One of the best meals I have had this Fall was at Eleven Madison Park, or ‘EMP’ as the kool kids like to say. Chef Daniel Humm, known and respected by a couple of my most significant European collector friends, showed us why he is top of his game with a custom tasting menu fit for a king. It just so happened that we had a king at our table, King Angry, that is, but after the spectacular meal that followed, even King Angry had a smile on his face. Special thanks goes to Carl for organizing such a wonderful meal.

We started with a pair of Krug mags, beginning with a 1990 Krug. This was as great a bottle of this that I have ever had. Its nose was perfect, a great mix of vanilla and citrus with hints of nut. The palate had a great center, a linearity from start to finish that made my spine arch. Long, citrusy and zippy, this outstanding and bready bubbly was focused and in charge. I could have drunk it all night long and been quite happy (96M).

The just released 1985 Krug Collection was more pungent, very wheaty and grassy. Minnesota Slim found it ‘yeasty.’ Just disgorged last year, the 1985 was tighter than a nun’s knees, coming across too young and too recently disgorged, to be frank. The flavors were also grassy, and its finish long, fine and grainy. Chalky and limestony, the Collection had lots of potential, but was just too young and too ‘RD’ for me at the moment. It was tough to drink next to the 1990 (93+M).

There was only one blind flight for the night, and it was reserved for the whites. The flight was single blind, as we knew what the wines were, but not in what order they were served. Leflaive and Niellon Batards and Chevaliers were our subjects, and 1996 was the vintage.

The first white smelled like 1996 and popped like fresh kernels, which made me think Leflaive. The King called it ‘obvious.’ It was smoky and toasty with lots of forest, cream and yellow fruits. The nose was thick, long and sexy, but the palate was softer than I thought it would be. It was round with yellow and waterfall flavors, also with nice dust and spice on its finish. JP noted, ‘a little bit of bubblegum’ in this 1996 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. I should add that we did not know the name of the wine until all of them were tasted and discussed (94).

The second white was cleaner, more floral in style. There were aromas of fireplace and brick, a veritable white Christmas of a nose. The nose was regal, long and full of spice. If the first was Leflaive, this was definitely Niellon. The palate was rich and lush, sexy with its white fruits and tender with a delicate wintry edge. The floral qualities were divine and delicious in this 1996 Niellon Batard Montrachet (95+).

The third wine had the same style as the first with its kernel, toast, musk, waterfall and smoke. JP was loving ‘the clean, razor-cut acidity.’ There were lots of kernel and toast flavors on its round and lush palate, but again there was this tender side. There was still excellent pop and definitely more acidity and length than its sibling. Although a touch was missing up front in the mouth, its big acidity more than made up for it. Since the next wine was corked, and this was the 1996 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet, this was a day of Batard over Chevalier, ‘rare’ in Ray’s book (95).

As indicated, the 1996 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet was unfortunately corked (DQ).

The next course was foie gras, and the obligatory Sauternes came out, a 1988 Climens. I didn’t taste it. I know that it is a great pairing, but I do not like having a sweet wine in the middle of my dry wines, as it can affect the next few wines and diminish one’s tasting abilities.

The 1995 Krug Clos du Mesnil that followed was an excellent palate cleanser. Champagne is the only wine that is great before, during and after a meal. It fits in everywhere you put it, and this Krug was no exception. Aromas of cream, butter, vanilla, musk and yeast graced its nose, all supported by wood, almost a bamboo. The palate was dry, lean and long. The finish was exceptional, but this was very lean and dry. Perhaps 1995s will blossom, but that is typical of the vintage, one that I feel is very good but not great (94).

It was time for some reds, some Rousseaus to be exact, beginning with the 1985 Rousseau Chambertin. When asked to share my notes, I began with ‘milky, foresty, yeasty.’ Young Chris remarked how he didn’t like the Rousseau, to which I replied something far too undistinguished to write again here. The Rousseau was also beefy and saucy, and Worcestershire and tree bark came out. It was a bit dirty in a mushroomy way. The palate was round and rich, soft yet lush, tender but long. Two sips resulted in two sneezes, which is always a sign of outstanding in my book :). The third sip showed me its tender side, but the acidity remained constant. JP also noted the ‘mushroom,’ and it got redder over time (95).

