Greetings from Hong Kong. I have been here already for two nights, and it has been non-stop upon my arrival. I still haven’t quite learned how to overcome my jet lag that quickly, but the energy of HK is about as good a remedy as one can find. The city is buzzing and alive, and I can feel the wine power! We are expecting close to 300 people yet again this Saturday for the auction, and I am excited for another active day on the sales floor. But first, we drink. The passion for wine here is second to none, and I started with an intimate dinner Tuesday night hosted by my friend Peter. Everything comes down to mathematics, and the equation for this past Tuesday was four wines, nine bottles, nine people and eleven courses. There were multiple bottles (and one magnum) of each wine, as quantity is as important as quality for many here. The meal was a very traditional Chinese one, and a special one, so I will make some rare food notes here as well at the end.

We started with three bottles of 1996 Krug and many toasts. The Krug was outstanding as usual, more balanced and fat than some recent memories. There was great toast to it and a creamy, uplifting personality. Extremely complex, the 1996 Krug is one to bank on for the next century (96).

A magnum of 2001 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne was excellent, buttery and smoky with its aromas, smooth and sexy in its personality. Rich, lush yet tender, the palate had medium-weight and nice butter and waterfall flavors. Its finish was round and sensual, and it was quite enjoyable (93M).

There were two bottles of 1982 La Mission Haut Brion, and they were both classic. The first thing I noticed was the minerality and musk on top of its pungent core of claret. It had great smoke, smokehouse and even a little barbecue to it, with strong cassis elements underneath. The palate was full of iron and band-aid flavors, wrapped around a great plum core. The acidity was superb, so long and fine, zipping and zapping its way down my hatch. It had that great Graves flavor, that smoke and gravel, and these were perfect bottles, with the structure of the vintage coming first, but the fruit still packed in there. Vincent admired its balance. Both bottles were still very young (97).

There were three bottles of 1989 Lafleur, and I took notes bottle by bottle for academic purposes, of course. The 1989 remains one of my favorite Lafleurs”¦ever. These were no exception. The first bottle was wound and classic, with someone noting ‘raspberry cheesecake.’ There was some iron green goodness here, but it was a bit closed. The second bottle was more expressive, with still black as night fruit, forest, minerals, tannins, alcohol and long acid. It was big and brawny but agile on its finish, tea-like with its tannins and true grit personified. Flavors of plum, black fruits, spice and forest lingered on this fine, long wine. The third bottle was the most impressive, possessing the most power. These all came from the same case, mind you. It was almost a mix of the first two, but its tannins and alcohol were monumental. ‘Rich, rich, lush, lush”¦wow’ summed it up. My ratings varied from 95+, 96 to 98 points in that order, with the third bottle being the 98 (95-98).

A bit about the food, which was one of my most memorable meals in Hong Kong so far. We started with boneless barbecued pork, which is about as addictive as meat can get. I could have eaten a bucket of it! So delicious! The next course was my first Conch, and I was advised to eat it quickly while it is warm, before it gets too rubbery. Conch is very rare and difficult to come by, and it was an experience. The third course was a massive prawn, one of the best I have ever had, crunchy and meaty, just perfect. We were onto my first fried shark fin, another first for me, fried with some vegetables and/or noodles and another absolutely addictive dish. The abalone was another first for me, and not really my cup of tea, made with a brown, gravy-like sauce that would also have gone well with beef. Apparently people risk their lives to get the abalone, so I tried it 🙂 The truffle consomme that followed was out of this world good. That is what I want for lunch all winter. A steamed yellow grouper was about as fresh as fish can be, and then the Chinese monk’s duck made with eight different accompaniments had me converting. By now, I was starting to sink into my chair, and after the crispy egg noodle with shredded chicken and sautéed rice noodle with shredded beef, I had to raise the flag. That beef dish was another one I could just eat day after day and never get bored of. Unbelievably great! We ended with the Ching Dynasty Imperial soup, a rare dessert for me, but this was one meal where I would not let a course pass me by. This was a special meal, and the quality of the food was certainly a match for the wines.

