Twenty very serious and fortunate wine aficionados gathered at Bouley in late April for a celebration of 1960’s Burgundies. All wines came directly from the impeccable cellar of Dr. Shelley Rabin, with whom we have been doing dinners for years. Every time we do a dinner featuring wines from Shelley’s cellar, the types of wines we enjoy are usually very old and rare. We are talking wines like 1945 Mouton, 1945 Vogue Musigny, 1947 Cheval, etc. However, there has rarely been a disappointment (maybe 3 or 4 bottles out of hundreds), and the wines from his cellar are often exhilarating. Shelley bought most of his older wines during the 1980s and early nineties, and the provenance of his bottles is second to none. I am very fortunate to count him as my friend, and also fortunate that he enjoys sharing and tasting his great wines with others.

Unfortunately, Shelley had to miss the dinner as his wife broke her toe that afternoon in a freak accident. We were fortunate that Chet Kern, known Burgundy lover and expert, was able to join us in his absence at Shelley’s request. We started off with a token white, the 1969 Leroy Meursault Perrieres. While there is a lot of controversy surrounding some of Leroy’s older wines and late releases, there was no doubting the authenticity of this bottle. The wine had a gorgeous nose with beautiful toast, nut, caramel and bread aromas. There was a touch of orange in that orange beef way, without the beef, of course. If I was served this wine blind, I would have probably guessed 1986, as it had a lot of similar qualities to other wines from 1986 that I have had. The palate was very bready, and Joe found it a touch acidic.. Chet observed some lemon-lime custard. action and commented how he thought that the parcel of Perrieres used for this vintage is now under Coche-Dury’s control. The palate was definitely a step behind the nose and lacked the relative definition, but the wine was still very good, especially considering it was a thirty-five year old white (91).

Two wines from 1969 were the next flight, and they were accompanied by one of the best dishes of food I have ever had in my life, one involving egg, shrimp and truffles that was so unbelievably good, the urge to lick my plate came over me. Thankfully, that is why God invented bread. Normally, I do not write about food that much (writing about wine is enough!), but I have to say that David Bouley is still one of the great culinary geniuses of this era, and his restaurant is one of my personal three favorite in New York City. This was one of the rare times where the food was so good it stole the show from the wines this particular course, at least. The 1969 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes had an intriguing nose with menthol, earth, carob, leather, band-aid, mushrooms and a touch of Worcestershire. There were both pronounced animal and vegetable aromas and flavors. The palate had lots of alcohol and acid in its earthy profile, and also what seemed like a touch of wood must or barrel skin flavors. The palate was gamy and rusty, hot in the glass at first, but it did expand and gain in the glass, with which Chet concurred (93). The 1969 Bichot La Romanee had a deep nose, also with menthol as well as wound fruit, earth and tobasco. There was good structure on the palate, which was more classically rendered for a 1969 with its rust and earth (the Vogue had more lushness to its fruit). There was nice balance up front in the mouth, in a rugged way, but the finish had more spine and heat than the Vogue, and I found it to be a bit too much. The wine became more and more finish-heavy and lost its balanced qualities with more time in the glass, becoming a bit of a bruiser, though still respectable (91).

The third flight was arguably the flight of the night, and it made many of the attendees coo affectionately over the virtues of great, old Burgundy and the 1966 vintage. The first wine in this most memorable flight was the 1966 Vogue Bonnes Mares. Having had this wine before and finding it extraordinary, I was prepared for a letdown but got none. The nose was gorgeous with its milk chocolate, earth, stalk and pinch of white sugared Burgundy fruit. There were also secondary aromas of cherry and tobacco, and its earth component flirted more with actual dirt, but good dirt. The palate was great: spiny, gritty yet fine. There was nice citric tension to its palate with good animal flavors and lots of stony ones on its finish. Both Rob and George gave the wine 20/20 or 100 points (take your pick), and it was extraordinary. My only potential complaint about the wine is that it did not seem to get stronger in what little time it had in the glass, but there is nothing wrong with a wine being fully mature as long as it is still delicious, but it is a wine that I think should be enjoyed now (95). The 1966 Grands Echezeaux tried to deliver a knock out blow to the flight and almost succeeded. ‘s Grands Echezeaux remains the real bang for your buck when it comes to . The wine had a sensuous nose full of rose, black cherry, stalk, wet slate and chalk. What a palate, I wrote next, as it was meaty, rich, fine and still sensuous. There were great leather flavors, and while this wine also seemed fully mature, it seemed to have more inner strength without showing any signs of decline. Its power and richness held, and there was great depth to its Asian spice, dark chocolate and citrus dust components. Overall, the wine was clearly the most powerful of this flight and remained young in the glass (96+). Its sibling, the 1966 Richebourg, had a reticent nose by comparison but still possessed divine, fat, nutty fruit to its nose. There was this almost indescribable aroma of hot earth with its first sprinkle of summer rain. There was amazing power here as well; a lot of oomph but somehow reined in. The wine seemed to be spilling out of its bra. There was rose, mature cherry fruit and leather on the palate. George found it to be the third best wine of the flight, but still 18 frac12;. points. There were good dry tannins, and the wine was sneakily long (95).

The next flight was one of 1964s, beginning with the only magnum of the night, a 1964 Louis Latour Corton Grancey. There was good vigor to the nose with its pure red fruit, dust, light earth and pinch of brown sugar. The wine was sturdy, solid and earthy, and despite its decent finish, the wine was one-dimensional on the palate, both in general and more than any previous wine. Especially considering the last flight, this wine was in a bit of a handicapped position, but the wine was still very good out of magnum with nice minerals, earth, rust and iron on its finish (90). The second wine of this flight of 1964 wines definitely won most controversial wine of the night, and it was the 1964 Remoissenet Romanee St. Vivant. There was just not the depth or intensity one would expect out of Romanee St. Vivant, and the wine was lacking fruit. Chet wondered whether or not some Rhone wine was part of this blend, to which I responded that it was great Algerian wine. The wine was still average overall, but many felt that it was not what it was supposed to be, to no fault of anyone except those that made the wine (85?). The 1964 Leroy Mazis Chambertin was a crowd-pleaser and had a great nose with lots of components, including bread, nut, earth and animal. The nose was browned, but not in that tired or cooked way. This wine was excellent but still did not reach the heights of the last flight for me. Chet noted the iron of Mazis. in the wine, and it was there in a big-time way. There was also some earth, but the wine got a little dirtier in the glass with time (93).

There were only two wines to go, but they were both La Taches, and 1962 and 1961 at that! The 1962 La Tache had an amazing nose. The fruit was so pure, sweet and mature in the way that only great Pinot Noir can be with its game, mint and chocolate. It was amazingly delicate in the nose yet still full of stuffing, loaded with complex spices. The wine was super smooth, satiny and fine, and it had tremendous spice on the palate as well. Its lingering nature was the stuff of legends (97). The 1961 La Tache was a bit funky, still full of meaty and gamy spice but a bit tired. The wine had a touch of shit and dirty flavors to it, and although the wine was still meaty, I think that the bottle was not 100%, especially after having a mind-blowing jeroboam of this wine at CRU a couple of months ago that was out-of-this-world great. Remember, often bottled barrel by barrel back then, and many feel that the large formats got the best barrels. So while that jeroboam that I had was in 97 or 98 point territory, this bottle was a (93?) at best due to its texture and implied qualities despite the bottle variation factor and its tired nature.

About a week later, after a record setting April auction and a Henschke Hill of Grace vertical dinner (you’ll read about that one next week), I found myself in Las Vegas again for the Wine Spectator weekend. After a twenty-hour day on Wednesday generating the May catalog, I arrived in Vegas Thursday afternoon, still suffering from four hours of sleep and the traveling factor, only to be trapped in my hotel room facing a deadline to get the May sale done. Twenty-four hours later, around a good night’s sleep of eight hours, I finished the catalog just in time for a 2000 Barolo dinner hosted by Robert Parker at Valentino’s in the Venetian (you might read about that one later as well), although I feel that tasting should have an asterisk since the wines were open for eight hours in advance! While it did make the wines wonderfully approachable, I feel strongly that that much air time for young wines gives a skewed perspective on said wines. Therefore, I might not write up that event, although Parker was his usual charming self and full of some great stories and points throughout the night, so in the end I will probably end of sharing my notes for this evening, but I digress. After the Valentino dinner, we ended up in a close friend of mine’s hotel room for the real. tasting of the night and an unofficial afterparty for many of those in attendance, such as Thomas Duroux, the young and talented winemaker for Chateau Palmer, Gil Lempert Schwartz (aka Mr. Wine Vegas), Matt and Jef from LA, and many others that I cannot even remember. Thanks to my good friend Damani and his female friends for which we were waiting, we were running a little late to the afterparty. I arrived just in time for a swallow of 1962 La Tache out of magnum. Damnit! When a close friend of mine starts opening up bottles, you have to move quickly, but I was grateful to have just a swallow of this wine, which was extraordinary and consistent with the bottle that I had a week ago, perhaps even richer and fleshier (97+). a close friend of mine wasted no time opening up a bottle of1978 Romanee Conti, which was also extraordinary. While I am not as big of fan of the 1978 s as other vintages and often find them on the earthier and beefier side of ‘s style, this bottle had insane menthol flavors and incredible texture, being all it should be and then some. Its richness, mouthfeel and length all proved why this wine is $5000 a bottle or more (97). As if those two wines were not enough, 1996 Dom Perignon was flowing by the case, and other wines started to uncork themselves such as 1989 Palmer, 1964 Cheval, 1943 Cheval and one or two more that I cannot remember. Unfortunately, none of these wines I can effectively review for you except one, one wine which became a nuclear bomb for the evening, destroying every wine in the room once it was open, and changing my personal history of wine forever. After finishing off the last of my 78 Conti, I noticed that a close friend of mine had disappeared from the main room in the suite, so I investigated. Inside the bedroom, I found Carl and a close friend of mine quietly huddled in the shadows of this dark room with a bottle in a close friend of mine’s hand. Both of them looked like I had caught them with their hands in the cookie jar for a split second, but once they saw it was me, I was quickly welcomed to try the wine that was just opened, a 1945 Romanee Conti. There is not much I can say about this wine other than it is the greatest wine that I have ever had. I hate to deal in absolutes, and I have been blessed to taste many of the greatest wines made over the past hundred years, but this wine took the cake and proceeded to eat up memories of the dozens of other wines that I have had that could contend for the elusive title of Best Wine I Have Ever Had.. The aromas, the texture, the flavors, the finish all of its components were flawless, and the wine was amazingly fresh but decidedly and deliciously mature as well. The wine lingered for minutes after each swallow, and trying not to drink it all immediately required a superhuman effort. After a quick double. off the rocks, we let the cat out of the bag for a few select people and shared the wealth. I took my glass to the bathroom with me as the evening was catching up with me, and I had to take a piss, to be frank. So I place my glass of 1945 Romanee Conti on top of the back of the toilet, and there were at least two or three good tastes left. So I start to go to the bathroom, and within a few seconds, CRASH! My glass of 1945 Conti slipped off the toilet tank top and crashed to the ground. What kind of place has slightly curved toilet tank tops, so slight that you cannot even notice until your glass of 1945 Conti slips off of it! The Venetian gets my vote for worst-designed toilets of the last century. Since I am on the topic, they also need to learn how to stack a mini-bar in ALL of their rooms, particularly the ones with bars built in them, and they can also add a radio or sound system to their rooms as well. And slippers. Ok, I feel better now. Disappointed but unfazed, I emerged from the bathroom unscathed to the delight of the crowd who roasted me quite well. We partied away the rest of the night until I passed out on the couch, only to awaken the next day at 8AM, still hammered and feeling noticeably drunk. I took a quick look around me to get my bearings, only to find myself sleeping next to a close friend of mine on his bed! I must have crawled in at night since a close friend of mine was kind enough to let me stay sleeping on his couch. This is not how I had planned my weekend to go, I thought to myself. Now, save your jokes for another time, as there was no Planes, Trains and Automobiles action, aka no spooning or cuddling, and I was fully dressed on top of the covers while a close friend of mine was safely underneath. I gathered myself and quickly headed down to my room, scaring a few small families in the process (let’s just say that I wasn’t exactly prim and proper at the time).

