I could be accused of keeping my hands in my pocket and on everyone else’s bottles for the evening. What a bottle. The nose was divine, so sweet, so perfect, so 1971, a vintage I have always adored and not because it was my year! The aromas were plentiful and adorable; landscaped garden, sweet cherry, oil and nut were symphonic in their presence. There was still superb t ‘n a, enough to make me sneeze. The lightest glaze of caramel added to its already tasty and sexy palate. Meat, earth and game rounded out the palate, although Big Boy found a minor flaw, calling it a touch beefy on the palate and gave it only, ahem ahem, oooooonly 95 points. Big Mike commented, ‘the nose, you can’t get any better, but the palate is better on the ’85.’ I liked the two vintages equally for different reasons, and saw both sides of this rare coin (96). Roy threw in a magnum of 1993 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses to keep the love going. The nose was deep, dark and inky. Iodine, band-aid and rich, deep, dark purple came to mind. The deep and dark trend continued on the palate for this infant of an Amoureuses. There were lots of vitamin flavors here, and the wine still left a round and balanced impression. I am going to love you 1993 long time (95+M). A white intermezzo slipped its way in front of me, a magnum of 1990 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. Can’t say no to Les Clos. The nose reminded me of a stony waterfall in the Amazon, with of touch of sweet cotton candy and a twist of citrus. It was also waxy. The mouth was rich and honeyed with great citrus and wax flavors, a continuum of the nose (95M). The first of a handful of DRC wines was next, a 1966 DRC La Tache. It was a touch dirty at first, which is consistent with most of my notes on this vintage for La Tache, but it blew off and sweetened out into beautiful rose, sweet cherry, earth, musk and a touch of ‘BM’ in a baby goodness way, keeping the dirty in the birdie. There was a touch of celery and stalk in the mouth to go with its rose and cherry flavors, but the wine never completely lost its dirtiness (94). A 1972 Vogue Bonnes Mares was exotic and tropical, stunningly so. It was extremely open in an apricoty way and had much less tomato than I remember for a typical ’72. The palate was rich and round, tender with a little sidekick, and impressive overall for this vintage (93). A quartet of Roumier Musignys was next served blind, a group effort. The first bottle had some issues and was a little oxidized. Too bad, as it was the 1995 Roumier Musigny, which some felt strongly would win the flight. Stewed vitamins, meat, iodine and nice leather were about all I could come up with. It was still somewhat drinkable, but not with fourteen wines down and three more Musignys up (92A). The second Moose was stemmy and complex with lots of forest spice and a nice milk and leather combo, halter-top style. Nice spice, outstanding spice, I continued. The palate was smooth, surprisingly velvety and plush, but it was more polished than I expected. It was the 1996 Roumier Musigny. I could taste the 1996 in it, but very faintly (94+). The third Roumier of this flight got a ‘big, incredible’ from Big Boy, and Inspector Barzelay was loving the tannins. The nose was very nutty, with aromas of sweet caramel and light, perfect toast that was caviar-ready. There was great fruit in the mouth, which was tart and tender with beautiful acidity and stem flavors. The 1988 Roumier Musigny was in a great spot and really, really good. 1988 was a special year for Roumier and a few others that made indubitably great wine (95). The final Musigny also got an ‘incredible’ from Big Boy. The ‘killer bees’ DB, RB, and BB quickly crowned it wine of the flight. Anise was the first thing that jumped out at me. Leather, stone, shoeshine, spine, meat and distinctive grape nuts (as in the cereal) all followed. It clearly had the best tannins of any wine in the flight as well as the longest finish; of course, it was the 1993 Roumier Musigny. Many flip-flopped or were divided between preferring the 1988 versus the 1996, but no one could deny the 1993 and its very concentrated personality. WOTN (97). A 1978 DRC Richebourg appeared courtesy of Airplane Eddie, who decided he had to bring some Conti and order to the proceedings. The ’78 was full of menthol and dripping with oil in its nose, 1978 the right way, I wrote, as some have complained about bottle variation amongst the ’78 DRCs. This one was A-OK. Doug guessed ‘78 RC or Riche.’ Impressive. I guess it was served blind! It was fresh and with a pop to it, but the palate was softer than the nose led me to believe, and there was a touch of almost spritz or CO2 there that was peculiar, not off, but peculiar (94). A magnum of 1983 Clair Dau Bonnes Mares was excellent, and another solid 1983, which I have been enjoying here and there over the past couple years. Black licorice dominated initially, opening up into nutty, Burgundian fruit. The flavors were also licorice, and the wine was fleshy and tasty with a nice finish, in a good spot and a good showing for this oft forgotten vintage in Burgundy (93M). Neil pulled out a gorgeous 1982 Henri Jayer Echezeaux. Jayer was a master of the ‘off’ vintages, and this was no exception to that rule. The nose was round and smooth, wine catnip. It was chock full of character, rich, full and complete. Plums and nut danced around the