Wednesday night would be one devoted to Musigny; there is Burgundy alive and well in Hong Kong, too! That news will be fit to print tomorrow.

My second night in Hong Kong was devoted to Musigny, thanks to an anonymous and most generous benefactor. Yes, Burgundy is alive and well in Hong Kong, and I couldn’t think of a better terroir to prove that point. We started with a Champagne and a white before getting into the main event, the Champagne being a 1982 Salon. The Salon had a yeasty nose that was big, rich and bready. It was very fragrant, tangy yet complex. The palate was oily and meaty, almost beefy, big and citrusy with outstanding acidity. Tangy, zippy and gamy, the ’82 was rich and tasty with vanilla cream flavors. At the end of the night, the Salon was still strong, losing its bubbles but becoming decadently delicious and still great (95).

The 2004 Raveneau Chablis Montee de Tonnerre was very open, with a minty and anise-y centerpoint, while Kris observed ‘white lychee and pear.’ Round, minty and delicious, the palate had a nice, feminine side to its acidity. Someone noted ‘sweet and sour apple,’ and another its ‘fresh, good structure.’ Premier Cru Chablis’ are great values ”“ oops, put that cat back in the bag (93).

On to the Moose”¦we started with a flight of ‘young’ wines, its starting point being a pair of 1993s. A 1993 Drouhin Musigny was one of the best bottles of this I have had. I looked up two prior bottles and found that I rated them each 92 points, but this one was significantly better. Yeast was the first thing I noticed, but it quickly blew off into the classic underbrush of 1993. Black fruits, a great nut glaze and excellent sun-baked earth rounded out the nose. Richard admired ‘that ’93 tautness,’ and it was really driven by its mineral and earth qualities. It opened wonderfully and became more exotic with a stir-fried sweetness and actual fruit, holding its acidity for the entire evening. It all comes down to the bottle (94+).

The 1993 Jadot Musigny had more hay in the nose and a bit of stinky barn and green pepper. There were also band-aids there, and good ‘catbox.’ The Jadot had a lot of power, noticeably so after the Drouhin. Some baked bread came out as well as gamy, black flavors and a lot of t ‘n a. Hendra also observed ‘more power,’ and Kris liked its ‘fleshy side of Musigny.’ It had a long, earthy finish, and the tannins and acid of the vintage showed their stuff there, coming out even more in the belly. There was more wood here, integrated yet big, as well as more animal (93).

At first, Richard and I were admiring the 1990 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes and how it was one of the better bottles of this that we had both had. Hendra remarked how it was ‘always this way,’ but this bottle was not stewed or woodsy as others can be. It was zippy with Worcestershire aromas, a bit of celery salt and excellent t ‘n a. It had the best finish of the flight, and its acidity was noteworthy. It squared up a bit in the glass, however, and got more cedary, and the second impression was less than the first. Richard agreed. Its structure was still excellent, but this wine might continue to be a perplexing one for a while (93+).

The second flight began with a rare 1989 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes. It had a minty nose, very forward with its wild fruits, olives and forest aromas. The palate was rich and its acidity long, with that gamy ’89, rich, ripe style. Tasty and balanced, there were significant earth and iron flavors to go with some autumnal and forest floor ones. Kris said it ‘sparkled,’ and it was fresh on its feet, dancing in the mouth. It didn’t get any better in the glass, but it was on a couple of people’s ‘top three’ wines for the night (94).

The next wine was one of my two wines of the night, a 1988 Roumier Musigny. Richard noted ‘a little more substance and linearity.’ Its nose was deep personified, or winified, I suppose. There was great perfume and breed to its sexy and unraveling nose. There was cedar, forest and a pinch of menthol. Its flavors were also deep, just singing, rippling with minerals and acidity on its thick finish. There was actually fruit here for this ’88, which is not often the case in this tannic vintage, and there was enough fruit to stand up to the tannins. Red fruits emerged, and its woodsy complexity was just right, creeping in with time (96).

