As we prepare for our second auction of the year in Hong Kong in 2009, I thought it was a good time to look back on a couple of most noteworthy events related to the great city of Hong Kong. The first event was a Champagne dinner before the auction, featuring a stellar selection of bubblies courtesy of the cellar of Robert Rosania. Rob was offering a slice of the world’s greatest Champagne collection in our last Hong Kong auction, and we wanted to make sure that the local clients who had already let us know that they were Champagne lovers had an opportunity to see what aged Champagne is all about. Rob’s cellar was up for the task, as usual, even when halfway around the world.

A six-pack of 1996 Krug was the aperitif, and when that’s the aperitif, you know it’s going to be a good night. I didn’t take a note for that, as I was too busy meeting and greeting. The first official flight was one of Dom, beginning with a 1971 Dom Perignon. Aromas of cracked wheat and honey jumped out of its seductive nose. The palate was rich, long, dusty and spiny with great fizz. It was fresh, zippy and long, with excellent acidity. This was a superb bottle, absolutely delicious, brimming with white cola and honey flavors (96).

A magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon was next. The ’75 was more herbal, but herbal in a good way. There were also more minerals here, with hints of granulated sugar and toast, along with some rye crisp. It was very fresh as well, more spiky in its acidity and drier in its personality. It was still excellent (93M).

A magnum of 1985 Dom Perignon Rose was an infant by comparison. There were aromas of strawberry and some Pinot garden goodness. It was fresh and tangy, with a bit of hay flavors, like a roll in the barn. Very fresh and very young, I look forward to when it finally finds its way (95M).

The second flight went back in time even further. A 1961 Pol Roger was still fresh, with a core of sweet and mature aromas. Honey, beer and caramel were dominant. The ’61 was rich, fleshy and round with caramel and honey flavors to match its aromas. There was more integration here than any of the Doms; the extra ten years had done the Pol Roger well. Its acidity was still special, and lots of vitamin flavors lingered on its finish (94).

A 1962 Philipponnat Blanc de Blancs had a great cereal-like nose, like Frosted Flakes meets Corn Pops. This was not a Clos des Goisses bottle, just to be clear. There was exotic perfume and spice, almost jasmine, and its cereal qualities moved in an oatmeal direction. The palate was nice and yeasty with sugar cane flavors and a long finish (94).

A magnum of 1964 Moet was probably the least exciting Champagne of the night, but still very good. Old Moets can be spectacular, particularly pre-Dom Perignon, during the first twenty years of the 20th century and even older, or so I am told. I have only had as far back as 1900. The ’64 was a magnum that had been redisgorged, not necessarily for the better. It was pungent and grassy both in the nose and mouth. Gamy and zippy, it was good but overshadowed on this special evening (92M).

The last wine of this flight was a 1952 Louis Roederer – not Cristal. I always feel like I need to clarify that, remind everyone that Roederer makes Cristal, and also that the regular ‘Roederer’ bottlings are some of Champagne’s finest from the 1960s on back. The ’52 was long-legged, Mommy long legs. The nose was mature and warm, and the palate was rich with a meaty texture and a hint of bubbles left. More wine-like with delicious tea flavors, this bottle was on the mature side but still delicious (95).

A Cristal followed, the 1969 Roederer Cristal. It, too, had pungency to it, more in a gamy way. The nose was a little oaky, as well as bready. The palate was rich, meaty and lush with vanilla wafer flavors, but the oak stayed on the palate and throughout the finish. It did grow on me and get more honeyed, but having had extraordinary bottles of ’69 Cris before, I can say that this wasn’t the best bottle. It wasn’t off, just a lesser batch, so to speak (93).

The 1979 Roederer Cristal was a classic. The nose oozed greatness. Clean and pure, it was full of butter, scotch, butterscotch (yes all three!) and grain aromas, with a pinch of flower in a gourmet soap way. The palate was fresh and zippy, still young and mineral-driven (95+).

A 1949 Pommery was served on its own, and deservedly so. It had gorgeous and sexy vanilla ice cream aromas. Its palate was sexy and smooth, round and delicious. This was great Champagne, special and honeyed (95).

Krug, meet Salon. The 1973 Krug was from an original bottling, and had that signature Krug vanilla cream sex appeal. Quite tasty, it was full of Wasa rye crisp wafer flavors. This was breed Champagnified and Krug all the way. So good and so tasty, the Krug was round and rich with vanilla wafer flavors as well (95).

