I know everyone thinks that I am out every night of the week drinking like I am starring in Leaving Las Vegas 2.. Well after the last three months of 2005, I felt like I had been on about twenty too many auditions, and I started to lay low, save new Year’s Eve as you all know about already. The laying low has continued, but the second week of January brought me out to Los Angeles for some work in a cellar and a notable night out, at least one where I was actually taking notes.

It is only fitting that my first official tasting of 2007 would be with the Royal Order of the Purple Palate, Dr. Desai presiding. It was good to see the gang, including a couple of emergency substitutes, which were already part of my gang anyway.

A blind Champagne was served out of magnum. It was light and without a lot of flavor definition, still possessing nice acidity but without flesh. There were rainwater flavors; it was smooth and long but seemed like a non-vintage blend on steroids at first. It was very dry and bready, more back street than opening night, but also more stylish and racy over time. It was a 1990 Pierre Moncuit Le Mesnil. (90).

All wines are served blind at a Purple Palate event, and we started with a flight of three whose clue was same grape, same region..

The first wine of this flight was very aromatic with a lot going on in its nose. There was fleshy fruit, exotic mint mocha chip and tobacco like a wet cigar leaf. It also had caramel, more mocha and this exotic smoked meat quality. Touches of grape and lavender rounded out the nose. Its mouth was tasty with lots of rocky flavors, cassis and dirt. It was a touch burnt, but in a good way. Christian admired its incredible texture and sweetness, as did Joe. It was a 1959 Heitz Pinot Noir. Who says Cali is a Cab, Cab world (95) ?

Although I have given away some general information about the flight, at the time I was writing this note, we were all still clueless. The second wine was even more mint chocolate chip than the first, sweeter and with more tobacco, also eucalyptus, oak and vanilla. It had nice balance, round and with a bit of ice cream flavors. It was smooth, long and a bit oakier but not offensively so, and it also still had good acid for a 1952 Pinot Noir, a 1952 Martin Ray Pinot Noir, to be precise (92).

There was one more wine in this rare and fascinating flight, and it was the sweetest of the three, very decadent and port-like. Open and exotic, Wolf remarked how it shows so much wood, and Jefery concurred with .vanilla and oak.. It was Wolf’s least favorite of the flight, but I liked its creamy and caroby palate, also marked by hints of smoke and citrus. It was chunky and had some soda aspects to its flavor profile, but it was also figgy, fleshy and seemed more advanced. Well, it was the oldest of the flight, being a 1949 B.V. Beaumont. Pinot Noir. Obviously, Beaumont carried a little more weight back then than it does now as a designation (93).

Once the flight was revealed, a heated discussion ensued. There was a general consensus that the flight was a bit Cabernet-ish in style, and Christian commented how perhaps a bit of field blending. occurred. Then Ed gave a fascinating tidbit about how back then, that taxes were different for different grapes, so it would not be surprising if winemakers put Cabernet in a Pinot bottle to pay less taxes since Cabernet was the most highly taxed grape! He then commented about how the flight reminded him of a decade in Burgundy when he just started drinking, the 1830s. Just kidding, Ed :).

The next flight.s clue was same vineyard, three different vintages, flown in by the proprietor.. Leave it to Bipin to get one of the greatest wineries in the world to hand-fly in a flight of wines for his monthly get-together. That’s Big Boy Style, although Bipin is never one to admit it!

The first wine had a mature nose yet was still fresh. Apple, cassis and plum were all there; the nose was definitely full of fruit. Musky, nutty, sensual and long, its nose was matched by its palate, which was rich, meaty, round, long and balanced. Its mouth-filling personality had great flavors of earth, chocolate, tobacco, caramel and citrus. Ed and Joe admired its raisiny ripeness. and concluded it had to be a wine from a warm weather climate. Eventually, we were informed it was a 1953 Vega Sicilia Unico (96).

The second wine was aromatic and smoky with sun-dried, red cherry fruit and tobacco aromas along with a dollop of citrus. Smooth and balanced, the wine was drier than the first, long and nutty with great spice and acidity. It kept gaining in the glass, impressive for a 1942 Vega Sicilia Unico (95).

The final wine of the flight was a 1964 Vega Sicilia Unico. A forgotten Unico, the 1964 reminded me that there is no such thing as a bad vintage of Unico. Its nose was chunky and chocolaty, yeasty yet fresh. There were aromas of egg, earth, tobacco, smoke and cassis. Tasty and with great length, the 64 was dirty, smooth, fleshy and chocolaty, also possessing great acidity (95).

Inspector Levy noted how there was not as wide a difference (between the wines) as the age.. Hmmmmmm. They released that 1970 how many years ago?

There was one flight to go, whose clue was Consecutive decades, same grape variety from two small properties sharing an ancient name.. Got all that?

The nose was a bit different in the first wine with this pungent, twisted, spiny character and lots of Worcestershire aromas. Very beefy in a bouillon way, it was long and kissed by mature barley and earth flavors along with oil, plum and petrol in this very deep wine, a 1959 Leroy La Romanee (93).

More chocolaty, dirty and a bit grassy, the second wine in this flight was very rich, also with lots of bouillon. Earth, band-aid and mushroom tea (don.t ask me how I know that one) flavors were present in this wild, wooly and dirty 1949 Marey-Monge Romanee St. Vivant. This was the property that eventually purchased (91).

The last wine of this flight had the cleanest nose of the flight with its fresh, citric vigor and tang. Earth and lemon made their way to the foreground in this spiny and vigorous wine, which did seem slightly chapitalized, but I still liked it. Wolf complained that it was too young. and questioned whether it was doctored.. Well, it was a late release Leroy, a 1961 Leroy La Romanee the RD of vintage wines (94).

There was a dessert wine, but in case you haven.t noticed, I don.t pay much attention to those. Having arrived from the East coast just a couple hours before dinner, it was time to say good night.

This year, Big Boy had an intimate gathering of 15 or 20 close friends at his home in New York City, and I was one of the invited guests. It was the perfect remedy for what traditionally has been a night that I stay in, as in New York City it can often be amateur night without the Apollo.

We had a quick pre-game huddle and decided that we would drink Champagne from 7:30-9pm, change it to red wine until 10:30pm and then finish with Champagne for the rest of the night. It was a good game plan.

A magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon Rose kicked things off, and Jim and Wendy were all over its strawberry and cream. aromas. That was the nose in a nutshell, which also had excellent freshness, complementary rose, subtle earth and white chocolate. There was also nice freshness in the mouth with good vim and fine bubbles. It was not superlative Champagne but was solid, a little dirty in its flavors on its long finish. The acidity seemed to be going with the wind (93M).

The magnum of 1966 Moet Brut Imperial that followed had a gorgeous nose of honey, nut, cream and toast. There was great blend and balance, and it was still fresh with warm, medium-bodied straw and earth flavors, a touch of yeast, and again a bit of a dirty finish. There were also tasty yellow fruit and gold dust flavors. A lot of people preferred this to the 75 Rose (93M).

That was a big bottle of 1975 Bollinger RD, a jero to be precise. Jeros always seem so much bigger when you are trying to actually pour one! Big Boy was a bit aggravated, as he felt the 75 was not cold enough.. This bottle was re-disgorged in 1996 and had a very wafery nose, very distinct. There was supporting straw, yeast and sun-dried yellow fruits. It was lightly creamy and lightly tasty, and then tootsie pop aromas developed, and I got seconded on that emotion. There was not a lot of fruit definition in the mouth, which gave it a lighter-styled impression. There were baked bread and earth flavors, nice sprite and decent acidity. Wendy came up with .cookie dough and baked pineapple. aromas along the tootsie pop lines and also admired its effervescence. Jim finally noted that it tastes younger. You can tell about the RD. (91J).