So, my agenda for Saturday (and actually Friday all day too before the catalog got in the way) was to play poker, Texas Hold Em, No Limit, the greatest card game known to mankind. Unfortunately, I woke back up at noon, and a close friend of mine called me in a timely fashion to remind me that Carl had invited us to lunch over at Tableau in Wynn’s Resort and Casino. It was opening weekend at the Wynn’s, so there were a lot of people in town. Carl had a special hookup at Wynn’s so we ate in a VIP area where the Donald (aka Mr. Trump) was holding court with a few people and his beautiful wife, Melania, who definitely checked me out for at least four seconds. I can’t blame her J. Steve Wynn walked by, etc., so all that was fun and exciting, but as lunch drew to a close, my poker itch had to be scratched, as I only had about four hours of time to play before the Spectator event. So I went to the poker room at Wynn’s and played, breaking even in the end but gaining valuable experience in my quest to play with the pros one day. Don’t worry, I won’t be leaving my day job for that! There were a lot of $1000, $2000 and $3000 pots at our table, not that I was in too many of those, but I did go all-in three times successfully, and it was a good table. I made about three or four bad plays that I am chalking up to lessons learned. Players welcome in NYC.

So the Spectator event was fun, but after going to it I wished I had spent the extra two hours playing more poker! The most noticeable wines being poured were 1996 Dom Perignon, 1996 Margaux, 1996 Cos d’Estournel, 2001 Palmer, 2001 L’Angelus, 2000 Magdelaine, 2002 Rudd Estate Cabernet, 2000 Rivetti Barolo, 2000 Giacosa something-or-other, and a few others I cannot remember right now. I got to see old friends such as Kent Rosenblum and Giorgio Rivetti, but overall there were not a lot of truly great wines there this year. Earlier in the day, while I was playing poker, a close friend of mine bumped into Daniel Boulud, who insisted that a close friend of mine go to his new brasserie at Wynn’s. We had a fabulous meal there and had some great wines, including a very good 1976 Dom Perignon Oenotheque. (i.e., recently disgorged and released) that was nowhere near the 1973 in terms of greatness, but still a very good bubbly in its own right (92). We then had some outstanding bottles (there were ten of us) of 1985 Richebourg, which was full of menthol, beef, iron, earth and autumnal fruit flavors, with excellent acidity still (95). We segued to a magnum of 1978 Stag’s Leap Cask 23. courtesy of Matt which was excellent, very cedary and minerally but also with some chocolate-covered coffee fruit flavors and a long, gritty finish (94). We finished with a couple of 1990 Cheval Blancs, still a baby in terms of its development yet somewhat approachable on this night. The monstrous alcohol and tannin of bottles past were more under control, and its shy, sexy red fruit qualities seemed to be coming out of their shell. The earth, mineral, wintergreen and Cab Franc kink were all there, and Carl and a close friend of mine were really feeling the wine. I think it will be a great wine, but patience is required, and it is far from a state of opulence, remaining in a state more suited for wine intellectuals than actual drinkers (95+).

There was another afterparty, but I was quite exhausted by the time it started happening. A jeroboam of 1983 Margaux had been opened but was slightly musty, although many found it undrinkable. I did not have the energy to monitor it for what was the remainder of the evening, however (DQ). There were three more wines that I sampled, and all were outstanding plus (95+): the 1974 Heitz Cabernet.Martha’s Vineyard, the 1990 Sandrone Barolo Cannubi, and the 1990 Altare Barolo Arborina.. The Heitz was from the same case as the one I had a couple week’s prior and consistently great. The 1990 Sandrone is one of my favorite all-time Barolos, and this bottle was a great one, although I was too exhausted to pinpoint its greatness other than the fact that it was at the very least outstanding. The Altare, which is still an insider’s Barolo, stood toe-to-toe with the Sandrone and was also outstanding. The Altare was more classic in style and did not have the fatness to its fruit that the Sandrone possessed, but picking a favorite between the two would have required a good night’s sleep and a fresh start the next day. When I saw a close friend of mine dozing off first on the couch on this night, it looked like the best idea anyone had all day, so I proceeded to slither downstairs and call it a night.

Nex trip to Vegas, I am playing at least twenty hours of poker, though. Come to think of it, I need to go to Atlantic City more often. Who’s all in?

I shot out to Los Angeles in the middle of the week before our March auction, a rare mid-week trip for me, but L.A. was calling thanks to a very special event put together by the real. Jef Levy, as his friends like to call him. No slight to the other Jeff Leve out there in L.A. who is a most knowledgeable and passionate collector in his own right; it is more of a running gag than anything else.

So Jef belongs to a tasting group in Los Angeles called DDB, aka Deaf, Dumb and Blind, the brainchild of Los Angeles. #1 kvetch, Matt. Those of you who received my short-lived printed versions of Vintage Tastings (there were four published volumes in 2003 and early 2004) may remember the DDB. It is still going strong, and the premise behind the group is simple: the host puts together the wines and serves all the wines blind with no leaks of inside information prior to the event. So the onus is on the host to select some great wines, as if the host does not, kvetch, a close friend of mine and others in the group are sure to bring shame to said host and most likely their children, grandchildren and grandchildren’s children for many decades to follow. Everyone pays their own meal at any given DDB event, and this one happened to be at Spago’s.

So Jef started us off with a couple of magnums of 1982 Champagnes, not served blind, and they were the 1982 Louis Roederer Cristal Rose and 1982 Dom Perignon Rose. Now that is a good start to any evening. The 1982 Cristal Rose was gorgeous and pure in the nose with the classic Cristal elegance and finesse but still meaty underneath. There was a kiss of rose flavors as it was just starting to show some signs of maturity but still showed very youthfully. There was a long finish and another kiss of bread flavors (this bubbly had me blushing, for sure). George observed similarly that the Cristal was very smooth but still has meat behind it.. There were lemon flavors underneath, and this outstanding magnum of Champagne widened out in the glass (96). The 1982 Dom Rose was no slouch, either, as its nose exploded out of the glass with more chocolaty bread and strawberry fruit. The palate was big and brawny, but its flavors struck me as a bit oaky. The palate was still very fresh, with more razor-like qualities to its overall impression, both clearer and quicker as well yet not as meaty and full of cherry fruit as the Cristal. The nose got crusty in a rye bread way. The Dom might outlive the Cristal, but it lacked the expansion and expression of the Cristal on this evening, and the oaky streak bothered me a bit on the palate (94+).

The games began with flight #1. I should say that I knew 90% of the wines in advance, as I served as Jef’s advisor for the evening. However, even knowing most of the wines in advance, I still found it difficult to identify many of the wines exactly. Tasting blind is one of th198e hardest things to do, no matter how much experience you have, and that is the premise behind the group. Jef gave everyone one clue about each flight, and this flight’s clue was same decade, two different countries.. The first wine was unfortunately maderized, which happens sometimes when opening up wines such as 1928 Haut Brion (DQ). The second wine had a seductive, deep nose with some aromas of caraway, chocolate, bread and pollen. There were wood shine and rye flavors to the wine, which was smooth, mature, earthy and bready. The palate was quite velvety with lush tannins that were fully integrated, and food made the palate more chocolaty and brought out a touch of dandelion sweetness. It was the 1925 Marques de Murrieta Castillo Ygay Gran Reserva Especial (93). All identities for each wine were not revealed until after each flight was tasted and discussed, fyi. The third wine of flight number one had a sweet, leathery nose with more black cherry aromas, seemingly lighter than wine #2 at first, but in an on its feet. kind of way. The palate was soft and sumptuous, fully mature and beautiful with its leather, cedar, nut, earth, ash and morning-after fireplace aromas and flavors. Smells like Lafite, a close friend of mine hypothesized. It was a beautiful 1928 Gruaud Larose (94).

The next flight contained four wines, and Jef’s clue was same producer, two decades and one ringer.. The first wine had a gorgeous nose, and it was clear that we were in Burgundy territory. Our resident sommelier to the stars, aka Christian, definitively put the stamp on the fact that we were tasting Burgundies by calling it, serious wine.. The nose had a soft and inviting quality with its rose, cherry, light earth and prime real estate action. The palate was rich, meaty and beefy, both sturdy yet mature at the same time. The finish was big, firm and earthy yet balanced. With some air, its tomato qualities came out, and I believe it was a close friend of mine who commented on its sweet, chapitalized fruit.. It got a little BBQ in the glass as well, but it did not have as much staying power in the glass as the other wines in this flight. Christian and I liked it a lot though, and it was another tasty wine from 1983, a 1983 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (94-). I have decided to add a minus. to my scoring system for wines that evolve quickly in the glass and therefore seem to be less likely to improve, and more likely to become inferior, with time. However, it was so tasty for the first half-hour that I felt it deserve its 94 as I began with 94 and ended with 93 points over time. The next wine had a much younger nose with more black cherry fruit and a touch of menthol, noticeably more modern in style. a close friend of mine noticed that this producer flirted with the line between modern and traditional.. The wine was rich, beefy and loaded with vitamins, possessing menthol flavors as well. The wine was very big, shy and young, but you couldn’t ignore it in that bouncer-outside-the-club-you-want-to-get-into kind of way. a close friend of mine loved this wine and its purity, and so did I as there were tremendous, secondary complexities and acids. It was the great 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (96+), one of my favorite wines from 1990. The next wine was corked, and what a bummer as it was a 1990 La Tache. We all consoled Jefwith the it’s the thought that counts. routine, as all benevolent wine lovers should do in the case of a corked or cooked bottle. The last wine of the flight had lots of pepper, Dave observed, and a close friend of mine guessed accurately that the last two wines (not counting the corked wine) were from the 90s and the first one from the 80s.. This wine was similar to the second wine of the flight in its sturdy, beefy nose and traces of menthol. There was black cherry fruit and more presence of stems as well. The palate was big and sturdy, Leroy-esque I thought even though I knew it was not, and there were more vitamin flavors. This 1993 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V., which has disappointed me on more than one occasion, was squarer next to the 1990 but still excellent in its own right and one of the better showings that I have had. (94) a close friend of mine wrapped up the flight with some astute comments about Clos de la Roche being all about the chocolate and liqueur, and called the 1990 atypical Ponsot..