The 1976 Salon was out of magnum, which probably gave it an edge. It was much tighter and more minerally with a pinch of white fruits and flowers fighting to be recognized. The palate was longer than the Krug, better, and racy beyond belief. Usually it is Krug that bullies everything else around, but the hallmark Salon acidity was still as sharp as a razor, and this magnum had enough freshness and zip to go for many more decades (96+M).

The 1969 Krug Collection was so fresh, another grassy and pungent one. It was still a baby, endless in its acidity, as fresh as fresh can be, as Krug Collections are prone to be. It had perfect balance to its spice and length, and was a testament to the cellars at Krug (96).

The 1979 Krug Collection was out of magnum, and showed more bread and toast in the nose. It was long, zippy and great as well. There were flavors of citrus tang, bread soaked in egg yolk and more lemon. Despite being a decade younger, there were almost more mature nuances to the ’79. Of course, its finish was long (95+M).

We closed with the 1990 Krug Clos du Mesnil. If there was a fitting closer, it would be Clos du Mesnil, the vineyard equivalent in Champagne to Romanee Conti. The 1990 was so good, so young, like nails on a chalkboard in its pitch. A hint of oak needed some time to integrate, and the 1990 needs time in general to integrate. Its acidity reminded me of Wolverine, ready to destroy anything in its way. It had lots of flavors of earth, minerals and what I would call tombstone, as this Champagne laid to rest everything else (97).

It was a spectacular evening of Champagne, a testament to how well it ages, and a testament once again to Rob’s cellar. I can’t wait for ‘the greatest Champagne dinner of all-time.’ We’ll keep you tuned in for that one.

The other chapter of my Hong Kong diary actually took place in New York. One of our biggest clients in Hong Kong was passing through New York ten days after the auction, so we decided to give him an official New York City wine welcome. We were joined by the Angry Men’s first family, gentleman Jim and Little Miss Angry, as well as Alexander the Great, a welcome addition to any dining experience.

We warmed up with a 1990 Dom Perignon, which was one of the better bottles of this that I have had recently. It was rich, nutty and beefy, a bit of a bruiser, but long and full of structure (95).

A 1990 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche was full of aromas of honey, honeycomb and honeysuckle in its creamy nose. There was a hint of floral that Wendy likened to ‘grandma’s lilac perfume.’ Our friend noted ‘chinese herbs.’ It was more ready than I would have thought, buttery and full of ‘petrol flavors,’ as Wendy noted, and she also agreed that it was ‘definitely ready.’ Another guest at the restaurant to whom we gave a taste noted that it was ‘almost like a dessert wine’ due to its sweetness of fruit. There were nice yeast flavors on its sunsetting finish (94).

The 1989 Haut Brion Blanc was a spectacular white. Its nose was pungent, full of glue, straw, cat’s pee and a pinch of twisted honeycomb. That Graves minerality reeked out of the glass. The palate was coy at first yet rich, very regal with tons of breed and acidity. This was the best young white Bordeaux that I had ever had. It retained its character throughout the evening and even became more complex, with more of its floral side coming out, along with jasmine tea, marzipan and coconut. It got more and more delicious as it opened with air (96+).

We traveled to Burgundy with a 1993 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. The nose was milky, stemmy and earthy, and Jim noted ‘the scent of a woman.’ It was perfumed, in the lavender direction. Its flavors were on the ’93 side, full of leather, tree bark and earth. Its fruit was both black and purple in its personality, and its acidity really came out with time. It flexed and grew stronger, and a little mint came out. I vascillated between 94 and 95 points, and settled on (94+) as it just wasn’t giving me as much as I wanted just yet, at least from this bottle.

Next in line was a 1964 Richebourg, which happened to be the birthyear of our honored guest, so I guess it was fate! The Richebourg was open and hearty, rich and long in the nose. It had the garden, the mint and the menthol of old . Wendy found it ‘meaty and smoky.’ The palate was rich and lengthy, hearty a la ’64. There was nice grit and meat, and Jim noted ‘iron,’ which I saw with a little more air. Gamy, mesquite flavors lingered on its rusty finish, and its acidity asserted itself more in the nose. Alexander liked it more on the nose than the palate, but I enjoyed it overall (94).