That was all the time left in the first period, so we segued into some red wines. First was a magnum of 1929 Haut Brion, from the same batch that I had at the Top 100 Weekend in October. It again delivered a complex experience. Rob noted that it was so Burgundian, while Wendy admired its Asian spices. Tobacco, leather, mesquite and espresso bean were all very expressive, and despite these aged aromas dominating, there was still a healthy dose of cassis fruit underneath it. Wendy picked up on green tea and saffron.. There was still amazing color to this gravelly magnum. Its palate was pretty, less complex than its aromatics with nice flavors of Worcestershire, citrus and mocha. Paul found smoked sausage, and Teona even got into the act with antique wood.. It was very consistent with the Top 100 magnum. It got tangier, prompting Rob to say drink em up. This is totally integrated and ready to go.. Tasty, balanced and smooth, there were nice, cedary flavors and still light vim on the finish (95M).

A 1952 Cheval Blanc magnum was next. 1952 is one of my favorite Right Bank vintages and still a bit of a secret. Someone admired its smoky. nose. I found its nose to be incredible, full of crushed red fruits, sweet black cherry liqueur and oil, musk, marinated lamb, and nice floral sexy back. behind it. It was black and blue and red all over, symphonic in its aromatic display with touches of bramble, cigar and leather. It flavors were pure, its balance between fruit and finish superb, and its definition extra special. There was still a prettiness to it, its length and backside both elegant and firm. Wendy and Jim combined with .lavender, tea leaves, hoisin, Worcestershire, Burgundian, spectacular.. It was pretty special (96+M).

The 1978 Gaja Barbaresco held its own after the Cheval, but it was a touch corked, but not enough to cloud the judgment or experience of it. There was still the classic tar and leather, along with a bit of motor oil. It was very wound with a lot more structure than I expected. It was very spiny, possessing extraordinary acidity in the mouth. It was very schreechy, long and earthy with a hint of potpourri (93M).

The 1978 P. Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle. had a spectacular nose, singing with that Rhone bacon and menthol, as well as some good barnyard, as Jim noted, but it was a barnyard distinct for the Rhone. It has slow and slithering t n a, an anaconda of a nose almost, along with great spice and beef. Wendy picked up on .saltine. and wintergreen.. It was smooth and tasty, but there was not an ocean of acidity left nor a lot of tannins. Wendy accurately observed. The thing about 78 La Chapelle is that every time I seem to have it, even out of magnum in this example, it seems to be approaching full maturity and not this colossal infant that many people perceive it to be. Don.t get me wrong; it was a great bottle of wine but one that I always seem to expect more from (95M).

Wine time was over, and it was time to batten down the hatches and drink a lot more Champagne. If there is anyone in America with a greater Champagne collection than Big Boy, then I want to meet him! There were plenty of options on hand, but Rob wanted to freshen our palates back up with a 1996 head to head match-up of Salon vs. DP Rose. These were both served out of bottle and the only things on this night not served out of larger format.

The 1996 Salon was served out of a successfully sabered 750ml. There were actually four successfully sabered bottles by our host, who must have been practicing a lot on cases of Korbel or something, as he had it down. The 1996 Salon was like the razor’s edge; there was so much vim, vigor and acidity here it was like being in the eye of a storm. One could see the greatness of the 1996 vintage in the Salon, which was fresh as a baby.s bottom. It was white meaty underneath that 1996 greatness; so balanced, so long, so stylish and deeply penetrating. Rob gave it 6 stars. Incredible. Pure Blanc de Blanc Le Mesnil. No dosage.. It was probably the greatest young Champagne that I have ever tasted (97+).

The 1996 Dom Perignon Rose was no match for the Salon. Wendy called it a disservice. to serve this after the Salon. There were light rose and pink grapefruit aromas. It had some intensity and length to the palate, lots of acid but a softer character of flavor, and lots of dirty earth flavors on the finish as well, much like the.75 and 66. It just didn.t stack up to the Salon (93).

Magnum force returned with a 1959 Pommery. Someone called it Vahlrona chocolate.. It did have an exotic nose, a bit wild and wet, yeasty with some swimming pool there. Its wine-like palate had tangy fino flavors on its finish. It had tasty, creamy and nutty flavors, and cocoa traces on the finish (91M).

Jim and Wendy had most generously brought a magnum of 1959 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, which was the most exotic and complex&wine of the night. It first revealed cream and orange soda qualities and was a bit reserved. It became milky, earthy and white dirty in a good way. Wendy called it .fruit salad. due to its tropical exotic edges. It was very wine-like, and much more complex in the mouth. It actually drank like a fine, aged Montrachet. It was incredibly buttery, and even Pat separately noted how it was like a nutty, old Montrachet. and also picked up on .canteloupe.. Comtes de Champagne is 100% Chardonnay and a Blanc de Blancs Champagne. The butter, the toffee, the toasted nuts; it was an insanely good white Burgundy, more special by the fact that it was almost 50 years old. Many great old Champagnes become wine-like, and I have come across no finer example of that fact than this 59 (96M).

A magnum of 1959 Dom Perignon had a touch of freshwater to it, a pinch of good stalk and white sugar aromas. It was the freshest of the 59s but also had a weird, indoor wax aroma. It got more sugary in the glass along the line of a Dr. Brown’s celery soda and was good but not a standout after the Taittinger (92M).

Finally, some Krug. However, the magnum of 1962 Krug Private Cuvee Extra Sec was oxidized and very flat (DQ).

No fear, the 1964 Krug Collection was here. It was great, also having that younger quality of the Bollinger RD as Jim referred to, but Rob was adamant that Krug does not disgorge with younger vintages as other houses might, because that is what Remi Krug told him and is also so fresh due to the steel corks that they age the bottles with. So I asked Rob to ask his good friend Remi Krug himself about what happens behind the scenes at Krug, whose response was:

.Disgorgement is the ugly name for the operation by which the sediment formed in each bottle by the secondary fermentation is expelled out of the bottle, allowing the Champagne to be bright and limpid as one expects. As such, every champagne must be disgorged. At Krug, we usually do this 8 months to one year prior to expected shipment date. This is a minimum because, for some of our wines, and in particular for Krug Collection vintages, there may be a much longer period of time between disgorgement and shipment. There is no mathematical time. It varies as we feel best appropriate.

This being said, disgorgement date does not have, for Krug, the importance that some people believe from what they hear as the truth for some of our colleagues. The exceptional and well acknowledged longevity of Krug results from ( i ) the quality of our very strict selection of grapes, ( ii ) our unique first fermentation in small oak casks which literally “vaccinates” our wines against future oxidation and consequently grants them this extraordinary longevity, and, finally, ( iii ) the quality and harmony of the blend itself. These are, for Krug, I insist, the real reasons for the extraordinary taste developments over many years and even decades. In this very specific context, the disgorging date is a minute detail of no real importance.

And, beyond all this, there is, of course, ( iv ) the storage conditions. Ideal here in Krug cellars, near to perfect at the most serious wine stores&this can really affect the ageing pace of any great wine. You should always buy your great wines from great wine specialists..

It was much more intense than the Bollinger; big, full and long, there was great sprite here. It was rich in the mouth with intense straw and cream flavors, highlighted by white truffles dipped in chocolate. Yum (96M).