nose, and the palate was ‘wow’ tasty, with the perfect amount of sweetness and game. Yum (95). What the heck was this, a 1991 Guigal Cote Rotie La Turque? This wasn’t Burgundy, this was an impostor! Ok, I won’t go any further and shame the person that brought it (Michael you know who you are :) ), but I must say that I was actually stunned how Burgundian it was. I am not sure if it was the circle of influence, the actual wine, or the fact that my senses had been drowned in Pinot, but the La Turque actually fit right in and was outstanding (95). It was getting late, and a few started to trickle out the door. It was time to separate the alcoholics from the men lol. Doug pulled out a rare 1915 Faiveley Bonnes Mares. Aromas of oat, hay, brown sugar and cereal were all there. It had that old, chapitalized feel, toasty and sweet, earthy and still possessing some freshness, still very good and a fascinating trip back in time (92). I wobbled over to a 1978 Dujac Echezeaux. Aromas of garden, ‘bubble bath,’ play dough, musk, nut, game, black cherry and forest floor were present, and noted as a group effort. There was a nice sweetness to the palate on this excellent wine (94). There were a couple of big cannons at the end of the night, although they didn’t quite go off as planned. A 1949 Roumier Musigny was unfortunately corked and tough to get into beyond that, although it did have great mouthfeel. What a shame (DQ). Then there was a controversial bottle of 1945 DRC Romanee Conti. Inspector Barzelay was all over the potential crime scene. First, my observations, in non-sentence form: ‘Aromas of old cherry, old vitamins, old book. Gamy and super old with amazing aromatics and lots of cobwebs. Rose, menthol and mint, all the classic components. Gamy but a touch stewed. Mouthfeel lighter than it should be but aromatically right on.’ Even the Inspector admitted that the aromatics were typical old RC, but he could not get beyond the fact that the mouthfeel was not as thick or rich as his memory served him, nor mine for that matter. It was definitely ‘45-lite,’ but who is to say that it is not bottle variation? I definitely couldn’t say it wasn’t what it was supposed to be. Old wines can be extremely variable, even within the same case. I still thought the wine was close to outstanding, but definitely at the bottom of my ’45 experiences, all other of which have been religious. Rob also felt the bottle was stewed and a bit affected, not in perfect condition but still special (95A?) I think we covered most of the major food groups – sacre bleu! No Rousseau? How did that happen? And Don is probably Rousseau’s number one fan…encore encore, anyone? JK I recently spent a weekend in Los Angeles hosted by none other than Dr. Bipin Desai, of course. This particular event celebrated the frères Thienpont, Alexandre and Jacques, and their respective properties, Vieux Chateau Certan and Le Pin, two of Pomerol’s brightest stars. It was a magical weekend full of magical wines, and while Le Pin was expected to be great and delivered, it was Vieux Chateau Certan that stole the show, proving yet again that it is still Pomerol’s best-kept secret. Unfortunately, I missed Friday’s session featuring many of the younger VCC’s as I was conducting an auction that night, but I made it out just in time for Saturday’s lunch, where many golden oldies awaited. I have found over the last few years that the best place to be on New Year’s Eve is at the home of the world’s greatest collector of Champagne, aka Big Boy. This year was no exception, and the generosity of our host was on full display with an incredible lineup of Champagnes and wines. In fact, the evening ended up being a little more wine-heavy than I thought, but after what we got to taste, there would be no complaints. All wines were sabered by our host; therefore you can add an 'S' at the end of each Champagne rating if you so choose. We started with a 1964 Bollinger RD magnum, disgorged in the mid-80s. It had a yeasty nose with light orange blossom, minerals and light mesquite. It was a touch musty in the mouth at first, very dry and linear. There was still nice sprite and decent straw flavors, but most were unimpressed. It got a ‘sweaty’ from Brad, it was definitely corked and an ‘ehhh’ overall (88A-M). We got to the controversy early with the evening’s second bubbly. I should note that the King always does his hosted tastings blind, so everyone can make an ass of himself and be relegated to the King’s stable, where God knows what happens lol. There was this wild truffle pudding sweetness to the nose, flirting with a butterscotch. Its flavors tasted almost spiked with something absinthe or de menthe. Something and cinnamon joined the party, but the overall palate gave a minty and medicinal impression, and it was very fresh. Brad said that he ‘never had a nose like this before,’ while Big Boy found it ‘outta this world.’ Everyone was all over the truffles in the nose. People were guessing ‘60s or ‘70s, and then the guessing went all over the map, and no one thought this was a 1923 Bollinger. Even after people knew, some still didn’t think it was :). I haven’t seen too many fake Champagnes in my life, but have seen a handful, and its crazy nose and sickly flavors had to make you wonder, but I couldn’t say one way or another definitively. Airplane Eddie found the nose ‘still mind-blowing’ thirty minutes later (93). The third bubbly had a more mature nose and was seemingly more advanced than the previous two. There was more baked bread and yeast, as well as petal aromas. The palate was round and wine-like, and I have definitely had better bottles of 1929 Bollinger, seeing that I have had a near-perfect, 98-point one before. The palate was easy and tender, soft and with morning mouth flavors (91A). The next bubbly also had the truffle oil thing going on, big-time. There was also a hint of floral, sweet, lavender-ish something. Brioche toast aromas rounded out the nose. The palate was delicious, long and balanced, still with a touch of sprite. The palate also had coffee flavors, and its touch of petillance tickled my fancy, as did kisses of white chocolate and sugar. Big Boy declared that we were in 6-star territory. It was a 1900 Heidseick Monopole. Hell yeah (97). We were starting to heat up, as the next bubbly was also very complex. The 1949 Bollinger had aromas of honey, acacia and edges of minerals and botani ebi sweet shrimp were enveloped in its sweet, floral and decadent style. It was lightly toasty. Its palate was mature, full of caramel and orange flavors, with just a touch of sprite left. Someone noted that it was ‘in a perfect place, mature but just enough acid.’ Its finish was lengthy and dry, and its spriteliness actually picked up in the glass; this was a long, intense and dry wine that still left a fine impression - it still had elegance and delicacy. There were great honeycomb flavors, and this stony, minerally, creamy beauty won’t get any better, but it won’t necessarily get worse for a bit, either. Yum (96). Another odd bottle was next, and it was a 1961 Salon. ‘Sea dock,’ was the first thing I noted. Bob concurred with ‘barnacles.’ It was tough to get past that, but it did blow off, and a little vanilla cream came through. The palate was round with flavors of minerals and citrus. There was good sprite here, a lean sweetness and a smokehouse edge. The sea dock blew off, and it was very fresh overall, but the King and Big Boy both acknowledged that the bottle was disappointing given what it was. Todd noted ‘apples’ (93). We were back to Bollinger again, and the 1961 Bollinger was outstanding. There was a bit of sweaty armpit in a nice way, along with shellfish shell – there was this great musky, seared scallop thing happening. The palate had excellent definition, with fresh and lively citrus and vanilla flavors. It was leaning on the dry side with a pinch of sweetness, and had great lime flavors (95). The next one was even better, also fresh, clean, sugary, edgy, floral and sexy. Its nose was also white meaty. There were decadent oil flavors, and a smoked, outdoor grill style to its flavors. Sweeter and more sugary than the 1961, the 1966 Bollinger was great. A ’66 versus ’61 debate broke out, and Dr. Conti was in the ’61 camp, but conceded the ’66 was better now. Eddie preferred the ‘66 (96). It was time for some red wine, and the first was Burgundy, of course. It had a fabulous Burgundy nose, sweet and tangy, full of hedonistic and musky fruit. Vibrant black cherry, gamy Burgundy essence permeated the nose and palate. Menthol was also all over the palate, and there were round, tea-like flavors, as in the Emperor’s tea. There were also beef bouillon and oil flavors and unreal garden goodness in this spectacular 1969 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze (97). The next wine was also a Clos de Beze, this time being a 1976 Drouhin Chambertin Clos de Beze. Its nose was much more coy, tight and shy, with an oatmeal nose, along with rose and black chocolate. The palate was citrusy and dry with nice tannins. Clean and clear, it left a very good impression but was tough after the Rousseau (91). Unfortunately, the 1976 Drouhin Musigny was oxidized (DQ). It was back to Champagne, and the mini-streak of bad luck continued with a corked bottle of 1970 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. What a shame. There is no doubt that this bottle would have been in the 95+ category if it hadn’t been corked, but there was too much cork to deal at this stage (DQ). Lucky number thirteen was a 1975 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. Its nose was sweaty, with good animal aromas. It had a nice edge to its very, very dry personality. Strawberry flavors emerged, but overall it was too dry. It did have nice length, and hints of unsweetened marzipan emerged. The sushi brought some life out of it and some bready goodness, but I wanted more from it (92). The 1979 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises finally lived up to its reputation. As Eddie succinctly put it, ‘Now that’s an f’in wine – really good mousse.’ Big Boy hailed it as ‘great.’ Its nose was incredible – sweet and wide with the bread and meat of a perfect calzone, made with whole wheat and grilled. There was also this ginger snap edge to the ’79, whose crazy complexity and razor-like greatness combined for an intensity unmatched by any other Champagne on this evening. Bready, yeasty edgy, long and full of straw flavors, it continued to get better you better you bet (97). The next bubbly was very oaky, over the top with its oaky, baked oak. The palate was so thick and meaty, though, it made me want to forgive. Its texture and length were monumental, but the oak was tough to get past. So damn thick but too damn oaky are pretty much the remainder of my notes on this 1979 Krug Clos du Mesnil (95+?). The VVF’s continued with a 1980 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises, which was dusty, almost spicy in a wintry way. There were nice vanilla notes, but also a hint of alley in the morning, freshly hosed. Nice freshness, nice sprite and nice length made up for a nice wine, simple but nice. I guess it was the vintage (91). The 1981 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was a bit rubbery at first, Eddie was liking it, but Big Boy found it ‘good but a little empty.’ It opened up to reveal honey, marmalade and quince aromas and flavors, with the flavors adding an orange hue to the overall picture. It kept getting better and better. Big Boy then confessed that he was smoking crack, and a lifelong addict lol (95+). The 1982 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was peculiar, with a rubber tire nose and a rubber tire, super dry palate. It tasted like it should be great, but just wasn’t (92+?). Eddie pulled a couple wines out of his bag to break up the Champagne, and it was perfect timing. The first had an intoxicating nose that was smoky, sweet and sappy. Aromas of mesquite and a wood-burning grill along with an exotic perfume graced its nose. There were also great forest and cedar nuances in its fantastic nose. The palate was super – balanced, long and with great stalk and good earth flavors. It was evidently good real estate, and this 1964 DRC Richebourg got oilier and sweeter (95). The next red courtesy of Eddie had an earthy, gamy nose that had great meat to it. The flavors were more tender with sour cherry notes along with carob and citrus. The menthol and mesquite were admirable, but it was soft in the mouth overall, still excellent. It was a 1969 DRC La Tache, which some preferred to the ‘64. I just felt like saying, ‘Eddieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee’ (93). The 1991 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze had a spiny edge with great spice and an easy personality. Meat and blood spilled out of the glass (93). It was back to Champagne with a great nose, spritely, fresh and special with white meats and fruits. Tangy and citrusy in the mouth, this 1985 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was sexy juice (95). The 1986 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was taut and citrusy, with a great centerpoint, and corn and butter flavors in a margarine way (93). Words were starting to allude me as we neared wine number twenty-five, as you can see by my concise notes. The trend continued, as my notes for the 1989 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises read, ‘bready, toasty, corny…so fresh and young…super fresh…super young fresh.’ I think that about sums it up, other than the fact that the ’89 was a monster, one of the wines of the night, just so young and wound that I felt we were disturbing it (97). We ventured into Bordeaux with a gravelly and smoky nose full of rich tobacco and meat aromas. Cassis, caramel and dank, dark fruit also emerged. Edgy and delicious came to mind as I sampled its rich tobacco flavors. It was round and tasty, balanced like well-managed bank accounts. Are there any of those left out there? Some tootsie pop flavors signified Pomerol, and it was an outstanding bottle of 1947 Latour a Pomerol (95). The 1945 La Mission Haut Brion showed lots more animal and barn, very gamy and earthy, but softer overall. It did gain in the glass to reveal more game, hay, earth and animal, but was still shy in the company of the Latour a Pomerol (93+). We had another incredible Burgundy that was meaty and gamy with rose, oil, iron, animal and animal fat. Rich, meaty, delicious was all that was needed to describe the "19?? Je ne sais quoi." Sorry, I forgot to write down what it was, and was waiting on an update there from the King as of press time…it was (95), whatever it was :). The 1964 DRC Romanee Conti was also great. I even conceded the notes were over, but ‘this is the shit.’ It also got a ‘yum yum deeeelish.’ It was party-time (95+). Well, I thought the notes were over, but the next wine gave me one last surge of strength and invigorated me. ‘Killerrrr,’ was how the note began, with a few more r’s in there. ‘Wowowow,’ was next. Smelling this wine was like walking into a royal garden, full of intensity and energy. Despite being so old, it still had remarkable acidity and great richness. Its intensity and spice were noteworthy. I couldn’t even drink the ’45 La Mission after having one sip of the 1906 La Tache. It was an earth-shaker (97). There were a couple more bottles, a 1952 Bouchard Musigny (91) and a 1969 Marey-Monge (DRC) Romanee St. Vivant (93), but the night truly ended with the 1906. What a wine, and what a night. Since the King’s secret hideaway is basically on the West Virginia border, a flock of Manhattanhites including me flew out of there in a hurry, as it was really late already. Not much was said on the trip back except ‘Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.’ FIN JK
