WARNING: THIS ARTICLE IS OVER 6000 WORDS LONG AND WILL MAKE
YOU BUY SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF CHAMPAGNE

As long-time readers will know, New Year’s Eve has long been a special evening for me every year, as I always make sure to spend it with the world’s #1 collector of Champagne, otherwise known as Big Boy. One of our other, frequent drinking buddies happened to be in town as well this New Year.s, otherwise known as Bad Boy, another of the world’s top connoisseurs of Champagne. Add into the mix the world’s #1 expert on Champagne, Richard Juhlin, and you may be able to imagine the rest. Make sure to add and then some.. And when 2012 arrived, all through the house, every creature was stirring, thanks to Deadmaus.

Now normally, Mr. Rosania hosts an evening of rare Champagne and wine for many fine friends in his home on New Year.s, but thanks to some domestic construction, we were out and about this year. But I am getting ahead of myself, as four days before we welcomed 2012, Richard Juhlin stepped off the plane from Stockholm, and we welcomed him with open bottles. There were three nights of Champagne hosted by the Wine Workshop, and then one hosted by Big Boy, and the momentum kept building throughout the week until I couldn.t take it no more, which was about 2am Sunday morning.

I had the good fortune of meeting Richard Juhlin for the first time earlier this year, on the small yet lovely island of Aland in the North Sea. We were both there in honor of the Shipwrecked. auction, when we set a record for the most expensive bottle of Champagne ever sold. We instantly hit it off thanks to our mutual passion for Champagne, although he drinks it a lot more of it than me, an estimated 300 nights a year. I’m probably just over 100 myself, cut me some slack, will ya? Richard is closing in on 8000 unique Champagnes tasted, not even counting multiple notes of the same wine. Of course, Rob will tell you he has tasted 8001 lol. Much like Allen Meadows in Burgundy, Richard has taken over the Champagne space to become the voice that matters the most, and I couldn.t think of a better ambassador; charisma is his middle name. A former athlete and fitness nut to this day, Richard knows the value of both working hard and playing hard; we focused on the playing hard part :).

In Sweden, his name is pronounced Rick-arrd You-lean, although it is tough not to go by the American pronunciation, aka Jew-lin.. Even he has become accustomed to the latter, although when it comes to awareness in America about his work, I would call that in an infancy stage. There is much America has to learn when it comes to its bubbly. Remember, Champagne is a wine after all, one that ages as well as any red, and it fits at the beginning (always a good start) , in the middle (always a great refresher) , or at the end of any meal (skip the dessert wine and finish with Champagne if you want to do yourself a favor and keep the good times rolling). It truly is one of the most special wines on Earth, especially in the hands of its finest producers, of course.

People came from all over America to attend these events Boston, Atlanta, even Los Angeles to name a few, which shows not only how people love their Champagne, but also that Richard is, how shall I say, someone worth seeking. I mean, he sold 100,000 copies of his first book in his native Sweden; I think that would translate to about 30 million books sold here in the USA if he was American. America still has a ways to go when it comes to stepping away from its Budweiser, but we will overcome.

The first night was more of an introductory course, Juhlin’s welcome to Champagne 101. I learned more on this night than any other in recent memory thanks to Richard’s navigation. I didn.t really take notes, sorry, but I do remember Richard’s unique way to smell and taste Champagne, which I worked on over and over for the next four nights it really made a difference! It’s kind of tough to describe in writing; feel free to bring a bottle of Champagne to me at any time, and I’ll show you :). I remembered a few other tidbits: one, if you drink Champagne more often, your body can process it more easily, as the enzymes in your liver can detect specific types of alcohol. So if you don.t drink a lot of Champagne, it will go straight to your head.. Two, alcohol strengthens the mood you are in, although when I am in a bad mood I always feel better after drinking, so I am not sure I agree with that one! Three, there are over 800 potential aromas in a glass of Champagne. Four, there is only one Champagne he has given 100 points, the 1928 Pol Roger Grauves&it’s a long story, or I would tell it, but I have a shitload of notes here to write. Five, buy old Champagne. Six was the whole NV/MV controversy about labeling what vintages go into the non. or multi. vintage blend. Seven, Champagnes that are recently disgorged are much better a decade or more later, once they re-capture some of their original complexity. So those of you drinking those 1981 or 1985 Krug Collections, or those DP Oenos that are just released, take it easy. If I was more fastidious, I would go on and on. Richard’s first-hand knowledge about the history of the region, the terroir, the grapes and their producers made for a most fascinating evening. We tasted many esoteric, grower. Champagnes; the two standouts were a delicious NV Coquilette Les Cles. as well as a NV Jose Michel Pinot Meunier, which was like a rock star at a tea party with its unique, Marquis de Meunier personality. Consider those a couple of good inside tips for everyday drinking. The evening was a true connoisseurs delight, as Richard put it, due to the diversity of terroir and wide range of growers, including three Champagnes he had never tasted before, out of seventeen total. He might have to rename his upcoming book 8003 Champagnes. now lol.

The second night saw us sample a scintillating selection of 1996.s, the vintage that still remains the reference point of my adult existence. 1996 is so great to me that I can.t even pay attention to any Champagne vintage that is younger, although Richard insisted that 2002 and especially 2008 will both be considered great in the history books. Richard began by telling us why 1996 is so special. For the first time since 1928, Mother Nature provided Champagne with both maximum acidity and maximum maturity of the grapes at the same time. He recanted about the 1928 Pol Roger Grauves, and went on about how 1996 was similar to 1928 due to the amount of sunshine in a relatively cool year. Hello, acid. A cold climate with full maturity of ripeness is the best scenario for a grape grower, and that’s what 1996 provided.

I think it’s about time I start getting to those tasting notes. In the interest of actually finishing this article, let me first provide a summary of the evening at Gramercy Tavern:

Notes on the first flight: For the first sixty, maybe seventy years of the 20th Century, Pommery was an elite producer of Champagne, arguably top five. It has been a long road to recovery, but the 1996 seemed to be on that road. Its nose was lean, with straw and gold dust aromas, while its palate was pleasing and extended, displaying complex flavors of ginger ale, herbs and fennel. It was clean and fresh with a long finish. Richard adored it, very feminine, not aggressive& a winner.. Neither RJ nor JK understood the Bruno Paillard, a Champagne purposefully oxidized to the point of possessing overcooked fruit and too much sherry.. I believe unique, funky, gamey and too much oak were the politically correct ways to put it. The Billecart-Salmon was classy and warm, nutty and toasty with nice caramel aromas. It was tasty and refined, long and satiny, staying seductively nutty until the very end. Richard found more maturity here than in the first or last wines of the flight, and thought it had the best harmony.. He also observed, chocolate, butterscotch, nuts and exotic apple.. The Clos des Goisses won the first flight for most. Its nose was less flirty, but its core was tight, and its palate enormous. Icy diamonds, minerals and white fruits came to mind, as did golden sweetness. Its acidity was special stuff, and a kiss of menthol added a layer of single-vineyard complexity. Richard found it the most interesting, and found aromas and flavors of hazelnut, meat, vegetable, tar and truffle..