We closed with a 1955 Mouton Rothschild, one of my favorite Moutons of the 20th century. Alexander noted ‘liquid lavender,’ and Wendy ‘red licorice.’ Its core of cassis was undeniable despite traces of wild grass around its edges. Wendy then continued her red fruit feelings with ‘raspberry.’ Our guest felt that it needed more time to open and that its aromas were secondary rather than primary for a wine of such an age, and perhaps we were a little eager to experience this wondrous wine. The palate was rich and big, long and still young, with great cobweb and old bark nuances (95).

It was another special evening, and even though it was in New York, I could thank Hong Kong for it. In less than three weeks, we will be back in Hong Kong and with three special events already planned, I am sure I will have more to share soon.

On the first of May, Big Boy and I got together with Jacksonville’s number one collector for a late dinner in New York City. Then again, he is the only guy I know in Jacksonville 🙂 It was four of us, as he had a friend with him, so we only had about a dozen bottles with us. She didn’t drink that much, so we ultimately opened only nine.

Unfortunately, there were three oxidized bottles, just one of those nights. A ’66 Cristal, ’59 Vogue Bonnes Mares, and ’66 La Mouline were all (DQ). There were no tears shed, though, as it happens, and those that drink enough old wine know that the only thing to do is move on and remember how much the good ones make up for the occasional bad ones. The color on the Cristal was a bit dark, so we suspected that might have issues, and it did. The Vogue was about as good a fill as one could hope for at that age, and although the color was a bit light, there was still a good ruby core. The craziest thing was that the La Mouline came from a batch of six bottles, two of which we had already had that were both extraordinary, 99-point wines. Even wines from the same case or batch can be completely different! If these kind of experiences make you lose sleep or want to sue people, I suggest you stick to drinking wines ten years and younger. Wine is supposed to be fun, right?

Fortunately, the six wines we did consume were some extraordinary ones. We all contributed to the cause, of course. It began with a magnum of 1985 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne. The first thing I noted was that it was younger than I like my C de C’s. It probably needs another decade to get that creamy, open, butterscotchy kink. The nose was a little grassy at first and a touch barny, but it also had nice waterfall aromas to it. A touch of alley blew off into more corn and yellow smells. The palate had no issues, with its core of sweet corn oil and its excellent structure and acidity. Its finish was prickly, gritty and grainy. The nose started to lean in that butterscotchy direction with some air, as Justin noted, as he did ‘almonds’ (93M).

A pair of Rousseaus was a fascinating comparison. The 1971 Rousseau Chambertin had a wow nose that just jumped out of the glass. There was so much fruit and spice; it was reeking great Burgundy with its unreal aromatics. Earth, Worcestershire, almost hoisin, spice and leather were all there. The palate was rich and saucy, a bit fat by ’71 standards, but the acidity of the vintage tied it all together. Traces of nut, cola and black cherry rounded out the palate. Unlike the Beze that followed, the Chambertin was at its best right out the gate, but it softened a bit over time, bringing its score down to only, yes only (95). Other bottles might sing a slightly different song, as is always the case with older wines.

The 1971 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze was much more reserved than the Chambertin at first. It did come right out of the cellar, so it was a bit colder. Justin immediately observed, ‘slightly more intensity.’ It took me a little longer to get to see that, but he was right. Its reserved quality translated into elegance in 47 languages. The nose was minty and foresty, showing more red cherry as well as more citric tension. It had more woodsy elements, a la Keebler and all the Elves. Rob likened that to ‘the back straight at Talledega.’ That did blow off in time, and it was only slight, and not really a negative in the first place. Slowly and surely, the Beze thickened like a boa constrictor having lunch. The palate was so precise, as if it was walking on a tightrope. Big Boy called it ‘like glass ”“ clean, pure and elegant.’ The acidity was superb, and this was indubitably a classic. While the Cham was hotter and chunkier, the Beze kept distancing itself as the night went on, and its finish was endless (97+).

A 1971 Chateau Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape was next, and it, too, was outstanding. It was Rayas all the way and absolutely gorgeous on the nose. It was full of that Grenache strawberry, and Rob noted ‘menthol’ and also seconded my strawberry. It was a great bottle, and it tasted great too lol. Rich, hearty and with excellent acidity, this was a Rhone that could rival Rousseau. The flavors were more strawberry dipped in chocolate, and Justin noted ‘tea leaves.’ It danced in the mouth with its rich and luscious flavors, and its finish had excellent mineral notes (96).