The next flight began with the following clue from Jef: two different producers, same appellation.. The first wine had a sweet, cedary nose that had rich and fat fruit and additional aromas of carob, pencil, walnut and light vanilla extract. The wine was smooth, supple and delicious. It lacked that extra weight or dimension but was still excellent, and it was the 1953 Lafite Rothschild (94). The next wine was a touch maderized, still rich, creamy and lush on the palate with more old oak and vanilla flavors. It could easily have been DQ’d, but I saw enough in the wine to give it a (92?) due to its texture more than anything else. It was a 1953 Latour. The third wine smelled great. Andy remarked right away, and it did have a delicious nose. The nose was deep, chunky and chocolaty and really stood out as youthful, containing a touch of malt soda. The wine was rich, creamy and smooth, long yet feminine in a skin-tight, full leather outfit kind of way. Delicious and exquisitely balanced, the wine was super smooth yet noticeably larger than the first wine of this flight, almost like a bigger, stronger brother. The wine got spicier in the glass, and it was the best 1959 Lafite Rothschild that I have ever had (97). There was a bonus wine in this flight, just for the heck of it, and the wine was fairly rich, tasty and smooth, yet more one-dimensional on the palate after the 59 Lafite. The 1962 Latour had a good finish, but its flavors were on the gravelly and earthy side (90). a close friend of mine commented how he felt that the 53s were starting to fade and just getting to that last hurrah. stage of holding on. Others have said that the 1953s have been fully mature since release, and I think that most of the better wines from 1953 are definitely on a plateau, perhaps on a slight decline, and are definitely wines that should be enjoyed over one or two hours as opposed to three or more since they are not wines with a lot of stuffing. They are certainly delicious, though.

Onwards, we continued, and it was right about now that half of us couldn’t eat any more. They do feed you well at Spago’s, I must say. Our clue for this flight was same wine, three decades and two magnums.. The first wine had a deliciously minty nose full of sweet cassis, cedar and caramel. The cat was out of the bag quickly as Dave immediately guessed Heitz Martha’s, and Brad agreed that the wine did have a lot of eucalyptus.. The flavors were chocolate sprinkles and vanilla ice cream in this super smooth and lovely 1965 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. (93). The next wine had a gorgeous nose with its mint, chocolate and eucalyptus we had to be in 1974 territory. The palate was rich, chunky and chocolaty with good earth flavors to match. The wine was long and smooth, beautifully balanced yet possessing lots of gut-checking acids. A rich touch of toffee flavors and a dash of cinnamon aromas and flavors rounded out this outstanding 1974 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. (96). The next wine had a tough act to follow, but the similar style came through. It was definitely younger, possessing more cassis in its nose, and its alcohol components were more noticeable, blending into its varnish/polished quality. The wine was quite sturdy on the palate and gave a very youthful impression, and the magnum factor certainly heightened this fact. There was a Cote-Rotie spike to the wine, which was rugged and dirty on the palate, where its polish and varnish qualities became accentuated in the glass as a little cardboard crept out in this magnum of 1978 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. (91). Unfortunately, the next magnum of Heitz, the 1985 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard, was corked (DQ). That is another wine that I have had more bad luck than good. Someone said at this point that Bob Foley, California’s hottest winemaker at the moment, worked for Heitz during the 1974 vintage, not that he made the wine, though. Can I get a fact check, anyone?

The almost final flight was all 100 point Parker wines, according to Jef. It was at this point that we got into a brief 100 point debate and how I do not believe in perfection, but rather the pursuit of perfection, which is why my highest score is 99 points. Then someone remarked, well, 99 points is your 100 then.. I never quite thought about it like that, but it was a good point, I will admit, one that put a small pinhole in, without bursting, my bubble. The first wine was super-duper. intense (all that education and super-duper still applies). It was meaty with menthol, bacon, white pepper, earth and mineral. On the palate it was incredibly rich, oily, thick and creamy, both tasty and balanced in a massive way. There were flavors of roasted meat and a distinct impression of muscle, cut, ripped and agile in its enormity. The wine was long and fine only to become longer and finer. We were in 1983 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. territory (96). It was after this wine where words started to elude me, but the impressions were still staggering. The next wine had a 45 second finish. according to Dave, so I joked, did you time that finish?. Right on cue, he checked his watch. It was a wow. wine, for sure. The wine was emotionally intense, so rich and meaty and full of coffee liqueur. It was amazingly young, but both Dave and I concurred that it was older than we thought. a close friend of mine gave it the elusive six stars, and I gave this 1978 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. (99). The third wine had another fabulous nose, young, musky and sappy, marked by blue fruits and oil. It was long, rich, smooth and lush, another wow. wine. It was the 1991 La Mouline.(97). Yum. When it comes to Guigal, La Mouline is the one for me.

The last official flight was five wines, and the clue was two producers, basically a decade except it’s five decades.. That got a big laugh. I only had one note left in me though. Someone noted the first wine’s port-like. qualities and guessed 61 Latour.. It was incredibly rich, chocolaty, meaty and big. It was a spectacular bottle of 1959 Latour (98). I was officially shot for the 1961 Latour, 1961 Lafite (which was kind of cooked anyway), the 1947 Latour (which was kind of corked anyway), and the 1982 Lafite, which a close friend of mine loved but seemed very anti-climactic and simpler in the context of all these other wines. Perhaps I was shot by this time, perhaps it was this bottle, or perhaps it was the truth! It just left a less than va-va-voom impression. I declined to rate this one for the record.

We all headed over to the Grand Havana Room for cigars and cocktails, a divine 1900 Taylor Port and a pretty good 1924. We soon disappeared into the haze of the Los Angeles night one by one, some two by two, and some good night, Gracie.

Before I get into the California Cabernets that I tasted this past month at two separate events, I would like to remind everyone that I will be hosting another All-Star/Top 100. weekend October 21st.23rd , 2005. For those of you who missed it or for any new readers, you can read about last year’s incredible event on The Top 100+ Wines of the Century aka The Big One

This year’s event will not be quite as extravagant as last year’s but will feature many wines from the same, great producers, but there will be different vintages and bottlings and some new faces, of course. There will only be three meals (no doubleheader on Saturday), and we will not feature more than 100 wines for the weekend as opposed to the 150 we approached last year. It will be another incredible weekend and hopefully give everyone reason to come to New York this Fall and enjoy the city in all of its autumnal splendor. If you are interested in being one of the first to hear about this amazing weekend, then email me back ASAP, so I can get you on the advance notification list. There will only be 30-40 seats available, so space will be very limited. I am sure you will at least want to take a peek and see what we will be putting together!

Back to our regular programming Earlier this month, we did a tremendous perspective of 1970’s California Cabernet at BLT Steak, thanks to my West Coast friends, Andy and Matt, who relinquished a few gems from their magnificent cellars. Things got off to a bumpy start at BLT Steak, as the Champagne was being served in regular wine glasses (until I noticed), and then I discovered that the food was being served family style, aka help yourself. Now, don get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, and there was plenty of delicious food, but it was a surprise to me and a first, so it made me a little uncomfortable when the food came out and I saw what was happening. It bothered me so much at the time that I flipped out a little in the back, which I am proud to say was the first time that ever happened. Normally, I am pretty easy to please at these dinners. It was too crowded in the private room for them to really serve us, but thankfully everyone was relaxed and fine with the whole format, so it was no big deal. These dinners do bring out the best in everyone. As I said before, the food was excellent, as Laurent Tourondel is a great chef, and I highly recommend that you bring a coat to check for reasons that I will leave to the imagination.

I quickly settled down to get into the first flight, which started with a 1978 B.V. Private Reserve. This was the only bottle NOT provided by my friends, as Andy discovered that he did not have it in his cellar after all, so we went on the internet and found the best-priced bottle we could find. It was shot. When it comes to wine, the best price on the internet is not necessarily a good thing (DQ). We quickly recovered to enjoy an excellent 1978 Mondavi Reserve, which had a fresh nose, was purple in color and had a nutty, bready quality with touches of caramel and chocolate. There was a touch of earth and minerals to its palate, which was full of rich, cassis fruit. The wine was meaty, rich and smooth with a kick of alcohol and integrated tannins. The wine was fully mature with good grit to its palate and a drop of honey (93). The 1978 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. closed out the first flight with a very complex yet shy nose. There was some signature mint and eucalyptus, good tannins and alcohol there, and a little chocolate rounding out the nose. The palate was meaty, rich and hearty, younger than the Mondavi and more wound, but ultimately not as satisfying. Some floor wax/cleaner flavors marked it a bit (92).

We started the second flight with an amazingly fresh 1978 Diamond Creek Volcanic Hill.. There was pure fruit full of grape and cassis, light earth and nut. The nose was incredibly youthful. There was good structure to the palate; the wine was very slaty, chalky and minerally, very much on the rocky and earthy side of the flavor wheel. There was good flesh to the finish, but overall the fruit was taut on the palate, and one could see the volcanic. side of this wine, which did not hold as well in the glass as some of the other wines (91). The 1978 Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley. (they made a Sonoma this year as well) was again amazing, just like it had shown a couple month’s ago at an Angry Man dinner. The nose was rich, hearty and smoky, full of nut, cedar, cassis and plum. It left an intense impression with its rock solid t n a, meaty core and marinated, grilled and medium-rare nose. There was great power to the palate, which was intense, full-bodied and long. The wine was balanced and gritty with a touch of emerging coffee flavors (95). The 1978 Caymus Special Selection. was perfumy, according to Bob. The nose was very sandy, minerally and leathery with some plummy fruit behind it and a touch of cedar and alcohol buried in its shy, wound personality. The wine was spicy on the palate, a bit hot in a sandpaper way. It had the biggest finish of any wine so far, and a monster fruit profile. as Matt (who was in from Cali) noted. Some green olives crept in, but the fruit did continue to ripen as the wine expanded in the glass (94).