Notes on the second flight: Richard thought the Dom Perignon was slightly corked; regardless, I wasn.t thrilled with it, and I felt I got a good evaluation of it. There was manure, petrol and herbs, in a stinky, gassy and herbal way. I don.t know, I just didn.t speak its language even though I wanted to. The Dom Perignon Rose was also quite grassy, rusty and polished but tight and unyielding. Connoisseurs of Dom Perignon don.t regularly drink it after 1976, although the Rose might get more credit when younger. The Pol Roger was the clear winner of this flight; there was great bread here doe, crust and the French open altogether. It was classic, rich and had great linearity with its white fruits and minerals. Richard found it bright and big, chocolaty and complex, with every fruit there apple, citrus, licorice, butterscotch, all in a cocoon of flavor. Sleeping beauty.. I’ll take what he’s having lol. I liked the Grande Dame a lot for drinking now, but I felt it won.t get any better. Its musk and fireplace qualities blended into its bready and fat personality, but its tasty fruit was maturing fast, a sentiment that RJ seconded. It was fairly consistent with the bottle he had the week prior, although actually a bit better on this night.

For flight three, aka the Blanc de Blancs flight, Chardonnay stated its case, and won. The Ruinart was a bit DP-esque with its grassy style, although cinnamon and pheromones added complexity. It was young and racy, as 1996 oughta be. All hail the 1996 Salon. It may be the greatest young Champagne I have ever tasted, along with the 1996 Clos du Mesnil (we’ll get into the differences in a minute). The 96 Salon was as great as it’s ever been. Every time I have this Champagne, it just kills it, never disappointing. White ice, diamonds, laser show, rockets on skates&.Bryan found it tight and clean, more Chevalier.. He then went on about how every great wine, or terroir, ends up getting compared to Burgundy. Good point. On this night, I preferred it to the Krug Close du Mesnil; on other nights, it has been a different story. Richard found the Salon pure and fat, also finding it one of the night’s top two. The Comtes de Champagne, whose first vintage was 1952 for those keeping score, had the signature butterscotch along with meaty, yellow fruits. Green apples and citrus dominated its finish. Richard found it big and broad-shouldered, with flirty and exotic coconut.. The Clos du Mesnil was so buttery and seductive in a forceful and powerful way. This particular bottle’s palate was a bit nutty and oaky, obvious. as Richard described its oak. It was still the Montrachet of Champagne, clearly, and its body and weight were unmatched despite the personality kinks that this bottle was showing. It kept revealing more nuances with time. Richard called this and the Bollinger VVF the best of the vintage, finding this so fat and creamy, serious and deep. The aftertaste has a double length, and its acidity is the highest.. The last time I had Salon and Clos du Mesnil side by side, there wasn.t any question about the Mesnil being the best; this bottle just showed a bit too much oak. Something that everyone forgets is that every bottle is a living organism and unique in some regard; they aren.t all the same. On this night, I preferred the Salon.

There was one more flight, and three more wines, two of which had Cristal in their name. I have long adored both the 1996 Cristal and Cristal Rose, always finding the Cristal more delicious, yet the Rose more serious. Tonight was no different. I have always loved the kink and butter of the 1996 Cristal; this is the vintage that makes me say no wonder it is popular in nightclubs, as this is the type of girl I would want to meet in one. It just oozed sex appeal, and its reductive caramel and honey flavors had me ready for seconds. Richard reveled in the Rose’s white chocolate and strawberry with whipped cream flavors.. The acid was clearly superior, and its finish was longer than going to the Opera. The regular. Krug was adolescently awkard on this night, and its oak really stood out again at first. The oak cooled off with time, and it became more beautiful and big; college should serve this wine well.
In sum, Mr. Juhlin noted that this evening strengthened my opinion of the vintage..

The next night we were at Le Bernadin, and we were going deep&.Deep Ocean. as one of our guests might say. Every Champagne served was from 1961 or older, and all were from the collection of Rob Rosania. In typical Big Boy, generous fashion, Rob decided to bring a dozen extras, just in case.. It was on this night that we also welcomed Bad Boy back from the Carribean, in what we called a case of perfect timing. At Rob’s insistence, this evening would show no DP, no Krug, no Salon and no Cristal. He wanted to show the true depth and diversity that Champagne had to offer. Mission accomplished.

We started with a 1961 Ruinart Blanc de Blancs, the second vintage ever made. Smoky and toasted. came from the crowd, and I found gorgeous caramel and honey in its nose. There was also apple and hickory, and its palate reminded me of cream soda, fresh from the fountain with a nice corned beef sandwich waiting. Alexander the Great found it amazing, and it was Richard’s favorite of the flight, and he observed, coffee and lemon pie, admiring its sweetness without being sweet.. It was delicious for sure (95).

A quadrafecta was next, beginning with the 1966 Pommery. Richard felt this was the decade where Pommery’s quality started to wane, although this flight kept me hanging on. The 66 was a bit rusty with some rubber tire in its nose, but the palate was mature, round and sugary. This bottle was a touch earthy and a touch advanced, and Big Boy found it clumsy.. While its first sip charmed, it fell apart quickly (91A).

The 1964 Pommery was lightning in the bottle by comparison. Its big vanilla nose had pure white sugar to it and displayed beautiful maturity. It was delicious, mature and clean, a classic all the way around (95).

The 1962 Pommery was more wine-like, but it was still excellent. Aromas of orange rind, dust, honey and bitter sugar made way for a lush, soft and fleshy palate (93).

The 1959 Pommery was well-built and the biggest, per Richard. However, it was a touch oxidized in the nose, although the palate was not as affected and showed more of its true character (94A).

The 1960s made for fascinating conversation when I asked Richard what he thought was the best vintage for what many consider to be the greatest decade for Champagne. 1964 was his answer, although 1966 is the safest, 1962 the most powerful, and 1961 the most generous and charming.. Big Boy added that 1961 is a phenomenal Blanc de Blancs vintage..

It was onto the next flight where a random assortment of fifties and forties flexed their aged-yet-toned muscles. First in flight was the 1953 Philipponat Blanc de Blancs. There was great sugar in its nose with a touch of rust and wet wool. The texture was fleshy and lush, and its flavors were tasty, mainly sugar, caramel and earth. There were touches of menthol and mint on its backside, along with coconut. Mr. Unfiltered found it vegetal, and The Bone Collector felt it had a lack of smell.. Richard noted that it was not fully harmonic, but a nice wine. (91).

A 1952 Heidseick Dry Monopole was oxidized; a telltale sign is morning mouth, or excessive yeast and sherry. No fear, we had a 1949 Charles Heidseick instead. Technically, they are different companies; I assume they were once related, but honestly I am not sure. Big Boy admired its delicate. qualities, and Richard purred that it was close to 1947, one of his favorite vintages of the 20th century. It was almost Sauternes-ish with its lush and tasty personality. While long and delicious, it was just holding on to its last breath of bubbles. It reminded me of 1949 Burgundy; in this vintage, they were brothers in arms (94).

A 1959 Gosset was extra special. Richard reminded us how a 1952 Gosset was actually #3 in his Millenium Tasting. twelve years ago, where he tasted almost 200 Champagnes over a three day period. The Gosset got a lot of wine of the flight. votes. It was really pretty with fresh aromas, and lots of rocks in its nose and orange flavors in its mouth. It was delicious with nice sprite and wheat and caramel flavors. This was sexy wine with a smiling charm and so many layers, and the best bottle of this that I have ever had, noted Richard. Welcome to New York, baby (96).