The 1991 Rousseau Chambertin was all about its oak at first, that and some burnt popcorn. Vitamins and sour cherry slowly but surely fought through, and the wine found itself eventually. The palate was rich, lush and long, balancing out to reveal great definition and length. Its flavors of cedar, tree bark, forest and leather all had me licking the roof of my mouth. Once the oak blew off, the wine was fantastic, but in the end, after the last sips were said and drunk, the 1985s were one step ahead (94+).

The 1991 Leroy Chambertin that followed was deeper and much darker with its noticeably blacker fruits. There was oil in dem der hills for sure. This was a midnight wine, and JP admired its ‘spice.’ The King chipped in with ‘velvety, silky and smoother.’ The palate was also rich and lush showing that 1991 goodness, and its finish was grapy and grainy (94).

The 1985 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze backed up the 1985 is greater than 1991 theory. There was much more perfume to the Beze. Tender and lush was again the theme, and lavender took over its perfume while spice emerged. The palate was delicious with super fruit and great roundness. Pinches of vitamins rounded out this beauty (95).

We continued the ’85 vs. ’91 battle with a pair of Contis. The 1985 Grands Echezeaux had a spectacular nose that sung all the great qualities of 1985 in that unique way. Aromas of rust, menthol, red fruits (rusty ones again) and iron were present in its tense, zippy, pungent and deep nose. The palate was rich, long and saucy, still young with taut fruits and lingering acidity. It was a tightrope walker of a wine, balancing its fruit and finish components deftly in delicious fashion. Many hailed it as wine of the night (95+).

JP remarked how the 1991 Grands Echezeaux ‘needs time.’ It was blacker in its fruit, also possessing aromas of menthol, forest and bread soaked in something. The palate was thick, big and young, again with lots of black fruits and very good in a beef bouillon way. There were hints of garden here as well, but midnight struck and its fruit was nowhere to be found, as the wine shut down in the glass rather than open more (93).

A trio of 1985 Guigal La La’s were last, plus a bonus wine. Practice agreed with theory for this flight, at least in my book. I was not loving the 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Turque. There were aromas of lavender, bacon, menthol and gyro meat. Its palate had olive and dark fruit flavors but was also a touch oaky, and the wine was simpler than I wanted it to be (93).

The 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Landonne was beefier, bigger and thicker than the La Turque. There was more stone, wheat, chocolate and sprinkles on top. The palate was long and thick with excellent acidity. It was more classic Cote Rotie and smacked around the La Turque (95).

The 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline was the best of the bunch ”“ what else is new? It was the sexiest of the three, with aromas of bacon, leather, grilled meat and gyro juice. Meaty and fragrant, it had that whiff of Viognier along with complex black fruit, leather and lavender flavors. It was great and WOTN for me, although JP stuck to his ’85 gun (97).

There was also a 1990 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline, but I was kind of spent. It was quite peppery and also outstanding, pretty and precious (95).

It was the night before auction and time to check out, not a creature who came would stir in their house.

There is a restaurant named Latour tucked away an hour outside of New York City in New Jersey, within the confines of a very special place, Crystal Springs Golf Resort. It is a great place for a weekend getaway of golfing or skiing (depending on the season), spa-ing, eating, drinking or even just relaxing in the hotel room with a loved one”¦playing backgammon, of course :). I was there for the eating and drinking part, as the restaurant was hosting a very special vertical of Chateau Latour back to 1955, guided by none other than Frederic Engerer, president of Chateau Latour.

By the way, the wine list at Restaurant Latour is one of the country’s finest, and the prices are fantastic. The night prior, I had a bottle of 1982 Vieux Chateau Certan off the list for $195. The half-bottle of 1999 Lafite had just sold out earlier in the week. It was $95 on the list! I think you get the picture. The VCC was classic with its aromas of deep plum, olive and chocolate. It was very elegant, round and supple. It showed the tender side of 1982 and felt like it was entering its plateau. Traces of garden rounded out its finish (93).

Back to the main event”¦our evening of Latour started with the 2004 Latour, which had a sweet, sexy nose, ripe with its cassis and carob and framed by nut, pencil and cedar. Its fruit dominated at this young stage, and hints of lilac, lavender and jasmine were present. In the mouth, the wine was round, supple and soft, very shut down at the moment, especially when compared to the nose. It was not giving a lot, and G-man found that it had ‘too much pencil and was missing some legs.’ Engerer commented how ‘Cabernet doesn’t need heat, it needs light’ (92).