We put the 1978 vintage behind us as we began the third flight, which brought us back to B.V., a 1976 B.V. Private Reserve, to be exact. The 1976 had a simpler nose, the stewed tomato thing. Matt pinpointed, going on to call it typical 76 B.V.. It did have some leather, chalk dust, carob and oak in its nose as well, and the palate was caramelized, possessing no tannins whatsoever anymore on its short finish. A touch of lemon juice and weird spice emerged in the nose, and Bob called it undrinkable, which he modified to not that bad, but not pleasant.. The wine was average at this stage in its life (85). The 1976 Caymus Special Selection. had the same perfume of 78, Bob noted right away. The 1976 seemed both more mountainous and ripe to me at first, and there were distinct charcoal, chocolate, cassis and nut-crusted bread aromas. There were some light traces of olives on the palate, which was very dry despite a flash of blackcurrant fruit. The palate was still rich, fleshy and gritty, and Adrian noted a touch of mint. (93). The 1976 Joseph Phelps Insignia. had an exotic nose full of perfumed, leathery and nutty fruit. The wine was sexy with its perfumed cassis, plum and vanilla aromas. The wine had an incredible finish, a lip-smacking, great finish that was long, defined, gritty, sturdy and spicy. Jim had a La Mission. flashback, and it was a good call as the wine did have that touch of gravel and ripe, chunky fruit of La Miss. The wine was indubitably great (96). The 1975 Joseph Phelps Eisele Vineyard. also had an exotic nose, with that Italian pastry/marzipan quality in its bready and spiny nose. There was no mistaking its alcohol, and there were truffles and a scallop edge, I curiously wrote. The palate was sturdy, gritty, rough and rugged and seemed like it needed more time to open up. It was a touch dry, and the fruit was on the earthier side in the mouth (94+).

The fourth flight was all about the fours, the 1974s. The 1974 Mondavi Reserve was an off bottle, although the nature of its off-ness. was debated a bit; i.e., was it corked, cooked or miscellaneous other. I thought it was corked first and foremost (DQ). The 1974 Mount Eden Estate had a gorgeous nose full of fireplace and cinnamon aromas, spice, smoke, earth and oatmeal. Bob picked up on its leather flavors, and there was also nice touches of menthol and earth ones (93). The 1974 Mayacamas had that pungent Mayacamas nose, I wrote. It was forceful, alcoholic and loaded with anise and mountainous, dark, dank, deep purple fruit not a ripe purple, but rather a deep purple. The palate was very alcoholic, sturdy and long yet still smooth. The tannins were buried here, but definitely there (94). It was 1974 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. time. Is there a more storied and fabled Cabernet in all of California? Perhaps the 1941 Inglenook, but there is a much smaller group of storytellers for that wine than the 1974 Heitz. This bottle lived up to the hype. It had huge mint. in the nose, a veritable printing press for currency, I thought, and then I had my own flashback of Mouton Rothschilds from the 40s and 50s. Bob joked a julep at Churchill Downs.. I think those are enough references for its minty qualities! The wine was meaty, rich, smooth, chocolaty and delicately spicy. The wine also gave me an acupuncture impression with its precision and prickle on the palate. Chocolaty, meaty and rich got written again by me you get the idea (97).

It was a tough act to follow, and the 1970 B.V. Private Reserve had the dubious distinction of being the first wine in the last flight. Bob said that this was B.V.’s last chance. here, and he took the words right out of my mouth! The nose showed more promise with its butter, caramel, honey, musk and oak aromas. The palate was fairly rich, hearty and spiny. The rich, caramel flavors, tannins and earth qualities were all solid. The 1970 saved B.V.’s day, but it did not hold in the glass as well as its initial impression gave me (91). The 1970 Mayacamas had a bit of a urinal aspect to its nose, that floor wax/chemical/anise gone bad thing all in one. The wine was quite tannic, and there were those same chemical flavors along with tree bark, leather and spice. The wine was a bit weird, but its chemical components did start to blend into its other qualities with time in the glass (92?). The 1970 Heitz Martha’s vineyard had a good stink, according to Adrian. Raw and uncensored?. I asked, playfully. The nose was rich, chocolaty, meaty and minty sensing a signature style here? There were eucalyptus flavors and a sun-dried meat quality to its palate (94). The 1971 Ridge Monte Bello. was the grand finale, and any one lucky enough to have a 1970 Monte Bello. or 1971 Ridge Eisele Vineyard. know that Ridge is as good as any Cali Cab producer from this era. The 1971 had a firm, intense and deep nose and flirted with an oaky, woodsy, barky edge. There was an exotic touch of banana and some weirdness at first. The wine needed some time in the glass to overcome its weirdness and integrate into an alcoholic, spicy, long, fine and classic California Cabernet (94).

This evening yet again proved that some of California’s pioneer producers, especially Heitz, Phelps, Montelena and Ridge, deserve a little more credit in today’s cultish world of California Cabernet. These are great wines that were made in a style true to the earth and the grape, a style that may be becoming a bit of a lost art when it comes to today’s producers. Given the price of these wines on average compared to some of the new releases out there, I have one final piece of advice: buy.

Two weeks later, we hosted a blind, no holds barred tasting of 1995 California Cabernets at the Warwick hotel. These tastings are always a lot of fun, as the labels cannot influence one’s judgment. At any blind tasting of a similar peer group, it is as if the wines are standing before you naked, and any predispositions are thrown out the window. We always have everyone vote on their top five favorites of the evening, awarding five points for every first place vote and one point for every fifth place vote, etc. We then unveil the wines from least favorite overall to the group’s favorite, which always adds some fun drama to the evening. It is nice when drama can be fun, as that is a rare occurrence! Remember, we did not know the identity of any wine until the end of the tasting and after all the votes were submitted.

The first wine had a touch of bubblegum to its cassis and cedar aromas. There was sweet fruit and traces of tobacco, and that bubblegum touch became more definitive. It was perfumed and feminine in style with some traces of cherry fruit emerging. The palate had black cherry flavors to match and a lot of alcohol at first. The wine did not seem that well integrated but was still very good, although it did lack some fat in the middle. The wine became more exotic and cinnamon joined the party, but in the end the wine was more one-dimensional and simple than most of the other wines but still tasty. My brother James put his foot in his mouth while commenting to the group about this wine when he said that number one comes too quickly in the mouth.. You can make these things up! The wine was the 1995 Behrens Hitchcock TLK Ranch, and it finished tied for last place with the dreaded goose egg: no votes (90). The second wine had a smoky, cedary nose with lots of pine and forest action. The nose was both mild and intense at the same time, penetrating like a needle in one’s jugular. There were also leather, earth, tobacco, cedar and herbs emerging. Its chocolate and black fruits also entered stage right, but in a secondary, supporting way, as did a bit of wild grass. The palate was sturdy and long with nice cedar flavors and length. The flavors were fresh in a good grassy kind of way, and this wine was my favorite of the first five. It was the 1995 Shafer Hillside Select, which got 43 votes and a second place finish overall. However, given the reputation of this wine, I thought it left a less than incredible impression a la 1994, 1997 or 1999 in similar, recent tastings. It was a trend that would continue (94+). The third wine in the first flight was more herbal and stinky, containing a bit of rotten, green fruit (a bit, I must stress). Justin pegged its cranberry quality, which it did have with its underripe notes. The nose was definitely dirty, possessing underlying redeeming qualities of cedar, earth and tobacco. The palate was sturdy and balanced but lighter, probably as good as it gets right now with its cedar, rock and earth flavors. The nose did blow off, and the wine did level out. I guessed Togni, but it was the 1995 Chateau Montelena, which got only seven votes, which was enough for an 11th place finish (out of fifteen wines) (91). The fourth wine was also a bit green but more in a grassy way, accompanied by some morning dew. There were blackberry, cassis and almond aromas, all light. Justin also got the grass. and chalk. as well. The wine was a bit unpleasant on the palate, and Justin wondered whether the wine was flawed. It was too grassy, light and a bit bitter on the finish. Someone in the crowd called it dirty laundry socks, and Dave found it lacking in structure.. There were no fans of the 1995 Philip Togni, the other wine that tied for last place with no votes. I am still waiting for my first good bottle from this heralded producer (85). The fifth wine, and last in the first flight, elicited an initial wow. from me because it was so much more in my face (make that nose) than any of the previous wines. It jumped from the glass with its coffee, chocolate, vanilla and oak. With time, the oak started to become a bit much, however, and Justin agreed that the wine was dominated by the char from the barrels.. For lovers of vanilla and smoke, there were good flavors, length and balance on the palate, but this was a wine which had about as much char as I can handle without it being overboard, although I could see how it would please a lot of people. Dave admired how it was drinking now, while Justin called it the most integrated. but concurred that it was a bit oaky for his taste. It was the 1995 Venge Reserve, which got 21 votes and a respectable tie for seventh place (92).

The next flight began with a wine which had a shy nose, more on the alcohol and cedar side, a touch spiny with hints of anise, vanilla extract and some member of the cinnamon spice family. The wine was a little buttery on the palate with edges of cassis in its rich, supple profile. The wine was very tasty, smooth and with decent length. It did give me the impression of being a wine at its peak, though. It was the 1995 Joseph Phelps Insignia, a wine that has almost always finished in the top five in these tastings, but tonight it only got 12 votes, good enough for only tenth place. It was in my top five, for what it’s worth (94). The seventh wine of the night and second of this flight was another stinky nose, pungent but not green. It was a good dirty with some coffee, earth and mild stalk aromas. The palate was round and easy, not terribly defining but still possessing tasty bell pepper flavors. It was one of Justin’s favorites, who sensed some Cabernet Franc and called it a kinky, whips and chains wine.. It was the 1995 Arrowood Reserve Speciale, which got seventeen votes and finished with a ninth place medal (92). The next wine caused Justin to comment that this was the first blockbuster.. I saw it, as the wine was very aromatic in that showboat, opulent, banana split style that made me think Bryant or Colgin. The wine was very lush on the palate, smooth, elegantly long and fine. It was very tasty and sexy juice, which Justin called exotic.. As the wine stayed in the glass, it became more and more upfront, making me think that now is a good time to be enjoying the 1995 Colgin, which got 27 votes and finished in sixth place (93). It was at this point that I made the observation that besides wines #2 (Shafer) and #6 (Insignia), there did not seem to be that much tannin expression in these wines on this night, and #6 wasn even that much. More on that later. The next wine had big-time underarm in its nose at first it was very distinctive, but some exotic, cinnamon fruit as well. Justin politically corrected me with earthy complexity.. That it did have, with a kiss of citrus and some meaty, cassisy, blueberry syrupy fruit to round out its nose. The palate had no fruit whatsoever, though, and was all finish, which was good, but not exciting. Someone noted its Gruaud Larose like. qualities, which I saw, but the wine was either shut down or never going to be great. It was the 1995 Ridge Monte Bello, which received only 6 votes and a 12th place finish (90+). We had made it two-thirds of the way through with the next wine, one that Justin noted had a chemical/nail polish/varnish. thing happening, but in a good way. The nose was super chunky, meaty, smooth, chocolaty and full of cherry fruit. I found its fruit sexy with its caramel and chocolate in the nose. The palate was smooth and satiny with light grit. Our own Andy commented how there were equal parts of fruit and stiffness, and she went on to add that the wine was long, but not as long as I.d love.. Hmmmmm. Someone else liked the cotton candy. flavors in the 1995 Etude, which was tied with the Venge for seventh place with 21 votes (93+).