A bonus bottle of 1949 Alfred Gratien made its way to the table to make up for the 52, and this was our first non-malo. bottle, if my notes serve me correctly. It had a great nose full of apple, pear and caramel. Its acidity was superb, and Alexander The Great found it to be her favorite of the flight (94).

We took it way back with the next flight, beginning with a 1929 Lanson, another non-malo bubbly, which translates into apple acidity not milk acidity, Richard informed. This was the first time Richard had tasted this wine, and he reminded us what a fantastic vintage. 1929 was. The Lanson was musky and mature, with marmalade and less dimension than 1928, per Richard. There were great musk and oil flavors in this delicious and honeyed wine, which almost lost sight of the fact it was Champagne. In the end, it eeked out the Pommery that followed, although it wasn.t self-evident from the get-go (95).

The 1929 Pommery was butterscotch-y and delicious, so luscious with just a touch of sprite. There was earth and more vim at first than the Lanson, but it got a touch bitter and faded while the Lanson exerted itself. Keep in mind that it all comes down to the bottle; this was a game that could go either way 51 times out of a 100 (94).

A 1928 Perrier Jouet was oxidized. Big Boy comforted us, saying Don.t worry, it was still Perrier Jouet. (DQ).

The 1926 Pommery was incredible. Stuck in between the shadows of 1921 and 1928, 1926 doesn.t really come up in many conversations regarding 1920s Champagne. Then again, that conversation probably doesn.t happen that often lol. This was the best 26 ever, per the KOC. It was rich and buttery, with light caramel and garden flavors, still possessing nice sprite and spice. Someone said the P-word, ooooooooooooo. That’s perfect, by the way (97).

It was time for the flight of 1955s, one of the greatest vintages of Champagne&ever. I have long loved 1955 Bordeaux, and Burgundies and Piedmont are no slouches, either. Could 1955 be the most underrated and underappreciated great vintage of all-time? Yes, it could. We started with surprise a 1955 Pommery. Shit, was there any vintage of Pommery we didn.t taste tonight? Rob’s long love affair with Pommery has long been documented, and who can blame him? The 55 was oh so nutty with sexy caramel action, and a fresh and classic personality. Balanced and long, this oozed goodness (95).

The 1955 Charles Heidseick was night to the Pommery’s day. It was much more elegant and pretty&lovely summed it up, along with more orange (93).

The 1955 Louis Roederer was (DQ) , so we quickly moved on to the 1955 Bollinger, which had that beefy, purposefully oxidized style (without being oxidized). I suppose this is what Bruno Paillard was trying to do, unsuccessfully. This bottle was nutty and zippy with lots of coffee aromas. The palate was thick and creamy, heavy and meaty with a warm, nutty finish (95).

A 1955 Moet was exotic. per somebody, who was that guy lol. The nose had hay aromas, and the palate was lush and flavorful with coffee and earth flavors. It was tasty, complex and smooth, a good show overall. Let’s not forget that Moet makes Dom Perignon, although I guess they run it separately, supposedly (94).

The 1955 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was the first time I have ever seen an original label of a Goisses this old. Richard immediately recognized that this was the best by far of all, in this flight. It had a great nose full of rust, dust and musk. Wet wool, iron, spice and white meat gyro all joined the party in this complex wine. The acidity was still how you like me wow. (97).

There were two flights left, one being a VVF one, which happens to be one of Richard’s personal favorites, one of the greats, as he summated. The 1981 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises had an unreal finish, per Big Boy. There was big-time pear and ginger ale to this long, smooth and fine Champagne. Its minerals and acidity were noteworthy and outstanding (95).

The 1980 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was even more special given its vintage. Have I even ever had a Champagne from 1980? I would have to take the fifth, as it is quite possible, but I honestly don.t remember. Aromas of white cola were balanced by grilled asparagus, in a good way (I love grilled asparagus!) Orange blossom and cinnamon were also present in this undeclared vintage.. Fireplace flavors kept my soul warm in this soft and smooth bubbly. Not surprisingly, it gained in the glass and became more rugged and stronger (95).

As good as the 1981 and 1980 were, the 1979 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was in a league of its own. It was so good, it caused Richard to kiss Rob, in a totally hetero, love at 22nd bottle kind of way :). The 1979 had a fabulous nose that was pure, liquid cream. It was deliciously aromatic with white fruits and musk in perfect harmony. Its flavors were also great, dominated by cola and chocolate at first. This got more than one wow in my notes; its complexity was special. It gained in the glass, its extraordinary acidity flexing with each repetition, gaining a caraway complexity before the last sip sadly disappeared (98).

The closing flight was one of Roederer, not Cristal, yet still Roederer. One of the best kept secrets of the 20th century is the regular. Roederers, at least through the 1950s, maybe 1960s. We started with the 1947 Louis Roederer. This bottle was so fresh it was bordering on imaginary. Aromas of straw, grain, hay and nut all danced around its dangerously good nose. There were lots of flavors in what was ultimately the spritziest. wine of the night; this was a perfect bottle if there ever were one. Long and zippy, the 47 had Richard citing railroad track, this combination of wood, steel, stone and flowers on a sunny day. Only 1947 and 1959, he continued (98).

The 1953 Louis Roederer had another great nose of pure vanilla, musk and smoke. It had a lush, honeyed palate bordering on suckle with a touch of minerals on its pleasant finish (93).

The 1959 Louis Roederer was typically great, although I have had one 1959 that was in 98-point territory, and this wasn.t. There was a touch of body odor here, in a sweaty and sexy way. Caramel, smoke and brick were more traditional aromas. It was lush and so sweet with its musk flavors. Great stuff, even though it can be even better (96).

Last call was a bottle of 1937 Pol Roger, another added bonus courtesy of Rob. I gave it (95) , although I didn.t have much to say about it other than grain, straw, zip, long, smooth.. That was about it for tonight, but tomorrow was New Year’s Eve, and it was time to rest up.

Part One of New Year’s Eve took place at a home away from home, Marea, at least until the clock struck eleven. It was a smaller group of friends and family, the core of which was Richard and I, along with the boys. Big and Bad. Most of the evening was courtesy of Big Boy, although Bad Boy certainly contributed, and I, of course, got the bill. That’s ok, there is one wine auction house in the world that puts its money where its mouth is, or is that its mouth where its money is? As far as I know, I only live once. Big Boy was relishing the opportunity to taste Richard blind on numerous Champagnes, and Richard was up for the challenge, nailing a couple right on the head.

We started with a super-rare 1975 Deutz Ay Blanc de Noirs Oenotheque, of which only 200 magnums were made. There were light straw and golden aromas in this so. fresh bubbly. This is never breathe again land, Rob thumped on the table. I’m not sure it was from above or below the table, but there definitely was some loud thumping happening. The yellow theme continued on the palate, in a dusty way. It was rich, lush and incredibly long and fine. So great, so young, so balanced and with an endless summer of a finish; this was clearly the best Champagne from 1975 ever, and one that transcends the vintage. Richard noted violets. and that signature of greatness, railroad tracks.. It was a good beginning, and to give credit where credit is due, Richard nailed it on the head (97M).