All wines were opened and double decanted about three hours before the event, which gave all the wines a very polished quality. I couldn’t help but wonder if a score or two might have been different were they not so aerated, as some wines may have given a more vigorous impression. Regardless, everything showed beautifully. They were also scanned by the restaurant’s patented machine, which detects any level of corkiness or oxidized qualities in any wine.

We sat down to a pair of 2006 and 2005. Engerer told us that this evening ‘is about pairs.’ The 2006 Latour was more classic, still possessing excellent fruit but also more minerals and earth. It was still purple passion with its deep, youthful cassis in the nose, but it also had more tobacco and structural components. The palate had excellent acidity and lots of earth and cedar flavors. It was long and lingered, and even though its fruit was a bit shy, it was still tasty and showy. Its perfume filled up the room. Engerer commented how the 2006 did not have ‘the breed of 2005”¦but long and deep’ (94+).

The 2005 Latour was very wound, showing lots of cinnamon, leather and earth. It was dark and brooding, with hints of whitewall tire. The brooding continued on its big, rich palate. Sandy and earthy, there was also a nice hint of bitters here. It was really deep and impressive in its size, even though it was a bit shy. The acidity was long, but the 2005 was definitely more secondary than primary. G-man admired ‘a lot of raw materials, and well-integrated compared to 2006,’ even though the 2006 was more inviting (96).

The next pair was ’03 and ’02. ‘Wow, what sauvage’ came from G. The ’03 was very forward in that ripe 2003 style, roasted as well, again with that hint of rubber tire. It continued to gain in stature in the glass, possessing more structure than the typical 2003 Latour with noticeable alcohol and acidity. Toasty caramel emerged. The palate was rich, ripe, big and delicious. This was a ‘show me the money’ wine, hedonistic and sexy with lots of slate on its finish. ‘Very showy,’ someone remarked. Engerer said, ‘the ’03 comes to you, but you have to go to the ’02.’ I couldn’t help but love this ripe and rich 2003 (96).

Engerer commented, ‘I love the line in the ’02. It’s like a black star.’ I also loved its pointed nose; it was on the t ‘n a side with lots of cedar, carob, caramel and musk. Its sweetness was all caramel. The palate was linear and focused, zippy in the middle but lighter on its backside. The 2002 Latour was really good and much better than I thought it would be, gaining in the glass (94).

Engerer shared how he and Parker always debate these two vintages, and that Frederic always stands up for the 2002. The 2003 had Parker excited early, but for Frederic it was too easy and lacked the balance he yearns, and for him, the ’02 has that balance. I saw both sides of this debate!

The 2001 Latour was fragrant and perfumed, showing more violets than any previous wine. There was a sweet fragrance about it, leaving a nectar-like impression with this lavender honey quality. The palate was round, with nice pop to its long finish. Black fruits and dusty flavors rounded out this excellent ’01 (94).

The 2000 Latour had a wow nose. It was deep and dark, chocolaty and cedary, possessing lots of edge and qualities of carob and Egyptian cotton. The palate was thick, especially on its finish. Its backside was long and gritty for its glazed palate, and Engerer admired that the 2000 was ‘the best since 1982 in terms of balance, but today a little closed.’ He conceded, ‘I would probably want to drink the 2001 tonight’ (97).

1996 versus 1995 has always been an interesting head-to-head. The 1996 Latour had a fabulous nose with lots of nuts, windex, cedar, toast and cocoa. It was long and cedary, tight and minerally in its aromatics. The palate was long, dusty, lingering and tasty, possessing the most acidity of any Latour so far. It was ‘a whole different breed, on par with the 1961,’ someone commented. After some time in the glass, it became beefy and jammy; this was serious stuff (97).

The 1995 Latour was classic in the nose, similar to the 1996 with its minerals, dust and windex. This was closer than I thought it would be, and the finish of the ’95 stood up to the ’96. The 1995 had excellent thickness and body, showing a little more than the 1996 although overall possessing a little less (95).

We took a trip back in time with a flight of four older wines, beginning with the 1971 Latour. The ’71 was very bready with a pinch of pungency to the nose. It was also nutty and had nice fruit aromas of cassis and blueberry. The palate was rich and lush, a touch gamy and deliciously grapy, delivering a great drink of mature claret (94).