Last night, New York City’s wine version of the Usual Suspects got together at a secret location to drink and be merry. A kickoff to the holiday season, it all started so innocently, with Bad Boy Bruce checking in with the King, and then it quickly blossomed into something that everyone could fit into their schedule. I happily sampled generous portions of seventeen wines in all, including a grandest of a finale. Many were magnums, and I was glad not to see the usual 25-30 wines since it was only Tuesday, after all. Champagne dominated the evening, as many Bubblephiles were in the house. Consider me one of them. It was also a Clos des Goisses first quarter, with four magnums going back that spanned a quarter-century. We began with the 1976. The 1976 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was disgorged in March 2002. All the Clos des Goisses we had were late disgorgements, and done very well. There was great toast in the ‘76’s nose, with a touch of Flintstone vitamins, more bread and ultimately caramel and quince. It was delightfully complex in the nose, but the palate could not keep pace. While smooth and fresh, the ’76 was also simple, solid and easy to appreciate but not as great as I was hoping. Gamy quince and wheat flavors rounded out this very good magnum (92M). The 1966 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was grassier in its first impression, with similar cracked wheat and now rye crisp aromas. Jo observed its ‘nice mushroomy quality.’ The ’66 was much fuller-bodied, displaying more definition and flavors than the ’76. Much more. There was also great length to this superb Champagne. Edges of white chocolate danced in and out, and its great, earthy finish displayed some dirty goodness. The ’66 was disgorged in November of 2000. He shoots, he scores (95M). We had a red wine intermezzo, a good thing when a magnum of 1971 Vogue Bonnes Mares. There were nice aromatics, with game, cherry, truffles, earth, bitters and a touch of limy kink to its citric sides. Round, tender, smooth yet still vigorous, it was a nice magnum but I wanted a little more from it (93M). A small debate began after the 1964 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was served, that being 1964 vs 1966, both specifically and in general. While specifically could have gone either way, in general the answer is 1966, which is not to take away from 1964. The ’64 was disgorged in November 2004 and was very clean with aromas of straw, hay, earth, grass and game. The grass and game really came out on the flavors, along with wild garden ones. Nice acidity and length played right into its ‘stonier’ personality. Elegant, easy, classy and long, the 1964 had everything going for it, but I did prefer the 1966. King Angry and Big Boy were leaning towards the ’64 (94M). The 1953 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was the finest of our four magnums of Goisses. Its nose was full of wafers with a vanilla sex appeal and drops of honey. Wendy, aka the Angry Chick, cooed, ‘this is why we drink Champagne.’ There was this Wheaties goodness about the ’53, as if health benefits could be derived from drinking it. Its acidity was great, the greatest so far, and its vivacious citrus flavors were impressive. The ’53 stayed light on its feet, in an Ali way (96M). Time for another red, this time a magnum of 1964 Clair Dau Bonnes Mares. The magnum of Clair Dau had a spectacular nose, dripping with sweet, decadent cherry fruit along with animal, olive, forest and mint. Jo called it ‘sensational.’ Its sweetness became nutty and meaty. The palate possessed flavors of oatmeal, brown sugar, iron and meat on the grill juice. It was round, tasty and sexy, plentiful and flirting with outstanding territory, but ultimately softening like the beginning of a setting sun. The Vogue was more silky and satiny, but the Clair Dau made one think more (94+M). A magnum of 1975 Bollinger RD was super sweet in its aromatics with a candy corn-like complexity. Thick, lush, creamy and sweet, the Bolly had a good finish and was a better show than many expected. There was nice sprite to its personality and tasty sasparilla flavors. The ’75 still had good bones (93M). I noted how times must be tough, because it was 10:45pm and we had only had seven wines. In 2007, we would have been up to twenty by now lol. Big Boy then made his own version of social commentary when he relayed that someone told him this past week that he looked like a million bucks, to which he replied, ‘My friend, times are bad, but they’re not that bad.’ And they were not, as next up was a killer bottle of 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. courtesy of the Duke. The Ponsot was spot on, with an incredible and concentrated nose of crushed black and blue fruits. It was menthol city, with delicious mint chocolate flavors and a monstrous personality. Crazy thick and rich, the Ponsot also had an explosive finish that said, ‘see me in 2030’ (97+). A magnum of original 1961 Bollinger was a touch advanced, very wine-like with wood notes. The palate was honeyed, nutty, round and buttery with apple edges. It was excellent, but should have been better and had lost most of its fizz (93A-M). A magnum of 1964 Ayala was ‘diesely’ per Airplane Eddie, and very fresh as it was recently disgorged. Rich, vitamin and hearty, the ’64 was excellent but quickly an afterthought (93M). A very rare bottle of 1966 Billecart Salmon Blanc de Blancs had a stony nose, quite hearty and sturdy with descriptors such as long, big, powerful, ‘heft’ (Patman), rich and killerrr. Its flavors were rich and full of vanilla, delicious despite a woodsy streak. Its full-bodied sweetness was most impressive (95). The Billecart was followed by another, this time the 1966 Billecart Salmon Cuvee Nicolas Francois. The color was a bit