The next bubbly had a mature, warm nose of bread and honey. It was creamy and lush, and the palate was round, rich and smooth, never losing its lushness. It was very wine-like with its orange marmalade palate. There were gold flavors and excellent acidity still to this wooly and textured wine. It was a 1976 Clos Tarin Clos du Mesnil. I don.t think even the owners of this wine at the time would have identified this one blind (93)!

The 1963 Clos Tarin Clos du Mesnil was shot, oxidized unfortunately. I guess all 1963s might be at this point (DQ).

Big Boy went straight to the hoop, Blake Griffin style, with the next selection. Perfect, flawless, top five ever produced, he went on, and he was right. Richard was at first in the 55/.47 camp, identifying the strength of the wine with some of Champagne’s strongest vintages. Its nose was both classic and insane at the same time. There were hints of hinterland oak, along with meaty, yellow aromas that were sweet, rich and nutty in an autumnal way. Its palate was musky and zippy yet rich and lush, with divine flavors of seltzer, bread and citrus. Secondary flavors of orange, chocolate and tobacco emerged in this incredible wine. It was a 1966 Krug Blanc de Blancs, the pre-cursor to Clos du Mesnil that was only made once, and only 500 bottles were made. Holy shit (99).

The next flight was for 2012’s Birthday Boy, Mr. Juhlin himself, who will be turning fifty this year. We started with a 1962 Charles Heidseick British Cuvee, and Alexander The Great and Brooklyn Mike were in agreement over its pineapple. qualities. Aromas of waterfall, musk and nut oil rounded out its nose. Flavors of pineapple and coconut expanded in this long and icy wine. There was great fruit and great mineral components here (95).

A 1962 Piper Heidseick Rose was so rare, even Piper didn.t know they made it until Bad Boy came knocking at their door. The nose was all strawberry rose, so sweet. Richard noted, lower alcohol and more sugar.. It was lush, round and long, with a high dosage. per Bad Boy (93).

The regular 1962 Piper Heidseick was impressive, quite effervescent with its hay and straw aromas, forward and zippy. Flavors of honey didn.t compromise its great freshness, and additional flavors of mineral and white earth were balanced by impressive sweetness (95).

1966 Dom Perignon Rose?. Richard asked. Close, it was 1962 Dom Perignon Rose. Aromas of earth, chocolate and strawberry stood out, complemented by granny apple and cranberry flavors. It had that earthy, sweaty, good drity style of mature DP Rose and was a rock solid bottle. It was surely great with its outstanding acidity and weight (96).

The 1962 Krug had that big, classic Krug vanilla aroma, with a so good. toasty and nutty nose to match. The palate was balanced yet big, with a cascading finish that went on and on and on. You can always count on Krug (96+).

There was one more 62 bubbly, a 1962 Roederer Cristal. Orange rind and butterscotch squared off in the nose, and that Cristal kinkiness shined throughout that battle. The palate was sweet and larger than life with its caramel flavors. The acidity and spritz were both great. This is one Champagne whose performance lives up to the reputation (96).

Enough with the Champagne, we needed some wine, and Big Boy continued the 1962 theme with four of the greatest Burgundies ever made. The first had a wow nose that reeked cherry sex. Its aromatics were so delicately good, just like 1962s are supposed to be at age fifty. Its aromas tickled while grabbing my&.attention. Musk and mint added layers of complexity to this category six hurricane, as Big Boy accurately commented. The palate was super long, with incredible rose and tobacco flavors. Its finish was soft and caressing, yet it walloped at the same time. Long live Rousseau, starting with the 1962 Rousseau Chambertin (97).

We continued with the 1962 Roumier Musigny, which doesn.t exist, except for the few that still have some. Big Boy, The Don, anyone else? Deep, foresty fruit signaled a different producer, and its fruits were a bit blacker. Traces of tobacco and coffee lingered in the nose, along with some tomato and Worcestershire. The palate was phenomenal, possessing superb length. It was hearty in a fine way, typical of great Musigny. The flavors shifted to red, along with tobacco and citrus, in this spectacular wine. Long live Roumier (98).

It couldn.t get any better, could it? Enter 1962 La Tache. At first, there were oysters and ocean action in the nose; it needed some time to unravel, and did it ever. Aromas of rose and tobacco slowly took over, with secondary rose and menthol seeping up out of its earth. The palate was out of control. It was rich, saucy and long with crazy spice and oomph to its finish. I must confess that I was starting to think the sun was setting on the 1962 vintage, in a long, graceful way, as great vintages fade away and never disappear. I am happy to officially stand corrected. Long live La Tache (99).

The 1942 Richebourg, which was supposed to be a 1962, was unfortunately gone with the wind (DQ).

The 1962 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes was also spectacular, though a hair behind the La Tache. Its smoky red fruits slithered out of the glass in an unctuous way; its richness and concentration were as good as it gets in Burgundy. This was so thick and lush, singing at the top of its lungs, yet its finish was so fine. This was higher level juice. Long live Comte de Vogue (98).

We were running out of time, so Big Boy went back for one last flight of Champagnes, beginning with a 1911 Moet, and not the batch that was recently released, which I have not sampled. I’m talking ORIGINAL. Having had two 98-point experiences with this incredible bubbly, this bottle disappointed relatively, but it was still impressive. Ever so slightly oxidized, the nose still delivered immense pleasure with aromas of rye bread crust, nut oil and kisses of caramel and fino. The palate was lush and great, and its acidity was extraordinary, but it was definitely a kiss oxidized (95A).

The 1921 Pol Roger was another great nose, dusty and great in a white cola, zippedy doo dah way. Its flavors were sweet and honeyed, and its finish vibrant, but I did find it a touch sweet, holding back its fantastic self (95).

Everything else is immaterial, announced Big Boy after sipping the next wine. It was another wow nose; everything was starting to border on the surreal. Richard thought this might be the elusive 1938 Krug, but it was the non-existent 1932 Salon Nature. Its nose was deep, rich, sexy and nutty, and while its fruit was mature, it was still delicious, and its acidity was still superior. Lush and creamy continued my notes. Earthy and autumnal flavors suggested this might have been a touch advanced, but since I have no 1932 references, who knows? Big Boy knew only one thing at this point. I am in awe of myself, he summed up lol. To be honest, so was I (96).

There was one Champagne before we hit the road; it was a bottle of 1942 Pommery, and damn was it good. Dirty, but good. That’s how things happen after 11pm lol. There was zip and zoo here, but sweet vanilla took over, and its palate cheered hip hip hooray.. Absolutely delicious, this was Pommery at its best, rich and perfectly sweet in a toffee way. It kept getting better (97).

There were actually a few other bottles opened, but I didn.t catch them all. It was finally time to go out, and thanks to Bad Boy, we had tickets to the hottest show in New York City, the Deadmaus concert. We arrived at 11:55pm and danced in the New Year with more magnums of Champagne. So many magnums I lost track, but I do remember the 1981 Krug (95M)showing better than the 1982 Krug (96+M) ,even though I thought the 1982 was the better wine. The 81 was showing delicious, mature and bready flavors, and it was still young, but not as young as the 1982, a truly impressive vintage for Krug. The most memorable wine thereafter was an extraordinary magnum of 1971 Salon (98M) , which was like a Starship Enterprise of a wine. Its finish rocketed into the next vintage in such lingering fashion, I can still taste it. It had all the classic components of icy white fruits, sparkling diamonds and endless acidity. I missed a bunch more, as I lasted about two hours less than the Boys..