A bottle of 1947 Pierre Ponnelle Musigny was next. I know that their wines were made by Georges Roumier for a few years in the 40s and/or 50s, so we might have been blessed by his hand here. I’ll check with the Inspector. The nose was deep with dark, black fruits and traces of cola, nut, earth and a pinch of rubber tire. It was thick and soupy. The palate was rich and also full of black fruits. There was still acid here, but no tannins, and the cola also carried over to the palate, along with some cola nut. It was tasty and sweet, with more brown sugar and oat flavors of a hot vintage, and of a negociant style. It reminded me of a lot of some ‘59s (93).

The final wine on this special evening was a 1964 Richebourg. It was relatively mild-mannered in the nose for a ’64, possessing so much elegance at first. Usually, ’64 Burgs are taking their tops off right away, which is why I like the vintage 🙂 The had lots of pitch, hitting a high note aromatically, possessing lots of mint, rosemary, menthol, game and edge. The palate showed more typical power and was classic all around with its flavors of menthol and rose oil. Slightly browned and perfectly grilled, the Richebourg was chunky and long with excellent acidity, and it kept gaining and unfolding in the glass. ‘Wow, that’s rich,’ summed up Big Boy (95+).

It was an evening that made us all feel richer, although I felt poorer in more ways than one in the morning.

San Francisco has a new restaurant home for fine wine, and it is called RN 74. I was there for the opening weekend of this heralded collaboration between Michael Mina, Raj Parr and collector Wilf Jaeger. Wilf provided the core of the wine list, and since he is one of America’s premier collectors, the list has immediately become one of the finest in the country, rivaling such New York legends as Cru and Veritas. In addition, there are many great deals to be had on the list, of which we took advantage. The food was also excellent, with a bistro-type feel infused with haute cuisine courtesy of Michael and Wilf. Wilf, a self-trained chef who loves to cook as much as he loves to collect, was also very involved in the menu, and everything was delicious. The restaurant was packed, the mood festive, and it was time to drink.

There were a few familiar facelifts in the crowd, and I was joined by my friend Chris, who generously brought a 1978 La Tache with him. We’ll get to that shortly. We started with some whites and a 1969 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche, from a batch that Wilf got directly from Drouhin’s cellars. The nose was gorgeous, with a honeycomb core along with aromas of almond and cola nut. It was exotic and tropical with a cocoa buttery nose. The palate was polished and round with nice vigor and a tongue twisting finish, possessing excellent definition. Chris admired its ‘almost Champagne-like’ qualities, also noting ‘apple.’ There were also excellent citrus flavors, and the aromas carried over the palate, providing a layer of kink and complexity. There was still ‘nice acid,’ and toast emerged on the finish of this tasty and leathery white, which held in the glass admirably. It bloomed in the orange direction, as its few cobwebs dusted themselves off over time (95).

We followed with a 1979 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet. Both of these whites were off the list, by the way. The Leflaive was singing in the nose, full of wheat, corn syrup, caramel, bittersweet orange, wax, yeast and honey aromas. There was great poise and balance on the palate, which possessed definition and class, along with grace and agility. It was another testament to the greatness of 1979 in white Burgundy, the vintage of the decade for white and arguably one of its finest all time. Wilf even hailed ’79 as his ‘favorite white Burgundy vintage.’ The wine stayed tasty, with more honeycomb flavors emerging, and the Leflaive kept lifting to higher and higher ground. What a wine (96+).

Sufferin’ Sandy was in the crowd, and he had brought with him a 1999 Ramonet Montrachet, a wine that I just had the Monday prior. When it rains, it pours. The nose was minty and full of corn stalk, wound and tight with nerves of steel. This bottle was much more powerful than the bottle I had had Monday, which was a bit shut down. Despite being wound, this bottle was still expressive, and its palate rippled with minerals. Flavors of butter and corn stalk joined the minerals on the palate, which had a minty finish. There was race car-like power and definition here (95+).

We had a pair of 1978s on tap next, but Sandy interrupted our programming with a magnum of 1996 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux. ‘Young, young, young and so tight,’ observed Chris at first, and yes, he was talking about the wine. Wilf found it ‘impressive.’ This magnum was not marred by some of the sulfur or gas that I had previously encountered a couple of times with this wine, which was good news for me, as I had almost written this vintage of Jayer Cros P off. It was staggeringly concentrated, especially for a 1996, and flirted with a California impression. Aromas of anise and black cherry jam dominated the nose, which was almost Chunky soupy with its thickness. The palate was very wound and very New World, with a thick finish and lots of cola flavors. There was a muscly, monolithic edge to this infant of a red (95+M).