I began the last flight with a sense of anticipation that the heavyweights were finally here for the sipping since I did not experience one outstanding wine (95 points or more on the JK-ometer) yet. The first wine of the last flight finally delivered, with a deep, smoky, earthy nose and heavy, underlying fruit. There was beef, plum, cassis and blackberry aromas, and its finish was the most serious of the night so far. Justin was thinking Colgin, while another wondered Pride Reserve. The style of wine was, indeed, mountainous, with a big presence of tannins and alcohol. It was the 1995 Araujo Eisele Vineyard, which won the overall tasting by a comfortable margin with 55 frac12; votes (95). The next wine had a big, in-your-face nose with a hint of green as well as some smoke, earth, banana and coffee on the pot a little too long. The flavors and aromas reeked of Helen Turley. The wine was smooth, gritty and balanced yet somewhat simple overall in its personality, although the finish did gain in the glass for this bottle of 1995 Bryant Family. The wine got 38 votes, still good enough for a third place finish (93+). The lucky thirteenth wine of the night had my kind of nose, I wrote, with complexity and balance of fruit and finish. There was a touch of date, grilled meat, coffee, earth, some sort of nut syrup and caramel rounding out its delicious nose. The wine was tasty, balanced and smooth on the palate with similar flavors and nice grit and chalk components. It was another great show for the regular. bottling of Dalla Valle, and the 1995 Dalla Valle Napa Valley. (not Maya) finished in a close fourth place with 36 frac12; votes (95). The second to last wine of the night was an off-bottle and not representative of what the 1995 Dunn Howell Mountain. brings to the table. However, it still got three votes and finished ahead of two other wines gotta love the theory of relativity as it applies to wine (DQ). Last up was my wine ofthe night, but it finished in fifth place overall with 35 votes. It was a close race between 3-4-5. The palate was the most tannic and long. There was exquisite definition in its meaty and balanced texture. Its mountainous fruit was akin to the morning after cup of coffee and cigarette all in one (95+).

So the group had Araujo in first by a healthy margin, followed by Shafer Hillside, Bryant, Dalla Valle and Pride Reserve. I had it Pride Reserve, Araujo and Dalla Valle tied (yes I was the half-point guy), Shafer Hillside and then Insignia. I then asked myself, Where the F is Harlan???. Oops. I am sure the Harlan would have had something to say about the top five. I wonder why I did that did I really miss it or perhaps I was having a moment of frugality in regard to the event’s price? Oh, well. The thing about this tasting that surprised me the most was how mature most of these wines seemed. When 1995 came out, many were saying it was very close to 1994 in quality, etc., but as time has gone on, the 1994s have distanced themselves from the 95s as a much greater vintage, I feel. Only my top four or five wines even had hopes of continuing to improve with age, and it was not necessarily that certain of a fact for those said wines, and this was a cross-section of some of the most highly-rated wines of the vintage. It seems when it comes to 1995 California Cabernets, it might be best to drink up sooner rather than later.

After a year off in 2004, Daniel Johnnes of Montrachet restaurant brought the glory of La Paulee back to New York City earlier this month in a weekend of decadence, excess and camaraderie unsurpassed in the wine world. There were more serious collectors in New York than I can ever recall, and everyone seemed to have not only the right bottles with them, but the right attitude as well. While many bitch and moan that La Paulee is too decadent and out of control, I beg to differ. It is first and foremost a party; yes, when there are 300+ collectors wifth 600+ bottles (or more) and many in large format, things are going to get a bit silly, but there are so many great wines in this world, sometimes it is better to have tasted and lost than to have never tasted at all. I know that many are in the I would rather have a few wines and more of them. camp, and I understand that sentiment completely. Personally, I like to try as many things as possible, which is what La Paulee is all about. Yes, you do not get to see the wines unfold and develop in the glass as much, but if the wines are mature in the first place, as many of them were, what’s the big deal? Move on to the next experience is truly the best teacher. I was very fortunate to know a lot of people there and got to try a wealth of wine as a result. I could not even get up from my seat until after the third course, as I was furiously taking notes the whole time and always playing catch up. Regardless, despite a little seating arrangement drama, a great time was had by all. But first, let’s start with Thursday night.

There was a pre. dinner held at Montrachet on Thursday, where we were joined by an incredibly talented quartet of winemakers/owners: Christoph Roumier, Dominique Lafon, Veronique Drouhin and Jean-Marc Roulot, all close, personal friends of Daniel. The dinner featured three or four rare and older wines from each of these Burgundy legends, and we started with a trio from Roulot. The first wine served was a 1996 Roulot Meursault Charmes, which had a great nose that was both ripe and buttery but unmistakably racy like a good white Burgundy should be. There was smoke, toast, intense mineral, nut, more butter, corn, honey and rainwater in its pure, clean and righteous nose. The palate was more delicate and easy than I expected, with less acid than I expected as well. It was then when we found out that this wine had had eight hours of aeration! WOW. I am sure my score would have been higher without the extra aeration; now, that is probably a controversial statement. It almost poses the question, is more drinkable less desirable? Let me discuss a little further before I am misinterpreted. Now, I know the idea was to make the wine more drinkable, softer and appealing by giving it that much air, or by decanting in general. However, there comes a point where too much air can cause a wine to lose some of its vigor, giving a less intense impression than it normally does, and that happened here. So by making the wine more drinkable, it became less vigorous and perhaps a lesser wine in my mind than it probably is. My reference for 1996 White Burgundies is much different and not relative to so much aeration, so my perspective was a bit skewed as well as to the performance of this wine. It was still excellent, but I had to give it a plus, let’s make it my first double plus (93++). In general, I think Bipin Desai’s rule of thumb is a good one: always open and decant thirty minutes before you are ready to serve. The 1992 Roulot Meursault Charmes was served out of magnum, and a close friend of mine noted a touch of botrytis, but these are so pure.. Well, that’s 1992, the Burghound replied, referring to the botrytis. Of course, Allen was on the scene, as any self-respecting, leading expert on Burgundy in America would be. Allen continued how he preferred a lot of 1993 whites to 1992s actually, and that a lot of 1992s were past their prime, but not this one. The 1992 had nice citrus aromas, good dust and earth flavors and was smooth, holding well. I enjoyed it (93) . Next up was an incredibly rare magnum of 1979 Roulot Meursault Charmes, which got a lot of oohs and aahs. a close friend of mine went straight to a Ramonet flashback. The wine was very mature, with orange fruits, burnt honey, petrol, marmalade, stone, earth and even leather. It had the good stink of maturity. The palate was still fresh, yeasty with good spice and nice earth flavors (93). It was an excellent flight of the great and overlooked wines of Jean-Marc Roulot. When Allen spoke to the room and started talking about 1992, Lafon gave him a machine gun. hand gesture to which Allen replied, we.ve had this discussion before.. Either he was telling Allen that he was going to kill him, or that he was a fan of 1992. I think it was the latter. Jean-Marc said he liked the energy. of the 1996 vintage, which was his favorite since 1989, the year he took over. Allen was admiring the balance in Roulot’s wines, whose parcel of Charmes is apparently the oldest in the vineyard at 70 years of age!

It was Dominique’s turn at bat with two Meursault Perrieres and a Montrachet as his ammunition. The 2000 Lafon Meursault Perrieres had great precision to the nose, full of Asian grill, minerals, spice, butter, smoke and light toast. The nose was very clean and fresh as well, possessing another level of purity. The palate was so pure, long and balanced with gorgeous depth and length of acid without being acidic. There were also great citrus and corn flavors in this magnificent wine which held tremendously in the glass (96). The 1994 Lafon Meursault Perrieres was no match for the 2000, and a little soft. by comparison, as a close friend of mine noted. The nose had nice citrus aromas but a touch of sour milk as well. Robert G. defended that it showed the Perrieres and minerality.. a close friend of mine then clarified that he loved Lafon’s Perrieres in general and even preferred them to his Montrachet, to which Allen agreed. The palate was smooth and easy with good earth, light minerals and yeast, but it was lacking the extra layers of a better vintage. Nice but not fantastic, a close friend of mine concurred, and the wine was holding on but drink up (90). Lafon’s last offering was the 1992 Lafon Montrachet, which I have always thought was a great wine. The wine was very controversial due to its exotic and tropical nature, its Pina Colada. aromas as a close friend of mine observed. Someone asked in jest, What would you give it as a tropical drink?. Someone played along saying, Four ice cubes and two umbrellas.. Allen was quickly defending it and rightfully so, saying he was an agnostic when it comes to style.. That’s a quotable for sure (better than the umbrellas, I know). The nose was intense, very buttery in a pain grille way, with intense mineral qualities. It was buttery and on the modern side of Montrachet and a little honeyed (in the comb way). The texture was oily, and there was good spice and a long, regal finish. The wine had more weight to it than the Perrieres, which was cleaner, clearer and a touch racier. TheMontrachet was still precise (95). Lafon called 1994 a pleasure vintage, meaning one could enjoy it now, and also enjoyed the 1992 for its honey. and refined. qualities. Wilf dropped by and shared some of his infinite wisdom regarding 1966s and 1961s being tremendously underrated vintages, mentioning , Ponsot, Gouges and Drouhin’s wines in particular. I don’t mind sharing his confidence since he already has them all!