The ball dropped, and a jero of 1949 Pommery came out. Having recently had both the 53 and 47 Pommery out of Jeroboam with Big Boy, he mentioned that he had saved the best for last. Clearly, that was the case. I had never seen anyone saber a bottle of champagne, let alone a magnum, but when Big Boy sabered the 49 Pommery jeroboam, holding the pundt in one hand and the saber in another with no outside assistance after nearly five hours of imbibing, i knew we were in an official wine twilight zone. Fresh, special, pure and long, the Pommery was light on its feet yet packed a punch (95J).

Last but not least was a magnum of 1961 Dom Perignon .Charles and Diana Wedding Cuvee.. This was specially released from Dom Perignon for the Royal Wedding. Big Boy got a few cases when he recently acquired Buckingham Palace. Ok, so maybe he only made an unsolicited offer. Pat found the 61 Krug-like.. It was fresh, long, spiny and had a vigorous and intense palate, an outstanding Champagne (95M).

The notes were waning, and the dance floor was heating up, as Big Boy turned his living room into the Marquee and led the booty shaking. It was a great way to ring in 2007.

I’m back.

This past October I decided to schedule year three of our Top 100 Wines of the Century. weekend the same weekend as THE Cellar II. auction. I figured that there was some great potential energy for the weekend, not keeping my own personal energy in mind. The combined attractions certainly resulted in the most significant wine weekend in modern history.

Thursday night’s pre-auction VIP dinner, which I have already written up, was Top 100. worthy as well, so this marathon of a weekend had an early start for many of us. After an exciting first session at the auction Friday afternoon, I slithered upstairs to Per Se from Café Gray for the official first session of our Top 100 weekend.

We had an auspicious beginning with a bad batch of 1976 Salon (DQ).

A flight of Coche-Durys hence began the festivities, beginning with the 1996 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. The nose was very fresh with great spice and was signature Coche all the way. Its great aromatics of white toast, kernel and sweet buttery fruit were perfectly balanced by its superb minerality on the palate. Beautiful, pretty, long and smooth, I found it to be outstanding, despite a touch of shyness in the mouth. Mark noted a lot of smoky, toasty Coche qualities&a little closed and needs time, at a bit of an awkward stage. (96).

The 1995 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was similar to the 96 in its Coche. qualities but more forward, quite perfumed with more white floral components. Its flavors were floral as well, snow white ones that were supported by minerals. The 95 was fatter in the mouth but a hair clumsier, but not enough not to be the categorical equivalent of the 1996. Its more forward qualities, led by smoke and minerals in the mouth, made up for the fact that it had less manners than the 1996. If the 1996 was a wide receiver, than the 1995 was a linebacker. Mark found it fabulous. accordingly (96).

The bottle of 1992 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was noticeably sweeter in the nose with a touch of sugar there. The nose seemed looser and not as well-knit as the previous two wines, as if it was starting to crack up a bit. There were also hints of vegetable and what I call alley. to it, but it still had the class of Coche as well. Sometimes even the classiest of people find themselves in the wrong part of town! I found the 1992 to be a lesser wine than the 1995 or 6 and less thrilling than previous bottles I have had of this wine in years past, which could have been the bottle or the fact that this was a wine/vintage that was better a couple/few years ago. Still smooth and satiny, the 1992 was holding onto excellence but lacked the character of the other vintages for me, although its nose was called spectacular and tropical. by Mark, who cited Chevalier character. (93).

Last in this flight of four was the 1990 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. Mark found it a bit disappointing and lacking, but I was enamored with its beautiful, pure, long and smooth nose. Nutty with a touch of minerals, I saw what he meant by lacking. when comparing to the others, but I found its style to be very balanced, elegant and pure. Dried corn and white smoke flavors prevailed in this distinguished white, which had nice minerality and hidden acidity on its finish (95).

The introductions were over, and it was time for some reds. A flight of Meo Richebourgs was next, beginning with the 1993 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg. .Great nose, I wrote. There was fabulous perfume, mint, spice, spine, menthol and pure Richebourg fruit behind it. Still taut and with loads of t n a, it had mouth-searing acidity, as Ray pointed out. The palate was still a baby with lots of taut tannin, edge and earth but still excellent fruit. Someone noted its dense black fruit and great acidity. but found it not expressive.. It did need more time, but I still feel that there is one way to sum up the 1993 vintage in Burgundy: Buy. (96+).

The curse of Allen Meadows seemed to haunt the bottle of 1990 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg. For those of you that do not know, that curse is Allen’s opinion that the 1990 vintage is not as universally great as many perceive, a touch overripe with many wines starting to crack up. I am in the middle of the debate, finding that there are still many superlative 1990s; but indeed, there are many wines that are starting to fade and showing stewed qualities. Anyway, this 1990 was remarkably more forward than the 1993, exotic and a bit wild by comparison, open with its mélange of black and crushed red fruits. Oily and saucy, the 1990 also had blackboard and earth to its nose. There was even more fruit in the mouth but less balance. Its backside had good acidity but was a bit disjointed and a touch roasted in its flavors, roasted and overripe. to one. There were a lot of both positives and negatives in this Dr. Jekyll of a wine, but the fact that it lacked a bridge and mid-palate in the mouth did not give me the indication that this wine will improve (92).

The 1985 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg is one of the truly profound wines made in Burgundy in the last quarter-century. This particular bottle had a shred of ullage and a touch of seepage around the capsule, so I think it was a bit affected but outstanding nonetheless. It was very gamy and stinky in the nose, .wild horses. as Mick Jagger might say. Aromas of olive and espresso. (Ray) emerged in its almost Cote Rotie-like nose, and Ray admired its .great fruit, acidity and balance.. It did come together well, and its stink blew off, but this should be a 98 or 99 point wine and was a mere (95A), hence the A. for Affected..

It was time to get serious. A 1969 Rousseau Chambertin was laid out before us, and everyone’s attention seemed to go up a notch. It was a superlative bottle; the nose was incredibly fresh with amazing rose, earth, and a touch of typical 69 rust but also with dank and meaty fruit not so typical for 69. With a little air, a hint of maturity emerged in its fruit, but its rose and book qualities were still oh so fresh. There were great book flavors, citric twists and dust to this long, lingering wine. The 69 got more pungent and olivy in the glass and delivered an outstanding experience (95).

The 1966 Rousseau Chambertin was much more seductive and sweet; pure, fragrant, rich, sweet and luscious, it had a great cherry core of fruit. It was very 66 with its seductive fruit. The palate had a similar kiss of mature fruit, as it should, along with nice carob flavors. While more delicate in the mouth, the palate was still outstanding in its own way. Aromatic, really pleasing persistence and length. admired Bryan (95).

The 1964 Rousseau Chambertin was very fresh, possessing the most t n a so far in this flight, as well as garden aromas. Tobacco, rose, meat and a pinch of caramel graced my nose and palate. The 1964 had the most power and lots of acidity and was also an outstanding, fresh bottle (95).

Lastly, the 1962 Rousseau Chambertin possessed the deepest and most complex nose. It was dripping with fruit, meaty, rich, cherry fruit, along with garden and pinches of menthol, olive and caramel. Possessing great acidity and spine, the palate was a touch drier and more citric but still very special. It was most people’s favorite of the flight (97).

What a flight. Each wine showed exactly as it and the vintage should have. As Bryan summed it up, If you don.t like this, you don.t like Burgundy..

It was time to get on the metro and head to Bordeaux. A trio of Calon Segurs were next, from an era when Calon was considered to be close to First Growth quality. The 1953 Calon Segur was served out of magnum (M) and had a fabulous nose. Classic aromas of sweet, nutty carob permeated out of its vigorous aromatics. Its palate was rich, smooth, dusty and sturdy, long and with carob and pencil flavors. Incredibly round, it kept gaining in the glass, and Greg agreed. Bob thought it had the best nose of the flight, and this 1953 proved to be another charming 53, a vintage that has been pleasurable from the word go. according to those that know like Bipin (95M).