dark, so there was some initial trepidation, but the N.F. was outstanding. Aromas of marshmallow, caramel and diesel all came from the crowd. Flavors of anise and honeypot graced this rich, thick and long Champagne, which displayed nectar-like qualities. It was lip-smackingly good with a huge finish, displaying ‘far more muscle’ per Bob. Additional flavors of white chocolate rounded out this killer Champagne (95+). The 1966 Krug quickly bumped the Billecarts to the back. It was a perfect bottle. ‘Far and away the best,’ seemed to be an initial consensus. It had the signature, old Krug vanilla cream sex appeal, and its structure was nothing less than incredible. Even Eddie gave it a ‘quite good,’ which really means something coming from Eddie! Gentleman Jim appreciated its ‘youthful’ nature, and this serious Champagne had so much power it was flirting with being out of control. Its searing intensity called everyone to attention, and its long, spiny and crushing personality dominated the room. White berry and white truffle flavors developed. Big boy hailed, ‘there’s this and then everything else,’ in a way which made it sound like Old Milwaukee lol, but it certainly was the truth (98). A 1966 Salon was a worthy follow-up to the Krug, with its big, saucy nose. I wrote ‘rich’ three times in my notes, and it also had vanilla, butter and cream components. ‘Awesome, long, creamy and rich,’ (make that four times). That about summed it up at this point (96). Actually, there was another bubbly before the grand finale, a 1921 Moet. The Moet had a sweet nose, like a sugar stick, but also with the vanilla cream. It was wine-like but still buttery and rich, tasty and delicious, round and lush (93). Last and certainly not least was a spectacular bottle of 1923 DRC Romanee Conti. It was everything one could hope for from a great, old Conti. The haunting bouquet of old, wilting roses, grilled meat, old book, Worcestershire, leather, tender cherry fruit, animal…the nose kept going and going, literally haunting the whole room. It still had tremendous concentration and noticeable acidity that was strong enough to carry the kaleidoscopic spectrum of aromas and flavors. It was well worth the extra hour Big Boy made us wait for it as he lectured the night away (98). I had to run for the hills. I think it was already after 1:30AM. I would like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. If you read this far, then I know you will be drinking some good shtuff :) May all your wines be memorable. FIN JK My recent trip to Asia before my next trip to Asia (in two weeks) found me in Korea, and as I usually find myself, surrounded by a significant quantity of fine wines. This particular evening was all about Bordeaux, 1995 vs. 1996 First Growths, to be exact. It was a great mix of people, mainly young professionals very eager to taste these distinguished wines, and very eager for Korea to lower its somewhat prohibitive tax on wine. This past week saw Wolfgang and I in Hong Kong together for a very special dinner celebrating his auction and cellar. It was a most extraordinary testament to a most extraordinary cellar. Amidst all the financial turmoil of the week, the dinner at Robuchon transported us to a place far, far away, about as close to wine heaven as one could hope. Every bottle, shipped from Europe to America and then to Hong Kong, was in ideal condition and showing phenomenally. It really does not get any better, and for this we had Wolfgang and his four decades of collecting to thank.
A week after packing up Wolf’s cellar – at least what he parted with, I should say – I was back in Switzerland for a most special dinner hosted by one of Wolf’s dearest friends. It was a belated 60th birthday party for Hans Jorg (born in 1947), but I don’t think anyone minded much that it was a year late after being treated to an extraordinary lineup. When it comes to Wolf and his wine-drinking friends, apples do not fall far from the tree! We started with a welcome 1998 Billecart Salmon Cuvee Nicolas Francois. It had a warm, inviting nose full of mature, yeasty notes, bright yellow sun-baked fruits and perfect toast. The palate was rich, creamy, spritely and delicious, full of vanilla and citrus flavors, and I was quite impressed given it was a 1998. There wasn’t the weight there of a truly great vintage, and its acidity was quite civilized, but it should provide excellent and earlier drinking pleasure for a while still (93). We sat down to the first ‘official’ wine of the night, which was also a bubbly. There was only one rule for the night – everyone must drink everything! A deep gold color and very slight petillance had every one guessing which 1947 Champagne it was. There was just a bubble here and a bubble there. Its pungent nose had lots of vanilla, almost a vanilla crunchiness to it, and there was also wood, caramel, straw and a combination of wet hay and wet grass. There was better sprite in the mouth, a Chateldon quality of a sparkle, very fine but bright with its lemony goodness. Hints of minerals, wet rocks and earth rounded it out at first. This bubbly kept changing, though, and its secondary aromas were all about dried fruits extraordinaire, this combination of apricot, peach, pineapple and banana peel. It got more stewed, in a good way, and the palate flirted with outstanding, but there was a hint of lightness in the middle. Some caviar brought it across the border; however, we