My recent trip to Asia before my next trip to Asia (in two weeks) found me in Korea, and as I usually find myself, surrounded by a significant quantity of fine wines. This particular evening was all about Bordeaux, 1995 vs. 1996 First Growths, to be exact. It was a great mix of people, mainly young professionals very eager to taste these distinguished wines, and very eager for Korea to lower its somewhat prohibitive tax on wine.

We started with the Haut Brions, and the 1996 Haut Brion had a fresh, waxy nose, spiny and full of cassis, tobacco and nut, but wax was the dominant aroma. A pinch of green bean and a hint of chocolate rounded out the nose. The palate had lots of tobacco flavors with a hint of banana split, very dry but lighter than I expected. There were nice cherry traces on its finish, and solid earthy flavors. Its acidity was also solid, but the body was definitely light and its dryness a bit out of balance. It was still excellent, a clean and jerk type of wine, still with upside potential but definitely not an elite Haut Brion (93+).

The 1995 Haut Brion was much more cotton-candied in its nose, sweet and fragrant with a touch of pruny goodness. There was also wax, and earth and dust joined the party. The palate was more balanced, also with tobacco flavors and an earthy dryness, but better balanced with its cherry fruit and gamy flavors. At first, I preferred the 1995, but ultimately gave a slight edge to the 1996. It would be a recurring theme (93).

The 1996 Latour had a much deeper nose than either of the Haut Brions, brooding but also a bit horsey at first. There were pencil and black fruits behind that and a touch of toll house. The palate was big yet refined, with laser-like acidity yet still full of finesse. There were nice chalky flavors on its finish, along with animal and tobacco flavors. Someone with their Palm Parker out hailed it as ‘near-perfect’ lol. It got szechuany in the nose, losing its animal and green edges to become just what Goldilocks ordered (96+).

The 1995 Latour was rounder and more honeyed in its nose, with touches of cola and a hint of syrupy sweetness. It was perfumed in an angel food cake way. The palate was sturdy and rugged, also leathery and big overall. There were stewed flavors of black cherry and cola, and its stewed qualities were those of beefy goodness. However, the 1995 did lose a step in the glass compared to the 1996 (94).

The 1996 Mouton Rothschild was spiny and waxy, a la the Haut Brion. There was also plenty of cassis, or this black, perfumed fruit. ‘Chocopuffy’ was a new word that came to mind. Carob and caramel were also here in a ‘Milky Way’ way. The palate was very spiny and waxy as well; the acidity really stood out. Excellent flavors of cassis, dry blueberry, earth and leather were complemented by a hint of green. The wine stayed spiny, but it also got greener (94+).

The 1995 Mouton Rothschild was a bit Caliesque like a great Screamer. It was rich, lush and creamy with nice spice and exotic truffles and candied something. Powder also came to mind. There were delicious coffee flavors with the griiind, and the palate was rich upfront but soft on the backside. There were excellent flavors with nice roasted edges. I finally wrote that 1995s were better now, but that 1996s were better long term, although the Mouton ended up being a dead heat (94+).

The 1996 Lafite Rothschild left no doubt as to who was in charge, at least up until now. It was a lean, mean fighting machine! It was waxy and spiny like the other 1996s, but also elegant city. There was pungent anise to go with emerging cassis and nut aromas. Lit kindling and cedar joined the party in secondary fashion. The palate was super rich ”“ finally a 1996 with upfront density! It was not only rich, but also big and thick in the mouth, and its acidity was clearly the best of the bunch, so fine yet so sharp, as in ‘on point.’ There were green flashes like lantern, and its finish was precise, linear and singular in its greatness (97+).

The 1995 Lafite Rothschild had a tough act to follow. Its nose was one of baked chocolate croissant and deep cassis and plum. It still had a meaty nose, full of iron and more chocolate, yet it still retained a perfumed-like elegance. The palate was softer and more caressing, and the finish left a soft impression as well. The 1995 was a bit ‘lite,’ especially after the 1996, dry and a touch out of balance like the Haut Brion, still excellent but not as special after the 1996 (93).

