Big Boy arrived fashionably late, but we forgave him thanks to a 1959 Salon. There were great aromas of vanilla, sugar cube and white musk, along with some reserved touches of ginger and ‘wheat’ per The Mogul. It was more wine-like on the palate with flavors of paint and some bitters to its finish. The nose was better, but it was still excellent (94).

We talked turkey with Axel about recent vintages in Tuscany, and were excited to hear how 2011 and 2012 were ‘monumental vintages,’ with ’11 being the best since ’01. 2006 has a richness that is great, while 2007 and 2008 were big and dramatic. 2005 and 2009 are the ‘open’ vintages, ready to drink and enjoy sooner, while 2006 vs. 2008 would be a debate for a while, as both were outstanding vintages. 1987 was Masseto’s first vintage, by the way.

Axel threw in a 1995 Ornellaia for fun, even though it wasn’t the greatest vintage for Ornellaia. It had a grapier nose and fatter fruit, sweeter and plumper overall. It was certainly less complicated than the ’88, with almost jam flavors, but not quite so. It was a chewy wine (92).

We transitioned to Masseto with a flight of 1989 Pomerols. The 1989 La Fleur de Gay was unfortunately corked (DQ).

The next phase of our official challenge began with a 2006 Masseto. ‘So juicy’ and ‘coffee’ came from the crowd. Its nose was sweet and thick, with port and black cherry jam aromas. There was this candied goodness here, and the palate was rich, fine and silky. It was creamy with vibrant acidity, and while young, there was no denying this was outstanding wine (96).

The Cardinal pulled one last Champagne out of his bag, a fantastic 1982 Krug. It was clean, lemony and zippy. This was a full-bodied, masterful Krug, on the bigger side and in the category of 1988 and 1996, as far as the younger ones go. It was bready as in the biggest loaf around, a behemoth to behold (96).

There are some people in this world who always make a good time great, and The Mogul is certainly one of them. Every time I have the pleasure of his company, special things happen, and our first gathering of 2013 together was no exception. We were joined by Tom Terrific at Corkbuzz, where you may find The Mogul once or twice a month, picking up a few wine facts and figures from one of New York’s great Somms, owner Laura Maniec.

We started with a surprisingly approachable 1989 Krug Collection.Its nose was soft and buttery with some signature vanilla and some orange fruit. It was very tender for an ’89, showing citrus and mahogany flavors. The Mogul found it, ‘smooth and rich,’ and I couldn’t believe how mature and ready it seemed, which is very atypical for recently released, young Krug collections (94).

Tom Terrific pulled out a 1986 Ramonet Batard Montrachet from his bag of tricks, and it had a complicated and wild nose. There was big pungency to its powerful nose, which had some ’86 honey bear and signature Ramonet corn as well. There were hints of mature fruit on the palate, and while most ’86s are past mature by now, this still had amazing acidity and intense energy. Its minerals were crackling, and while pungent and grassy on the palate, its finish was still big (95).

The 1990 Dujac Clos de Roche that followed was a stunner. ‘Fuck yeah,’ started my note. Sorry, I was born and raised in New York City, forgive me. There was this exotic tea to go with its decadently purple fruit. Jasmine joined the party, and she brought along her friend Blossom. The Mogul was in the house for sure now. The Dujac was so succulent yet still zippy, tender yet long on its finish, possessing great acid and great freshness. This was a delicious and balanced wine, ‘pure silk’ per The Mogul. Amen (97).

Two weeks later I would see The Mogul again, and this time it would be with both Big Boy and The Cardinal. Now that’s an official gathering, to be continued…

There was pure, crystallized fruit and great citrus dust to this clean wine. There was big character here, and sweet white fruit flavors along with light pats of butter and minerals. There would be two words that kept recurring in my descriptors of Roulot’s wines throughout the week – delicious and drinkable. The Boucheres performed accordingly (93).

I recently wrote up the 1988 Dujac Clos de la Roche; this was actually the first of two bottles that I had during the week. I need to travel with Jeremy more often! The nose was fabulous, ‘so much fruit for an ’88,’ I wrote. Jennie noted, ‘honeydew’ in its sweet nose, and Jeremy admired its ‘perfume and elegance.’ There was great spice from this ‘high acid vintage,’ and its tender palate had flesh, but its finish showed ’88 muscle. There were touches of broth and citrus to this wine, which was ‘pure pleasure’ per Sebastien and ‘sexiness with character’ per another. I gave it one point more than the second bottle sampled a couple of days later. That fact can be summed up by the three C’s: context, circumstance and competition (94).

