It is hard to believe that only two weeks ago was the auction that changed wine history forever.

Everything has been a bit of a blur – not alcohol related, that is. The wine market seems to be moving at a blistering pace when it comes to the finest and rarest wines, and I must stress the ‘best’ part of it. Pricing for the top of the pyramid has approximately doubled over the past year. Go to www.ackerwines.com/archives if you don’t believe me. Wine has become the world’s newest luxury good on the highest level; the only difference is that there are less of these wines in the world every day, as opposed to every other category. Wine is the only one that is both consumable and perishable.

And on that note, I must remind everyone: DRINK UP! There is something so magical about wine; the fact that every time you drink a bottle of something significant, you are drinking a piece of history. Consider me your personal archaeologist; one willing to travel back in time on your behalf. I know I have been a little lax regarding my journals as of late. Rest assured that I am still tasting avidly. I just have not had the time to officially relay everything back to you. I’m holding out for that extra zero in that book deal, of course, that’s the ticket.

Let me get back to the topic, ‘THE Cellar.’ Whether it be parts I, II or the very last bottle, I will never ever, ever ever be absent in the event of an event hosted with wines provided from ‘THE Cellar,’ purchases included. The Thursday before the auction, a very special dinner was hosted by ‘THE Cellar’ and I. It sounds like a good movie, and it was. There is a reason that well over half of the dollar value of the sale was purchased by those who either attended this dinner and/or knew the owner on a personal level.

It started innocently enough”¦where have I heard that before? A head-to-head match-up of 1976 Champagnes, the 1976 Salon versus the 1976 Cristal, both served out of magnum, of course. The Salon was laser-like, clean with crystal-like acidity. There was great lemony tartness; it was crisp, precise and still an infant (96M). The Cristal, on the other hand, was ready to go, still closer to infancy than maturity but very bready, toasty and nutty. Long and fat, the Cristal was incredibly toasty (94M).

A flight of Bordeaux was first, all out of magnum as well. The 1961 La Mission Haut Brion was its usual self, possessing a fabulous nose, fresh and ‘closest to the Right Bank,’ as someone observed. It did have fat, plummy fruit, nutty and with that classic gravelly edge. Earth, tobacco, minerals, slate and cocoa powder rounded out its complex nose. There was rich fruit on the palate with great flavors of mesquite and tobacco, accompanied by gravel, smokehouse, cassis, meat and oil. The gravel quality got finer with time; the wine got sweeter in the glass, as it should, and the acidity stood out more as well, as it should. It was a spectacular magnum (98M).

The 1959 Lafite Rothschild had a fabulous nose with absolutely stunning fruit dominated by pure Pauillac cassis. Best supporting aroma nominations included pencil, walnut, tobacco and caramel. It was Eddie’s favorite nose of the flight, and it was, indeed, a heavenly nose. The palate was pure and classic Lafite all the way, with a touch of ‘menthol,’ as Jim noted. Meaty and rich, this ’59 was absolutely delicious and one of the best experiences I have ever had with this wine (97M).

The 1961 Latour magnum was the most controversial wine of the flight, its portish nose throwing some for a curve. It was incredibly concentrated and saucy in its nose, with buckets of cassis, walnuts and ‘sea salt.’ To me, it was the most concentrated, but its density had some thinking it was a touch overripe. It was quite cassisy and grapy, but its palate was still classically brooding with lots of minerals on its finish. Long and smooth, there was still a lot in reserve at first, but with time the Latour continued to assert itself more and more on the finish, and its cedar and walnut flavors continued to emerge. It definitely needed the most time to open up, and while it was not as enjoyable as the La Miss or Lafite, it definitely still had the most potential of the flight. It was not as ready to go and as a result was a bit taken for granted on this night (97+M).

Burgundy took the plate in the bottom half of the first, and the 1978 Dujac Clos de la Roche was another home run. Ray noted ‘granulated sugar going into baking from across the room,’ something he finds in many great Burgundies. There was also menthol, mint, olive, spice and spine. There was incredible t ‘n a here, and tasty, minty flavors of Worcestershire, black and bing cherries and long, sensuous Asian spices. The finish was full of leather and spine, and secondary flavors of sesame and ‘mild carraway’ joined the party. While I have had one or two near-perfect bottles of this wine, this was not that, yet still extraordinary (96).

We were supposed to have a 1978 Roumier Bonnes Mares, but that was unfortunately corked. It happens randomly, even for the best producers on Earth. Luckily, we had a 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares magnum ready to pinch hit. ‘Not again,’ I playfully wrote, as I had a magnum of this with the owner of THE Cellar within the past month as well. ‘Man, is that good,’ my notes continued. ‘What a nose, has everything Roumier and 1971.’ Its spine, structure, the citric tension, the rose, old dictionary, the spice, the spine, its touch of game and mineral”¦it was clear that this was something very, very special. It has an absolutely fabulous palateto match, with extraordinary complexity and great citrus, leather and earth flavors. I think you would find this 1971 in a wine dictionary under ‘character’ (97M).