Our last pair was Margaux, beginning with the 1996 Margaux. The Margaux nose was super sexy, jumping out of the glass with its candied edge, almost like a root beer float without the root beer. Make that an ice cream soda, that’s what it was, black ‘n white with a little egg cream. The nose was toasty, spicy and spiny, full of coffee, nut and leather aromas, with enough t ‘n a for an S & M dungeon. The palate was thick and long with great acidity, and flavor and aromas of beef bouillon complicated matters in this complex wine (97).

The 1995 Margaux was the best 1995 with its honeyed and caramel nose that was rich, meaty and sexy. A whiff of wood, mainly cedar, rounded it out. The palate was full of roasted cassis flavors and length. Interestingly enough, the 1995 was already throwing a ton of sediment (95).

It was back to the USA, where I would be quite busy at night for the next couple weeks”¦

This past week saw Wolfgang and I in Hong Kong together for a very special dinner celebrating his auction and cellar. It was a most extraordinary testament to a most extraordinary cellar. Amidst all the financial turmoil of the week, the dinner at Robuchon transported us to a place far, far away, about as close to wine heaven as one could hope. Every bottle, shipped from Europe to America and then to Hong Kong, was in ideal condition and showing phenomenally. It really does not get any better, and for this we had Wolfgang and his four decades of collecting to thank.

We started with a couple of bottles of 1988 Krug Clos du Mesnil. I didn’t have much time to take notes, as I was meeting and greeting everyone as they arrived. I kept insisting how wine is one of the better investments out there, especially now ”“ it won’t become worthless overnight, and at least you can always drink it! The Krug had a fresh, baked bread nose with aromas of anise and a twist of lemon. It was intense and full of spice. It was also rich and meaty in the mouth, with hints of wood flavors and great citrus tang. I don’t think I have ever rated a Clos du Mesnil, Champagne’s vineyard equivalent of Romanee Conti, less than 95 points, and I wasn’t about to start now (95)!

A trio of whites was next, beginning with a sexy 2000 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. Clean and fresh, it had that distinctive Coche nut/kernel kink along with baked, buttered corn aromas. There was also a touch of milk in its long, aromatic profile. It tasted great too, rich and round with superb acidity and lots of butter and mineral flavors. There was great toast and a rocky definition to its finish. Everyone admired its ‘minerality,’ although it lost a step over time rather than gaining, curiously enough (95).

We time-traveled back to a 1982 Lafon Meursault Perrieres. Obviously, the Lafon was much more mature but still fresh, displaying more of a yeasty, mature, buttered biscuit of a nose. Touches of wood, game and lit match were also present. It was rich, long, buttery and woodsy on the palate, mature but still solid and possessing nice grip on the finish, and a thickness not present in the Coche. Secondary aromas of marzipan, forest, seashell and almost scallop (no scallop served, by the way) joined secondary flavors of forest and wood (great ones, I might add). The Lafon held well, and while the Coche lost a point for me, the Lafon added one (94).

A magnum of 1986 Domaine de la Romanee Conti was our third and final white. It was an interesting contrast, the two Perrieres versus Montrachet, almost a handicap match that would make Vince McMahon proud. In the end, the big, bad Montrachet showed why it was still the king of the hill. It kept gaining and gaining and gaining, lasting well into the evening. Its nose was very exotic at first, showing off that ’86 botrytis, along with this saucy Asian sweet plum sex appeal. There is ‘huge potential still,’ admired one of our guests. Yeast, cobwebs and hints of tropical orange were also there. The palate was round and rich, also incredibly tropical with exotic honey, guava and orange marmelade flavors. Its acidity was holding on quite well, which many ‘86s cannot still say, and while it seemed to be plateau-ing, it also seemed to be capable of being there for a while, a sentiment that would get stronger as the night went on. There was great texture in this rich, long, round, gentle giant. A tomato dish really brought out its acidity more, along with exotic tea-like flavors and cement, the type of cement in a brand new, mint apartment building. Two hours later, it was still going strong (96M).