We finally made our way to the 1978 La Tache, which was one of the best bottles of this that I have ever had, and one of the best bottles of La Tache period that Wilf has had over the past few years. 1978 is a vintage that many lovers like to bash a little, but this bottle would have silenced any critic. The nose dripped with menthol, mint and game, displaying intense depth and richness. The palate was thick and creamy, tasty and still minty, with long, long acidity. Overall, the flavors were on the earthy side, but since this earth was La Tache, that was a very good thing. It had a mother’s milk goodness to its palate, and its acidity seemed endless. Some duck confit brought out ridiculous black olive flavors, and words like ‘catnip, syrup, flesh and goodness’ rounded out my notes (96+).

Unfortunately, a bottle of 1978 Henri Jayer Cros Parantoux was oxidized. Ouch (DQ).

We plucked a 1947 Drouhin Chambertin off the list next, whose nose was unfortunately slightly musty and corked, although Wilf and Raj found it ‘more mushroomy.’ The palate was still outstanding, rich and fat with amazing concentration. Beef bouillon and garden flavors graced the palate. Wilf commented how ‘1947 reminds me of 1996 with its high acid, but has more bulk.’ It had that old edge to it despite all its fresh qualities, and oat and tea flavors rounded out its hearty and citrusy palate, and Raj added, ‘coffee.’ It was quite reductive in all its raw materials, and it did continue to improve, almost overcoming its musty qualities. It was still a good drink, let’s put it that way. Wilf continued on his vintage analysis when asked about 1995, comparing that to 1976, although he did say that there were a handful of great 1995s for the producers who waited to pick after everyone else, mainly Roumier, Rousseau and . Surprise, surprise (95A).

We changed gears with a 1970 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape on Wilf’s recommendation as one of his favorite, old Beaucastels. I was just commenting how much I love old Beucastel, and how someone got a great buy at last week’s auction for a case of 1966 that hammered at $4000, and I couldn’t resist trying the ’70 for the first time, especially for the price it was on the list. It was a ‘wow’ wine, much blacker in style than any of the Burgundies, thick and oozing aromas of slate, which carried over to the palate along with olives, garrigue, spice and black cherry flavors. Its mineral components were mega, and its power for its age also most noteworthy. The wine was still inky! Smoke and wax rounded out this incredible Rhone (96).

We decided to refresh ourselves with some 1973 Pol Roger, which was interesting yet quite yeasty. The nose was gamy and full of stewed white fruits, along with some ‘wet bed’ per Chris. There was good freshness in the mouth with some white blossom flavors, but also some back alley ones. White chocolate wafer flavors emerged, as some air helped this older bubbly find itself in the glass (93).

The last wine on this extraordinary evening was a 1989 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet Les Ruchottes. We had intended to have an ’89 white earlier to complete our ‘on the nines’ white flight, but didn’t quite get around to it until now. This has always been one of my ‘pet’ white Burgundies, delivering grand cru complexity at a premier cru price, and this ’89 didn’t disappoint. In fact, it exceeded my expectations as I thought we might start to see some effects of age on it, but this bottle was perfect. Its nose was classic Ramonet ”“ rich, buttery and minty. There was deep fat here in a buttery, corny way. Its minty and (good) herbal flavors came to me as rosemary mint jelly ”“ that was it, wow! There was also honeysuckle, although Chris found a little benevolent ‘catbox.’ Someone admired its sweetness, and there were flavors of Corn Pops there (95).

It was a fitting opening to what will be a must destination in San Francisco for every wine lover.

Thursday night was the pre-paulee dinner, hosted by Senor Johnnes at the Bouley Test Kitchen, where David Bouley, Daniel Boulud and Michel Troisgros were all in the same kitchen chefing it up for the eager attendees. This year, the honored vignerons were Veronique Drouhin and Jean-Francois Coche-Dury. This would mark Coche’s first trip ever to America, but alas, the fates were not kind, and unfortunately his father passed away right before he was scheduled to come, so he had to cancel. Our condolences to Jean-Francois.

The show went on, and his wines were there to tell his tale, probably more effectively than Jean-Francois himself, since he doesn’t speak a lick of English and apparently isn’t the most forthcoming person in the world. We started with a flight of Rougeots.