Time for some red wines, and we started with the 1990 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. There was lots of tannins and alcohol (t n a for all you new readers) in its nose, which had smoky, figgy and gamy fruit with that unpure 1990 edge that Allen keeps bringing up every time 1990 is a topic of discussion. There was a touch of soy and leather, and the fruit was stewed, as Allen noted. There were also touches of raisin, liqueur, chocolate and earth. The wine was complicated and smooth, but the flavors were a bit funky, and I told Allen that whenever I hang with him (which invariably means we are tasting), every 1990 shows poorly, and Allen said vindicatingly, funny how that happens.. (90) The 1985 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses was next and recovered nicely. The 1985 had a pretty nose with beautiful rose fruit, soft cherry, subtle wood, forest floor and game. There was a wide-angle, gamy edge to it, and the palate was very tasty, still with lots of vigorous alcohol. There were gamy flavors, fleshy and sun-baked meaty, with light earth and tannins yet still a lip-smacking finish. The wine is starting to plateau and probably won’t get any better, but I do not get into the forecasting/weatherman routine too much (94). The very rare 1980 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses had a delightful nose full of citrus, dust, leather and earth. There was a lot of terroir character in its nose, although a close friend of mine was questioning its hotness somewhat. There were also hints of vanilla and tannin there, and the palate was very spicy, with lots of citric tension and vitamin flavors. a close friend of mine found it a little square, but I liked it and found it balanced, intense and still vigorous, although a little horse crept in with some air time (93). The 1971 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses was drop-dead gorgeous, like a beautiful woman who walks into a room and causes immediate silence. The nose was gorgeous and pure, wit soft, caressing red fruits and forest, citrus, Chicken bouillon and a triple play of light vitamins, heat and earth. The palate was very rich and meaty, with some earthy and ceramic edges to its flavors. The texture was gorgeous meaty, long, earthy and gamy. The wine was long in the belly, long and tasty. It was a close friend of mine’s only 6 star wine of the night (96). Roumier spoke to the room and commented how the 1980 was a big surprise to him as he liked it very much, that the 1985 was good to drink now and possibly at its peak with its ripe and low-acid personality, and that the 1990 was rudely young.. Daniel chipped in that the wines that bring me to tears are Amoureuses and Musigny.. Allen interjected that the way Amoureuses is spelled actually means two female lovers as opposed to just lovers, to which Jean-Luc Pepin of Vogue once told him, it doesn’t mean just two.. Ha! I was embarrassed at the lack of my imagination, Allen jested. Indeed, it was a rare scent missed by the Burghound. Someone said, I think it was Allen, how there was no 90 disease here, ie, the aromatic profile far ahead of the structure.. A few smokers couldn’t stand it any more, and Lafon, Roulot, myself and Jeff Sokolin went outside for some fresh air, where we were joined by Joe S., who was just getting some air. We had a brief yet fascinating conversation about Bordeaux. Joe was telling us about how the other night he had a dinner party at his house and opened up all the 1959 First Growths, and how he could taste the difference between Latour, Mouton, Lafite, etc, ie, Latour you knew was Latour just by smelling it.. He then continued that he then opened up all the 2000s just for fun. at the very same tasting, and he complained that they were all the same, that he could not tell the difference anymore, as the wines are being made in a more universal style. If you have been paying attention these past few weeks, then you see how this topic comes up often in my life nowadays, don’t you? I told him maybe it was just the youth of the wines, asI think the 2000s are fabulous, incredible wines, and that Bordeaux wines need more time to develop their personalities, but he wasn’t buying that 100%, and neither was I to be honest, despite the devil’s advocate that I was being.

We ended with four Musignys from Drouhin, and what a foursome they were. The 1985 Drouhin Musigny had a meaty, sexy nose full of leather, spice, earth and game, accompanied by some iodine. The flavors were pure and smooth, and Fred noted its wonderful raspberry fruit, which was its essence. The wine was smooth, soft and supple now, and if it was rated on drinkability alone would be 99 points (95). The 1978 Drouhin Musigny had more earth, fig and mature, brown sugared fruit in its nose, while the palate had more beef bouillon , citrus and fig flavors. The finish had great grit and wonderful flavors of earth, citrus and leather. This is a good example of the I need the wine to sit in the glass. theory, as it kept unfolding and developing in the glass until it had surpassed all the rest of the Musignys! If I had had this at La Paulee, I might have judged it differently; then again maybe not as many wines did, indeed, sit in my glass before I got to them, but you get my point, I hope (96). The 1971 Drouhin Musigny had a sweet, perfumed and balanced nose with wild oats and both brown and granulated sugar. It was classic Drouhin, and the vintage and vineyard came through like a duet between Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder, both in perfect harmony. It was a smooth, satiny, gorgeous Musigny with great balance (95+). The 1969 Drouhin Musigny had a very minty/spearminty nose, also rusty. There was iron there but also sweet fruit; in fact, it was the sweetest and purest 1969 wine I think I have ever had, as sweet fruit is not that common in 1969. I guess it’s only fitting that 69 would be a bit of a dirty vintage. Bad JK, bad. The wine was smooth and supple and atypically drinkable, but a little more typicity for the vintage came out in the glass with time. This was the best flight of the night, and that is saying a lot (94+). Jeff called these Musignys, the epitome of elegance.. Veronique wisely said, Wines must reflect where they comefrom and the vintage in which they were born.. She also said, A wine that ages well is a wine that remains young.. If they made fortune cookies in Burgundy, that quote would most certainly be in one of them! She also shared how we never drink these wines in Burgundy.. Allen snuck in a plug for the 1993 vintage, for which he admired the race, precision and purity of 1996 with greater density..

There was a gathering of a few of us for an unofficial afterparty, where we were treated to a few wines by Jeff, starting with an incredible 1990 Louis Roederer Cristal Rose. The nose was forceful and bready, stony, long and yeasty as well. It was indubitably outstanding. The palate was huge. One could see the rose qualities more on the palate, which was meaty, long and very rich. This champagne was incredibly tasty, long and rich and showed unbelievably this night (97). We had a pair of 1996 Burgundies, starting with a controversial 1996 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux. The nose was meaty and vitaminy with animal, sweat and saddle aromas, a touch modern in style without crossing the line. There was this fireplace, lit fire/match touch to the nose as well. The palate was great balanced and very pure with vitamin flavors, but it did seem to lack the acidity that most 1996s have, including the one that I already had. a close friend of mine felt it was not what it should be, but Wilf was convinced to the contrary, so a wine version of the OK Corral quickly developed. There were dark purple fruit flavors with great game nuances. I found the wine flirting with outstanding despite the lack of acidity I expected/previously experienced, but if it wasn’t Cros Parantoux then what could it be that was so good, nonetheless? a close friend of mine thought it might be villages that someone tampered with. If it was, it was damn good villages! The tannins and finish were long and fine, and the wine was smooth, supple and fresh, gaining in the glass (95?). I am giving it a ?. for the due respect that I have for a close friend of mine’s palate and the fact that it was after midnight already and everyone was a bit tipsy, to say the least. Wilf stood his ground in a friendly way. There was no doubting the 1996 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg, a great wine. There was a similar style to the Jayer with its fruit, but the wine was more wound. The nose was very vitaminy, citrusy, spiny and dusty; very bright with lots of brick andfireplace, too. The wine was very smooth, long, fine, sexy and stylish. The nose was more spiny than the palate, but the finish was still long and gritty (95). It was time to go home.

The next night a close friend of mine was holding court at Cru, with Allen, Andy and the Wasserman clan in attendance, as well as Miss Dom Perignon 2005, Nicole. I arrived a little late as I had a prior engagement that kept me an hour behind schedule, but thankfully I was able to catch up quickly and not miss anything. They kicked off dinner with a magnum of 1979 Krug Collection, a good way to start any meal. The fruit in the nose was bready with sweet and honeyed fruit. There was beautiful maturity, nice grit, light seltzer and pure sweat there as well. There was a touch of yeast to its forest, wood and geyser flavors, which were gorgeous. There was some lemon drop on the finish to this incredibly delicious and drinkable 1979, which probably will not get much better, and Andy concurred that right now. was the best time to drink this, while Paul thought maybe 4-5 years ago (95). The 1988 Roumier Musigny had a great nose, subtle yet incredibly sexy. There was leather, rubber, rose and vitamin all coy yet deep, soft yet intense, wound yet omnipresent. There was outstanding length to its alcohol and finish, which was enormous on its backend, practically spilling out of those jeans.. The acids were great, and there was a beautiful balance of its rose, earth and citrus flavors. a close friend of mine was smitten, calling it beautiful a great 1988, without the dry tannins of most 1988s it’s actually fat.. No disagreement with that assessment, doctor (96). Next up was a magnum of 1966 Grands Echezeaux, the very same vintage Wilf was cooing about the night before. Wilf happened to be sitting at the next table over, which is also always a very good thing. This 1966 had an incredible nose, fat and fleshy with rose, light Worcestershire, earth and sweet Asian barbecue aromas. There was a great pungency to the wine, a touch grilled with a good stink around its meaty core. The wine was delicious: sweet, long, powerful and lush in its tasty and rusty palate. a close friend of mine and I had a 6 star. debate as this wine flirted with that elite category for about thirty minutes but never quite got over that hump, but it was stellar out of magnum, which can make an enormous difference at age forty (96). The magnums of Conti continued with a 1970 Romanee Conti. The nose was a touch stewed, earthy with a bit of menthol and mint. The wine still had its edge to it, its swagger if you will, and there were tangy bing cherry aromas. The wine was very meaty with a rich and long palate, with great alcohol and acid still. There was a lot of power and a long finish along with great earth flavors. a close friend of mine called it great, but a little square and acidic.. There were tobasco flavors, and this wine leveled out. Drink now, at least out of magnum bottles might tell a different story, and not a better one most likely (94). Not another magnum of ! No, please, no, I thought as the 1971 Grands Echezeauxcame to the table. In case you cannot tell, that was me being facetious. There is never enough Conti on the table in my mind, no matter what the situation. The wine had the spiny quality of 1971 (that’s a good thing), and Russell observed the sweetness of 71, while Allen picked up on some sandalwood, cinnamon and clove.. Nicole was taken aback by the fact that so much was going on here. in this great wine’s nose. Allen loved its beautiful Asian spice in the nose. but was quick to question the palate, which had a singed quality, a burnt smokehouse edge to go with its citrus spine, brown sugar and caramel flavors. There was flesh on its nose and bones on its finish. Smoke, spice and spine summed it up quite well for this outstanding 1971, which Roy reminded me we had a great bottle of before as well, back in the Washington Park days (96). I was fortunate to get a swallow or two of the 1978 Grands Echezeaux that was at Wilf’s table, I believe. There was a lot of beef bouillon and menthol to this leathery wine, which was right there in quality with the 1971 we just had, although I did only have a couple small tastes (95+).

