A recent evening spent with Mr. Roger Stein, who’s collection is being offered this weekend, had us sampling a couple of Roulots and Ponsots, in that order. The four wines we sampled were beautiful reminders of why Burgundies are some of the greatest wines on Earth, and often the most contested. These two producers are at the top of their game, and as this evening would prove, have been there for years.

We started with a 2004 Roulot Meursault Tessons, Mon Plaisir, which was clean, buttery and smoky in that signature Roulot way. The more I drink ’04 whites, the more hard-pressed I am to consider a better white Burgundy vintage so far this century. The Roulot was absolutely delicious, young yet approachable, decadent yet elegant, long and refined, bristling with minerals and a just-right kiss of wood. Its smoky flavor lingered, and this bottle wasn’t around long (93).

Next up was a 1990 Roulot Meursault Les Luchets, nineteen years old and still legal despite not being an official premier cru of Meursault. The Luchets was still singing, showing its age in a rich, complex way. It was very opened and honeyed, showing lots of yeast, and again that smoky Roulot style. Complex nuances of cobwebs, damp earth and old barn danced around its core of meaty, yeasty fruit. Its flavors were rich and fully integrated, holding on to its golden years, showing lots of honey and kinky fruit flavors. It was a welcome transition to the reds that were to follow (93).

A 1979 Ponsot Clos de la Roche was absolutely delicious. 1979 and 1980 seem to be forgotten years for red Burgundy, but every time I have had one recently they make me want to have more. There just aren’t that many of them still around, unfortunately. This Ponsot was in a perfect place, hauntingly good and showing mature aromas that were still very fresh. Black fruits danced around its nose, which had an earthy foundation that reeked of terroir. Chocolate, sandalwood and a catnip-like goodness rounded out its nose. The palate was in sync with the nose, showing similar characteristics, and going down easy. It was a pleasure to drink, mature yet capable of going another decade and then some, although it may never be better than it is right now (95).

The 1991 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes was inky by comparison. It was an adolescent next to the ’79, still showing lots of baby fat and thick, black fruits. It was very shut down after the glorious ’79, clearly possessing lots of raw potential, but unrealized at this point. Very thick and round in the mouth, there were lots of black fruits and even more concentration, but the definition needs to flesh out more. Compared to most 1991s at this point, this is far less advanced and has a long future ahead of it, but on this night, it was shut down and not that forthcoming (92+).

It should be a great week full of great Burgundy, especially Friday night and Saturday at Cru for our ‘Road to Burgundy’ auction. We hope to see you there in person, live online or in spirit!

Recently I had the opportunity to taste through the 2006 portfolio at a tasting held for select members of the wine media and trade in New York City. The event celebrated the release of the 2006s and was hosted by the always distinguished Aubert de Villaine, who guided us through the tasting as skillfully as he navigates through any given vintage. This was my most detailed snapshot into this ‘shadow’ year, lost in the shuffle of 2005, but a vintage that has already endeared itself to many Burgundian connoisseurs. One collector recently told me 2006 will be like 1993, where everyone overlooks it for awhile and then all of a sudden, ten years later, everyone will want it. Based on this tasting, I couldn’t disagree with that prognostication.

First, a few notes paraphrased from about the 2006 vintage”¦

Climactic conditions in 2006 were a bit wild and initially a source of anguish for many, but at the end of the season, optimism and confidence were restored. A long and unusual heat wave in July blocked the vegetative cycle of the vine, and an exceptionally cool and rainy August resulted in conditions favorable to botrytis, unseen since 1986. However, September brought hot weather, with barely any rain (only on the 23rd and 24th), and these perfect conditions allowed the vines to efficiently use the reserves of the rains of August in the soil. Ultimately, the grapes were as ripe as in 2005 at the time of harvest, at least for . While 2006 was difficult, it ultimately gave winemakers the tools to make great wines, provided that they harvested before botrytis set in too deeply. Low yields were also important to permit the grapes to achieve an early maturity for the same reason. Sorting was also crucial due to botrytis. The Richebourg was the first vineyard to be harvested on September 20th; Echezeaux was the last to be completed on the 27th. “If one can speak of a striking general character for this vintage, it is, indeed, purity: purity of aromas, purity of taste, purity of general expression, which is completely different from that of 2005, (which was) a rather bright, spectacular, symphonic vintage. In 2006 we hear chamber music with more discreet notes, but subtle and complex.”