were a bit shocked to find out this was a 1979 Krug Collection, out of magnum nonetheless. I have had infantile bottles of this, so even though this magnum was still outstanding, it was definitely a touch advanced (95A-M). We had one white wine on this night, a white Burgundy, of course, also served out of magnum. It had a gorgeous nose, honeyed and dressed in white with aromas of acacia, lilac and honeysuckle. On the one hand, it was so sweet and so tropical, but on the other hand still so poised. All the shades of honey joined the party – suckle, comb, nectar…even honeydew. Its floral components were definitely all white. The palate was round and softer than the nose, perhaps muted by the cold temperature at which it was served, but the white was still seemingly mature with its integrated acidity despite its youthful flavors. I noted that its acidity could also have been lost in its opulence, and sure enough the broth that came shortly thereafter helped the acidity emerge. Wolf observed, ‘honey, pineapple and botrytis.’ We were thinking DRC ’85 or ’90, shocked to find out it was a 2001 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche! It was a fascinating follow up to the 2000 I had the night before, showing a lot of botrytis, indeed (93M). It was time to get serious with some red, red wine. The first red had a great, old nose with the cobwebs, dust and leather, but still fragrance to its fruit. Sweet black cherry, cassis, a pinch of animal and an almost Asian, spicy glaze were all there in this alive and complex nose. Caramel started oozing out, along with some sautéed green beans. The palate was a bit simpler, ‘volatile’ per Wolf, who still conceded ‘beautiful sweetness,’ a ‘the sweetness of death.’ The palate was honeyed with hints of raisin and fig, round and fleshy without the flesh, lush without being chewy. It was soft, tender and caressing in the mouth, with dusty flavors of candle wax and walnuts. The intensity factor wasn’t much, but the beauty was still there in this magnum of 1947 Latour, and that is that ‘sweetness of death’ to which Wolf earlier referred (92M). The next wine’s nose was all about the graham cracker at first, with chocolate behind it. It flirted with smores but was not that sweet. It was more gamy and ‘waxy’(Wolf, of course), with aromas of dried nuts and shells. The palate was rich and had excellent mouth feel and grip with its great citric spice, tang and long finish. Even Wolf cooed about its length. The wine was round, rich, tangy and long, still with excellent acidity. Flavors of carob and tobacco and a signature gravelly finish rounded out this excellent magnum of 1947 Haut Brion (94M). The next red was also out of magnum, much lighter in color but still all about Bordeaux. There was a perfect balance of nut and cedar, complemented by an equally beautiful balance of fruits and nuts, along with ‘sweet roses.’ The nose was incredibly harmonious; rich, soft and tender with pinches of gas and earth. ‘Sweet and mellow,’ Wolf admired, calling it ‘more refined.’ Lafite? Ausone? This was grace in a glass, a charming, tender and easy wine, and sure enough was a magnum of 1947 Lafite Rothschild, what would turn out to be the most elegant wine of the night (94M). The quality continued with a much deeper nose. Aromas of olive, forest, mushroom gravy, black fruits and a cardamom or something of the sorts were all present in this big nose. The palate was noticeably dry, a bit sun burnt in a black sand way. There were more tannins and tobacco present in this gritty red. It was not as seductive as the Lafite, but sometimes a spanking is in order lol. I liked the vigor in this magnum of 1947 Calon Segur. It was more muscle than charm, a sturdy, schoolyard bully of a ’47, and excellent though perhaps a hint brutish (93+M). The next two reds stole the show, as they should have. The first had great cobwebs in the nose, like walking into a tomb full of wine treasure. Dust, leather, earth, carob and caramel were all there in supporting roles. A hint of Mouton mint and menthol crept in, but this was not Mouton. The palate was rich and saucy, chocolaty and minty. The acidity was superb and noticeably long, giving tremendous lift to an already spicy finish. Everyone quickly agreed that this was wine of the night, a true ‘palate coater.’ This magnum of 1947 Ausone was worth a trip to Switzerland! It was so minty and so delicious, rusty and spiny to the last drop. Traces of gardenia lingered in my empty glass (97M). The obligatory magnum of 1947 Cheval Blanc followed. Oh, if you insist. The nose was coffee city; rich, concentrated and saucy. It, too, had excellent acidity and was very hearty, spicy and long. 1947 was a Right Bank year, after all. It became classically port-like with a little air time. Flavors of caramel, chocolate and motor oil were all there, and there was no doubting the quality of its intense grit, spice and spine. Walter, aka ‘Mr. Cheval Blanc,’ blessed the wine, so we knew we were good :) . The Ausone and Cheval were practically a dead heat, but in the end I preferred the Ausone. Walter then got up and proceeded to give a warm, heartfelt speech. Too bad it was in German lol (96+M). But it wasn’t over! There were two dessert wines to go, the first being a 1967 Yquem. The Yquem’s nose was sweet and musky, classic with its candle wax, nut and caramel aromas. While it came across mature, its color was so young. Wolf picked on it, citing ‘a hint of bitterness and not quite perfect.’ After getting to know Wolf’s collection intimately, it is easier to understand how ‘not quite perfect’ is a letdown! It was still clean and fresh to me, with delicious flavors of caramel, orange marmalade, butterscotch, peach and apricot. It didn’t last long in my glass - yum (96). The second Sauternes had a milder nose with more wax and honey to it and also seemed deeper, thicker and nuttier. The palate was much richer and oilier, full of coconut and smoke flavors. There was more acidity and pop here, but the 1947 Rieussec gave a clumsier impression and seemed simpler over time, albeit still excellent in its own right (94). Happy Birthday Hans Jorg. To many more! JK