It was time for some reds, and we got right to the point with a 1947 Trotanoy. ‘Wow,’ started my notes. ‘Classic,’ was next. Aromas of rich, ripe plums, chocolate, raisins, citrus and mahogany were stratospheric in their presence. There was also a balancing pungent, rocky minerality after all these years. The palate was so round and lush it reminded me of what it must be like for a child to have ice cream for the first time. It was so chocolaty, so raisiny in that mature yet still healthy way. Its finish was chalky and stony, displaying superb acidity and a great minerality. There was almost a hint of apricot in this exotic red. Sweet and tender yet sturdy and strong, there was no doubt that this was hallowed ground, both 1947 and Trotanoy itself, which seems to be the forgotten great Pomerol (97).

The 1964 Petrus held its own against the Trotanoy. It was darker, thicker and firmer, nutty and even sturdier, possessing aromas of caramel, thick cassis, plum and more black fruits with a pinch of cocoa. The palate was fantastic, rich, thick ”“ did I mention fantastic ”“ I wrote it twice; it was that good. ‘Unstoppably good,’ I continued, as I could not stop drinking each of these two Pomerols. Stony, edgy, long, fine, earthy, hearty, rugged yet smooth ”“ that about summed it up. Old wine, people, that is what it is all about (96).

A trio of Bordeaux was our next flight, beginning with a magnum of 1986 Le Pin. Even though the Le Pin had been open and decanted for two hours, it was still tight; there is ’86 for you. Its nose seeped deep, deep purple fruit, sweet plum and cassis, as well as garden and sexy Pomerol cream. Its flavors were chocolaty and super stony, the whip of those 1986 tannins showing strongly, and its acidity remarkable. This was a big wine with big flavors and a nice edge, so chocolaty that ‘yum’ was appropriate, and green beans joined the party, in a good way. 1986 is one of those years where some Pomerols hit it on the head too, probably only tobe recognized many years down the road like 1952 (95M).

A 1982 Latour was a nice reference point, and about as good a bottle of it as I have ever had. Could I have expected anything less from Wolf? Classic aromas of walnut, cedar and spice slowly oozed out of the glass. Its length was noticeable right away aromatically. It was much nuttier than the Le Pin, both in the nose and in the mouth, where caramel, mineral and walnut flavors danced. The wine was very long and very fine, possessing that hallmark ’82 elegance and class yet still brooding like a Latour. It was stylish and so elegant, elegant like a hammer kissing a nail softly. Coffee flavors rounded out this special bottle (97).

Our last Bordeaux on this night was a 1975 Lafleur. Surprisingly ripe, the ’75 was much more open than I last remembered it. This bottle had the signature, kinky kirsch and black cherry jam aroma of mature Lafleur, extremely ripe and juicy in its fruit. The palate was thick and sturdy, spiny and possessing the best t ‘n a profile so far. If other wines were big, this wine was a monster. Thick and ripe, with additional flavors of black olives and earthy rust, the ’75 Lafleur was gamy, juicy and kinky, everything it was supposed to be. This evening was turning into a textbook night (97+).

Ahhhhh, Burgundy. The 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. just shattered every memory that I have had of this wine and immediately catapulted itself into the best ever category. It was ‘so aromatic, so pungent, so gamy”¦’ So? Incredibly ripe, there were sweet redcurrant and cranberry fruit aromas, along with great spice. On the palate, it was ‘so rich, so hearty, so acidic”¦’ So? Acidic as in great acidity, not heartburn, although the Ponsot did make my heart race! There was a rich, cranberry goodness to the flavor profile with a kinky raspberry twist. Monstrous and offthe charts, this was a ‘wow’ wine, and probably the best bottle of Ponsot ever made (98+).

As good as the 1979 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux was, the Ponsot made it difficult to notice. The Jayer had this herbal edge like pellet-ized grain. It was rich, sweet, round and gamy with cherry and vitamin flavors, but I think it would have showed much better had it been served first. Oops (93).