Remember, life is too short not to drink it. Long live Champagne and its two greatest ambassadors, Robert Rosania and Richard Juhlin. It’s going to be a good year.

Here’s a bit of Christmas cheer for everyone opening a bottle or three today, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a great wine.

After three years of invites, I finally got the Emperor to join me for dinner in Hong Kong. It was well worth the wait.

The acceptance was actually for November. Problem was, the dates got mixed up, and he missed the original engagement. I was determined not to let this opportunity slip away again and insisted on a more intimate gathering in December, and I was ever so grateful afterwards, not only to the Emperor and his presence, but also for my insistence in the first place.

Now the Emperor is one who drinks well, as he should. While he has everything he could ever need, he remains active and experimental in the marketplace, in the spirit of both a true collector and a true connoisseur. The Emperor also likes to do things in grand fashion. Consider a recent dinner he hosted for fifty of his closer friends and advisors, and the according line-up of wines: 2002 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne, 1986 Ramonet Montrachet (jeroboam) , 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares, 1959 Mouton (magnums) , 1990 Petrus and 1985 Sassicaia. For a dinner this large, 4-6 bottles (or equivalent) was opened of each wine. I mean, wow. Where was my invite, I joked. He promised his next similar event would be around my schedule. My fingers are crossed!

Class and style, they do not always go together. Tonight, they were both at the dinner table and on it. We started with a slightly affected bottle of 1966 Dom Perignon. It was a touch maderized, as The Distinguished Gentleman observed. While mature and forward, it was still drinkable and with good spritz. Overall, it was a bit dirty, with bread and white cola flavors, each covered in more dirt (93A).

The Winemaster brought with him a delicious 1961 Oddero Barolo. Sexy aromas of rose, tar and mint jumped out of the glass. It was leathery and sexy like hot leather pants accordingly. A distinctive, secondary aroma of Mesquite BBQ emerged, and Gil noted a touch of benevolent Oloroso.. Its palate had meaty fruit and great smack to its finish. There were taut, red cherry flavors up front, and leather ones in the back. Its oily texture made for a delicious experience. This was a great wine from a great vintage in Barolo (94).

A 2000 d’Auvenay Chevalier Montrachet was next. We were matching the food with the wine, hence the unusual procession. It was a truffle dinner, and we felt the Barolo went better with the scrambled egg dish, and the Chevy with the scallop and crab concoction. The dinner was at Gold, by the way, and chef Harlan Goldstein personally prepared a spectacular meal. Back to the wine&the first thing that stood out about this white was its heaviness. This had to be the heaviest 2000 white that I have ever had; Leroy’s concentrated style was on full display in its thick, rich and heady nose. Aromas of banana peel and nut skin, along with coconut shell, were also there. The palate also had some sweet nut flavors and a buttery personality. While smooth, the palate was a bit dirty, and easier and smoother than the nose had me expecting. Unsweetened 7up and waterfall flavors were present in this elegant. white. This was no 1996, one of the great whites I have ever had (92).

I brought a 1945 Haut Brion, one removed from a nearly complete, original case, and the wine was incredible. What a nose, I began. It was staggeringly complex with meaty and minty fruit, and the same, great wine that I remembered it to be. Fabulous. came from the crowd, and additional aromas of carob, caramel and smoke came from my glass. The palate was full of caramel, tobacco, slate and mineral, extremely powerful, with a slaty, gravelly finish. The nose continued to evolve into an incredible butter toffee display, and it kept getting better and better with more air. Someone (s?) noted, Coney Island in the bottle. and gunpowder and brimstone.. Its power and acidity were extraordinary (98).

A 1966 Haut Brion was no match for the 1945, showing more green bean and stalk in its nose, with a touch of chocolate. The palate was clean, fresh and smooth, with a nice waterbed of cassis underneath. There was tobacco and Graves earth on its finish. This was a smooth and satiny HB, water from Heaven, someone remarked (92).

The next wine was served blind, and The Distinguished Gentleman noted coconut. instantly. The nose was fleshy and almost jammy at first, in an old, Old World way. A bit of green bean crept in, and the palate had that touch of ice cream sundae to it. Banana joined the nose on cue. The palate was fresh, smooth and soft with a tender finish. It was a 1928 Cos d’Estournel (93).

Back-to-back Burgundies followed, both by Roumier, and both two of the most significant wines in the history of the Domaine. The 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares was brought by the Emperor, from the case he purchased at the Don Stott auction a month ago. After this bottle, only six bottles remained despite him having it for only one month. It’s the Chinese way. The nose was fabulous, and this bottle was slightly fresher than the bottle of this that I had a month ago (from a different batch, and equally as spectacular if not more). Red fruits and orange rind jumped out of the nose, and one guest found it more orange blossom tea. than rind. Tea, beef, smoke and earth were on both the nose and palate, which was so fine and so sweet. It was rich with great acidity, long and dusty with delicious nutty flavors. It got more complex, exhibiting more rose, bouillon and sweeter fruit (97).

The 1978 Roumier Musigny had a similar nose to its sibling, but a heavier feel. It took more time to open, continuing to put on weight, becoming oilier as well. Hints of spice and rust started to emerge, and menthol took over the palate, along with extraordinary acidity. The Bonnes Mares was clearly sexier and more friendly at first, but after a long conversation, the Musigny kept unfolding more and more, and this was a dead heat. If I had a bottle of each to drink with a friend as opposed to a glass, I think the Musigny would have won in the end (97+).

It is rare for a Rhone wine to upstage Bordeaux and Burgundy legends like 45 HB and 71/78 Roumiers and so forth, but the 1966 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline did just that. It had a wow. nose, full of white pepper and sexy supporting singers named violet, bacon and beef. One commented, this is perfect; no flaws.. It was incredibly tasty, adding lavender to its previous violet and bacon, and its flesh and length were superb. There was great kink to its finish, and its flavor was as good as the Rhone gets. In fact, the 1966 La Mouline, its first vintage, might be the greatest wine ever made in the Rhone. Consistent notes (99).

It was an evening fit for an emperor. I hope it doesn.t take me three years to get him to come to dinner again.

One of the most spectacular events of the year make that my life – was a recent vertical of Chateau Margaux held in New York City. The event was held over two-days at 11 Madison and Per Se, and it spanned over a century of Margaux back to 1900, with all bottles sourced from a single, Northern European cellar. While Burgundy has stolen the spotlight this Fall, this was an event that reminded me that nothing can age quite like Bordeaux. With Paul Pontallier, Chateau Margaux’s managing director and Bordeaux ambassador extraordinaire, in attendance to lead us, this was an event fit for a king, and a strong statement by Bordeaux that it will always be king.

I unfortunately missed the Saturday evening session, as I was in Chicago hammering down a few million of wine. Duty called, but there was no way I would miss Sunday’s session. It isn.t easy waking up at 6am after an evening auction; in fact, it is brutal, and I almost missed my flight back to New York. Were it not for the help of a couple of Angry alums, I might not have made it. Basically, I had to hand off my luggage at the check-in curb at the last second, and I just made my flight back to New York. I wasn.t the only one to fly into New York for this event. People came from all over America, Europe and even as far as Hong Kong and Korea. I arrived to Per Se in the nick of time, and while my sea legs weren.t exactly with me upon arrival, after one sip of Margaux, I instantly felt better.

