Everyone loves a good Hollywood ending. Boy gets girl, good defeats evil, big family hug, Hollywood Jef turns 55, money shot… and fifty-five is significant of course, it’s like a notice that you are now about to pass the legal speed limit, and all fun must get off at the next exit. But Hollywood Jef is no ordinary man; he has been following a strict diet of fine and rare wine for the last decade or two and is seemingly getting younger with each sip. When he invited me to his 55th birthday celebration, I moved our next Hong Kong auction back a week, because I knew it would be that special. I underestimated.

A magnum of 1971 Dom Perignon provided ample amplitude for the cocktail session. It was a clean and classy magnum, more wheaty than expected, but it still possessed signature white fruit. It was fresh and zippy, all one could ask for out of a magnum of this wine. I was a few minutes late arriving, so I didn’t have too much time with it (95M).

Two whites followed, beginning with a magnum of 1966 Leroy Montrachet, courtesy of the Wolfgang Grunewald collection. Everyone that was fortunate enough to buy from that auction in 2008 keeps telling me they wished they bought more. This magnum was another example. It had a warm, open and mature Chardonnay nose with aromas of candle wax, old honey, game and sea salt. It was sound and rich in a mature way, not like internet money. This was EF Hutton money; Leroy earned it. Someone called it or Leroy ‘one of the greatest,’ and its creamy and nutty finish didn’t have me disagreeing (95M).

Three magnums of DRC Richebourg equal one happy dinner table. The 1971 DRC Richebourg was spectacular like all 1971 DRCs always are. Aromas of tomato, menthol, rose oil, vitamins, creamsicle, tree, forest and wet wood combined harmonically in its nose. The palate was minty and rich with meaty flavors of dill and truffle. It still seemed so young and had some wet toad goodness to it. The Rev picked up some ‘licorice’ on its grainy, granular and thick finish. Touches of cedar and eucalyptus rounded out this special wine (97M).

Twin towers of La Tache were a fitting follow up to the riches of Richebourg, beginning with a 1971 DRC La Tache. It equaled the greatness of the ’71 Richebourg in the nose, but it had more rose and cedar goodness. There were also aromas of oyster shells and red dates. Its fruit was oily and its palate saucy and meaty. Rich and leathery, it felt like a Hermes bag in the mouth, supplemented by great cedar and red citrus flavors. Usually I am in 98 point territory for this wine, but on this night, the Richebourg was the LT’s equal (97M).

After so many great DRC’s that were drunk to the last drop, the Bordeaux were a bit anti-climactic. Those that argue that Burgundy should come after Bordeaux had a case in point on this night. My notes started to wane. Yes, I am predictable. The first wine was out of double magnum, the only non-magnum in the crowd. It had a great nose full of nutty goodness, with some caramel and chocolate. Wet wood, bamboo and wafer flavors complemented nice acidity in this solid wine (94D).

The 1949 Gruaud Larose had aromas of chocolate, caramel, cedar, spice, cabinet and nutmeg. Its palate was soft, creamy and easy. It didn’t live up to its younger brother’s performance (92M).

The 1945 Gruaud Larose was ‘too tannic’ per Bipin. I wrote a few more words, but ‘cold, simple and easy’ were all I could read (90M).

The last wine on this night was actually from the vintage of our Hollywood host, a 1958 Latour. It was quite good given the vintage’s lackluster reputation in Bordeaux. It was smooth, balanced and lush without the richness. It was an uplifting finish to a heavenly night (93M).

For those of you that really pay attention, you will remember The Keymaster, one of the world’s great palates and collectors, a man who realizes that older is better, you better, the best. Every meal that I have ever had with him has been nothing short of spectacular, and this most recent evening was no exception. We drove about 30 minutes outside of his European home to find a Grand Award winning restaurant. We still brought our own wines, of course.

The Keymaster noted, ‘mature pineapple, exotic mango and a lot of sweetness.’ There were orange fruits with a Galliano kiss and some wet rock. There was also some rusty nail and honey drops in its smoky nose. It definitely had a deeper color, but Sebastien was still appreciating its ‘effervescence.’ Its rusty flavors were hammered in by its hard, full acidity. This was a strong wine, almost robotic and violent. ‘Aggressive’ and ‘on fire’ came from the crowd. This was bigger but felt more chemistry than natural science. It was an old release of NV Jacques Selosses Contraste, released in 2008. I love Selosses, but I don’t think his NV cuvees get better over time (94).

The second white had a much oakier nose with a bandaid applied, and it, too, was also served too cold. ‘More Montrachet’ came from one of our quartet, and it did feel richer, but I didn’t think we were in Montrachet land. Sebastien called this wine ‘a real man,’ or perhaps he was just fantasizing out loud lol. There was a lot of tree, forest and log cabin action with a whole lotta potpourri going on. Someone noted, ‘popcorn and caramel,’ in this long, balanced and smooth 1999 Coche-Dury Puligny Montrachet Les Enseigneres. Exotic, perfumed and sexy, this Coche was a ‘mini-Batard’ per The Keymaster. Sebastien came up with a new adjective, ‘pophorny.’ Perhaps he was thinking about that real man again (94).