The last flight of Burgundy was a fitting closer, beginning with a stellar 1966 Richebourg. Aromas of vitamins, spice, spine, roses and cherry spilled out of the glass like beautiful body parts out of a designer dress. The palate was rich and hearty, full of acid, instantly achieving check plus plus plus status. Flavors of vitamin, citrus, rose, light leather and carob made it lip-smackingly good, along with touches of forest floor and animal cage. I was seduced by the Richebourg and left begging for more (96).

A magnum of 1966 Romanee Conti was next. Yes, magnum. There was more animal in the nose than in the Richebourg. The RC was darker and beefier yet reticent with hints of bouillon. It was an intense ‘stonewall’ of a wine, very gamy and hearty on the palate with flavors of rose, rich meat and minerals. It stayed hearty and improved, displaying more thickness and the directions to iodine city. While the Richebourg may have had more finesse and caresse, the RC made its point loud and clear (97M).

While that would have been a fitting ending, there were still two wines to go. The 1949 Leroy Richebourg was gamy and pungent, with even more animal and black fruits. It had a Lafite-like cedary edge as well. Long and rich, there were nutty flavors and nice citric spice on its earthy finish. It was the big yet square, make that squarer (94).

The 1983 De Fargues was an afterthought, but still excellent. Cotton candy city, rich, sweet, smooth, practically as good as Yquem”¦that’s about all I had left in me (93).

What a night. What a cellar. The economy will be just fine sooner or later, but there will be no cellar of Wolfgang Grunewald again.

A week after packing up Wolf’s cellar ”“ at least what he parted with, I should say ”“ I was back in Switzerland for a most special dinner hosted by one of Wolf’s dearest friends. It was a belated 60th birthday party for Hans Jorg (born in 1947), but I don’t think anyone minded much that it was a year late after being treated to an extraordinary lineup. When it comes to Wolf and his wine-drinking friends, apples do not fall far from the tree!

We started with a welcome 1998 Billecart Salmon Cuvee Nicolas Francois. It had a warm, inviting nose full of mature, yeasty notes, bright yellow sun-baked fruits and perfect toast. The palate was rich, creamy, spritely and delicious, full of vanilla and citrus flavors, and I was quite impressed given it was a 1998. There wasn’t the weight there of a truly great vintage, and its acidity was quite civilized, but it should provide excellent and earlier drinking pleasure for a while still (93).

We sat down to the first ‘official’ wine of the night, which was also a bubbly. There was only one rule for the night ”“ everyone must drink everything! A deep gold color and very slight petillance had every one guessing which 1947 Champagne it was. There was just a bubble here and a bubble there. Its pungent nose had lots of vanilla, almost a vanilla crunchiness to it, and there was also wood, caramel, straw and a combination of wet hay and wet grass. There was better sprite in the mouth, a Chateldon quality of a sparkle, very fine but bright with its lemony goodness. Hints of minerals, wet rocks and earth rounded it out at first. This bubbly kept changing, though, and its secondary aromas were all about dried fruits extraordinaire, this combination of apricot, peach, pineapple and banana peel. It got more stewed, in a good way, and the palate flirted with outstanding, but there was a hint of lightness in the middle. Some caviar brought it across the border; however, we were a bit shocked to find out this was a 1979 Krug Collection, out of magnum nonetheless. I have had infantile bottles of this, so even though this magnum was still outstanding, it was definitely a touch advanced (95A-M).

We had one white wine on this night, a white Burgundy, of course, also served out of magnum. It had a gorgeous nose, honeyed and dressed in white with aromas of acacia, lilac and honeysuckle. On the one hand, it was so sweet and so tropical, but on the other hand still so poised. All the shades of honey joined the party ”“ suckle, comb, nectar”¦even honeydew. Its floral components were definitely all white. The palate was round and softer than the nose, perhaps muted by the cold temperature at which it was served, but the white was still seemingly mature with its integrated acidity despite its youthful flavors. I noted that its acidity could also have been lost in its opulence, and sure enough the broth that came shortly thereafter helped the acidity emerge. Wolf observed, ‘honey, pineapple and botrytis.’ We were thinking ’85 or ’90, shocked to find out it was a 2001 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche! It was a fascinating follow up to the 2000 I had the night before, showing a lot of botrytis, indeed (93M).