The 1947 Calon Segur also had a gorgeous nose, more open and expressive, perhaps due to the bottle versus magnum format. It still had that same nutty feel, with more caramel as well as aromas of dust and old book. In the mouth it had great texture and balance, both elegant and rich at the same time. Someone found it Pomreolesque, and it was indeed plummy and chocolaty along those lines. The 1947 seemed much more naturally mature out of bottle than the 53 or 45 that followed it out of magnum; sometimes the youthful qualities that come with a magnum format are not necessarily better than the natural complexity that one can get out of a regular sized bottle, although Bob did find the 1947 more two-dimensional. (96).

The 1945 Calon Segur, as mentioned, was also out of magnum and more pungent, but you can tell the lineage of these wines on the nose, Greg keenly observed. Chalkier, stalkier and stonier, the 45 was the least approachable and had the biggest finish. It was much more wound up with lots of cedar; long long long and dry dry dry. Although it was the least pleasant and enjoyable wine of the flight on this night, one could see the potential for the longest evolution and another thirty or forty years of longevity easily. However, that dryness may never integrate either (94+M).

A flight of 1929 Bordeaux was next. The reputation of the 1929 vintage seems to have crashed in the eyes of many worse than the stock market that year. I strongly disagree, and this flight was a testament to that. For decades, the 1929s overshadowed the monstrously tannic and tight 28s, but once the 28s emerged from that shell, their inherent vigor seemed to win people over. However, I do not think that the best .29s have lost their seductive quality and is a vintage along the lines of 1953 that always had it and always will.

The first wine was the only to be served out of magnum, a 1929 Haut Brion It was a great magnum that I acquired in Europe that had a phenomenal nose. It was still dripping with cassis fruit, and the combination of its natural maturity yet incredible freshness was awe-inspiring. Mesquite, caramel, mint, tobacco, fruit, earth, gravel, old wood, old book and some baby back ribs all graced this outstanding wine’s nose and palate, although the palate had less fruit in it than the nose (95M).

The 1929 La Mission Haut Brion was from the Doris Duke cellar and accordingly very fresh as well, possessing more grape than tobacco, caramel, a touch of fig, smoke, cedar and gravel. Long, cedary and gravelly, the 29 was classic La Miss, and its clarity, precision and length were quite admirable (96).

The 1929 Latour had a Grade A+. nose. Its walnuts, cedar and caramel twists resulted in a climax of aromatics. It was absolutely delicious with the signature, brooding Latour style, full of minerals and iron, great acidity and extraordinary balance and power (98).

The 1929 Mouton Rothschild was a bit anti-climactic after the winegasm of the Latour, but it still had an enticing nose. I had actually had the last three wines the week before (I told you I haven.t stopped tasting!!). After the Latour, however, the Mouton was a bit more two-dimensional. Simpler up front with aromas of cigar, it had a nice, round mouthfeel and was long, smooth and easy (93).

.What a flight, I wrote. It is amazing how fresh these wines can still be when well stored..

Next was the flight that I drank down to the last drop. Actually, they all were, come to think about it, but for some reason I wrote it for this flight, a flight that is about as rare as they come, a flight of pre-barrique (1976) La Moulines (bring back the foudre!) concluding with its first vintage, 1966. I guess I was saying that as good as all the other flights were, this was my favorite.

The 1971 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. was a wicked start to this incredible trio. Intoxicating aromas of menthol, bacon and mint graced its garden fresh nose. Rich, meaty, oily, long, balanced and with superb acidity, it had it all. What was most remarkable was its Burgundian like personality, something that is always a good thing (97).

The 1969 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. is a wine that I have given the elusive 99 point score to before, and it was pretty close again. I think the only reason that I gave it a point less on this evening was the context of consistent greatness on the table. I could not argue with the notion that every wine we had would be rated a point or two higher in a different setting with less wines or lesser wines around them. Anyway, the 1969’s nose was meatier than the 1971.s, dripping with more fruit and a pinch of coffee. It seemed so young for its age, full of exotic blueberry and caramel aromas. It came from someone who purchased it upon release, so its freshness and youthful quality were no surprise. On the palate it was quite peppery, .chunky. as a close friend of mine noted, with a tidal wave of enormous structure. Rob found it had a little bit of VA, but make no mistake about it, this was a spectacular wine (98).

The 1966 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. was the grand finale to this grand flight, and again I have given this wine 99 points before and while it was spectacular as well, I rated it a step behind near perfection&as if it makes a difference when the air is that rare! Silky and gorgeous, this was Rhone Pomerol, absolutely breathtaking; hence my short notes (98+). Actually, it was because I was getting close to Hammeredtime.. I am sure many of you know the drill.

There was still one flight left, a rare flight of vintage Granges. Now it was officially Hammeredtime.. The 1971 Penfolds Grange was as always. (94). The 1969 Penfolds Grange had good texture but was a touch corked yet still thick, long, nutty and chocolaty with great t n a and black cherry cola flavors (94+?). The 1968 Penfolds Grange was softer and Burgundian. as Brad noted, although it did gain in structure in the glass (93). Lastly, the 1967 Penfolds Grange was a great ringer for a Rhone tasting as it was very Rhone-like. It gained, expanded and banged. (95).

I had to go. In six hours, it was time to wake up and make the doughnuts. The second session of the auction was already calling.

Well, we made more doughnuts than ever before on Saturday, and the pressure was officially over, and it was time to eat, drink and be merry, this time at Daniel on Saturday night.

We kicked off Saturday night with a 1947 Pommery Champagne out of jeroboam, and although there was no petillance left, it was still a tasty, fully mature, wine-like experience with lots of baked bread qualities and quite solid (93).

Move over Pommery, we had a flight of Montrachets to sample. The 1982 Montrachet had a great nose, nutty and full of minerals, baked earth and white fruits. Flavors of white corn and yellow fruits beautifully decorated its elegant palate, which was lighter than I expected after its nose but still delicious. Smooth and ready. someone observed (94).

The 1979 Montrachet had a noticeably dark color but didn.t seem to be oxidized at first. It was rich, meaty, long and intense with lots of caramel, baked nuts and a rich, great mouthfeel. Its long acidity knocked the 82 out, and it was fat, round and tropical. Very exotic, some felt it was a touch affected, and I suppose with that color it was, but I still enjoyed it a lot (95+A).

What can I say about the 1978 Montrachet? I had had one nearly a year ago with Aubert de Villaine in Paris that was almost perfection, and this came very close. Bob noted its sweet corn. right away, and its pure nose had incredible complexity, with layers of skin, nuts, palm, oil, musk, fruit and tropical honey. Long, smooth and pure, it was class in a glass (98).

The 1970 Montrachet also had fabulous aromatics, with that very exotic Monty style. Fat and honeyed with exotic coconut and butter aromas, the wine was still firm and beautiful for a 36 year-old white. What a nose&fat, tropical, buttery and even a pinch of cocoa, this great still lived up to its reputation of yesteryear (97).

One of my favorite things to compare and contrast is Musigny from the 1993 vintage. We had the four finest assembled for flight number two of the evening, beginning with a 1993 Drouhin Musigny. The Drouhin had a creamy, dank nose that was edgy and very aromatic with black cherry, cola and stems. On the palate, the wine was smooth, soft and shy, really shut down and perplexing. Despite great aromatics, the palate was not showing me much (92).