The Sunday session featured wines from 1900 to 1959, twenty-nine years in total, including many super-rare and impossible-to-find vintages that many have already written off. If there is one lesson to be learned from this event, it is something that I say over and over: the greatest producers make great wines every year. Even Paul would later say that this was the greatest Margaux event of his life, admitting he had to re-write the Chateaux’s own notes on some of the obscure vintages. Dare I say that Acker events rewrite wine history?

You know it is a historical event when the first wine of the tasting is from 1907, and the 1907 Margaux was an omen of the good things that would continue to come. Pavillon Rouge was actually created in 1907, as a result of all the young vines at the time, due to the phylloxera outbreak of the late 19th Century, of course. The 1907 had a pleasant nose, still fresh with its rosy fruit. Its aromas were quite complicated, with leather, strawberry fields and glazes of toffee and citrus. The wine was incredibly exotic, and a touch of tea rounded out its surprisingly vibrant nose. Its flavors were not full of fruit and were more in the citrus and tea directions. There was nice flesh to its body still, and flavors of dry cherry and glue emerged. It was almost Burgundian. per one, having a Barolo color. per another. Say what you will, but this 1907 lasted in the glass and was an excellent beginning to this legendary afternoon (93).

The 1908 Margaux was clearly a reconditioned bottle, with a much darker color, and lots of vanilla and nut on top. It was fuller and fresher, but a bit square. I think I have gone on the record that there ain.t nothing like the real thing, aka an original bottle. I am fairly certain that after years of experimenting, most Chateaux would now agree (85).

While The Cardinal was not in attendance, we did have The Bishop instead. Quite good, he commented about the 1909 Margaux. Its nose was creamier, a vanilla city built on great, mild and mature cassis. Dapper Dave noted, Absolutely fantastic. You can smell the velvety texture.. This was a classic; it was round, soft, balanced, elegant and smooth. Paul concurred, admiring its balanced, elegant, sweet finish. (93).

The 1910 Margaux had a deep nose that was more in the purple and black direction, with supporting tea, chocolate and vanilla aromas. The palate was lean and a bit unyielding. Even Paul found it, short and acidic. (88).

The 1915 Margaux had this weird banana butter nose. It was way too oaky and a bit brutal, probably an off bottle (NR/DQ?)

However, the 1917 Margaux brought our first flight to a close in fine fashion. It had a gorgeous nose, full of musky elegance. Its palate was round, lush and tender, inviting like a trip to Grandma.s. This was classic in every sense of the word. Paul hailed it, best of the flight, still power and freshness.. I seconded that emotion (94).

I must say, for a series of random, ancient vintages that were not historically significant, that first flight was impressive. It set the tone for the rest of the afternoon, and each flight added more and more to Margaux’s legend. The 1922 Margaux that led off the next flight was stunning. 1922? I don.t even think I have even had a wine from 1922 in my life, that’s how rare or how little regard there was for the vintage. The nose was nutty, with sweet caramel kisses and oats in there. Its aromatics were very open and forward; this was a wine where any guy would immediately think he has a chance, and that’s a good thing. The palate was rich, beefy, brothy and chocolaty. Brawny and tasty, the 1922 had flavors of wheat, chocolate and saddle sweat, and a great, dusty finish. Paul noted a touch of benevolent oxidation, and Magnum Mark had it in first place for the flight (94).

Another obscure vintage was the 1925 Margaux, and it was even more stunning. 1925? Come on, you mean 1928? 1929? Wow. Its nose was so different, full of mint and olive, deep and enticing. The palate was soft and seductive in a very velvety way, unfolding into this creamy and toasty finish. There was great flesh and nice smack to its finish. Black cherry and cassis took over, spilling out of the glass in a tasty, taste me way. The finish got thicker, and we were officially in outstanding territory. I should note that Magnum Mark found it, a little sugary. (95).

We continued with the 1936 Margaux, another vintage that basically doesn.t exist anymore. It had a dirty nose with a bit of 1915 in there with its oaky fruit and mild banana and caramel aromas, along with a touch of celery, and I hate celery. Talk about one of the vilest vegetables on the planet! If I was a superhero, one of my arch-nemeses would have to be Dr. Celery, who would of course be funded by Lord Overoaked, but I digress. Mr. Wine Vegas observed, rosehips and aged cranberry.. The palate was ok, drinkable and pleasant, more so than the nose. It was a bit waxy, and my last note summed it up best, I could still drink a bottle of this on my own, which is my version of inspected by number 12. lol (88).

The 1937 Margaux had a mild and clean nose with aromas of light earth and a bit of bread. The palate was lean and pleasant, a touch chalky at first, but clean and fresh with a dry finish (92).

The 1942 Margaux was a wow wine, seconded by Gil, who was practically shrieking over it. The nose was nice, but the palate is what set this vintage apart. Aromas of spice, chocolate, hay and fireplace set the stage for the big show. The palate was delicious, rich and amazing&.so chocolaty, I wrote. It was full-bodied and long, quite balanced given its heady fruit. Not that it’s that unusual, but Gil could not stop talking about this monumental wine.. He continued, one for the historical perspective, adding the best bottle of 1942 that I have ever had.. Ok, ok, we get it (96).

The last wine of this extraordinary flight was the 1951 Margaux. Paul was immediately smitten by this archetypical. Margaux. He admired its elegance, softness and freshness without being too acidic.. It was another sweet core in the nose, but in a more perfumed way. It, too, was delicious, delivering plenty of cassis flavors, supported by a touch of chalk. This was sexy and juicy, and Gil was back with sweet tobacco and truffle, and amazed at this wine, because it was from a truly shitty vintage.. We here at Acker always prefer a shitty Truly vintage lol. This was another wow. wine, especially given the vintage (94+).

Most were in the 42 and 22 camp, although the 25 and 51 certainly got a lot of attention. Almost the entire flight was spectacular. Dapper Dave summed it up, every bottle was as good as it could be, and Aurelien added, all of them give pleasure.. We had just finished the second flight of six. Could we be in for a letdown the rest of the way? The beginning was far too story book. for this continue, could it possibly?

The next flight began with the 1905 Margaux. Truffles. were immediately noticed, and its nose was hailed as mind-blowing.. There was great musk and spice aromatically. The palate was soft and tender, with nice spice as well. Light citrus abounded, and its finish was pretty. Paul found it to be built like a modern Bordeaux, and later added he thought it was wine of the day so far! The 05 Latour I had the night prior wasn.t nearly as good, oh yeah, that was 2005, oops (94).

The 1918 Margaux had a milky, nutty nose with aromas more on the milk chocolate side. The Fink noted, perigord truffles and cumin, while I was stuck on my nuts. That probably didn.t come out right. There was excellent balance to this World War I wonder (93).

The 1919 Margaux was unfortunately shot, complete vinegar. It was like biting into a lemon. Hey, it happens. Get over it, and move on (DQ).

1933 is another vintage rarely seen today no matter what the region, and the 1933 Margaux was up to the challenge of resurrecting its vintage’s reputation at this last chance corral. Gil noted, old Burgundy, and The Fink sous bois.. The 33 had the same mint and olive combination of the 25. Its fruit was big, black and chocolaty, with a buttery and rich personality. Olive and mint joined the palate as well in this excellent red (93).