The 1962 Latour was beefy and brothy with a little wet cardboard in there. Hints of tobasco and pungent fruit marked its tangy aromas. The palate was fleshy and still zippy with great, pure flavors of plum and grape. Wholesome, round, tasty and lush, the 1962 was the second excellent bottle from this vintage that I have had in the past month, provoking some future curiosity (94).

The 1964 Latour had a nutty yet dirty nose, with lots of earth and a hint of cotton candy. It also had the cedar of ’64. The palate was round with lots of coffee, earth, cedar and tobacco flavors. It was pleasant, round and balanced, but a little cardboard-y on its finish (92).

The 1970 Latour was the last of this flight of four, and it proved to be the winner for me, by a nose, so to speak. The nose had this initial bread pudding quality to it, built off toast, raisin, game and black fruit aromas. Its flavors were the youngest, and there was great definition to this long and vimful Latour. A chalky and leathery intensity and hints of citrus separated this Latour from the rest. Some food made the power in this vintage stand out from the prior three (94+).

There were three more pairs on this evening, beginning with the modern-day heavyweight matchup of 1990 vs. 1982 Latour. The 1990 Latour was fresh and clean with nut, plum and spice aromas. It was rich, lush and seductive both in the nose and on the palate. Its cashmere tannins just melted in my mouth. Engerer found it ‘very extreme for Latour.’ It was so creamy and tasty, very forward and hedonistic with still enough stuffing for any turkey. It would be the first of three times for this wine in the coming month, and all three showed in the same decadently delicious way (96).

The 1982 Latour quickly rose to the top of the charts and took wine of the night honors. It was much more wound than the 1990, also with more minerals in its long, classic nose. Dust, cedar and more minerals kept surging out of the nose. The palate had so much length and strength, noticeably more so than any other wine on this starry night. While the 1990 was sexy, the 1982 was serious, and a wine that still stood out even four hours after being opened and decanted. Engerer commented how the ’82 was ‘sure of itself and surfed across your palate.’ He went on to comment how ‘all Latours gently age’ (98).

It was now time for the classic heavyweight matchup of 1961 vs. 1959. The 1961 Latour was a bottle released from Latour in 2003, and hence reconditioned. The nose was fabulous, with power, fruit and finesse all rolled into one. There were cassis and plum fruit aromas in this youthful Latour. Engerer found it ‘tighter than 1982, a bizarre accident of nature, with frost coming after flowering.’ The palate was gritty and long with lots of cedar flavors. G noted ‘coconut milk,’ while I did slate and cement on its finish. G did admit that there was ‘an element missing,’ and while there was outstanding definition to the finish, the fruit didn’t show the natural mature qualities I wanted. It got a little dirtier in the glass (95).

The 1959 Latour had so much more fruit, deep fruit, along with game and nut, and both G and I immediately preferred the ’59 to the ’61. There was more maturity, more open fruit, and a soft, lush, easy and pure personality. Its sheer deliciousness was tough to not like, and this bottle of 1959 definitely KO’d the 1961. Of course, at this age, it all comes down to the bottles. Hints of fig, game, truffle and chocolate sex appeal rounded out this impressive and original bottle of 1959 (97).

There were two more wines to go, although after the previous two pairs, almost anything would seem anti-climactic at this point, but the ’55 was up for the challenge. The 1955 Latour had a creamy, sexy nose with aromas of nut, A1 without the steak sauce, caramel, game, spice, citrus and leather from an S & M suit. It was rich, round and tasty, another sexy 1955. Caramel flavors and a hint of teabag were flat-out delicious. Engerer agreed, noting, ‘like ’62, a lot of energy’ (95).

There was a blind wine served at the end, a solid 1950 Latour. I didn’t have much left in me, but it was chalky, rich and with an excellent finish. It was a Latour, after all (93).

It was a special night at a special place, and a pleasure to have Frederic on hand to guide us through over fifty years of the greatest Latours.

Early October was a month of small get-togethers, a lot of one-on-one ball, so to speak. Despite a healthy wine market and a Dow that continues to flirt with 10,000, large celebrations have become a bit rarer, as conscious remains king in 2009. When dining a duo, usually two is the magic number as far as a bottle count goes, although three proved to be the right stuff for the first of four fine evenings over the course of a week or two. Does that add up?

There once was a man named Hans. He had a very big cellar. Hans was in town on his yearly pilgrimage to the US and we decided to get together for dinner, at a place called Veritas. They have been doing some good promotions of late and keeping people coming back for more.