The 2001 Coche-Dury Meursault Rougeots had the signature, smoky Coche nose with lots of kernel, butter, oil, smoke, toast and underbrush. The palate was smooth and easy, tender and round, suppler than I expected. There was still nice, hidden acidity in its wavy and wafery personality, and the finish was pleasantly dusty. Eddie noted the ‘reduction’ and found it ‘shut down’ (92).

The 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault Rougeots had a more minerally nose, more structure and elicited more oohs and aahs from the guests. There was this nutty, almost crusted edge to it. Its palate was delicious, in a good spot, balanced yet still with long acidity that was just starting to integrate. Tasty and poppy, or popping perhaps, the 1996 was just right (94).

The 1989 Coche-Dury Meursault Rougeots had a milky, mildewy nose, a touch weird. There was cracked rye crisp in the nose, but not much more. The palate was creamy and long, but flabby comparatively and had butter flavors as in butter that had started to turn. Some herbs came out in the nose, but it stayed yeasty, not off necessarily, but off :). Someone quipped, ‘It’s still village Meursault’ (88A).

I did take a sip from a second bottle, and it was much better and classic, so I knew for sure the first bottle was off, as the second was in the excellent, 93-94 point territory again. Chris hailed the flight, ‘a good intro to Meursault.’ He then asked me if I knew where he could get any Montrachet lol.

Things were looking up already, as the second flight was all Perrieres. The 2001 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was a little kitty that needed a bath. That blew off quickly into corn, nut and sweet, baked bread. The perfume started to unravel like bathrobes in a hotel room ”“ rather quickly, and that’s a good thing. The signature Coche kink followed, and a round, rich, sexy and smoky palate full of white fruit flavors was enough for a happy ending (94).

The 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was a little milky in the nose with waterfall aromas, a bit of jungle fever, some musk and finally crystallized fruit. The palate was a little back alley, confused and shut down, mildewy. Someone noted its ‘steely finish,’ while Wilf observed, ‘tanky resin.’ Chris found ‘chalky limestone and metal.’ Coche Diddy summated, ‘a great wine is good all the time.’ This one was still good, but disappointing (92A?)

The 1989 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was a bit stinky at first, with hay and char-grilled wood. Sunsetting yellow fruits led into a yeasty palate, which unfolded into a buttery and smoky finish. Flavors of oatmeal joined the party. The acidity and spice were super special, even more so after a little food, and the ’89 kept taking off ”“ up, up and away (95).

What, no Corton Charlemagne? Of course there was, but not at the moment. It was Drouhin’s turn at the wheel, and a pair of ‘60s magnums had everyone in the mood for peace and love. The 1964 Drouhin Romanee St. Vivant was a touch stewed, with meat, rose and iodine behind that fact. It was still hearty in that ’64 way with lots of beef and acid. There was richness and lushness at first, but the wine fell off a cliff and turned into putty within a very short period of time. There is no doubt that a perfect bottle of this would be outstanding, or close to it (91+A-M).

The 1961 Drouhin Romanee St. Vivant was incredible. It was so vibrant and high-pitched in the nose that it made time stand still. The acidity, the Vitamin C, the rose, the hips”¦it was zippy with the doo-dah-day. This wine showed the greatness of the 1961 vintage for Burgundy, still forgotten and in the shadow of Bordeaux. The wine was so tasty, with flavors of earth, citrus and rose. It made me want to smack my lips, and a thing or two (95M).

The second flight of Drouhin was all about the Amoureuses. I miss my Amoureuses. The 1990 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny Amoureuses had a beefy, stir-fried nose in the gamy and stewed direction. It was hearty and big and reminded me a bit of ’64, and Wilf agreed. There was nice backbone and slaty flavors but just not as much stuffing on the palate as I had hoped (91).

The 1985 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny Amoureuses was trufflicious, distinctive and good. There were pinches of waterfall and oats along with straw and cabinet action. The ’85 was classic and classy, and how I thought it would be and should be (93+).

The 1976 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny Amoureuses had a woodsy, cinnamon spice, was round and frankly not that interesting. Spice, citrus and dust were there, but I wrote ‘eh’ twice in my notes (87).

Roger pulled out a 1978 Drouhin Beaune Clos des Mouches, which was great and just delicious, perfectly sunsetting and oh so right. It was silky city. Round, earthy and pretty, the Clos des Mouches property always seems to deliver, both red and especially the white (93).