It was time to get serious with some red, red wine. The first red had a great, old nose with the cobwebs, dust and leather, but still fragrance to its fruit. Sweet black cherry, cassis, a pinch of animal and an almost Asian, spicy glaze were all there in this alive and complex nose. Caramel started oozing out, along with some sautéed green beans. The palate was a bit simpler, ‘volatile’ per Wolf, who still conceded ‘beautiful sweetness,’ a ‘the sweetness of death.’ The palate was honeyed with hints of raisin and fig, round and fleshy without the flesh, lush without being chewy. It was soft, tender and caressing in the mouth, with dusty flavors of candle wax and walnuts. The intensity factor wasn’t much, but the beauty was still there in this magnum of 1947 Latour, and that is that ‘sweetness of death’ to which Wolf earlier referred (92M).

The next wine’s nose was all about the graham cracker at first, with chocolate behind it. It flirted with smores but was not that sweet. It was more gamy and ‘waxy’(Wolf, of course), with aromas of dried nuts and shells. The palate was rich and had excellent mouth feel and grip with its great citric spice, tang and long finish. Even Wolf cooed about its length. The wine was round, rich, tangy and long, still with excellent acidity. Flavors of carob and tobacco and a signature gravelly finish rounded out this excellent magnum of 1947 Haut Brion (94M).

The next red was also out of magnum, much lighter in color but still all about Bordeaux. There was a perfect balance of nut and cedar, complemented by an equally beautiful balance of fruits and nuts, along with ‘sweet roses.’ The nose was incredibly harmonious; rich, soft and tender with pinches of gas and earth. ‘Sweet and mellow,’ Wolf admired, calling it ‘more refined.’ Lafite? Ausone? This was grace in a glass, a charming, tender and easy wine, and sure enough was a magnum of 1947 Lafite Rothschild, what would turn out to be the most elegant wine of the night (94M).

The quality continued with a much deeper nose. Aromas of olive, forest, mushroom gravy, black fruits and a cardamom or something of the sorts were all present in this big nose. The palate was noticeably dry, a bit sun burnt in a black sand way. There were more tannins and tobacco present in this gritty red. It was not as seductive as the Lafite, but sometimes a spanking is in order lol. I liked the vigor in this magnum of 1947 Calon Segur. It was more muscle than charm, a sturdy, schoolyard bully of a ’47, and excellent though perhaps a hint brutish (93+M).

The next two reds stole the show, as they should have. The first had great cobwebs in the nose, like walking into a tomb full of wine treasure. Dust, leather, earth, carob and caramel were all there in supporting roles. A hint of Mouton mint and menthol crept in, but this was not Mouton. The palate was rich and saucy, chocolaty and minty. The acidity was superb and noticeably long, giving tremendous lift to an already spicy finish. Everyone quickly agreed that this was wine of the night, a true ‘palate coater.’ This magnum of 1947 Ausone was worth a trip to Switzerland! It was so minty and so delicious, rusty and spiny to the last drop. Traces of gardenia lingered in my empty glass (97M).

The obligatory magnum of 1947 Cheval Blanc followed. Oh, if you insist. The nose was coffee city; rich, concentrated and saucy. It, too, had excellent acidity and was very hearty, spicy and long. 1947 was a Right Bank year, after all. It became classically port-like with a little air time. Flavors of caramel, chocolate and motor oil were all there, and there was no doubting the quality of its intense grit, spice and spine. Walter, aka ‘Mr. Cheval Blanc,’ blessed the wine, so we knew we were good 🙂 The Ausone and Cheval were practically a dead heat, but in the end I preferred the Ausone. Walter then got up and proceeded to give a warm, heartfelt speech. Too bad it was in German lol (96+M).