We also had a 1999 Domaine de la Romanee Conti Romanee St. Vivant after the Dujacs, but either I was done, or the Dujacs took me away to a magical place where I could not taste anything else. It is not always easy to recalibrate to young after drinking old. 1999 and DRC is usually an undefeatable combination.

The next night we welcomed Jean-Marc Roulot, as well as magnums of three of his very special wines. But first, we had a bottle of bub, a 1996 Roederer Cristal magnum, to be exact. This has always been a pet Cristal of mine, perhaps the last great one they have made? Its sweet, buttery and kinky personality were what great Cris is all about, and it was approachable despite its intensity and zippy acidity (96M).

The next white took it up a notch, it being a magnum of 1999 Roulot Meursault Perrieres. It had a deeper nose with enticing smokiness and nuttiness, and more minerality. There was this cavernous quality to the nose, and while the palate wasn’t quite as fat as the nose, but it had more length and acidity. The palate was also flintier and smokier than the nose. The ODB found the Perrieres ‘more reserved,’ and while leaner than the average ’99, it was also longer and more austere. This was a serious and substantial white that got stronger, fatter, longer, better. 1999 was ‘a classic vintage’ per Jean-Marc, ‘what we wish for every vintage.’ It reminded him of 1979, high praise, indeed (96M).

We bid adieu to the wines of Jean-Marc, and welcomed those of Jeremy. Jeremy’s father started in the abysmal 1968 vintage, which saw an unheard 45 straight days of rain. Perhaps that was good fortune, because ‘it will never be worse than ’68,’ per papa Jacques, and so far, he has been right. The Domaine’s name actually comes from ‘Du Jacques,’ ie, of Jacques. Jeremy told us he is waiting for the right time to change the Domaine’s name to Dujeremy lol.

The 1997 Dujac Bonnes Mares had the rubber, citrus and stew of 1997, benevolently green with bamboo to support. The palate was soft, plush and some kind of wonderful; it was a very pure wine. Jeremy shared that his father had an ‘affinity and affection’ for 1997, which happened to be the vintage where Jeremy first put his feet in the grapes, so to speak. Although he didn’t fully take over until 2005, Jeremy modestly shared that he started to have influence in 2001, as much as that would be possible with a father around who had done things his way for the last thirty years lol. I know that feeling! Jeremy felt that it wasn’t the ‘greatest vintage but to my taste and very Dujac.’ Traces of cinnamon were present in this vibrant red. ‘Fifteen years is a good age to drink Grand Cru Burgundy,’ especially from the average to good years (ie too soon for the great ones still!) (93).

The 1990 Dujac Echezeaux just came in and dunked on the two previous wines at the same time. Remember the statement about ’78, ’85 and ’90? Here was the case for the 1990. This was a high-pitched wine whose nose was meaty, oily and minty. The fruit was what 1990 should be, I wrote, meaning not the stewed perplexity from this vintage that many wines have attained. There was an exotic, limey edge that made things on my body stand up. This was a rich, noble wine with soda, grape and bamboo flavors (96).

Here was the case for 1985 Dujacs, argued brilliantly by a magnum of 1985 Dujac Clos St. Denis. Its nose was sexy silky sweet without the comma, along with perfumed. There was both richness and elegance here, with flashes of Red Light District and a drop of exotic Hamas oil. Imagine that lol, but that’s what it was, and the 1985 immediately took my palate hostage. The palate was incredibly tasty, with autumnal flavors that blended in between tea and wet sex. Wet, hot sex. This wine was so great; it was saucy without being heavy, and it had the ODB with both hands under the table. He thumped on that the 1985 was ‘immortal and perpetual like a great bond.’ Yes, the ODB is also a banker lol (97M).

Could it be possible? A 1978 Dujac Clos de la Roche on consecutive nights? This feat reduced my bucket list by one. There was even more richness here than the 1985. I wrote, ‘so complicated, see last night’s notes.’ There was a honeyed richness to it on this night, along with a minerality that sung zippedy doo dah. Someone remarked how the 1985 was ‘soulful and weightless’ while the ’78 was ‘earthy and rustic.’ Jeremy reminded us how the Grand Crus only represent 2% of the production in Burgundy. Top of the pyramid, for sure (97+).