We started with a bottle of 1990 Raveneau Chablis Valmur. 1990 was a great vintage for Chablis, and what better place to be than on top of the ladder with Raveneau. It didn’t disappoint with its nose of svelte yellow fruits, rain on rocks, minerals, wax and anise. It was lean yet still in fighting shape, fragrant with a hint of pungency. The palate was delicious, clean and fresh, showing mature roundess but still possessing solid acidity, tasty in that kinky Raveneau way. Rocks, anise and limy fruit balanced their way down the hatch in slippery yet agile fashion (95).

A rare bird followed, and I am not talking about the food. We grabbed the last bottle of 1955 Domaine de Chevalier Blanc off the list. Old white Bordeaux can be spectacular, even the dry ones, although this wine was extremely oaky at first. It took a lot of coaxing to get it to come into its own, but once it did, it was quite the wine. Its oak blew off into the classic straw, dry honey, glue and cement. The wine stll came across youthfully, amazingly fresh for a white 55 or so years old, and its palate kept pace with its nose. There was nice density in the mouth, still roundness and richness but in a graceful way, with flavors of straw, glue, dried yellow fruits and kisses of oak still married together after all these years. It was an excellent wine and a real treat, but make sure to remember that old white wines need aeration too (93).

The third wine on this enjoyable evening was a rare 1950 Ausone. It was a reconditioned bottle, but a job well done, and a bottle we enjoyed to the last drop. The nose was deeper accordingly, a bit fresher than one would normally expect for a wine this age, with a wave of purple fruit emerging first. After a swirl or two, more classic and mature wintry red aromas came, along with earth, stone barn and gravel. Light Christmas spice danced around gingerly, perhaps gingerbreadly. In the mouth, the wine showed both its sides ”“ the original and reconditioned. It was a bit deeper and hinted at youth with its spectrum of fruit, but it still had classic aged St. Emilion flavors, especially the red fruits, earth, game, animal and tobacco. It was tough not to love it (95).

A day later I found myself drinking 1982 Mouton at Tse Yang. No, I was not by myself. It was a gorgeous bottle in beautiful condition and one of the more open bottles of this that I have had. I have always been impressed by the power of the 1982 Mouton, one of the few wines reticent to give into the hallmark elegance of the 1982 vintage. This bottle was starting to give in, perhaps softening up in its old age so to speak. The nose was everything claret should be ”“ regal, refined, elegant and classy. It oozed out black fruit, dry cassis, pencil, earth and a hint of carob. This was open, sexy and singing. The palate was rich and round. There was strength in its silent finish, one that caressed and petted rather than smacked and attacked. It was long and round, almost frightfully delicious in its approachability. There is a lot of bottle variation amongst 1982s, so it is tough to make a consensus about this vintage, or any for that matter, based on the snapshot of one bottle, but this one sure made me think that the top 1982s could be starting to plateau, which for a great vintage in Bordeaux, could last decades, of course (97).

My friend and I snagged the last bottle of 1999 Dugat Griottes Chambertin off the list. Curiosity killed the wine lover. Dugat’s modern and oakier style is a bit controversial amongst the Burgundy intelligentsia, but this bottle delivered a positive experience. It was certainly beefy; concentration was king here, and there was a bit of an animalistic edge to this brute of a wine. ‘I am Tarzan,’ came to mind lol. Deep purple and black fruits seeped out, all served in a tangy vitamin wrap. The wine was rich and lush in the mouth but lacked the definition to support its ocean of fruit. Could its structure be latent? Yes, possibly, as many 1999s have so much fruit that their structures can be lost at this early age, but the finish seemed almost too soft despite its upfront complexities and unique style (93).

A few days later it was off to Long Island for a couple of bottles with another friend of the court, and we started off in familiar territory, with a 1996 Salon. If there is a better young Champagne in the world today, please let me know. I have written this bubbly up on numerous occasions, and it was lightning in a bottle again. Minerals and diamonds abounded as the Salon wrapped my palate in mink and then cut right thru it with its razor-sharp acidity and long, sexy finish (97).

The 1999 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques that followed was also extraordinary. Its fabulous nose was so good, possessing great aromatics. Sweet and pungent cherry red fruit, vitamins, musk, delicate cedar and perfume all came together in an overall meaty impression. The palate was rich and flavorful with tastes of spice, tea and sandbox. There was real depth here in this mouthful of a wine. While long and stylish, the Rousseau retained its elegance. Absolutely delicious (95).