Let the 2006 Vosne Romanee Cuvee Duvault Blochet begin. Purity did, indeed, jump out first. Cinnamon and spice were next, followed by taut black cherry, forest floor and a healthy whiff of healthy wood, cedar and mahogany to be exact. A hint of green olives rounded out the nose. The palate was round with gamy flavors, clean and silky overall. Flavors of stem, cinnamon, earth went with the cherry and rose. In retrospect, the Vosne Romanee was light, but light on its feet and dancing in the mouth (90).

The 2006 Echezeaux had a deeper, blacker nose with more crushed mint and rubber tire there. Cedar slowly slithered out, blending in with the rubber along with some matchbox, lit match, lavender and a purplish, floral complexity. The palate was rounder and lusher than the Vosne, and just delicious, with flavors of beet root, rhubarb, cherry, spice, cedar, mahogany and grilled meat. For sheer sex appeal, the Echezeaux was excellent (93).

The nose on the 2006 Grands Echezeaux continued the progression nicely with an even deeper personality. It was more coiled and wound, with more structure showing, along with lots of cedar and spice. It had bigger and exotic tendencies, almost peach or mango but not quite either, maybe apricot? It was flirting in those directions, and also had big-time rose and oil there. It was rusty in its vigor, but not much bigger than the Echezeaux as I expected. It was upfront but lacked the open quality of the Ech, but made up for it with its structure. That rubber tire emerged on its gritty finish with lots of earth, beef and cedar flavors. Overall, it had a much blacker style than the Ech and although not as delicious and sexy as the Ech, it had better long-term potential (93).

The 2006 Romanee St. Vivant had a bright nose and lots of cloves to go with its cinnamon, along with nutmeg; it was a veritable spice cabinet. There was high pitch to its spice, and a little baked Grandma goodness. The palate was the roundest and most balanced; in fact, the balance was exquisite, yet there was still stuffing. There was a leathery finish with a peacock’s tail, very coating. There were pure red fruits and a sturdy finish, and it stayed agile in the glass (94).

The 2006 Richebourg was stinkier than anything so far, with a bit of animal, wet hay and grass here. It was wild yet fleshy, full of character, the wine that wanted to stay up all night. Musk and a pungent goodness were present along with black fruits. The palate was cleaner and lighter than I expected, frankly a bit disappointing after the RSV, and a rare time when the RSV outshined its bigger brother. The palate was a bit watery upfront, still with nice, rosy flavors. There were some classic stems and cedar, and it did gain a bit in the glass, fattening and fleshing out (93).

Ahhhh, the 2006 La Tache. Here kitty, kitty. Life is too short not to drink La Tache”¦often. The 2006 was phenomenal. The breed and structure were a most noticeable step up. It was wound, giving me a medical emergency impression with its clean minerality and intensity. Some band-aids joined the party to patch things up, along with a little bread, rose, vitamins and bull’s blood. The concentration on the palate shattered everything prior and made me feel I should lower every other wine’s score by a point! It was so flavorful, full of great fruit and all the colors, also with incredible stems and vitamins. There was serious length to this ‘serious shit,’ which was denser and bigger and more brooding than anything else (96).

The 2006 Romanee Conti was neither last nor least. It was much more sensual and elegant than the LT in the nose, with more subtlety and complexity, though. It was more toasty, with aromas of cinnamon, baked bread, stemmy goodness, black cherry and also a glazed goodness. The palate had incredible spice and foresty fun; it hit the highest note on the piano. There was a divine delicacy to the RC, its palate endless like a ballerina who never leaves its toes. Aubert noted the ‘justability’ of the RC versus the ‘masculinity’ of the RC (95).

The 2006 Montrachet was one white that could follow up any flight of reds. That hint of botrytis that the growers had to deal with in 2006 was more evident in the Montrachet. The nose was sweet, aromatic and tropical as only the seems to be as far as white Burgs go. Aromas of candy cane and a minty sweet core were self-evident, but there were also great structure components to complement its sweetness. The palate was rich, buttery and lush, with butter dominating and tropical sweetness coming in second. Guava and mineral flavors rounded out this outstanding white (95).