The 1993 Mugnier Musigny was all that and then some with its brooding, deep, long nose and this minerally, cedary, pungent edge as well as light meat, game and iron. Everything was subtle yet deep. The palate was long and had great cherry flavors, stems, minerals and ever-expanding flavors. It was both a close friend of mine and Gorky’s favorite wine of the flight (96+).

The 1993 Roumier Musigny was up for the challenge, revealing more game and structure in its nose with great stems, spine and spice, along with this divine tea aroma. a close friend of mine admired its density. on the palate. It was signature Roumier all the way, long, regal and great (96).

The 1993 Vogue Musigny V.V. was my early on favorite in the flight because it had the most aromatic fruit complexity. It was the oakiest without being oaky. someone keenly observed. a close friend of mine was not so enthralled with its tutti frutti. style, but Gorky liked its feminine. style. It went into a shell quickly and shut down, however (95).

Four Burgundies from the increasingly rare 1949 vintage were next. 1949 was long considered to be THE great old Burgundy vintage, but as of late some are starting to feel the wines are finally starting to tire.
The first wine was a 1949 Clos des Lambrays, which looked like a reconditioned bottle. It had a nice nose, but a close friend of mine found to be lacking in its licorice and volatile acidity. like a pure 1949 Lambrays. It still had spunk and spice, meat and game, but it was missing density and sweetness accordingly. I didn.t find its nose lacking that so much, but the mouth was only old book flavors, soft and simple. Gorky found it a little roasted.. It had a 95-point nose and an 88-point palate (91).

The 1949 La Tache more than made up for the disappointing palate of the Lambrays with a stunning arsenal of aromas and flavors. Wow, began my notes, a great La Tache.. Bob noted brown sugar;. a close friend of mine its fat and liqueur.. It had this meaty, pungent, intense edge and was full of game, iron, plum, prune and animal. Rich, long and elegant, it still had excellent definition on its finish, and great game and soy flavors, along with a touch of brandy and licorice.. It was pure and a classic (96).

If there was a wine that could top the La Tache, it would be the 1949 Rousseau Chambertin. This was another incredible bottle of Rousseau. Its aromatic complexity took it up a notch; everything was there – animal, meat, earth, leather, rose, cherry, tobacco. This was a big Chambertin in the mouth as well, with spiny, mint flavors and a long and special finish. Wow again (97+).

Unfortunately, the 1949 Vogue Musigny V.V. was maderized, not completely, but enough where I didn.t even want to bother with it after the last two wines (DQ).

After last night’s fine show by the 1929 vintage, it was 1928’s turn to show its merits. The mighty Bordeaux was at bat, and there was joy in Wineville on this night. I began with the 1928 Palmer, which was classic 28 Palmer and consistent with the bottle I had the week prior. I love it when that happens. Possessing cedar and old book aromas and flavors, the Palmer was smooth, soft and seductive, most seductive and beautiful. according to Bipin and his favorite of the flight (96).

The 1928 Calon Segur was absolutely amazing. to Bipin as well. Big, chunky, meaty and rich, the 28 was consistent with the Calons of last night. The palate had lots of dust and book flavors and got a bit oaky in the glass. It was very dry, a la the 1945 (93).

The 1928 Montrose will probably never show as well for me as it did at that magical vertical in Paris hosted by Bipin last September, but this bottle was still outstanding. It had a big, rich, intense nose full of sauce and dripping with oil, cassis, minerals and a high-grade antique wood. The palate was similar; it seemed as if all the 1928s had this old book and cedar flavor profile. Bipin said it was as expected. (95).

The 1928 Latour was heads and shoulders above the rest of the flight, earning win, place and show all by itself. It had huge t n a with great definition and meaty, rich, brawny flavors. Walnut, mineral, earth, spice and tobacco complimented its so deep and so black fruit flavors, ones that would make the late, great James Brown proud. Bipin found it perfect. and summed up this great flight as having all textbook examples. (98).

La Mission took center stage with a flight of magnums, all from the 1950s. We began with a 1959 La Mission Haut Brion, which had a classic, gravelly nose that was still wound and young out of magnum, yet also deep and fat at the same time. This magnum was recorked in 1975 maybe they put some of the great 75 in there! After a little air, it was dripping with cassis, tobacco and great, grapy fruit. The palate was rich, smoky and deep with great length and definition. It kept gaining and gaining in the glass (97+M).

The magnum of 1955 La Mission Haut Brion was atypical and a bit waxy. It was still meaty and long but a touch shy and stripped of its usual character. Espresso, dark chocolate and black truffle all emerged slowly but surely, and while it was still close to outstanding, it was not amongst the greater examples of this wine that I have had and probably a poor reconditioning job, as it did look reconditioned as well (94M).

The magnum of 1953 La Mission Haut Brion was a Nicolas bottle, recorked in 1985. Bob found it classic with its dirts and rocks in your face, but then kisses you.. I needed some water after that comment! It was true, and the 53 definitely kissed me with its plummy, grapy and cassisy fruit. It also had wax and the inside of the shell nut skin. Smoke, iodine and band-aid joined the party. Smooth, soft and fully mature, it was beautiful despite the fact that it was lacking oomph or punch, as Gorky observed, but that is 53. Bipin called it perfect claret, and Jim admired its great balance and red pepper. and found it ready to drink. (94M).

The 1952 La Mission Haut Brion was the only magnum not reconditioned in this flight, and I know because it came from a case sourced by me in Europe, and I have already had a magnum from it before that was great. Lightning struck twice. There was excellent vigor in its nose yet still a delicate length about it. Iron, meat and intense t n a were balance by smooth and supple fruit. The palate was softer than the nose indicated, but it had nice length without the vigor (95M).

I was pretty spent by this point, but two flights remained. Forgive the brief notes. The 1994 Vega Sicilia Unico had great aromatics of leather and that Spanish kink, a touch of egg and great t n a (95). The 1970 Vega Sicilia Unico was fake. F@*$. Another wine to worry about (DQ). The 1968 Vega Sicilia Unico was spectacular as usual. There was great kink to it along with meat, oil, leather and nut. It was nutty, long and superlative (97).

Three more wines to go and they were all Cuvee Cathelins. The 1998 Chave Ermitage Cuvee Cathelin. was over the top, spiny and concentrated, peppery and with great acid. I am sure it will be great one of these centuries (95+). The 1995 Chave Ermitage Cuvee Cathelin. was less concentrated, lighter and lovely but lacking the power and depth of the 1998 (93). The 1990 Chave Ermitage Cuvee Cathelin. was the star of the flight, almost more Cote Rotie than Ermitage. There were loads of mint and black truffles in this heady wine (96+).

Taxi, please.

Our version of a Sunday brunch was at Cru. These are a few of my favorite things. We started with some 1959 Dom Perignon Oenoetheque.. With all the great bottles that have been assembled over the first three years for these magical weekends, I have had the most bad luck with Champagne. The 1959 was not necessarily off, but it was disappointing. There just wasn.t enough sprite and backbone there. It still had some richness and was a touch buttery but unexciting. Maybe these bottles were slightly off after all, or slightly cooked (90?).

We returned to our regular programming with a flight of Raveneaus, Les Clos of course. The 1996 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. had fabulous aromatics and was so 1996 with its razor-like cleanness, lemon peel, minerality, anise, wax and dollop of butter. It was rounder on the palate than I expected and also had less vim and vigor. It was still very fine indeed and had a nice delicacy to it, but it seemed less sharp in the mouth than I would have thought for the so-called greatest vintage ever for Chablis. Someone, however, was excited about its long life. (93).