The final night of this Fantastic Four saw me with another distinguished European gentleman, a Cabernet lover by confession, so we drank some Burgundy. A 1979 Dujac Clos de la Roche was a little woolly at first, needing some extra aeration to dry off its sweat and reveal a wonderful range of aromatics. Tobasco was first to jump out for me, along with old, pungent strawberry and dried leaves. There was also earth, leather and a pinch of Worcestershire along for the ride. The palate was mature, more purple in its profile, tasty with hints of saddle sweat and old book. It still zipped on its finish, and lots of citrus came out accordingly. It was another solid ’79 red, a vintage almost forgotten for Pinot (94).

We exercised some judgment with a half-bottle of 1989 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes as our second bottle. Mugnier only made a V.V. bottling two or three times, definitely in 1986 and 1989, I can’t remember if there was another. The ’86 has blown me away before, and I could have sworn the 1989 has also, but this half was a bit funky. It was milky and yeasty, pleasant yet simple, not what I had hoped for. It had a bit of a sour edge to it, and it didn’t pack the punch that ’89 can and should. It was still a pleasant wine, but I wanted more (88H).

Things heated up in the second half of October with a special Latour vertical, King Angry holding court, some auction debauchery and a lunch in Lake Como. Stay tuned ”“ that flight to Hong Kong should have me catching up soon!

The Tuesday after Labor Day saw the Fall season commence in fine fashion with an extraordinary BYO spectacular at Bouley. Many of New York’s brightest wine stars were in attendance, and by the end of the night, it seemed that more than a few were a little rusty from the summer solstice and not in as good drinking shape as usual lol.

The evening started fast and furiously, as the Hillbilly needed to get his drink on and started popping DP’s. The 1955 Dom Perignon was alive although maybe a hint mature, as in more mature than a perfect bottle would be. It was still excellent, still coming across with some freshness and a hint of cement around a classic core of sweet caramel and vanilla cream. The palate was rich and round with similar flavors of sweet caramel, vanilla and cement. Bad Boy Bruce hit the nail on the head when he said that this was a DP that ‘would benefit from food’ (94).

A 1973 Dom Perignon was delicious and classic with its granulated sugar, white fruit and mineral aromas and flavors. It was very fresh and racy, in a perfect spot. For some reason, a few of the ‘Dom-inators’ were a bit under-impressed by the ’73, but I thought it was outstanding (95).

Mr. Happy was already up and about, sharing some of his magnum of 1982 Billecart Salmon Blanc de Blancs. It was still tight with great and dominant vitamin aromas, quite fresh as well. It was excellent, long and stylish with yellow, tangy fruit flavors (94M).

Justin slid me a glass of 1983 Krug Clos du Mesnil, which was yeasty and bready, but leaner than most Krug Mesnils. It had a wafery dry quality, and despite good definition, it was lacking in its fruit (92).

JJ had a bottle of 1969 Dom Perignon Rose, the second bottle of this batch that I have had in the past three months, maybe four. It had a sweet, candied nose with great musk and earth aromas, and strawberry and rose stood out as well. Its flavors were very earthy with a hint of barn, and its bubbles were starting to mellow, but this still was an excellent DP despite its down and dirty personality (94).

The first wave of bubblies was over, and it was time to settle in with some whites. Doug E. (I guess we have to call him Fresh now) brought a 1993 Roumier Corton Charlemagne. It had a nice nose with real balance between its sweet, tender fruit and its chalk, dust and minerals. The wine sparkled in its nose, and while the palate was a bit light in the front and middle, it had nice yeast flavors to its finish. Smooth, easy and in the right spot, this was a sensual and impressive white from a producer known for his more than impressive reds (93).

The Don was in the house, and I actually got him to show up on time! The Inspector awarded me a badge of honor when he arrived to see The Don there before him lol. He had a few goodies with him, of course, the first of which was a magnum of 1986 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet. The nose was waxy and pungent, very stony with aromas of fireplace, rainwater and minerals. Its flavors were toasty with exotic hints of guava and honeysuckle (94M).

The 1985 Louis Latour Montrachet was a pleasant surprise, with an inviting, warm and toasty nose. Despite Latour getting taken for granted by many collectors, this was a special wine, and it had great aromas of corn, cereal, oats and puffed rice. In the mouth, the wine was tasty, nice, round and easy with light grit (93).