So there you have it, 2006, admittedly looking down from 20,000 feet, but I am convinced this will be a true connoisseur’s vintage for many years to come, and one to have in the cellar for the most passionate of Burgundy lovers. What was interesting about the s was the fact that it was an underdog year; Ech outshowing the GE, RSV over Richebourg, and LT out-muscling the RC, at least at this stage. Go Knicks 🙂

The Inspector and The Don got together soon after Don’s Birthday bash for a small retrospective of 1973 whites. Even though I was a bit under the weather, I couldn’t resist such an invitation. We were joined by Nick and Geoffrey, and it was one of those rare evenings where the whites ended up being older and rarer than the reds. We still started with the whites, of course.

A 1973 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche had aromas of old honeycomb, wax, dried nut, yeast and orange marmalade. Secondary aromas of minerals, ale and white meat joined the party. The palate was round and waxy, old but not bad, with hints of dirt, stone and earth flavors. Geoffrey and Doug noted a touch of botrytis, and caramel did come out with a touch of cotton candy. It was flirting with excellence but missing that extra definition, which seemed to come out after a little food, and it gained in its acidity. It was likened to a ‘dry Sauternes.’ Honey and a hint of floral ‘sexy back’ rounded out this mature yet pretty wine (93).

The 1973 Lafon Montrachet had a big, bold nose, and Geoffrey was immediately preferring it to the Drouhin. There was almost cinnamon in the nose, along with aromas of tree bark, butter, game, smoke, toast and lemon. The palate was richer, lusher, toastier and longer, with a creamy, sexy quality. Geoffrey called it ‘gorgeous,’ and Doug ‘brilliant.’ The palate was round and rich, with flavors of cobwebs and nice texture and length. There was this almost cardboard edge that bothered me a little, but besides that this was a classic – fleshy, buttery and tasty stuff (95).

We had a head-to-head showdown of 1973 Montrachets, an original release versus the recent re-release from the Leroy cellars. The original had aromas of sweet acacia and honey, and then wildflower and lavender, almost like two pairs. Additional aromas of waterfall, morning dew, and more honey emerged. In the mouth, the was rich, big and tasty with great acid. Doug added, ‘lemon spice cake.’ This was long and longer with extended vim and vigor, but it fell off a cliff after about 15 minutes, becoming overly yeasty and full of morning mouth flavors. I couldn’t tell if the bottle was slightly affected or not. It was spectacular at first, but became perplexing shortly thereafter (93A?).

The re-release came across more artificially at first, with aromas of cinnamon and cleaner. Fresh and zippy, there was a hint of the original here but cinnamon dominated. The palate was round and long with nice acidity, and although this was leaner than the original, it did come across fresher. ‘One for the bitch,’ quipped the Inspector. He quickly got a call from headquarters and was instructed to attend sensitivity training the next morning. The re-release kept growing on me; it was clean and fresh, with almost a spritz-like zest, and the acidity was long. In the end, it came across pure and stylish, although it did need some time to find itself (95).

Geoffrey and I preferred the ‘Lalou’ bottling of , while Doug and Nick preferred the Lafon, although I did admit that if a 10 minute rule was in effect, the original might have won.

A 1985 Ramonet Montrachet was a welcome transition to the red wines. There was a yellow pungency to this wine, almost urine-like, but it was also buttery like a sautéed scallop with additional aromas of smoke and corn. Clean with aromas of smokehouse, sandalwood and charcoal, there was a lot going on here. Curdled flavors of rainwater and tang without the vitamin C were on the palate, along with white barbecue flavors. It was excellent but not as thrilling as other bottles of this wine that I have had (94).

A 1991 Grands Echezeaux had aromas of stems and bay water, salty and with additional aromas of dirty rose, beefaroni and lime. The palate was soft and polished, stemmy yet simple overall (91).

I must have been complaining about collections when someone said the following, ‘Whenever your tailor starts bothering you about your debt, order four more new suits.’ I am not sure who said it, but I had to include it!

The 1991 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg had a similar nose to the . Milk, stems, rose were there, along with that tangy, salty bay water thing. There was more definition and substance here, and the Meo was quite earthy. Although 1991 has a bit of a sleeper reputation for the reds in Burgundy, this duo left me a bit under-impressed compared to their usual lofty status (93).