The 1985 Drouhin Musigny was again a better bottle than the last time I had this wine just three months ago. What’s up with Drouhin showing better in Hong Kong? Maybe it likes the humidity here. It was the most open of this flight, in ’85 fashion, sweet and gamy and full of Pinot fruit. Caramel kisses and damp earth rounded out its nutty nose. Paul agreed this was a better bottle than the one he had recently as well; in fact, I think it was the same bottle we shared in New York, or same batch. This bottle was in a perfect spot and still ascending (95).

We then took it way back in time with an outstanding 1952 Bichot Musigny. At first, it was a bit gassy in the nose, with a touch of toilet in there, but it opened quickly into wheat, grass and herbs. The palate was delicious and way ahead of the nose with its nutty, oily texture. It was also rich and chocolaty, possibly a bit adulterated but so good, who cares? There was this vanilla ice cream deliciousness, and one said he heard rumors that Bichot bought their Musigny from Vogue during this period. It kept flirting so much with outstanding, I finally gave it to it (95).

A 1952 Remoissenet Musigny had green fruit in a fresh way and a nutty nose. The palate was more milky with some red fruit there, and a sweet flash in a tree bark, cedar and herbal direction. It was simpler but still good (90).

Unfortunately, the last wine in this flight was an oxidized 1952 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes (DQ).

The next pair more than made up for it, beginning with a 1949 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny. It was many people’s wine of the night. Richard crowned it ‘amazing’ right away, and its nose was indubitably great, pungent and with aromas of olives, citrus, rich black and red fruits, cola and cream soda. The palate seemed rich for ’49 but was still elegant on its finish. There were great flavors of sweet plum and purple. There was more posture and style versus the ’47 that would follow, and it got more mentholated in the glass (96).

The 1947 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny was ‘porty’ to one and ‘very sweet’ to another. It was definitely keeping with the hot style of 1947 with its sweetness, as 1947 was one of the hottest years ever on record in the 20th century in Burgundy, I believe. The nose was again great, full of sweet cream and touches of earth and citrus. The palate was lush and earthy, still zippy, concentrated with sweet purple flavors and great spice. It was so sweet that it seemed almost chapitalized, a bit negociant in personality. I am not sure if these were negociant bottles or not. While the ’49 was more demure and distinguished, one couldn’t help but like the ’47 and its skinny dipping personality (94).

It was a grand finale to a monumental evening of Musigny. The Roumier and ’49 Liger-Belair were on the top of most people’s lists, but the Bichot definitely got a lot of consideration, too. There were a few honorable mentions for the Mugnier and ’85 Drouhin as well.

It is good to see Burgundy alive and well in Hong Kong. Thursday night would be our first BYO dinner in HK, and I would have 35 notes before all was said and through, including many Burgundies, although Bordeaux did dominate the landscape provided by the 60 guests. About nine of the wines took me two hours to enjoy, and then the rest in a blitz at the end. Stay tuned!

Last night saw sixty of Hong Kong’s finest collectors gather in a celebration of fine and rare wines, BYO style. This was a first for most of the guests and a new concept; one could tell that everyone wasn’t really sure what to expect at first, but once everyone settled in and got some ground rules, a great time and some great wines were had by all.

The rules for a good BYO are simple: 1) get a list of what everyone is bringing in advance; 2) seat everyone together based on said wines; 3) encourage everyone to pour out half of their bottle at their table and then trade with other tables the rest of the bottle; 4) remind everyone not to grab other people’s bottles without asking 🙂

I found myself surrounded by some of the world’s greatest wines early on, and made sure I got to know them before sampling some of the rest of the room’s selections. I also made sure to make my rounds of giving before I made my rounds of receiving, always a good BYO host rule of thumb.