Bruce slid over to my table with a gorgeous bottle of 1962 Dom Perignon. He was cooing over it, and rightfully so. He got it from one of our auctions 🙂 The bottle was just f’in delicious. Forgive my French, but it was French, after all. Grainy, toasty, rich and creamy, this was a classic. Hay and honey dripped out of the glass and coated the palate. This was an extraordinary bottle (96).

I finally got to take a taste of my wine, a magnum of 1981 Montrachet, from Wolfgang Grunewald’s cellar. Awooooooooooooo! I was told that 1981 was actually a very well received white Burgundy vintage upon release, soon to get lost in the shuffle of 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. I was dying to try this wine, from a vintage that I don’t think I have ever sampled. The nose was incredibly exotic with super coffee aromas including the bean and the stalk, bordering on espresso liqueur. The palate was rich, tasty and delicious; this was another real surprise. Andy remarked that it was old Chard for sure, and I don’t think he is a fan of old Chard. There were definite cobwebs, but most were loving this mature Monty (94M).

A 1982 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne was a bit stinky and horsy with lots of animal and vegetable aromas. It was round in the mouth, but aggressive in its coffee and vegetable flavors (90).

There were two more white wines on this already extraordinary evening, a 1999 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres courtesy of Sweet Lou. Mr. Fresh hailed it as the best white of the night. It was extraordinarily clean and fresh, popping out of the glass as Coches tend to do. The nose was certainly amazing with aromas of wintry white fruits, minerals, sweet corn and kernel. The flavors were similarly delicious, but the palate didn’t quite pop for me like the nose, although I didn’t have much of it to play with (93+).

The last white was a 1992 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche. It was definitely ’92 in its personality, but a bit better in that Montrachet way. There was that round, waterfall quality, turning the corner like 1992s are. Tasty and pleasing, there was still solid, hidden acidity in this descending white (93).

After a brief debate, our table decided to do the red Bordeaux before the red Burgundies. I kicked things off with a half bottle of 1962 Latour a Pomerol. I think I picked this up at one of our auctions for less than $200, and it turned out to be one of the best buys I have ever made. The nose was classic Pomerol, with Versailles garden and hints of cocoa shaving to go with its reticent plum core. The palate was round, tender and soft, just beautiful and delicious out of half. Andy felt it was just hitting its plateau of maturity, and The Duke remarked wisely, ‘it’s tough to beat that’ (96H).

The next Bordeaux was a 1929 Latour courtesy of Jeff. It had a wow nose and impressed the heck out of everyone. Hints of hinderbush, I wrote. Yeah, that’s a new one lol. There were also great aromas of tobasco, musk, cassis and toll house. The palate was full of cedar, cobwebs and sweet cherry fruit. Duke hailed it as ‘wine of the night’ so far, and the Inspector called it ‘the best bottle of this that I have ever had.’ Wait a second, was that a compliment for a Bordeaux wine from the Inspector??? Sacre bleu! Chalk outlined the palate gracefully in this regal and still ruling claret (95).

King Angry must have heard the word ‘regal,’ as he interrupted the royal procession of the ’29 Latour with some 1964 Krug. The Duke gave it an official, ‘That’s gooooood.’ It was delicious with decadent vanilla and cream soda flavors. Pure and balanced, its long finish went on and on (95).

We were back to Bordeaux with a 1947 Clinet. It had a nice nose, also with that hint of fresh garden a la the ’62 L a P. There were also hints of olive. The palate was a bit soupy and dirty, but it was still long and really good (94).

Andy graced us with a 1959 La Mission Haut Brion, a bottle that was reconditioned in 2002. It was fresh accordingly, but still had mature nuances in its aromas and flavors as well. Gravel jumped out at first, along with pleasant t ‘n a. The palate was full of cassis and gravel. It was round, lush and delicious, about as good a mix of old and new that one could hope for in a reconditioned wine. The finish was round and grainy. It was a delicious reconditioned bottle, although I would still take an original bottling any day (95).

JJ had unwittingly brought a 1989 La Mission Haut Brion, not knowing this would be the third time that I had the wine this month. I mean, what nerve, sheesh 🙂 Its deep purple fruit jumped out amongst all the older wines. There was also cotton, earth, gravel and coconut in this unbridled and youthful claret. It was, too, delicious; this wine’s ocean of fruit always stuns me, although given its mature company, it came across a bit boyish on this night (95+).