Only seven years separated all the wines in the next flight, and we started with the 1943 Margaux. It had a wafery nose, mild yet rustic. There was a touch of mint lingering here, in a leaf way. This was a bit of a bruising Margaux by its usual, charming standards, and clearly the most powerful and muscular of the day so far. The length goes on and on, cooed Magnum Mark. This was a healthy combination of power and acidity, and another great showing for another wartime vintage (95+).

The 1946 Margaux was from a high-acid year, per Paul. You could see that right away. It was nice but a touch square and zippy, a touch bitter but sturdy. Someone called it, sharper than 1948. (91).

The 1948 Margaux had pleasing aromas of wafer and bread along with forward cassis and a hint of tobacco. There was great nuttiness here, but its palate was a bit sweet, almost cough syrupy. It had a full, gritty finish but was a touch medicinal (90).

The final wine to this flight had Paul a bit disappointed. at first, as the 1950 Margaux is a wine he knows well and loves. However, with time in the glass, the wine became outstanding, finishing strongly. Dapper Dave noted, dry cigar paper, while Magnum Mark added, a satisfying, rich robe. of a wine. The aromatics unfolded into freshness and greatness, with zip and the doo-dah to go with it. The palate was very tasty with sweet fruit and a great mid-palate. A touch of swimming pool was not enough to keep me out of this creamy and tasty red, which I found to be a Miss Congeniality. of a wine (95).

The fifth flight began with the 1921 Margaux, a veritable liquid gourmet Cheeseburger, per Gil. Dapper Dave agreed, finding it definitely most meaty.. Once the cheeseburgers were gone, there was great dust and spice to its superbly floral and perfumed nose, leading one to call it, the perfect nose that is Chateau Margaux.. The palate was clean and bright, fresh, long and elegant, while the nose got dustier. The bottle was hailed as pristine, and its citrus elements were still fresh from the tree, so to speak. Paul loved the tenderness, and its acidity, freshness and power. (93).

The 1934 Margaux was unfortunately a touch corky, although we could see the sweet fruit underneath its corkiness. 1934 will always be a vintage close to my heart, as that is when Prohibition was ended, and when grandpa bought into Acker. Although I must confess, 1934 is all about the Burgundy. Paul instructed that 1934 has always been powerful and tannic. (93A).

The 1952 Margaux had a clean nose, with again a touch of pool. Aromas of rock and rose were on display from this tannic vintage. It had a dry finish accordingly, and got at least one spectacular. from the crowd. It remains an underrated vintage, especially in the Right Bank, where the wines can be truly special (93).

The seemingly three-way tie was broken with the last wine of the flight, an outstanding 1955 Margaux. The nose was a touch grassy at first, but that aired into these aromas of outdoor goodness. The palate was pure 1955 deliciousness, delivering a rich, tasty, lush and long experience. Heady and delicious, I wrote twice. The wine was even better with the rib-eye beef dish from the kitchen. Flavors of wheat and chocolate went on and on, supported by hay and earth. Most people were in the 55 camp when it came to this flight, although the 1921 got significant play as well (95+).

It was time for the last flight, the five theoretical finest of the afternoon, and they were all up for the challenge. It would turn out to be, in the words of Paul Pontallier, a moving experience.. We began with a bottle of 1900 Margaux, or should I say THE bottle, as this was the bottle of 1900 Margaux that I had been looking for my whole life, being previously disappointed on a handful of occasions. There was a level of complexity here unmatched by any other wine so far. There were lots of wows from the crowd, along with oohs, aahs and omg.s. Its nose was perfect, so good with its smoke, wheat, earth, chocolate and cassis. The palate was rich and complete, with great sweetness and a long, scintillating finish. There was still zip to its dusty finish, and the fruit stayed great to the very last drop. Unbelievable. came from the crowd and summed it up perfectly (99).

The 1945 Margaux had a tough act to follow. Paul did recommend that we drink the 1900 last, but I wanted to be consistent with the fact that I had gone oldest to youngest for each of the prior flights. The 45 had aromas of wafer, wheat, stone and black fruits. The palate was tasty with chocolate and caramel flavors, but a bit overshadowed by the 1900 (94).

And the 1947 Margaux, for that matter, which was another scene stealer. A rare appearance by cinnamon graced the nose, along with wheat, grass and black fruits. This bottle had been recorked in 1988, and it was one of the few reconditioned bottles of the afternoon, benevolently so. It was rich, saucy and lush, capturing the essence of the hot 1947 vintage and offering an earthy, complex finish (95).

The 1953 Margaux proved why it is considered to be one of the greatest Margaux of all-time. It would only prove second to the 1900, which still means about as good as it gets. The nose had gorgeous spice and a creamy feel. There was classic, pure fruit here, and a delightfully nutty glaze. This is what Margaux does at its best, one gushed. Gil chimed in with apricot, and it was definitely there with an exotic twist. One could see the proud father in Paul’s eyes when he likened the 53 to the same family as 1905 and 1921. (98).

The last wine on this magical afternoon was the 1959 Margaux. There were aromas and flavors of chocolate, cassis, wafer, grain and smoke in this classy and classic Margaux (94).

The concept of tradition came up, and Dapper Dave quoted Freddie Mugnier of all people, saying that tradition is trying to make wines better.. Even one of the greatest Bordelais, Mr. Pontallier, could not disagree with that dose of Burgundian common sense. The tradition of Chateau Margaux, one started in the 17th Century, was on full and majestic display on this afternoon. It is an afternoon I will never forget.

I’ve been getting a lot of congratulations about the success of the business this Fall. While always nice to hear, I always have the same reply: I know I will be truly successful when I am able to write up every wine that I taste. While time may not always be on my side, one thing remains a constant in the search for the world’s greatest wines: passion. Tasting a great wine just never gets old, and as I get older, the significance of tasting the world’s finest and rarest wines becomes more and more meaningful. In my world, drinking a great wine is akin to sitting next to Picasso while he painted, and it won’t cost you $100 million when it’s finished, either.

I suppose it didn’t cost that then, come to think of it. Then again, wine never does, either. It is always worth more today than yesterday. The rare occasion it goes down in value, it goes back up higher than before, and quickly. The second you blink, the best are 20% more expensive. And in the worst case scenario, you can always drink it, wasn’t that the idea in the first place?

That’s the idea when we have an auction, and for our first auction in Chicago, we came, we saw and we drank. Even though I am in the top of Stott week (and there is plenty of wine going down from the Don as I speak), I just had to share the happy, windy recap before I continue. Once I go Don, I can’t go back! Forgive the abridged notes, but we drank a lot of shtuff, ok? It started off with a small, afternoon gathering of a couple of notable friends. We sampled a quartet of wines, some curiosity, but at least one kitty cat.