Even though this ’83 counterpart was also decanted three hours ago, it felt deeper and stronger, but it had to overcome some must/cardboard/wet tree bark thing. Mushroom, ‘wet paper’ and ‘fruity wet dog’ came from the crowd. There was great minerality to its nose, and more acid stick here. The palate was fresh with no signs of must, except the thought that I must drink more of this. There was nice leather to its long finish. Most preferred the nose of the La Tache, and the palate of this 1983 Henri Jayer Echezeaux. Its palate was deeper, sweeter and longer, and the nose improved while gaining a candied twist. It got more LT than the LT got it, if that makes sense (95).

We were told the last wine of the night was a 97 point Burghound wine, so we knew it was Burgundy . It had an open, saucy nose that was full, rich and hearty. There were aromas of bouillon, roasted fruit, menthol and a touch of beef. Leather, rust and autumn were present in this wise yet youthful wine. This was a great wine, with outstanding acidity and zip, with supporting characters of barnwood and earth. It likely wasn’t an original bottling, but this 1933 Pierre Gaunoux Pommard Rugiens was still great (95).

New York is a hell of a town. Its finest wine lovers are so close both physically and spiritually, but schedules can make everyone seem so far away. It isn’t often when a gathering of Vintage Tastings ‘All Stars’ is possible, but thanks to the triumphant return of The Big Ticket from a recent hiatus, I had the pleasure of gathering with a few of the merriest men that I know, along with Lady Agah, of course.

The Shylock pulled out a 1996 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet next. It had a smoky, great nose that was toasty in the Leflaive way but not over the top and too sulfury or kernel-y. There was a pinch of yellow fruits, and the nose came back to the smoke, but the palate was whiter in its fruit, leather, earth and ice components. It was full-bodied, zippy and lively, but the DRC that followed smacked it back a point (95+).

The Cardinal noted ‘a little VA’ in the second wine of this flight. It was quite stony in its earthy and sweaty nose. The palate was long and tight, make that long, tight and hot. It had a zippy, muscular finish, but The Punisher also found it ‘affected.’ Its acidity was stronger than the HB, and its finish was hotter and longer. A smoky, dry mesquite edge emerged on this probably (96+A) wine.

Gentleman Jim was talking about ‘Thai Stick,’ I think about the wine lol. It was open, fleshy and gamy but not great. It was a bit weedy for me, quite chewy with some secondary Campbell’s Soup aromas. The palate was also weedy. It had excellent acidity but was short on flavors. I have had many, many better bottles of 1961 Palmer (93).

What might likely be paired with the two prior wines? Yes, the 1989 Petrus. As good as the Lafleur was, the Petrus smoked it, it was so good and so wow with loads of plum, coffee and chocolate along with earth and the goodness of what milk bones might be if I were a dog. It had enough t ‘n a for an entire chorus line; the 1989 Petrus will always be one singular sensation (99). (PIC -)

The 1989 Lafleur didn’t disappoint. Never has, never will. It was soupier and grapier in its obvious complexity. The nose had more royal garden to it, but also the open plum, cocoa and grape perfume that whispers Pomerol. The palate was tasty and strong, stronger than I ever remember it to be, quite zippy with its acidity, thick and tight like an all-star athlete before warmups. This was still a beast (97+).

We shifted gears to a couple reds, beginning with a rare 1943 Latour, a bottle that came from the Noble Family Latour Collection we sold in Hong Kong last year, so I knew we were in for a treat. Even though 1943 wasn’t a great vintage and seventy years old, its fruit was fresh with cassis dripping from it. There was some pleasant minerality still to it, along with snowcapped fruit. Its nose stayed on the rocky side, but its palate was softer and more supple, caressing and beautiful. There was just enough acidity to make it still interesting, and there was no question this was in as good condition as this wine could be at this point (93).

The ’61 theme continued with one of its legendary wines, the 1961 Haut Brion. There was an ever so slight touch of must or cork to its nose that had us trying to figure out if it needed more air, or indeed was affected. Behind that pinch of peculiarity remained the hallmarks of this great wine – tobacco, gravel, smoke, cassis, plum, leather and meat. More rocks joined the party, and the palate was rich and saucy. Flavors of tobacco and chocolate were present, and its finish was satiny, although the wine seemed to gain in intensity. Ultimately, that touch of must didn’t leave the nose, but it was barely noticeable on its palate. I still felt this bottle, while outstanding, was a touch affected and not quite hitting the heights this bottle usually does (96A).