It was time for another Champagne intermezzo, and the 1971 Dom Perignon was another great Dom. It had a perfect nose, similar to the bottle I had just had with the Hedonist Jay. It was all about the vanilla and granulated sugar in the nose. The palate was rich, lemony, zippy and great (96).

A couple of more Champagnes rapidly followed. The 1975 Dom Perignon was more yeasty and full-bodied, a bit rougher around the edges. It was chalky and grainy, but still excellent (93).

Peter snuck me over some 1999 Philipponat Clos des Goisses Rose, a very rare bird. The color was the lightest color I have ever seen in a Rose. It was vitamin city, more tender in its vibrant fruit than I would expect for something so young, but it still came across o so fresh (94).

Three Champagnes were just enough to cleanse the palate for a healthy procession of red Burgundy. The first was a 1978 Drouhin Vosne Romanee Beauxmonts. The nose was like citrus meets beef bouillon lite. Hints of forest complemented tangy flavors in this smooth and balanced Pinot. Traces of Worcestershire rounded out the flavors on its finish (93).

Justin, who ultimately won ‘most outstanding drunk’ for the evening, had another ace up his sleeve, a 1966 Romanee Conti. He had forgotten about me as he was besieged with screaming fans once the RC started flowing, but thankfully the Inspector shared his glass with me. It was everything it should have been and then some, classic all the way. There was great spice, rose and menthol to this man amongst boys. The Inspector and I finally agreed on a score for a wine; I guess we need to share the same glass more often (96).

A 1966 Clair-Dau Chambertin Clos de Beze was up for the challenge of following the RC. It was a killer bottle, possessing superb lift in its long nose. A weed-like complexity complemented its citrus, red and watermelon trifecta, and a hint of game and pinch of bitters gave it just enough tension to make any drinker take notice. This was a great wine. I am not sure who to thank, because by this time The Don and two Dougs had become a three-headed hydra supplying great bottle after great bottle, so thanks y’all (95).

The 1949 Gouges Nuits St. Georges Les St. Georges Doug E. hailed as red wine of the night so far. What the Don hailed as ‘band-aids’ I found more to be like earthy, dirty shorts. The wine was very complex and all over the place, extremely nutty at first with lots of toasty kernel and citrusy fruit. The earth of NSG continued to dominate, and its flavors stayed dirty and earthy, with a bit of leather coming in (93).

I think between Ray, Bruce and Todd there must have been 47 vintages of Dom at their table, and it was time for the 1976 Dom Perignon. It was another beauty, all it should be and delicious. And at wine #28, the notes are starting to shorten (94).

But not before an incredibly grand finale. The Duke had been laying low with a stocked box chock full of hotness, and he finally took center stage on this star-studded night with a pair of 1971 Musignys. The first was a 1971 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. The nose was perfect at first sniff, with great fruit that was clean but gamy, rich yet sensual, red but hints of brown and purple, and meat that was both raw and grilled. Despite autumnal flavors and hints, the wine was still young and full of vitamins, rose and how now brown edges, brown like sugar and Worcestershire. The brown edges were a bit too brown for the brothers Doug, but I found the Vogue to be delicious and full of citrus smack, an all that and then some wine. ‘I need a whole bottle to figure this one out,’ The Duke playfully joked as he went for a refill. This was a wine where you wanted the whole bottle for yourself, for sure (96).

And the next one was even better. A glorious bottle of 1971 Roumier Musigny rained down on every other wine’s parade and quickly took my personal wine of the night crown. It got the universally accepted ‘so f’in good wowowowowow.’ Yes, it was about that time. The dust, the earth, the wind, the fire ”“ this wine had all the elements of greatness. The citrus and rose balance was perfect, and the pitch and tension made me smack my lips. It had all the ’71 sex appeal with its great flesh and acidity. The Roumier wasn’t a wine, it was a meal (98).

There were a few more reds that I had some quick sips of, notably a 1958 B.V. Private Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, a 1971 and 1975 Trotanoy. I couldn’t really get much out of any of these three wines at this point, but then one last wine stood out for me at the end of the night, a 1983 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. Roasted, earthy, long, fine and sensual, the La Mouline was still full-bodied and really great. When I thought I was starting to lose my palate, it found it for me. It jumped out at the end of the night (95+).

The next night was the auction, and the momentum from this event carried over to the sale, which ended up being 100% sold. It looks like it’s gonna be a good season!