There are two things of which I have been drinking a bunch, 2008 White Burgundies and 2007 Reds. This Raveneau was a bit disappointing, to be frank, as it was not that expressive, and seemed less complicated than the usual Raveneau experience. It was clean and ‘pretty accessible’ but a touch yeasty and simple. The Pichon Lalande was class in a glass and why I drink Bordeaux. I have always loved this wine, although I found it a point behind usual, a touch closed. The cassis and pencil mélange worked its magic, as did the high Merlot content that makes Pichon so seductive. The 2007 Cathiard had the charm of 2007 but the oak of Cathiard, coming across on the beefier side of Burgundy. Ultimately, I liked it. The Clos des Papes was jammy and sweet, seemingly mature”¦already? Sweet and sweeter, I felt like this was a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

The Pape Clement was smoky and had classic Graves aromatics, although charcoal dominated. It was dry and with earthy, mesquite flavors, and it kept improving in the glass. The Palmer was seductive and fleshy after shedding some initial greenness. There was great acidity and minerality, but it didn’t lose touch with its sensual side. Palmer has been on a real roll and remains one of my favorite Bordeaux chateaux, and undervalued in many vintages. Something was wrong with the Calon Segur, or the wine just isn’t that good. It was a bit stewed and the ‘last by far’ of the flight. The Cos had a big nose and the most aromatics, as well as the most power. It was a bit rugged in style, and a precursor to the next level that Cos has achieved over the past decade.

The Grand Puy Lacoste had a great Pauillac nose, classic in style. Minerals, pencil, slate, anise and earth all competed for attention in this hearty and also rugged wine. Two Pichon Lalandes in one day is never a bad thing, and the 1996 again proved to be sensual with its high Merlot content. There were great aromatics and excellent acidity on its impressive finish, but again I found this wine a point behind usual, perhaps in a closed phase. Vitamins screamed out on the Pontet Canet, Pauillac’s newest big boy, and it had this pungent edge the other’s didn’t. It was breadier and jammier, and ‘always hard,’ per one horny gentleman. The Lynch Bages started slowly and finished strongly. While at first grassy, green and gamy, it opened up into a meadow of goodness, and bread and anise soaked up all the grass, and it blossomed with more flesh and power on the palate than anything else prior.

Of course, the flight was a bit anti-climactic with the corked Las Cases, but no one can do anything about a corked bottle. Just to remind everyone, a corked bottle has nothing to do with storage, but rather a genetic selection of sorts for wine, one that affects 2-3% of bottles, in my experience. It certainly isn’t one out of ten, or whatever they want to tell you down in New Zealand, or wherever else they love screwcaps. The Leoville Poyferre was pleasant and elegant, smooth and lovely. The Leoville Barton was more powerful, as it typically is, with a touch of game and exotic boysenberry in there. The Ducru Beaucaillou was a bit disappointing, gamier and jammier than I remember. I have been a big fan of this wine before, and I felt this was a bit too much in those directions.

The Haut Brion was the best showing of this wine that I can remember. It flirted with being outstanding and ultimately got there. It was full, fleshy and big-bodied with the classic smoke and charcoal. Big, long and gritty, it was a clear step up from almost everything prior. The Margaux took it up two notches and lived up to its reputation as one of the wines of the vintage. I have consistently found this to be one of the great, young Margaux”¦period. There were rich black fruits, and the wine was so seductive, yet firm. The iron fist and velvet glove were in full force and syncronicity, and while meaty, the Margaux remained simultaneously svelte. The Latour quickly took control, however. This was a deep, classic and great wine from the very first sniff, its touch of wood integrating into a wealth of mint, eucalyptus and black fruits. This was clearly special stuff. Mouton had two tough acts to follow, but it still was outstanding, showing more gourmet bread action of rye and pumpernickel alongside some other usual suspects.

Gary busted out a 1970 Latour for all to share. I knew Chicago was ‘Our Kind of Town’ once he did that. On cue, it was one of the best bottles of this wine that I have ever had, and the first one in a while that hit outstanding territory. It had a great nose of pencil, nut, carob, musk and ‘good’ barn, you know, when you’re in there with the farmer’s daughter lol. The palate was creamy, clean, long and balanced. This was young and fresh for 1970, and it reminded me that drinking Bordeaux is always best when it’s older (95)

This was a fascinating retrospective from an excellent vintage for the Left Bank, and two things stuck out in my mind. One, it is generally an excellent and not outstanding vintage, although there are a handful of outstanding wines. Two, the quality of the First Growths really stood out from the rest of the pack. Like the saying goes, ‘you get what you pay for,’ and it was clear to everyone why there are the Firsts, and everything else.

The next night we slid into Burgundy for another evening of 1996. A generous guest of the X-Factor clan slipped me a glass of 1993 Domaine Leflaive Bienvenues Batard Montrachet. Sorry I can’t remember which of you brought it, there are too many of you :). It was another act of kind generosity, and the Leflaive showed well accordingly. Mature and tasty, it was delicious and oh so ’93, with only a kiss of noticeable oak as the only flaw. If it was a bad kisser, it made up for it in the sack (94)

We started with a trio of Cote de Beauners, and I was happy to see them.

The hallmark acidity of the vintage jumped out immediately in the Lafon; it was tight and screechy in the nose, but still lovely and citrusy in the mouth. While a touch dry, it was full and steely. The d’Angerville was the class of the flight, as it usually is for the region. It was more aromatic with purple fruit and a touch of nuts. There were round, vitamin flavors and a touch of game and smoke to this thick Volnay. The Armand was a bit stinky and dirty, although it had excellent flesh and that mountainous, full fruit of Pommard.

The X-Factor threw a mystery 1996 in front of me, courtesy of Magnum Man. Of course, Magnum Man represents a significant step in the evolutionary chain of mankind; he only drinks wine. The wine had a deep nose full of black and purple fruit, and it was ‘very concentrated.’ Vitamins, meat, smoke and a rich, fleshy palate impressed me, along with its long tannins and finish. It was a good showing for this 1996 Louis Jadot Bonnes Mares (94). Another off-the-record wine flew by, a 1996 Dauvissat Chablis Les Preuses. It was yeasty, gamy and delicious in that mature Chablis way (93)

We headed North for some Cote de Nuits; there was no turning back, and the next flight led off with one of my wines of the night.

The Meo-Camuzet was a stunner, and it stole the show from its Grand Cru peers. There were great aromatics of fresh fruit and touches of seemingly everything ”“ cedar, spice, sawdust, alcohol and acidity. This was a fine and gorgeous wine. The Clos de Tart was deep, big and round, heavy and beefy, yet impressive. The Jadot Richebourg had a similar aromatic profile to the Bonnes Mares, but it smelled deeper. However, it was leaner on the palate, and the X-Factor wisely noted, ‘it may have more potential, but right now it’s awkward.’ The Anne Gros was serious; there was a great balance between its fruit, spice and game in the nose, which was cleaner and fresher than expected. There was lots of grass on its palate, and the finish matched its clean nose.

A trio of Romanee St. Vivants tested both typicity and terroir, and while our evening of Bordeaux taught us there are the First Growths and everything else, this flight taught us that there is and everything else.

The Drouhin was outstanding at first glance. Its nose was a bit on the milky and stemmy side, but I didn’t mind. There was great cedar and spice to its palate, and it had great balance and style, with a long and thick finish. However, it thinned a bit in the glass. The Confuron was much deeper and darker, pungent and purple. The palate was more elegant than the nose led me to believe, and while bigger, that didn’t mean better, especially in Burgundy. The had an unmatched level of nuance and complexity to the nose. It was deep, rich and thick as a brick both aromatically and on the palate. Menthol emerged in a great way; this wine was impressive city.

In Vino Veritas,
JK