There was a 1978 Bertheau Bonnes Mares floating around that was yeasty and stinky, average and mature, decent but uninspiring given its company (86). There was also a 1978 Groffier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. that I wouldn’t even taste because the nose was too stinky (DQ/NR). I started to make the rounds and stopped by Joe and Raj’s table, where I was treated to a trio of outstanding wines, served one after another. It was time for a lightning round, a do it now or hear about it later situation for which I was remarkably still up. First was the 1985 La Turque, flirting with outstanding but really excellent, especially in the content of its older sibling, the 1985 La Mouline (94). The 1985 La Mouline thoroughly embarrassed the La Turque, possessing so much more character and minerality in this amazing bottle. I have to say that when it comes to the La La.s, La Mouline is by far my favorite (97). The 1982 Lafleur was no slouch, leading me to write the universally accepted Ooooo, baby.. This particular bottle was one of the more structured experiences I have had with this wine, still kinky with its signature style of semi-baked and pruny fruit (97+). You know, I actually forgot that I even had the 1990 Romanee Conti until looking at my notes again! Good grief, JK. This bottle was stellar; gritty, intense and spicy with lots of alcohol and white pepper (96+). Last but not least were two bottles of 1973 Dom Perignon Oenotheque, which is Dom Perignon’s version of an RD. or Collection. bottling, ie a late release directly from Dom. I had to buy something, although little did I know I already had, but we won’t get into that right now (Andy I think I need your help on this one)! I was in the mood for a refresher, and did those 1973s ever qualify and then some. It was one of the greatest Champagne experiences of my life. I don’t know if it was just that point in time and space where bottles undressthemselves right in front of your very own lips and show incredibly due to circumstance and the theory of relativity, wine-wise of course. This champagne was incredible, so delicious and incredibly balanced, racy, bready, nutty it had it all (98). I think I also got a swallow of 1961 Richebourg, which was certainly outstanding but I cannot rely on my memory 100% by this stage, and with no note I will let it go, but I do recall Wilf saying it was his wine of the night, which is the equivalent of getting Guilani to endorse you running for mayor in New York City. The night was not over, despite the fact that those 1973 DP’s were last in the official wine line-up. I was really ripped after the Champagnes, I must confess, so much so that I sat down on a chair that wasn’t there. Yes, I did, but it was a total set-up! That damn chair was there minutes prior. I must say that Cru has wonderful ceilings, though. After being helped up rather quickly, we decided to get some Aer, which is the name of one of New York’s new hotspots. I don’t remember leaving Cru, but I do remember dancing with a beautiful woman over at Aer, then getting aggravated at someone, and stumbling around Greenwich Village desperately seeking a taxi until I found one to mercifully take me home. When I woke up the next morning, I had this strange dream about the Burghound dancing his ass off at Aer, but it must have been a dream. It was all a dream

So I wake up at about 1:30pm the next day. Man, has it been a while since I woke up that late. I missed the tasting portion of La Paulee and gathered myself enough to go get a massage and get myself ready for one final round, the big one, La Paulee itself. We gathered ourselves and got to the W hotel in time for the cocktail hour. I actually passed on the Champagne and started drinking as much water as I possibly could, still trying to recover from the excess of the night before. I bumped into a few familiar faces, you know, guys like Robert Parker, Michael Skurnik, and so forth and so on. It was a who’s who of most of the passionate Burgundy lovers and collectors that I know, and everyone was ready to party. We were seated mess hall style, at long tables that must have had twenty people on each side. That was the only negative thing about the weekend, the fact that there was no control over the seating arrangements outside of what table you were at. The founding principle of my 12 Angry Men tasting group was to make sure that everyone who brings bottles to the table each month represents quality and no one skimps. When you have 300+ people there, it becomes a lot more difficult than managing twelve people, no matter how angry they may be. However, there were a close friend of mine, Rob and I, bringers of 1979 Romanee Conti in six-liter, 1959 Richebourg in magnum, and 1989 Richebourg in three-liter respectively, sitting across from complete strangers with 1990 Chevillon Nuits St. Georges or something of the sorts, and that’s not right in my book. Plus, we knew so many other people that were there who we didn’t even know were coming, we could have dome some collective damage. Don’t get me wrong, I had a great time and tasted an incredible amount of wine it was one of the greatest wine parties I have ever attended. The problem for me was that I was so busy trying to take notes, trying to catch up for the six wines that I was constantly behind the whole night (and I turned away most premier cru wines, mindyou), that I could not get up and mingle as much as I would have liked. It’s all for the sake of knowledge, of course. Daniel, next year, we decided we want the Conti-only table. Hopefully, we can make that happen. I would like to reiterate that I do think that Domaine de la Romanee Conti is the best producer on planet Earth.

We started with a magnum of 1985 Dom Perignon Rose, also courtesy of Rob as if the mag of 1959 Richebourg wasn’t enough! The 1985 was awesome as always, with great, ripe Rose action, very earthy and minerally as well. It was surprisingly drinkable compared to the mag we had in Vegas a couple months ago (95+). We started off with a bang, a close friend of mine’s six-liter of 1979 Romanee Conti. The wine had a stunning nose of sweet, musky, sexy fruit with great earth, stone and honeyed fruit. The palate was rich, lush, supple and soft with light grit. It was very pure with great smoke flavors, and more grit emerging as its lushness tempered in the glass. The acids came out of their initial hiding; at first I thought the wine was fully mature, but later thought that might not be the case. There was a touch of band-aid, tomato, earth and garden flavors. It was super-tasty out of six-liter and hanging on to its outstanding status for now, at least out of six-liter (95+). We had an early ambassador from the next table over, a magnum of 1976 H. Jayer Vsone Romanee, into which all the Cros Parantoux fruit went, I believe. Unfortunately, it was cooked (DQ). No wonder we saw it so soon! Next up was a 1985 Niellon Batard Montrachet, which was corked (DQ). Yikes! It was an auspicious beginning, but the 1993 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet quickly suppressed all fears that this plane was about to crash. The nose was very spiny, racy and full of minerals, pungent in its citrus and wild fruit qualities that also had this dry, smokehouse edge. The wine was a bit tangy but intense, a baby on wheels. Chet observed. On the palate, the wine was very smooth and satiny soft and still had great concentration, easily a candidate for another decade of beneficial cellaring. The wine was subtly long and fine; the acids really kicked in once inside the belly, and the pungency leveled out (93+). Next up was a 989 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachetoutof magnum, which Chet called a little soft, but I like it, he continued. The nose was very anise driven, with light peppermint and solid mineral aromas. The wine was lighter than I expected but had that signature Leflaive toast, nut, dried corn flavors, lemon and spice. There was good vibrancy to its finish with a touch of vodka-like flavors. The wine gained in the glass (92+). The 1992 Lafon Meursault Charmes had that buttery, sweet, Lafon style with pineapple, exotic spice, cinnamon, and fireplace in its aromatic and allspice nose. The palate was a little tight yet still upfront a la 1992 but very minerally and long on the finish. There was great acid and structure here and lots of dry butter and corn flavors (93+). The other Wilf, Wilfred of the boards, magically appeared with a 1999 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. Yum. One of the truly great white wines that Mother Earth has blessed us with year after year, this Coche was no different and was outstanding. The nose was flinty and intense precise with its fire, rain, water and ice impressions; it had all the elements is what I am trying to say, and yes, I know I am missing air and earth. There was mint and forest there (earth wrapped up within), and the wine was still an infant. The wine was long, fine, sexy and supreme in its tasty, Coche and only Coche kind of way (96). Even rarer than the Roulot Charmes that we had the other night is the Roulot Perrieres, and I got a taste of the 1999 Roulot Meursault Perrieres. There was exotic banana on the nose with minerals, toast, citrus and spice. The nose was a little waxy and kinky on the palate, wound in a pure Perrieres way. There were loads of minerals on the finish with its spicy alcohol and acid (94). There was a lot of excellence going around, and still eight whites to come! It was pretty amazing how all these wines found me, almost pre-destined to be tasted and experienced on this great night. Chet was a big help, I must confess. He did not let a drop go past him without a complete and thorough investigation. The 1993 Roumier Corton Charlemagne was smoky and tasty but still pure White Burgundy here. There was some meaty, earthy and sexy white fruit action, with white meat flavors to match. There were great mineral flavors as well, and the wine was certainly plateauing (92). The 1982 Drouhin Montracet Marquis de Laguiche was outstanding and one of the most memorable whites of the night. Thank you Bruce! What a nose on this baby exotic, creamy and waxy fruit spilled out of the glass with caramel, banana and honey aromas. There was butterscotch and vanilla ice cream as well, and the flavors were mature, on the bready side. The finish was rocky, and the wine was thick, tasty, buttery and mature. It still had a long way to go (96). The 1986 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet was a little musty and corky in the nose, still smooth but seemed younger than a typical 1986. There was some purity and good minerals, but I felt the wine was a touch masked (93?). The 1986 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet had a honeyed, buttery nose full of pineapple fruit, candle wax, butter and caramel, much more 1986-ish to me. There was great acid and balance in this spicy bottle with lovely mineral flavors (95). Hey, why not a bottle of 1992 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet to follow up the 1986? The 1992 was tropical, buttery, waxy and actually shy by 1992 standards. There was some band-aid and what I categorized as white, snow-capped mountain, and flavors of honey, banana and wax. The palate was long and white meaty, still full of acid (95+). We next grabbed a glass of 1974 Lafon Montrachet, a wine I would be surprised if I ever saw again. What a scarcity! The wine was still good with some thick, Kraft caramel aromas and a touch of old wood, mature earth and algae. The texture of the wine was pure with a touch of old garden and rotten flavors to it, although that is a bad way to put it; even though it is accurate, it sounds worse than it was is what I am saying. The wine was clean and clear, still with some freshness and nice earth (89). The 1993 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet was another wound 1993, pungent in a mineral and floor wax direction. There were mineral and acid flavors and not much more to this 1993 (92). I only got a swallow of the 2001 Marc Colin Montrachet, which many were talking about, and I saw its greatness, and while I was unable to assess the wine properly on paper, it still left an impression on me of being a 94/95 point wine (94+).