The flight of Musignys began with the 1989 Drouhin Musigny. There was lots of morning cereal in the nose, which was getting a little figgy with it. The ’89 was round and rich with a pinch of acid and marzipan-y flavors. The wine was pleasant, and the finish hearty yet dirty (92).

The 1985 Drouhin Musigny was a touch musty in the nose, but the palate was tasty. Eddie concurred, appreciating the palate. The palate was rich and round, a touch soupy in a good, light, creamy way. There were great earth and nut flavors and a touch of caramel (93).

The 1978 Drouhin Musigny was special. There was great tension from the very start. Aromas of oat, cereal, citrus, Worcestershire and taut, red florals combined with pinches of garden and beef for a complex nose. The palate was rich and long, with a green, leafy spice and beautiful poise and spine. This wine had me at immediate attention and kept it until the glass was empty (95).

We were back to the whites. I love a good flight of white Burgundy or Champagne after a bunch of reds or even in between. It really works well. The 2001 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was great. Its smoky, white minerally nose lured me in deeper. Cinnamon stick wrapped itself around me, and the nose was incredibly fresh, seeping from the glass. The palate was long and superb with great acidity, yet it was still so elegant. I know as far as reputation and even price, Perrieres can flirt with the Corton Charlemagne, but in reality the Perrieres didn’t come close. Sweet, white fruit flavors, super minerals and super spice meandered in the mouth, but with purpose. ‘Really good,’ summed it up (95+).

The 1996 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was also super, as always. There was more of a lemon ice-y sweetness here, and a more pungent twist. There was also a leathery spice to the 1996. Its flavors were gamier, and the 1996 clearly had the most depth in the flight. It was longer and finer than the rest. Thick but still elegant, the 1996 had me quickly forgetting the 2001 and looking for seconds (97).

The 1992 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was a bit anti-climactic and felt like it was starting to crack up. The negative side of 1992 came out in this bottle ”“ that rained-on garbage bag in the alley thing thing there there. It was round and pleasant, still good but not by comparison to the previous two, and not one to grow on (91).

It was on to Veritas for an after-party, and Big Boy was there waiting with a magnum of 1982 Louis Roederer Cristal Rose. He immediately hailed it as ‘very winy’ or it might have been ‘very wiry’ or maybe he was calling me ‘very whiny’”¦yup, it was that time of the night. The Cristal Rose was meaty and sturdy, lingering like great sex, possessing superb structure and that Rose goodness (95+M).

A 1978 Louis Roederer Cristal was a rare treat; it is a vintage that has mostly been consumed and not collected, but it held up well. It was much more mature than the ’82, a sign of the ‘82s quality, and ready to go. There was still some light spritz here, and mature carob and caramel flavors. Rob called it ‘clean,’ although I found a bit of back alley water to it along with garden flavors (92).

A 1969 Dom Perignon had the classic granulated sugar in its near-perfect nose. It was mature yet still fresh and young. The palate was long and spritely, with superb acidity and great, grainy flavors. Bobby also admired its ‘clean and young’ qualities. It was a great bottle (96+).

A magnum of 2002 Vosne Romanee Cuvee Duvault Blochet was sweet and young with a little banana peel appeal. It was easy like Sunday morning (92M).

A pair of fascinating Roumiers were next, beginning with a 1969 Roumier Morey St. Denis Clos de la Bussiere. Chris called it a ‘candy store’ while Neil admired its ‘weight.’ Pat thought the finish on the ’59 that followed was better, but the ’69 had complex aromas and flavors of black olives, sweet plums and prunes. It had great acidity, showing the best side of this dually regarded vintage. It was figgy yet not in that over the hill way (93+).

Brittain found that the 1959 Roumier Morey St. Denis Clos de la Bussiere ‘sinks into your skin.’ There was oat and brown sugar, more typical ’59 action, and it was round, soft and easy. I preferred the ’69 (92).

A few more wines followed, but the notes were done at this point. I do remember a 1982 Lafon Montrachet being excellent, I don’t remember the 2004 Liger-Belair Vosne Romanee Clos du Chateau that well, a 1996 D’Auvenay Puligny-Montrachet Les Folatieres was also excellent, as was the magnum of 1982 Chave. The Chave obviously stood out; its menthol and roasted earth were on full display like a spread peacock’s tail. Meaty, animalistic and rich, it was a great Chave (94M).

Day one still to precede!