But it wasn’t over! There were two dessert wines to go, the first being a 1967 Yquem. The Yquem’s nose was sweet and musky, classic with its candle wax, nut and caramel aromas. While it came across mature, its color was so young. Wolf picked on it, citing ‘a hint of bitterness and not quite perfect.’ After getting to know Wolf’s collection intimately, it is easier to understand how ‘not quite perfect’ is a letdown! It was still clean and fresh to me, with delicious flavors of caramel, orange marmalade, butterscotch, peach and apricot. It didn’t last long in my glass – yum (96).

The second Sauternes had a milder nose with more wax and honey to it and also seemed deeper, thicker and nuttier. The palate was much richer and oilier, full of coconut and smoke flavors. There was more acidity and pop here, but the 1947 Rieussec gave a clumsier impression and seemed simpler over time, albeit still excellent in its own right (94).

Happy Birthday Hans Jorg. To many more!

After a hard week packing up Wolfgang’s cellar, or should I say half of it, Wolf rewarded us with a tremendous dinner at Zum Gupf, a spectacular mountain retreat near Appenzell where you can actually see Germany and Austria. We sampled a quintet of wines from his cellar, featuring a pair of Romanee Contis and Leroys, two of his favorite things.

First, we set the table with a 1996 Krug clos du Mesnil. The razor-like acidity was incredible at first whiff, slicing through my nose with ninja-like dexterity. The nose was pure Krug with its vanilla cream and bright citrus rainbow. The palate was so fresh and zippy but somehow reserved. Its flavors still manged to last on my palate for over a minute. It reminded me of Romanee Conti (RC) with its extraordinary subtlety yet length. There were excellent traces of nut and wood in this Champagne that is as good as it gets (98+).

The 1982 Montrachet had a deep color and fantastic nose with an amazing balance of smoke and sweetness. Aromas of forest and Szechuan oil without the spicy edge graced its regal nose, along with butter, caramel and honey. Its palate was rich and sweet with lots of root vegetable flavors. Wolf found that it ‘shows botrytis,’ but its sweetness was not over the top, and it was in a perfect spot at age 26. The acisity was still solid even though the wine just melted in the mouth. There was great dust expression as well as well as toffee crunch flavors, and a ‘scotch-like complexity’ per Justin. Hints of mesquite rounded out this rich, supple and perfect expression of mature Montrachet (95).

A 1990 Leroy Latricieres Chambertin needed a minute to blow off its oak, but after that aromas of cherry oil, forest, earth, mint and basil. This was certainly a bull in the burgundy shop lol. Black cherry and strawberry joined the party, and this exotic Thai curry (wow!) along with cinnamon. The wine was a bit brutish after the Montrachet but still excellent and signature in style of Leroy. It got more Asian in its spice with a refill, its big beefy flavors balancing well with its leather, spice and spine. It got more purple in its nose, and a debate ensued whether this was poetry or rap. Either way, it had something to say (93).

The 1990 Leroy Richebourg was much beefier and brawnier, very brooding in style. Again, there was this initial whiff of wood, along with sesame oil and crunch. More animalistic, the Richebourg also had much more power, again big and bruising with more slate and mineral this time. It got saucier in the glass, concentrated and exotic, thick, burly and rich with its meaty flavors of beef and cola. Bouillon emerged, along with smoked almonds (95+).

The 1983 Romanee Conti was a fitting farewell. Exotic aromas of mint and vanilla first emerged, along with some tutti frutti and a hint of rot. It was still concentrated yet also light on its feet. The palate was thick and lush, so RC. The mint morphed into more spice cabinet, and rust crept in. It had that gout de terroir and rich, delicious menthol flavors. Its acidity was still remarkable for 1983, a year that always seems to setll please me when it comes to the best producers. There is no doubt that this is one of them (95).

It was a small selection, but one that proved the point yet again what a special cellar this is. I will always drink to it.