The 1990 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. was spectacular. This vintage has always been a home run for Raveneau, and the Les Clos lived up to my previous experiences with any and all Raveneaus from this vintage. It had a very pungent nose full of anise and wet stones, brimming with citrus peel and ripe, gamy, marinated white meat. There was great balance, great structure, great flavor, great spice and great length. Yes, it was pretty damn great (96).

The 1989 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. was no slouch, either, possessing another fabulous nose that was so forward and alive. Full of minerality and acid, its nose had great pop, depth, power and sun-dried yellow fruits. The palate meaty and nutty, still young yet seemingly more mature than the 1990 than the single year between them (95).

The 1985 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. was full of wax and more wax in the nose, pungent and laced with anise aromas. It was the most pungent of the flight so far, very pinchy in its personality. Entering a nice plateau of maturity, the 1985 had nice gamy flavors (94).

The 1983 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. was a bit of a disaster. It had a noticeably dark color, as many 83s are prone to have nowadays, and it also had aggressive, bizarre aromas with way too much spine. As Rob put it, it’s like a dog took a shit under the bed.. It was actually well put. A bit corky and full of catbox flavors, I wasn.t sure if this was the wine or the bottle, but either way I doubt I will pull the cork on this vintage of Chablis in the near future (85?).

The champ was finally here, as a foursome of young La Taches were next, all from the great decade of the 1990s. The 1999 La Tache was another wow. wine. Its nose was incredible as always, with so much fruit, spice and finish. a close friend of mine found it so primary still way too young, but it was still dripping with saucy rose, cherry essence and young tannins. In the mouth, it was so fabulous, so rich, so creamy and with great spice and tannin flavors. The 1999 La Tache had the best nose in a young wine (less than ten years old) that I have ever had. a close friend of mine came around and cooed, it’s so pure and balanced. and likened it to 49 and 29 (98).

I have always liked the 1996 La Tache, but the 1996 vintage seems to be producing more doubting Thomases as time passes by, at least for the red wines. Some feel that the wines are too screechy (too much acid) and that the fruit will never fatten out. The 1996 was indeed a stark contrast to the 1999, lean and very shut down by comparison. The wine indubitably had great acidity, and its nose also revealed a greeness. and underbrush.. There were nice, clean mineral flavors; the 96 was clearly not as concentrated as the .99 but was still a lean, mean fighting machine, and while I still found it in outstanding territory, a close friend of mine and Rob were not willing to give it 5 star. status just yet (95).

The 1993 La Tache is the forgotten, great young vintage of La Tache. It really needed some time to open up, at first a bit herbal, very tight and structured. After some time, its density, balance and tannins took over, and its palate and acidity were enormous, even longer than the 99 although not as dense. Rose, iron and tea all reluctantly emerged in the mouth in this Frankenstein of a La Tache, a Frankenstein that graduated from Harvard, that is (97+).

The 1990 La Tache also had a brooding, deep nose with a unique, liqueur-like depth that I am sure the 99 will develop over time as well. Oily, musky, meaty and nutty, the 1990 had a concentration in its nose that was unmatched by the three previous vintages. The palate was rich, long and extraordinary; Rob noted ‘powder,’ but a close friend of mine found it ‘a touch stewed.’ I found it to be great as did Bryan, who called it ‘ripe and succulent, all the way to the finish. Powerful, sweet and enticing.’ Exactly (97).

Now it was RC’s turn, and we traveled in time back forty years to the 1950s, beginning with a 1959 Romanee Conti, actually the third time that I had had this wine in the previous ten days. When it rains, it pours! The 1959 was pretty consistent with the last two, perhaps a touch more advanced noted Rob (who also tasted the three different bottles with me) , but not by much. It had game, iron, leather, iodine, meat, soy, old book and animal in its complex nose. Very smooth and tasty, it was very gamy and had lots of animal flavors. It kept gaining in the mouth, and its acidity really came out with a touch of food (96+).

The 1955 Romanee Conti was actually the third bottle that I have had of this wine from the very same case, the first being very good and the second being outstanding plus. Three was definitely the magic number so far in this flight! The third bottle of this wine proved outstanding plus as well; what was so fascinating about it was its light color. As Bipin noted, ‘based on the color, you never thought it would be good, but it was great.’ The ’55 was a touch fresher than the ’59 with more citric tension and great spine. It took a little more work to get this wine to come to you than the ’59, but ’59 has always been a vintage that is quick to show its goodies, so to speak, being the hot vintage that it is. Yes, if someone made a ‘Wine Gone Wild’ video, we’d see lots of ’59 Burgundies; that is, if the 2003s would let anyone else get any airtime! Ok, enough of that tangent, back to the ’55… a close friend of mine noted ‘nougat.’ The wine was classy and complex with aromas of game, animal, meat and chocolate-covered caramel. The palate was great; long and with lovely tea, rose and menthol flavors, it was classic RC all the way and quite impressive (97).

Three did not prove to be the magic number for long, as the third wine in this flight was completely DOA. Unfortunately, the 1953 Romanee Conti was (DQ). Considering the massive amount of old and rare wines sampled this weekend, there were very few DQ’s, so no one was complaining. Insert promo here.

The 1952 Romanee Conti was also affected, more a touch than a complete DOA like the ’53. Its nose was on the mature side, and its palate rich, creamy and still tasty. As Bipin put it, ‘this young vines RC has slight oxidation, but its structure and sweetness are extraordinary’ (94A).

a close friend of mine slipped a leftover wine from Thursday night’s legendary evening, a 1959 Roumier Musigny, which was as special as one would think. Gamy with a touch of heat and animal, it had the stew of ’59. The palate was long and round, mature and had the soft delicacy of Musigny (95).

We said our goodbyes to Burgundy with a flight of 1940s VCCs. It was a good way to numb the pain of that goodbye. The 1949 Vieux Chateau Certan had a great, expansive nose full of olives, plum, earth and chocolate. The palate was round and rich with nice mineral flavors and definition. Rich, creamy and long with nice vim and vigor on the finish, the ’49 was a classy classic, although Greg found it ‘a touch astringent’ (95).

The 1948 Vieux Chateau Certan had more barnyard in the nose with this pungent anise and catbox medley. Flavors of sour cherry and ‘sweat socks’ were there, and while it had more finish and power than the ’49, there was some ‘good brett in this forgotten vintage, best I have ever had of it,’ as Greg shared. There was great expression of t ‘n a, but I have had better (93A).

The 1947 Vieux Chateau Certan also had some unusual aromas to it at first, this bad laundry smell as if it was left in the washing machine all weekend. Once that blew off, it was the wine of the flight. Plums, earth and slate finally emerged out of the washing machine and into a long, earthy and ‘dryer’ finish. Ok, that was bad, I know. I have to amuse myself sometimes, sorry. The wine had a great mouthfeel and a long finish, and while it was the best wine of the flight, I have still had better bottles (96).

Bryan had ordered a bottle off the list of 1990 Mugnier Musigny, wanting to reciprocate some of a close friend of mine’s generosity, and it was back to Burgundy with an amazing bottle of this wine. It was fresh for a 1990, almost ’99-ish in style in that regard, thick and dripping with meaty, oily and creamy fruit. It was so rich, tasty and long that it was indubitably the best bottle of this that I have ever had. Its red cherry fruit and cola flavors still had the soft, delicate and decadent style of Musigny (96).