The night got off to a great start with a 1986 Montrachet. What was even more special is that it came from a parcel of ten cases purchased twenty years ago! About five are left. Taiwan was in the house, and many thanks to my good friend for his generosity, and everyone’s for that matter. The nose was fabulous in an ’86 way ”“ sweet and buttery with lots of wild corn and clear botrytis. There was a little waterfall edge and a touch of benevolent alley. Its flavors were similar, adding some light cement and a bit of butter that has been out on a hot summer day all afternoon. Kisses of caramel rounded out the flavor profile along with game and candle wax, and the acidity was superb and the best ’86 impression that I have had in a while. It is always a good thing to have those unmoved, purchased upon release bottles (95).

The only other white at my table was a 1992 Ramonet Batard Montrachet. While 1992 is a vintage that is starting to pass its prime for many white Burgundies, this Ramonet was still far from maturity. I don’t know what he did in 1992 that makes his wines stand out so much from the rest of the pack (with Leflaive right behind it), but the acidity in the 1992 Batard was mind-blowing. It was as fresh as fresh can be, taut, minerally and zippy with incredible white fruit flavors and an endless finish. Smoke and minerals were everywhere; this was a fiery wine that could burn down any wine lover’s palate (95+).

A rare 1961 Latour Haut Brion was excellent, full of gravel, smoke, slate and dirt, slowly revealing a bit of a BBQ edge. There was lots of cement to the palate, and black fruits emerged in time. Samantha noted ‘hickory,’ and someone else ‘high acidity.’ There were still lots of tannins and life left in this ’61 (93).

That red was a warm-up, as we got very serious, very quickly, beginning with the 1989 Petrus. A 1990 would follow, as would a 1990 Le Pin. Now that’s a flight! The ’89 was spectacular and the wine of the night. It had a big, bold nose with lots of t ‘n a, chocolate, earth and black and purple fruits. It was so thick yet so fine. The palate was insanely good, so chocolaty and thick, absolutely delicious. Hendra also commented, ‘more chocolaty and hot.’ This is a staggering wine and a great time to be buying it since the price has practically dropped in half over the past year (99).

I know that the 1989 versus 1990 Petrus is supposed to be a great debate, but to be honest, it isn’t even close. The 1990 Petrus was still an outstanding wine, but the ’89 has just clearly distanced itself from the ’90. The ’90 was minty with a fleshier nose, possessing more red fruits and green olives. It was a bit milkshaky, with secondary aromas of grain and bran. Its flavors were more yeasty, and the palate was still long and elegant, but it left a little sister impression after the 1989 (95).

The 1990 Le Pin was very fragrant in an aggressive way. Aromas of green bean combined with wild, exotic tropical fruits into a unique and ‘sexy’ style. The palate was very shut down at the moment for me, and although it rounded out, it left me with a mellow, soft, tender and easy impression, which was not the case the last time I had this wine late last year, when I rated it 96 points. This bottle needed more time, and will surely get better (94+).

The 1982 Lafleur had a rich, creamy and sexy nose in that kinky Lafleur way. Aromas of coconut, green olives and a rainbow of black, purple and red fruits rounded out the nose, although there was more structure here than other memories that I have of this wine, which can often be super fleshy and wide open. This one still had a long way to go. Hendra hailed it as ‘all seasons ”“ any place, any time’ (97).

The last couple of bottles I had at my table were Burgundies, beginning with a 1999 Richebourg. 1999 plus always equals greatness. Aubert de Villaine and company really hit the bullseye in 1999. The Richebourg’s nose was fleshy, young and zippy, full of violets, lavender and minerals with the encrusted diamonds. The nose was super sexy, oily and ‘just like the 1990,’ per one who would know. The 1990 has a little more power at this stage I think, but the 1999 is even more seductive (97).