We had to have one bottle of Rousseau to make up for its omission at Don’s birthday party, so we settled on a 1985 Rousseau Chambertin. The nose was classic 1985 with its sweet and nutty profile. Rich and gamy, the fruit was all about the cherry, but pruny as well. It was very aromatic, milky and foresty as well, with good bases of minerals and earth. Round, soft, easy and tender, the wine was gamy and friendly in the mouth, in a nice 1985 spot, but just missing a degree of ‘oomph’ that I was yearning. Nick and Geoffrey found it ‘fantastic’ (94).
It was another nice evening of Burgundy, a reverse night of old whites and younger reds, and a fitting encore to The Don’s birthday bash.

The first celebration of 2009 was a warm, welcome Happy Birthday for ‘The Don,’ the world’s pre-eminent collector of fine and rare Burgundy. If you had to bet on the size of Don’s collection, let’s just say that I would advise you to take the over! It was a milestone year being celebrated, and all I can tell you is that you probably wouldn’t want to drink much from his vintage, but you definitely would want to drink from his collection. He remains one of the most generous and passionate collectors in the world today.

Many of New York’s top wine collectors were invited to gather at Veritas, which closed for the evening in order to celebrate ‘and many more.’ Bottles were coming from every angle, and it was tough to hold down a decent conversation, as everyone’s eyes were wandering around to make sure they didn’t miss the any new bottles being circulated. It could only be classified as ‘Wine Attention Overload Disorder.’ I managed to take 26 notes myself; my problem was that there were many magnums and many seconds; oops, I did it again.

Everyone was welcomed with some 1996 Billecart Salmon Clos St. Hilaire, which was classic as always, racy like Nascar with its seemingly endless acidity. I am looking forward to drinking 1996 Champagnes for the rest of my life (96+).

A jeroboam of 2004 Henri Boillot Chevalier Montrachet awaited. Henri was actually there, in fact. There was great musk to its nose and super aromatics. Very perfumed and nutty, it was also sweet, buttery and youthfully intoxicating. The palate was smooth and lush with nice citrus, bread and mineral flavors and a dusty finish, perhaps a touch closed out of jero (93+J).

Sir Robert Bohr quickly offered up a 1986 Coche-Dury Meursault Chevaliers, which was very yeasty and nutty in the nose, bordering on a Chinese food impression. It was a bit dirty, still white meaty and nice, but starting to fade a bit and definitely very yeasty (91).

The third wine of the night was offered up blind by Fred, and it was an amazing shocker. The nose was similar to the Coche except it was bigger, smokier and more open. There was also yeast here, but more balanced within the nose, as well as butter and game, and a just-right hint of stew. The palate was delicious, full of matchbook flavors, as well as morning dew, milk, earth and toast. We were all pleasantly stunned to find out it was a 1973 Domaine Leflaive Puligny Montrachet! Not a premier cru, just the village wine. It just goes to show you ”“ producer, producer, producer (94).

There was a mystery magnum that turned out to be an outstanding 1992 Sauzet Batard Montrachet, but damned if anyone knew the vintage at the time. It was super spiny, wound and intense per the style of Sauzet, full of acidity and strength in the nose. Classic anise rounded out this behemoth of a nose. The palate was full of spine as well, long and yeasty and full of personality and flavor. 1989? 1996? Those were initial guesses due to the tremendous structure, but it was actually a 1992, and about as much structure as I have seen from this maturing vintage and an amazing feat. Sauzet seems to be the forgotten upper echelon producer in the hierarchy of white Burgundy (96M).

There was one more white wine for now, a 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault Chevaliers, which popped out of the glass as young Coche always does. Aromas of toast, kernel and a touch of cardboard (but not in a bad way) graced the nose. The palate was clean and fresh, tasty and full of kernel flavors and the big acid of the 1996 vintage (93).

I managed a glass of 1966 Faiveley Latricieres Chambertin as I finally headed back from the bar, I believe courtesy of Geoffrey. Old Faiveleys are real jewels, especially the ‘Latriss,’ and this was no exception. The nose was sweet and musky, gamy and ripe with cherry oil aromas. Sexy and sultry, the ’66 had great candied and earthy flavors and was very, very tasty (95).