The fifth flight of the day was easily the most controversial of the weekend, a flight of 1921 Bordeaux. We started with a 1921 Cheval Blanc, a Nicolas bottling, which had a ‘wow’ nose with incredible concentration, red fruits galore and a vanilla sundae exotic quality. Long, smooth and tasty, the wine was obviously reconditioned and a touch on the young side, but it was classic Cheval on its long finish with great wintergreen edges and rich spices. Ray thought it might be ‘wine of the weekend,’ and it was a candidate although I found it a shred sweet but still Cheval all the way (98).

A 1921 Lafleur was next, the third time I have had it from the same Nicolas batch, the last time being 99 points. Encore, bravo! Again, the bottle was reconditioned, showing more freshness and youthful qualities than the average 85 year-old wine. However, it still had the meaty, oily, deep Pomerol edge and sweet, nutty fruit. The concentration in the mouth was spectacular; the wine was loaded with more iron than an ore deposit, and its tannins, grip and structure were the stuff of legends. Just moments earlier, Roger had joked that I hadn’t had a 99-point wine all weekend, and I told him that it was either palate fatigue or the consistently high quality of so many wines that made it difficult for any wine to stand out on that level despite many coming very close. I guess the 1921 Lafleur came right on cue (99).

The 1921 Petrus, also a Nicolas bottle, had something to say about that, too. It had classic Petrus aromas, soft and delicate by comparison to the Lafleur. Mocha, olive, earth, spice and garden all graced this beauty. The structure was long and fine, so defined and fabulous stylistically, near perfect. Showing more maturity but still reconditioned, this flight showed why Nicolas bottles are highly sought after and the best bet when it comes to reconditioned wines (99).

Then came the purists, led by an anonymous old schooler. These wines are too young, they are not pure, they are not true, etc. Now I am the first to consider myself in the purist camp and not the biggest fan of reconditioning in general even though there are many great reconditioned wines; more often than not wines can be stripped of many nuances and complexities found in an original bottling, or watered down a bit. However, I found these three wines to be spectacular, and I found Cheval character in the Cheval, Lafleur character in the Lafleur, and Petrus character in the Petrus. I am not sure I could ask for anything more.

Never one to be outdone, Ray pulled a 1926 Lafleur out of his magic hat. Incredibly exotic, chunky and rich, it was long, tasty and fascinating stuff. Quel surprise (96)!

There were two more flights, beginning with a La Chapelle one. The last two flights every session seem to be where the notes start waning. I guess I’m a ‘five flighter.’ The 1978 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle’ got my attention rather quickly. It was a great bottle, one that I kept smelling over and over for minutes due to its breed and high class subtlety. It was so minty and mentholy and full of olive and meat, sweet and beautiful and probably the best bottle of this that I have ever had; however, it lacked a little power and definition in the mouth. Hmmmmmm (95).

The 1966 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle’ also had a great nose full of menthol and t ‘n a. A touch of fig rounded out this outstanding La Chapelle, which was showing beautiful maturity (95).

The 1964 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle’ was a touch corked and soft and simple beyond that. It was pleasant but just not inspiring given the competition (90A).

The 1959 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle’ was in a perfect place, seductive and with great balance. It was a classic and super La Chapelle (95).

Finally, the 1952 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle’ was no slouch, either. Showing more animal and game and smoother and softer in style, it was another beauty
(94).

Last but not least for this monumental weekend was a flight of Italy’s greatest wine, Monfortino, and the flight seemed to revive my note-taking skills. The 1958 G. Conterno Barolo ‘Monfortino Riserva’ had a great nose with all the classic Piedmont truffle, smoke, tar, black rose, cedar and t ‘n a. Long and spectacular with an explosive nose, it was a bit softer in the mouth but still absolutely delicious (95).

The 1952 G. Conterno Barolo ‘Monfortino Riserva,’ Roberto Conterno’s favorite vintage, was both more seductive yet even more explosive in the nose than the ’58. The rose qualities were a touch more exotic, and the palate was a lot more intense, so long and full of A++ definition and length. Its flavors were classic rose and tar, and the finish was spectacular (98).

I had decided to give the 1947 and 1945 Monfortinos one last chance, as every time I had had either, not that it was that many, they had been oxidized, so I figured storage in the ‘40s was not that great in Italy. Obviously there were other concerns at the time. When the wines came out, the colors looked more like paint thinner than red wine, but something magical was in the glass this time. ‘That’s how old Barolos become,’ advised Bipin. Ray was all over its ‘power,’ while Brian called it like ‘a Fellini movie’ due to its bizarre color. It had this honeyed, truffled cheese aroma that was intoxicating, and great, sweet caramel and carob flavors. It was different yet still delicious and kept getting better and better and better. a close friend of mine called it ‘gamy like 1911 RC,’ and Rob also picked up on its ‘truffles.’ Both of them gave it ‘5 stars plus,’ and they are very stingy with their stars. It was a special wine, and good thing, since Rob still has the other eleven bottles from the case I sold him (96+)!

The 1945 G. Conterno Barolo ‘Monfortino Riserva’ had a similar color and qualities, with more honey and less structure (94).

That’s all folks. Year IV will be in 2008, October 24-26, 2008. Mark your calendars now!!!

On the day Big Boy’s name reached New York Magazine fame for his voracious participation in THE Cellar II, we were all together for a long awaited dinner with his business partners and closest associates, a dinner hosted by Big Boy to celebrate this past year and all of its accomplishments at various addresses all over America. CRU was the location for the celebration, of course”¦as if that wasn’t a given.

I was actually there an hour early to catch up on a few debits and credits with CRU, and Roy was there having a quick bite, accompanied by a 1995 Krug Clos du Mesnil, hot off the press. The Krug was served out of a Riedel Sauternes glass, a trick of Robert’s trade that was an amazing discovery for me. I don’t think I will drink Champagne without it as a matter of fact, at least whenever possible. The Krug was gorgeous, laser-like in its definition and more wine-like than the average young Champagne due to the glass, no doubt. It was especially creamy, pure and obviously fresh, bursting and sparkling with minerals. When it comes to Champagne, it really is Krug and everything else (96+).

Since 20+ wines were on tap for the evening, I only had two glasses of the Krug. The official part of our programming started with a jeroboam of 1953 Pommery. Big Boy had assembled flights based on significant years for all those in attendance, and 1953 was the birth year of his partner Larry, and I think one other as well, but forgive me for not remembering all the particulars. The Pommery had an amazingly creamy nose with lots of vanilla. It clearly had amazing color and was in outstanding condition. There was this pinch of granulated sugar to the nose with baked edges, but the purity of the nose was what stood out the most for a Champagne 53 years of age. There was still a touch of mousse, but the Pommery was more wine-like in its character and excellent stuff (93J).

A duo of Cristal was next, beginning with the 1947 Cristal. Since the first vintage was 1945, this was a true slice of history. In fact, this was the first time I had ever witnessed a Cristal from the 40s. Leave it to possibly the greatest collector of Champagne in the world to pull something like this out of his cellar. His wine collection may already be legendary, but his Champagne collection is one of a kind. The 1947 had a bit of sherry to its nose and was not a perfect bottle but certainly still enjoyable and delicious. Full of ‘white chocolate,’ the 1947 also had a touch of burnt orange and sweet flavors. The mousse was gone, but the orange and caramel made up for it. It was ‘on golden pond’ delicious, ‘mind blowing’ according to one. Someone noted ‘mentos,’ and I got what they were saying. It still had great nutty flavors and texture; smooth, satiny and long (95A).

The 1949 Cristal was one of the greatest Champagnes that I have ever had. The nose was incredibly fresh, with more bran and oat in the nose and a sprinkle of that granulated sugar. There was also a touch of the inside of a banana peel. The palate was fantastic, at what I would call the peak of maximum maturity. White chocolate was there as well, and the palate had more yellow fruits than orange. It was so sweet and delicate yet still with that pinch of petillance. The minerals on the finish were superb, and the ocean of caviar served in the first course made the 1949 even more delicious. The first course equaled my previous year’s intake of caviar, and that’s ‘Big Boy Style’ (98)!