The 2008 Roulot Meursault Tessons, Clos de Mon Plaisir had great aromas of dust, citrus and spice. There was a lemony goodness to its nose, and a desert-like complexity with its warm, sunny fruit. There was more body and power here in the ’08, yet this was another delicious Roulot. It’s as if he has a trademark on deliciousness! Tangy citrus flavors and firm acidity highlighted the Tessons (93).

Next up was a 2004 Roulot Meursault Boucheres, a wine that Roulot no longer makes. RIP, 1996-2010. Now, he has the monopole vineyard of Clos de Boucheres, whose first vintage will be 2011, and Jean-Marc is very excited to work with this even better terroir. The Boucheres still stood on its own, as this was a ‘precise’ wine per one, possessing ‘lemon sorbet’ per another. There were aromas and flavors of sweet citrus, mountain snow and minerals to go with its long finish. There was more structure here, but a touch of squareness to match. This was a powerhouse which got smokier in the glass (94).

It was time to say goodbye to Roulot, but what a goodbye it was. The 1996 Roulot Meursault Charmes had this unusual burnt plastic meets talcum powder thing going on, but somehow in a great way. This was baby bottoms up, with more open fruit and lots of honey to go with its signature lemon. The acid still longed to go on, and its flavors had this unusual yet exciting new car meets fireplace action, as in the new car got you in front of the fireplace, you know what comes next. The 1996 Charmes was incredibly and unusually complex, and on the money (95M).

A pair of 1996s had me clearly in one camp again. The 1996 Dujac Clos St. Denis had acid in its nose in that usual 1996 screechy way. There were also aromas of bamboo, green fruit, citrus and lemon in this clean and vibrant red (93).

The 1982 Leoville Las Cases, an ‘Ashley Judd of a wine,’ had a very coy and dusty nose. There were wafer, cassis and deep plum fruit aromas. There was outstanding length and acidity, real ‘backbone,’ yet it was still elegant and refined. It had a spicy finish that also had a touch of awkward flavors (95).

A mouthful of 1990 Beuasejour Duffau was generously offered by another table. I wish I got more. It had a thick, sweet nose full of black and blue fruit, along with cola and mint aromas. The palate was also thick, as well as rich with a long finish. It reminded me a bit of the Cheval we just had, actually more like the 1947. Those are big words, but the 1990 Beausejour Duffau is a big wine. I still can’t understand why nothing else this estate has made has come close the quality of their 1990. I need to sit down with a full bottle of this wine again soon (96).

A 1988 Clinet had a nice Pomerol nose with a touch of sour candy to it. There was fleshy fruit in this tasty wine, which was a bit lighter and more ready than the previous flight, but a pleasant and enjoyable wine (92).

A 1996 Pichon Baron had nice fruit for a ’96, although it was a touch stinky. Unusually cherry, it also had a tangy finish (90).

The 2001 Meo-Camuzet Corton Clos Rognet was a special wine. It had a deep, dark nose with lots of power. You could ‘smell the tannin’ in this ‘huge’ wine. Additional aromas of wet wool and slate morphed into lamb meat and resource-laden rock. Powerful, deep and dark all appeared in my notes again. This wine came across younger than most 2001s and had ‘twenty years to go,’ according to one. It was like ‘a glycerin umbrella’ per China Live, and this fantastic red wasn’t slowed down by a touch of burnt rubber on its finish, which was in the pedal to the metal family. This was a wow wine (95).

The 2003 DRC Romanee St. Vivant had that forward, ’03 edge and while ripe, it had more in reserve than many other wines from the same vintage. There were aromas of cola, dust, blueberry, spice and orange tang. Tasty flavors of iron, rose and ‘eucalyptus’ per Jennie blended in well with this rich and ripe wine. This was a hearty har har red that was thick and put on some weight (94+).

A 1949 Climens closed out the evening in fine fashion with its ‘oolong, mint and camphor’ notes. Honey and mahogany never looked so go together. I’d like everyone to meet Honey, and this is Mahogany lol. Well, it was Shanghai, and this spectacular Sauternes sent us off into the cold, January night with warmth in our souls.