1985 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses out of magnum? Sure, why not. Aromas of forest floor, mushroom, earth, game and incredible nut all balanced together perfectly. The palate was also in a perfect spot, as many great ‘85s are right now. Round and succulent, there was still great definition, spine, spice and leather flavors to balance with its deep, deep, dark, dark cherry fruit. Still satiny smooth, I was most impressed by this wine out of magnum (96M).

How about 1964 Pousse d’Or Volnay Les Caillerets out of jeroboam? Sure, why not. Although this jero was reconditioned and a recent release from the winery, it was about as good a job of reconditioning as one could hope for, providing both mature nuances and a fresh impression. The aromatics were great; leather, nut, minerals and stone stood on top of its sweet fruit. The flavors matched up well, and there were still mature game nuances along with excellent vigor, more so than if an original bottle, I’m sure. ‘Exquisite’ still summed it up (94J).

I grabbed a 1971 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses off the list before I could be accused of keeping my hands in my pocket and on everyone else’s bottles for the evening. What a bottle. The nose was divine, so sweet, so perfect, so 1971, a vintage I have always adored and not because it was my year! The aromas were plentiful and adorable; landscaped garden, sweet cherry, oil and nut were symphonic in their presence. There was still superb t ‘n a, enough to make me sneeze. The lightest glaze of caramel added to its already tasty and sexy palate. Meat, earth and game rounded out the palate, although Big Boy found a minor flaw, calling it a touch beefy on the palate and gave it only, ahem ahem, oooooonly 95 points. Big Mike commented, ‘the nose, you can’t get any better, but the palate is better on the ’85.’ I liked the two vintages equally for different reasons, and saw both sides of this rare coin (96).

Roy threw in a magnum of 1993 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses to keep the love going. The nose was deep, dark and inky. Iodine, band-aid and rich, deep, dark purple came to mind. The deep and dark trend continued on the palate for this infant of an Amoureuses. There were lots of vitamin flavors here, and the wine still left a round and balanced impression. I am going to love you 1993 long time (95+M).

A white intermezzo slipped its way in front of me, a magnum of 1990 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. Can’t say no to Les Clos. The nose reminded me of a stony waterfall in the Amazon, with of touch of sweet cotton candy and a twist of citrus. It was also waxy. The mouth was rich and honeyed with great citrus and wax flavors, a continuum of the nose (95M).

The first of a handful of wines was next, a 1966 La Tache. It was a touch dirty at first, which is consistent with most of my notes on this vintage for La Tache, but it blew off and sweetened out into beautiful rose, sweet cherry, earth, musk and a touch of ‘BM’ in a baby goodness way, keeping the dirty in the birdie. There was a touch of celery and stalk in the mouth to go with its rose and cherry flavors, but the wine never completely lost its dirtiness (94).

A 1972 Vogue Bonnes Mares was exotic and tropical, stunningly so. It was extremely open in an apricoty way and had much less tomato than I remember for a typical ’72. The palate was rich and round, tender with a little sidekick, and impressive overall for this vintage (93).

A quartet of Roumier Musignys was next served blind, a group effort. The first bottle had some issues and was a little oxidized. Too bad, as it was the 1995 Roumier Musigny, which some felt strongly would win the flight. Stewed vitamins, meat, iodine and nice leather were about all I could come up with. It was still somewhat drinkable, but not with fourteen wines down and three more Musignys up (92A).

The second Moose was stemmy and complex with lots of forest spice and a nice milk and leather combo, halter-top style. Nice spice, outstanding spice, I continued. The palate was smooth, surprisingly velvety and plush, but it was more polished than I expected. It was the 1996 Roumier Musigny. I could taste the 1996 in it, but very faintly (94+).

The third Roumier of this flight got a ‘big, incredible’ from Big Boy, and Inspector Barzelay was loving the tannins. The nose was very nutty, with aromas of sweet caramel and light, perfect toast that was caviar-ready. There was great fruit in the mouth, which was tart and tender with beautiful acidity and stem flavors. The 1988 Roumier Musigny was in a great spot and really, really good. 1988 was a special year for Roumier and a few others that made indubitably great wine (95).