After a hard week packing up Wolfgang’s cellar, or should I say half of it, Wolf rewarded us with a tremendous dinner at Zum Gupf, a spectacular mountain retreat near Appenzell where you can actually see Germany and Austria. We sampled a quintet of wines from his cellar, featuring a pair of Romanee Contis and Leroys, two of his favorite things. First, we set the table with a 1996 Krug clos du Mesnil. The razor-like acidity was incredible at first whiff, slicing through my nose with ninja-like dexterity. The nose was pure Krug with its vanilla cream and bright citrus rainbow. The palate was so fresh and zippy but somehow reserved. Its flavors still manged to last on my palate for over a minute. It reminded me of Romanee Conti (RC) with its extraordinary subtlety yet length. There were excellent traces of nut and wood in this Champagne that is as good as it gets (98+). The 1982 DRC Montrachet had a deep color and fantastic nose with an amazing balance of smoke and sweetness. Aromas of forest and Szechuan oil without the spicy edge graced its regal nose, along with butter, caramel and honey. Its palate was rich and sweet with lots of root vegetable flavors. Wolf found that it ‘shows botrytis,’ but its sweetness was not over the top, and it was in a perfect spot at age 26. The acisity was still solid even though the wine just melted in the mouth. There was great dust expression as well as well as toffee crunch flavors, and a ‘scotch-like complexity’ per Justin. Hints of mesquite rounded out this rich, supple and perfect expression of mature Montrachet (95). A 1990 Leroy Latricieres Chambertin needed a minute to blow off its oak, but after that aromas of cherry oil, forest, earth, mint and basil. This was certainly a bull in the burgundy shop lol. Black cherry and strawberry joined the party, and this exotic Thai curry (wow!) along with cinnamon. The wine was a bit brutish after the Montrachet but still excellent and signature in style of Leroy. It got more Asian in its spice with a refill, its big beefy flavors balancing well with its leather, spice and spine. It got more purple in its nose, and a debate ensued whether this was poetry or rap. Either way, it had something to say (93). The 1990 Leroy Richebourg was much beefier and brawnier, very brooding in style. Again, there was this initial whiff of wood, along with sesame oil and crunch. More animalistic, the Richebourg also had much more power, again big and bruising with more slate and mineral this time. It got saucier in the glass, concentrated and exotic, thick, burly and rich with its meaty flavors of beef and cola. Bouillon emerged, along with smoked almonds (95+). The 1983 DRC Romanee Conti was a fitting farewell. Exotic aromas of mint and vanilla first emerged, along with some tutti frutti and a hint of rot. It was still concentrated yet also light on its feet. The palate was thick and lush, so RC. The mint morphed into more spice cabinet, and rust crept in. It had that gout de terroir and rich, delicious menthol flavors. Its acidity was still remarkable for 1983, a year that always seems to setll please me when it comes to the best producers. There is no doubt that this is one of them (95). It was a small selection, but one that proved the point yet again what a special cellar this is. I will always drink to it. JK I have been traveling across Europe for the better part of two weeks. The first week was all work, packing up the cellar of Wolfgang Grunewald in scenic Switzerland. While we probably should have spent seven or eight days on the job inspecting and packing the some-odd 800 cases for shipment, we managed to jam it into five days in true Acker fashion, including a couple of 2-3am nights. It was well worth it; it was a thrilling cellar to inspect, and it should be the most significant sale of the entire market’s Fall season. Here’s wishing everyone a happy 4th of July with an article about…Beijing, or rather my recent trip to Beijing before our inaugural Hong Kong auction, interrupting my not-so-recent ‘Four in a Row’ series of articles. Better late than never, I know. But, in a way, I can’t help but notice the irony, and I can assure you it was strictly unintentional! Without getting into a social and economic paper about it, let’s just say that China has got the world’s attention with its blistering economy, not to mention all the profits it is making for foreign companies as well. Is it me, or do Americans seem to be getting fatter and lazier? Well, the Chinese are hungry, and they are coming, three or four for every American, too. It is clear to me that China is the world’s next superpower, and I hope America will continue to keep up. Work, people! |