Last but not least before I ventured out into the room to receive was a 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes. The Ponsot was a bit milky and yeasty at first, but it blew off into a powerful concoction of menthol, oil, black fruits and yeast without the milk. Its flavors were distinctively black; olives and fruits. It left a midnight impression, lingering on its long and thick finish, which was both slaty and edgy. Concentration was king for this 1990 (97).

The rest of the night was a bit of rapid fire, but all friendly fire thankfully. Forgive the lack of notes, but with a tasting in three hours and the seating for tomorrow’s auction still to be finished, I will have to defer my observations until the next article ”“ I will get to them, I promise! It will be a few paragraphs of recapping, as snapshots were really all that could be taken at this time. Look for a more detailed recap of the rest of the wines in my next article. For now, the scores”¦

The great thing about a BYO is the diversity of wines and the sheer spontaneity of it all. It was a great assortment of great wines, and most importantly, a great mix of people. I look forward to the next one!

Recently and on separate occasions, I had the good fortune of experiencing two of Bordeaux’s most heralded vintages in the past twenty-five years, 1986 and 2005. First, let’s talk about 1986. One recollected how originally 1986 was in the shadow of 1985; the wines were hard, and Broadbent gave ’86 four stars after ‘85’s five. 1986 Bordeaux have proven to be long-distance runners, although detractors will say that they will always be too hard and never come around, that there isn’t enough fruit to integrate with the tannins. Let’s see what the wines had to say.

The ‘warm-up’ was a 1986 Meyney. The Meyney had a nice nose, with aromas of green bean, carob, hay and a little benevolent animal. Its profile was dark and nutty overall. The palate was round, also nutty and also with carob flavors, possessing nice spice and still flashy on its finish ”“ I did notice some heat. There were a touch of bitters to its flavors, along with earth and slate on its finish. I liked it overall, even though it fell a step out of balance with time. It was soft and tender, tasty stuff that everyone was loving. Someone remarked it was ‘spiny, with a touch of wood and a surprising amount of legs.’ It was a good show for this good value (90).

A flight of two Pomerols was next, beginning with the 1986 Lafleur. The Lafleur had a kinky and sexy nose, that tutti-frutti side of Lafleur that comes out more in certain vintages. Aromas of sweet grape, game, musk, white chocolate and a hint of caraway were all present. The palate was big and thick with rocky and black fruit flavors, unraveling with slow and squeezing tannins. A hint of motor oil and prune rounded out this delicious boa constrictor of a wine, and there was enough acidity to match (95).

The 1986 Trotanoy was not a match for the Lafleur. It was gamy like the Lafleur, but more figgy. Aromas of carob, caramel and wild boar were followed by round, figgy flavors and a soft and smooth palate. There was nice slate and spice around its edges, and still a touch of heat like a fire that is starting to dwindle. It was pleasant and pleasing, and Julieanne liked the Trot ‘better now’ (91).

The second flight led off with the 1986 Talbot. There were lots of green beans and olives in the nose, which was a bit waxy and spiny, though also clean. Some tickling crushed red fruits rounded out the nose, which also had a little bathwater edge to it. The palate was much more classic; it had sweet, tasty and nutty fruit and a spicy palate that had mineral, earth and game flavors. Sweet cassis, nut and caramel flavors were also there. It was thick in the mouth but balanced, classic and delicious despite a bit of awkwardness to its aromatics (93).

The Talbot was followed by its sibling, the 1986 Gruaud Larose, which also had a bit of that bathwater to it at first. Someone hailed the nose ‘more voluptuous.’ The nose became perfumed and also developed aromas of cola, cherry and wool, and it left a clean and spiny impression. The palate had the minerals, earth, game, carob and cassis. It was smokier and bigger than the Talbot but still distinguished, stylish and long (94).