The final Musigny also got an ‘incredible’ from Big Boy. The ‘killer bees’ DB, RB, and BB quickly crowned it wine of the flight. Anise was the first thing that jumped out at me. Leather, stone, shoeshine, spine, meat and distinctive grape nuts (as in the cereal) all followed. It clearly had the best tannins of any wine in the flight as well as the longest finish; of course, it was the 1993 Roumier Musigny. Many flip-flopped or were divided between preferring the 1988 versus the 1996, but no one could deny the 1993 and its very concentrated personality. WOTN (97).

A 1978 Richebourg appeared courtesy of Airplane Eddie, who decided he had to bring some Conti and order to the proceedings. The ’78 was full of menthol and dripping with oil in its nose, 1978 the right way, I wrote, as some have complained about bottle variation amongst the ’78 s. This one was A-OK. Doug guessed ‘78 RC or Riche.’ Impressive. I guess it was served blind! It was fresh and with a pop to it, but the palate was softer than the nose led me to believe, and there was a touch of almost spritz or CO2 there that was peculiar, not off, but peculiar (94).

A magnum of 1983 Clair Dau Bonnes Mares was excellent, and another solid 1983, which I have been enjoying here and there over the past couple years. Black licorice dominated initially, opening up into nutty, Burgundian fruit. The flavors were also licorice, and the wine was fleshy and tasty with a nice finish, in a good spot and a good showing for this oft forgotten vintage in Burgundy (93M).

Neil pulled out a gorgeous 1982 Henri Jayer Echezeaux. Jayer was a master of the ‘off’ vintages, and this was no exception to that rule. The nose was round and smooth, wine catnip. It was chock full of character, rich, full and complete. Plums and nut danced around the nose, and the palate was ‘wow’ tasty, with the perfect amount of sweetness and game. Yum (95).

What the heck was this, a 1991 Guigal Cote Rotie La Turque? This wasn’t Burgundy, this was an impostor! Ok, I won’t go any further and shame the person that brought it (Michael you know who you are 🙂 ), but I must say that I was actually stunned how Burgundian it was. I am not sure if it was the circle of influence, the actual wine, or the fact that my senses had been drowned in Pinot, but the La Turque actually fit right in and was outstanding (95).

It was getting late, and a few started to trickle out the door. It was time to separate the alcoholics from the men lol. Doug pulled out a rare 1915 Faiveley Bonnes Mares. Aromas of oat, hay, brown sugar and cereal were all there. It had that old, chapitalized feel, toasty and sweet, earthy and still possessing some freshness, still very good and a fascinating trip back in time (92).

I wobbled over to a 1978 Dujac Echezeaux. Aromas of garden, ‘bubble bath,’ play dough, musk, nut, game, black cherry and forest floor were present, and noted as a group effort. There was a nice sweetness to the palate on this excellent wine (94).

There were a couple of big cannons at the end of the night, although they didn’t quite go off as planned. A 1949 Roumier Musigny was unfortunately corked and tough to get into beyond that, although it did have great mouthfeel. What a shame (DQ).

Then there was a controversial bottle of 1945 Romanee Conti. Inspector Barzelay was all over the potential crime scene. First, my observations, in non-sentence form: ‘Aromas of old cherry, old vitamins, old book. Gamy and super old with amazing aromatics and lots of cobwebs. Rose, menthol and mint, all the classic components. Gamy but a touch stewed. Mouthfeel lighter than it should be but aromatically right on.’ Even the Inspector admitted that the aromatics were typical old RC, but he could not get beyond the fact that the mouthfeel was not as thick or rich as his memory served him, nor mine for that matter. It was definitely ‘45-lite,’ but who is to say that it is not bottle variation? I definitely couldn’t say it wasn’t what it was supposed to be. Old wines can be extremely variable, even within the same case. I still thought the wine was close to outstanding, but definitely at the bottom of my ’45 experiences, all other of which have been religious. Rob also felt the bottle was stewed and a bit affected, not in perfect condition but still special (95A?)>/b>

I think we covered most of the major food groups ”“ sacre bleu! No Rousseau? How did that happen? And Don is probably Rousseau’s number one fan”¦encore encore, anyone?
It was another special night, celebrating an even more special man. Happy Birthday, Don.