It was on to the reds, beginning with a flight of 1971s and a 1971 Dujac Clos St. Denis. Its nose was gorgeous with pure and beautiful, almost sappy fruit. There were great plum and black cherry aromas, light nut and incredible sap. There was this great, grapy sex appeal to the nose, which also had a touch of fig and chocolate. The palate was full of Bloody Mary flavors, a stark contrast to the nose. ‘Blackberry’ and ‘pepper’ came from the crowd. It was smooth and had touches of minerals and slate on the finish, but the palate was a step behind the nose, at least for me (93).

A 1971 La Tache was next. The bottle was sound, but this is a wine that will forever be measured by me by a case that CRU had a few years back. I must have had at least half that case, and it was pure magic. Back to this bottle, which had signature menthol and mint in the nose and fat fruit; it was symphonic in its plum, grape, blackberry and cassis mélange. It was very deep purple with the haze. Someone noted ‘bolognese,’ and the palate also had tomato flavors. Even Rob admitted that it was not the best of bottles but still found it ‘5 stars,’ and it was close, although I found it to fade with time. I should note that bottled (and still bottles according to many) barrel by barrel (94).

A 1971 Rousseau Chambertin finished this flight, and it was served out of magnum, acquired from a parcel of twenty! The Rousseau had a mesmerizing nose, vitamin city, with taut fruit, great citric twist and pungency, with a touch of nut, oat and brown sugar. The palate was rich, spiny, long and flat-out great ”“ spiny, spicy, earthy and vimful. There was amazing vigor; the wine kept gaining in the glass and flirted with ‘6 star’ status (96+M).

A flight of 1962s was next, and I sampled my 1962 Rousseau Chambertin first to compare it with the 1971. The 1962 also had an amazing nose, similar to the 1971, except it had more sweetness in the cherry family. There were great musk, meat and oil flavors with a touch of autumnal floor action. It was smooth and right down the middle of extraordinary, also gaining in the glass with time (96).

The 1962 Roumier Musigny was another amazing 1962 with similar qualities to the Rousseau due to the vintage, but it was even deeper with more game and that signature Roumier garden aroma. It was dripping with beef flavors, with a hedonistic gyro edge to it. Sweet and tender yet rich, spicy and edgy; the Roumier was fat and fantastic. Its acid lingered in the belly, and it gained a pinch of mint jelly flavors. Rich, long, earthy and meaty, this was serious juice (97).

It wouldn’t be a Big Boy flight without some Conti, so we eased into a 1962 Romanee Conti. Unfortunately, it was slightly corked, but the wine still shone through to achieve my highest ‘Affected’ rating ever! Underneath the cork was still the classic RC ”“ the meat, the tomato, the menthol, the game, the iodine, the richness. It clearly had the most power of the flight. Its density and length shattered the others (98A).

There was one more wine to this flight, a magnum of 1964 Romanee Conti, which possessed such perfume. Its nose was also full of deep, dark fruits, incredibly deep and rich. ‘Violet city,’ I wrote. The palate had the rust, iron and iodine of RC and an amazing spine. The citric vigor on the finish was classic, and cola flavors emerged. Long and sturdy, the 1964 was still missing something in the middle yet also ‘immature’ as Rob noted. It was great but a touch shy”¦in the middle, that is, as its front had the animal and its back the power and definition (95M).

It was halftime; hence a palate-cleansing flight of Champagne. The 1955 Krug Private Cuvee Extra Sec had the pure granulated sugar, vanilla, earth and cream in its nose. The nose was fantastic; its vanilla was all that and then some, very buttery and with a touch of antique wood. Rich and with a ‘touch of ice wine’ to it, the Krug kept gaining and gaining in the glass until it indubitably reached outstanding status (95).

The 1955 Pol Roger Extra Cuvee de Reserve had a lighter nose with a pinch of Goldschlager to it with the real gold and the super schlager. It had more vigor and spine than the Krug, great length and biscuit flavors with a drop of honey. Sturdy and long, the Pol Roger was great (96+).

A 1955 Dom Perignon served out of magnum was weird and an off magnum, reminiscent of bad Chow Mein (DQ).

It was back to Burgundy with a 1934 Vogue Musigny, not a Vielles Vignes I might add. It had a nice nose, mature yet firm with aromas of musk, meat, light brown sugar, long t ‘n a, a touch of garden and strong earth. The palate was long and spicy with great earth flavors, citric twists and light brown sugar flavors, impressive for its age (94).

The 1945 Vogue Musigny V.V. reminded Big Boy of the 1993. There was a touch of caraway, weed, garden and edge to its nose. Smooth and round with light flavors of earth, I have to admit I was a bit disappointed by this bottle, but after some food the 1945 gained some steam and equaled the 1934 in terms of complexity, adding tobacco to its flavor repertoire (94).

A 1929 Les Gaudichots was next, a bottle not from the famed cache from the Doris Duke cellar. The nose was ‘like whoa’ ”“ thick, gamy, nutty; it was so sweet, rich and heavy in its aroma profile. Long and with nice texture, round and with great spine, this bottle was definitely reconditioned, a fresh Nicolas bottle reconditioned in 1985 before they sold off the last of their inventory. There was an abundance of plum and cherry cola flavors, and its acidity was rippling with loads of minerals on its finish. Big Boy had it in 98-99 point territory, but I had it (96+), finding it a touch youthful for that zip code.

The g>1943 Romanee Conti had this lime and the coconut thing happening at first but settled down to more classic nut, brown sugar and that kiss of sherry maturity that was still just right. Great tobacco, citrus and earth flavors rounded out this rare and righteous RC (96).

A flight of 1953 Bordeaux was next, but I forgot to include this flight when writing the first draft and threw my notes out already, so I am going from memory. The 1953 Lafite was spectacular, everything it should have been, full of classic Pauillac flavors, that elegant Lafite style and that sumptuous 1953 texture (96). The 1953 Mouton was a bit weedy and stinky, still very good but not a standout on a night like this (91). The 1953 Lafleur was also very good but again not a standout amongst the all stars that had been already assembled (92).

There was a mega Pomerol flight to finish, and I was starting to wane a bit, as there was not a drop of spitting on a night like this. We started with a 1950 Lafleur, which gave an impressive impression in the nose. It was super concentrated, decadent with its dense cassis, plum and mocha aromas. The palate, however, was smoother and softer than I expected, a bit dirty in that pre-marriage Christina Aguilera way. It was still rich and had length but lacked mid-palate definition. ‘Pure chocolate’ and ‘Tootsie Roll’ came from the crowd; it was still great but a bit dirty (95).

The 1945 Trotanoy had a serious nose with great earth and minerality as well as an erotic tension between its fruit and structural components. Grape, cassis and chocolate abounded in its nose and on its palate, displaying more milk chocolate in the mouth with smooth flavors, chunky and long (96).

A magnum of 1947 Le Gay was just what we needed, as there was not nearly enough wine served so far. There was more minerality and slate than any other Pomerol so far yet still that kink underneath. So long and so dry, it kept gaining (95M).

The final wine of this magical evening was a 1949 Lafleur. It was an extraordinary bottle, pungent and full of ‘fresh cut grass.’ Nut, plum and mocha were there in this pure, long and exquisite Pomerol. That’s about all I could write by now; therefore, that’s all she wrote (96).