The 1986 Leoville Las Cases had a big nose and was blacker and inkier. Its purple fruit was decadent and its musk great, and it also had a sexy vanilla quality to it. The palate was rich, long and thick with a nice finish that had lots of unfolding tannins. The palate was refined, and Julieanne called it ‘a nice package.’ It was (95).

It was at this point that I wrote how the ‘86s were so polished and soft and that this was a vintage that seemed to be finally coming into its own.

The ‘odd bull’ of the Left Bank was next, which was called odd due to its high concentration of Merlot. The 1986 Pichon Lalande had aromas of green bean, cleaner, roasted hazelnuts, roasted walnuts and pencil shavings. Its nose was meaty and musky, while its palate was pretty, soft, round, sensual, tender”¦just beautiful. There were classic flavors, and its elegance and style could not be denied. In the end, this was one of the group’s favorite wines (95).

The 1986 Cos d’Estournel had much more peanut brittle in the nose, along with coffee, spice, candle wax and beef. The palate was nutty and quite gamy for a Left Banker, with a pinch of sugar dropped in. It was toasty up front, but waxy on its finish. Lots of minerals and cigar lingered, and it was hailed as ‘rich and dense’ (94).

It was on to the final flight of three, beginning with the 1986 Margaux, which was extremely spiny and the most wound wine of the night. There were lots of spice, minerals, leather, iron and gyro beef aromas. The palate was again more polished than I expected, especially given the nose. Flavors of carob, spice, dust, earth, leather and waterfall were all present on the palate, but there was a hole in the middle of this wine, or at least this bottle, that held it back (94).

The last Left Bank wine was its most renowned, the 1986 Mouton Rothschild. Its nose was deep and dark, a touch stinky and gamey with a strong whiff of wood and cedar. The palate was also deep, dark and black with oceans of cassis, cedar and minerals. Its finish was by far the longest of the night. This was the only bottle that had a bit of that theoretical 1986 squareness, the only one that still said, ‘give me more time,’ but there was no doubting its raw materials (96+).

The last wine of this fascinating retrospective was the 1986 Cheval Blanc. The Cheval had its classic wintergreen aroma, along with red fruits and green olives. There were great flavors of cranberry, strawberry, interior leather and curds n’ whey. It was tender and pretty, more open than the previous two wines, adding wintergreen and game flavors (93).

So what to make of this tasting? Those that have 1986s in their cellar might want to get to know them again, although at least an hour or two of airtime probably makes a difference. Regardless, there was a lot more polish and tender qualities to this vintage now than I expected, certainly more than the last time I did a retrospective of 1986s about seven or eight years ago. That doesn’t mean that they won’t continue to age; it is important not to confuse power with ageability, and that is something that the Bordelais have been understanding for centuries. I just think that the ‘86s are starting to come into their own, and that its ‘hard’ reputation might not be as accurate as before.

2005 Bordeaux

I guess the other retrospective that I recently did wasn’t really a retrospective, and more like an initial perspective. This was my first tasting of 2005 out of bottle, and while this heralded, potential all-time great vintage of Bordeaux needs no introduction, I wanted to reintroduce myself to these wines after their release.

We began with a disappointing 2005 Pichon Lalande. Its nose was lightly roasted and nutty with aromas of coffee. While elegant, the dryness of its tannins and acidity jumped out. There were lighter, nutty flavors of black tea present, but it did not have the depth I have come to expect for this reliable Chateau (91).

The 2005 Montrose had a bigger nose with much more fruit. It was concentrated and rich with big, buttery flavors, coffee again and some toast while Alexander The Great noted ‘bitters.’ Despite its bigness, it maintained elegance and had softness. Although its tannins were long, they were fine (94).

The 2005 Ducru Beaucaillou was also big, more cedar city in the nose. There was big-time ‘vanilla bean,’ as someone noted. Tasty and nutty, it had mocha, vanilla and milkshake flavors. It continued to gain in the glass and get bigger (95+).