That’s it for the whites I think. We’ll find out shortly enough. I don’t even know where most of the above wines came from, but thank you whomever all of you are! The first red wine of the second half of our program was another magnum of 1976 Jayer, this time a 1976 Jayer Echezeaux. The nose was unique with its black vanilla fruits and more noticeable oak. The wine was on the smoky and earthy side but still had incredible balance between those two components. The palate was a little lean on the fruit but long on the power. The palate was earthy, tannic and gritty (92). Next up was a magnum of 1976 Dujac Echezeaux, straight from the cellars of Jeremy Seysses himself. The Dujac outclassed the Jayer with its sweet, pure, cherry fruit and its glorious musk, citrus and leather. The wine was smooth, rich, lush and pure (94). The 1972 Vogue Musigny V.V. was a touch horsy and rotten, a little too much earth and oak here. The wine was leathery and tannic with lots of expression by those tannins. There were rose, cherry and tomato flavors. This was not the best bottle that I have had of this wine (91). Ok, so that 2001 Marc Colin wasn’t the last white I had this night, as I could not say no to a glass of 1995 Lafon Montrachet, now could I? It was a nice palate-cleanser, I joked. The nose was toasty, minerally and nutty, pure and balanced with a rocky and minerally palate that was smooth, intense and full of butter and corn flavors (95). The 1985 H. Jayer Nuits St. Georges Aux Murgers was outstanding and the best bottle of Jayer so far. There was a touch of cat’s pee to the nose and its vitaminy, earthy, pungent fruit. There was red cherry fruit behind all that and rose flavors along with citrus, earth, spice and leather. The tannins were long and strong (95). The 1989 Dujac Clos de la Roche was a little disappointing, a rare occurrence when it comes to the wines of Dujac. It was a little earthy, gamy and oaky actually. The palate was beefy and heavy on the bouillon and earth. The structure was great but the flavors were a touch rotten (91+?). Somehow I got some 1971 Vogue Musigny V.V. out of magnum, which had a nutty, creamy nose full of tea bags, so much so that it was scary. Some tea bag jokes ensued, from which I will spare you. The palate was fleshy and tasty, with great balance and incredible purity and some of that mature, brown sugar action that I see often in older Burgundies. a close friend of mine felt the wine was unpure and too heavily chapitalized, but he was grumpy since the guy who bought the 1990 Chevillon kept helping himself to his six-liter (96). I finally got around to pouring my bottle, the 1989 Richebourg out of three-liter. The wine was rich and had a spicy, hot, minty nose. The wine was intense, and there was no missing its leather, alcohol, earth and oak aromas. The flavors were beefy, leathery and gritty (94). There was another magnum of Jayer, this time a 1978 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee Les Brulees.. There was great spice and minerals to its nose and a noticeable whiff of alcohol. The wine was beefy, spicy and intense with its gritty and leathery finish. A good wine to have with the 1989 they had a lot in common (94)! The 1959 Richebourg was next, out of magnum, and it had an incredible nose of vanilla ice cream, rose, nut, caramel, brown sugar and oat. The wine was super creamy, spicy and still lightly hot with its alcohol. The wine had an incredible finish, long like the work day and sturdy, earthy and leathery. There were soda, chocolate and brown sugar flavors as well. It was an official big boy. bottle (96). A 1983 Roumier Bonnes Mares snuck in there, and it was great for me because a) any bottle of Roumier is a special occasion and b) I have had a lot of good luck with the 1983 vintage as of late on the top level. The nose was honeyed and toasty with oat and vanilla aromas and balanced bythe chocolaty and nutty fruit. The palate was rich, fleshy and tasty with great balance and nutty flavors (93). The 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. had an incredible nose that was very youthful and full of mint, cherry and vitamin. The palate was alcoholic and the acid levels practically killed me after 25-30 other wines already. The wine was sturdy and spiny with earth, leather, gravel and toasty flavors. The wine was outstanding, but no 1990 in my book (95+). The 1993 Dugat-Py Charmes Chambertin was one of the least memorable wines of the night with a lot of oat, horse and animal in the nose and palate. This was disappointing (88). The 1996 Richebourg was a little perplexing as well, well-behaved for a 1996 and full of rosy, red fruits with a pinch of menthol in its nose. There was earth and nut as well, but this bottle was totally shy, and it seemed very subdued like the wine was taken hostage. I am not sure if it was the bottle, but I remember better impressions of this wine, and certainly the 1996 s, which are amazing wines. This wine should easily be excellent or outstanding, hence my score (93+?). The 1983 La Tache was delicious both aromatically and on the palate. There were rosy red fruits, light menthol, earth and bacon in its nose. The wine was meaty, and did I say rosy? It deserves to be said twice. The palate was fleshy, tasty and delicious with its iron and rose flavors and leathery finish (93). It is funny how, generally speaking, two wines can have the same score and one can be great while the other is a disappointment, and these last two were a perfect example.

It was at this point that I finally caught up and had actually had every wine before me. I could actually get up and around now. I talked to the Burghound later, who confessed he felt like he was being rude to people because he did not have time to talk and socialize since he was so busy trying to catch up on his notes as well! It was a pressure-filled night for those trying to keep notes. So I took my three-liter of Richebourg and started to make the rounds. It is not easy to pour those three-liters, I must say, especially when trying to take notes at the same time while walking in the aisles between tables of forty people! The show had to go on, and I was determined to get a few more swallows of some goodies that had to be around. The first thing I horse-traded for was the 1985 La Tache. I was glad to have this wine again, which I have always found profound despite the opposite opinion of some of my most trusted friends and advisors like a close friend of mine, Andy and the Burghound, who all have had separate but equal doubts regarding the 1985. Well, after 32 or 33 wines, the wine still showed outstandingly. The nose was great and intense, full of menthol, while the palate was long and strong with great acid. I kept writing long. and intense. over and over throughout my note. The palate was FDA approved with its mineral, iron and vitamin flavors, complemented by good citric tension. Sorry guys, I still love this wine (96). Someone had a three-liter of 1971 Grands Echezeaux, which was consistently outstanding as last night’s magnum. You know it is a good weekend when you have any 1971 wine out of magnum and three-liter on consecutive nights (96). There was also a three-liter of 1961 Ponsot Clos de la Roche (not sure if they made V.V. or not back then and forgot to check). The wine was a touch maderized and had an earthy and funky quality to it accordingly. The structure was pretty special, leading me to believe this should be a great wine, but unfortunatelythis bottle was affected (93+?). The 1964 Faiveley Latricieres Chambertin was delicious, pure and layered with light brown sugar and good earth flavors. It was outstanding wine (95). The wine of the night for me was Mark’s 1952 Romanee Conti. Thank God I got up and around just for a glass of this wine. It was killer, with unbelievable texture, layers and finesse, exquisitely balanced, dripping with fruit and kissed by oat and nut flavors. This was the first vintage of Romanee Conti since 1945, when they had to replant the vineyard, which made this wine all the more impressive (97). I then had a trio of Leroy wines after this tough act to follow, starting with a 1993 Leroy Nuits St. Georges Aux Boudots, which was excellent. It was very pure, which is sometimes an issue with Leroy, heavy and thick. There were leather and citrus flavors and great body and weight (93). Next was a head-to-head of 1993 versus 1990 Leroy Vosne Romanee Les Beauxmonts. The 1993 was outstanding, great all around, with beautiful structure and pure fruit (95+). The 1990 was no slouch either, but it seemed a lot more mature than its 1993 counterpart. The wine was a bit more fruit forward but showed none of the 1990 disease. to which Allen likes to refer regarding those 1990s that are starting to become stewed (94).

Unfortunately, I lost my last page of notes, so the last five or ten wines I had at La Paulee, I lost track. I think I had the 1971 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes out of bottle too, but I am not 100% sure. I know I sampled a very good 1959 P. Bouree Nuits St. Georges Les St. Georges. (90) which was on the earthy and oaty side with that touch of brown sugar, as well as a 1978 G. Lignier Clos de la Roche out of three-liter that was also very good with a little more spice and grit to the palate (92). I am almost positive that I had at least another half-dozen wines but I cannot recall them for the life of me, except that last swallow of 1979 Dujac Bonnes Mares, which certainly seemed outstanding, but I did not get too much of a taste to really judge. It was mature and complex and probably (95). Anyway, it was on to Cru for the afterparty.

We got there early, as we needed some fresh air, and some not so fresh air, and we proceeded to set up shop at a table. Things were off to a slow start, and Christoph Roumier was there early as well, so I tried to get the party started by ordering a couple bottles of the 1986 Roumier Musigny in his honor. These bottles of 1986 Roumier Musigny were truly incredible. At that moment in time and space, I don’t think I could have had a better bottle of wine. Even Roumier, a humble and soft-spoken gentleman, was in awe of its greatness; this is a wine he said that he had not had in ten years, and then he proceeded to call it magic, looking like a proud father whose son just graduated college with honors. It was magic, rusty like the great 1986s, but incredibly powerful, balanced, agile and flavorful. There was every flavor imaginable in there, its acidity was amazing, and it is one of the truly great wine experiences of my life (98). In all fairness, I am not sure the wine will ever get any better than it is right now, so perhaps in later years its score may decline, and a close friend of mine did NOT feel it was 5 star wine, which surprised me. Christoph and I begged to differ! After that, things started to get blurry. There were two six-liters of 1979 wines going around. I don’t really remember the Richebourg that well, but I do remember the 1979 Romanee St. Vivant, which was delicious and very close in quality to the Romanee Conti itself. It was ready, willing and able, drinkable to the nth degree, mature, fleshy, round and rich with flavors of rose, leather, truffle, brown sugar and a splash of Worcestershire (95). Even though I found the wine similar qualitatively to the RC, I think the RC will hold longer. There was a 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares V.V. opened by a close friend of mine, which I think I had but cannot remember again. He gave it 5 stars plus, calling it really muscular, big and dense, incredible stuffing. A serious contender, very balanced and deep, needs a long time. A Mike Tyson punch with a Keira Knightley kiss after.. Nice quote and thank you for the pinch hit, bro. I do remember the 1958 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva, which I later found out to be Roberto Conterno’s personal favorite. It was outstanding, classic Monfortino all the way with the leather, sandpaper, tar, and dried rose. Pure, balanced, stylish and long in its graceful finish, it was a Keira Knightley kiss with a Mike Tyson punch after (96+)! I think I like the other way around better, though. There were two more bottles of 1973 Dom Perignon Oenotheque, which was incredible again and consistent with the night prior (98).

That’s about all folks. Some of the other highlights included Big Boy napping in the corner, me almost knocking over Don with an affectionate hug, meeting Freddie Mugnier, and then me getting home at 5AM with a 7:30AM flight to go deal with a major collection for April’s auction. When I got home, I was so stupefied/drunk I couldn’t even focus enough to pack. I decided to sit down for five minutes and gather myself, and the next thing I know it was 10AM. Oops. Thankfully, I caught the 1:30PM flight and was able to deal with everything Monday after a four-hour dinner Sunday night for which I was not quite ready. That 18 hour day hurt on Monday, though: thirteen in the cellar (supposed to be spread out over two days) and five in the office. of my hotel room catching up at night. Ouchhhhh. Yes, I don’t just eat and drink all the time.