Someone noted ‘mushroom’ in the 2005 Palmer. I did pick up on forest floor, but it was shier and more elegant in the nose. Alexander picked up on a little ‘blue cheese,’ but it was not pungent. It was perfumed and sexy, getting a little grapier as it opened. The palate was great, full of oil, leather, coffee and smoke flavors. There was exquisite balance to this superb wine. It really got my attention (97).

The 2005 Cos d’Estournel quickly brought sexy back with its classic aromas of cedar, nut and caramel. While more elegant than expected, there were great flavors of cedar and what I call fireplace action. This was classic every which way, and it got two ‘fantastics’ from the crowd (96).

The 2005 Leoville Las Cases was tight and a touch anise-y. Stony and cedary, its nose was much more reticent than the other ‘05s. The palate was also very stony, but its length and breed were outstanding. While a bit muted, and much more reserved already, the Las Cases was still serious stuff. Every case should come with a sign, ‘wake me when it’s over’ (95).

We transitioned to the First Growths with a 2005 La Mission Haut Brion, arguably a First Growth in its own right. The La Mission was so exotic compared to the rest. There was great fruit here, and wild aromas like coconut and blueberry standing side by side with classics like charcoal, black currants and truffles. The flavors were also kinky and gamy with exotic marzipan, and its finish popped with more noticeable acidity than anything prior. It was a wild and crazy wine whose outstanding quality could not be denied, but I couldn’t help but wonder if all this exoticness would come back to haunt it later in life (96).

The 2005 Mouton Rothschild was the first of our First Growths, and we had them all ready. Tar, smoke and a little marijuana green crept out of its nose. The flavors were mocha, and the wine was softer and easier. Someone called it simplistic, and while that might have been a bit harsh, it definitely under-impressed compared to some of the wines already sampled (94).

The 2005 Latour had the nose of the night. There was fantastic and undeniable breed here. ‘Nutty nutty, long long and dry dry’ were my first notes. It had enough length to last through double overtime, and the marriage between its signature cedar and walnut aromas and flavors said, ‘happily ever after’ (97+).

The 2005 Lafite Rothschild was a bit unusual at first, emitting this mentholated rub in the locker room vibe, which someone else likened to ‘barnyard.’ It did get more cedary and classic with time, but needed more coaxing. There was a soft and subtle minerality here that provided a beautiful backbone to the wine, like good posture. Its elegant style was overshadowed by the Latour in the beginning, but it, too, had undeniable breed and over time gained on the Latour, closing the gap. Its elegance and breed were ultimately remarkable (96).

The 2005 Haut Brion was full of cigar smoke in the nose to go along with the usual suspects of tobacco, earth and black fruits. There was a tender quality to this powerful wine, which exerted its influence in a quiet and easy way. It was an Obamawine lol. Flavors of earth, tobacco and charcoal were more classically rendered than its sibling La Miss, and definitive bacon emerged in the nose, so much so that I wrote it in caps with an exclamation mark to boot like some hungry dog ”“ BACON! The Haut Brion lived up to its lofty status (97).

We closed with the 2005 Margaux, which was classic all the way. Cedar, cassis, earth and minerals abounded in its long, smoky and elegant nose. The palate was long, decadent and smoky. The Margaux ended up the evening in stylish fashion, as it is prone to do (96).

So what about 2005? There is no doubting the quality of the vintage. It will be one of the all-time greats. The concentration of fruit is already legendary, and there are enough tannins and acidity to keep up for decades. Despite the concentration levels, the best wines have retained the hallmark elegance that makes claret lovers croon. What about the prices? Well, there is no doubt that they were expensive, the most expensive en primeur vintage that anyone has ever seen, or perhaps ever will. There has not been that initial secondary market bounce that most vintages have when bottles finally hit the marketplace, as consumers have said that they are already expensive enough, and the recent yet lessening economic uncertainty didn’t help. They are still selling, and their greatness cannot be denied. We’ll leave the rest up to the market.