It was a nice segway to the quartet of 1962 Burgundies, as the first one was a very rare 1962 Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Amoureuses.’ Its nose was meaty and rich, dripping with fruit. Ray noted ‘toffee butter crunch,’ and I saw what he was saying, but there was more the delicacy of Amoureuses and a feminine edge and spice there. The palate was pure, laser-like with its clarity and balance. There was a touch of coffee grinds to its exotic edges. Perfumed and sensuous, this bottle had great freshness and brightness and was again special stuff. What spice (96)!

The 1962 Rousseau Chambertin ‘Clos de Beze’ had a touch of intruding oak in the nose at first but was all Chambertin behind that with lots of cedary power and citric twists. It had an exotic, nutty edge. The palate was great with a lot of book flavors and citrus kisses. It had a lot of power but seemed a touch clumsy after the Amoureuses (95).

It is always a special occasion when a 1962 La Tache is on the table, and this was obviously no exception. Its nose defined the word ‘brooding’ with serious menthol and great animal, iron and spice aromas. Meat, soy, oil, rose, bran and sauce rounded out its infinitely complex nose. The La Tache literally blew the other two Burgundies off the table. In the mouth, its concentration, richness, length and spine were extraordinary. Everyone was going bananas for the La Tache. Bob noted ‘Le Pin like concentration.’ The wine was so good, I just couldn’t keep it in the glass (99).

A 1962 Roumier Bonnes Mares had the unenviable task of following the La Tache. The animal jumped out right away. There was a touch of oxidation in this bottle, but the rose, garden and Worcestershire aromas came through. The palate was gorgeous with a stunning, oily texture and tasty flavors, still with a kiss of oxidation but with great length. Some animal action and a touch of a ‘confectionary’ quality, as Jim pointed out, rounded out the palate. It was still outstanding, but the bottle was a touch affected and not giving a 100% performance (95A).

The 1959 Ponsot Clos de la Roche quickly took center stage. ‘We have a new leader in the clubhouse on the nose,’ Ed quickly observed. The wine was so fresh, yet it also had so much maturity to its qualities at the same time. It was dripping with red fruits, had great citric tension, amazing spice and a touch of dry caramel. The wine was incredibly seductive and intoxicating in the nose. ‘Wow,’ my notes continued. The palate was all that and then some. The spice, balance and length were unbelievable, and its flavors of red rose, citrus and earth divine (99).

The 1959 Roumier Musigny was up for the challenge of following the Ponsot and also had an incredible, fresh nose. It s profile was a bit different, more of the classic Roumier citrus, rose and old book, phenomenal in its own right. Meaty and rich, the palate was gorgeous and tasty with flavors of animal, game and iodine, and a drop of maraschino cherry emerged (97).

The last 1959 of this stellar trio was the 1959 Romanee Conti, of course. Consistent with the bottle that I had last week ”“ sorry, I just had to throw that in there. I told you I was still tasting quite a bit despite my lack of writing of late! It was also consistent with the bottle I had three days later at my third ‘Top 100’ weekend. We’ll get to that later this month! The RC showed more of the vintage characteristics than the other two wines; the flight seemed to progress more in that hot, ripe 1959 direction with each glass. Rust, iron, spine, rose, iodine, musk, mahogany and a kiss of gamy maturity completed its nose. Surprisingly, the RC had the lightest mouthfeel but was far from light. The texture was still rich and long; the acidity incredibly long. Some of those hot oat and brown sugar flavors of 1959 were more prevalent here (96+).

A 1937 two-step was next, a veritable celebrity death match. The 1937 Vogue Musigny V.V. was another great, fresh bottle. The quality of the provenance continued to shine. Each second of airtime brought in more traces of maturity. Rose and cherry red fruit were accompanied by a touch of vanilla creamsicle, along with trees, ashtray, nut and animal. The palate was fresh with great earth, light spice and a firm elegance. Soft and supple, the Musigny was a beautiful wine (95).

The 1937 Romanee Conti had an incredible nose that almost took the Ponsot up a notch, but in reality there was nowhere to go from the Ponsot anyway. Everything was there in the ’37 ”“ everything! Rose, garden, mint, perfume, jasmine, Asia, Europe, Africa ”“ a world of spice, if you will, graced its spectacular aromatic profile, as did a touch of steak sauce. The wine just kept unfolding, and its palate also had everything, including menthol, mint, citrus, anise and wax. It was as good as this wine can be (99).

The 1923 Roumier Bonnes Mares was a curious fellow, exhibiting more wood, stem, stalk, caraway and earth components with a touch of sassafras and vanilla. There was nice concentration to this ancient wine, but after the 1937 RC, this wine showed a woodier and more austere side (93).

The 1945 Roumier Bonnes Mares was another story. Eddie was the first to notice this wine, as usual staying one step ahead of the curve. After so many great wines, this ’45 still lit up the room. ‘Wow’ and ‘killer’ started my notes off. The ’45 had the garden quality that jumps out of great old Roumier. I couldn’t stop smelling this wine; it was symphonic in its depth. ‘Perfect’ and ‘20/20’ came from the crowd. Its complexity of spice was insane, and there were pinches of everything. It had this citric ‘fairy’ dust quality as the wine was sheer magic. The palate was equally incredible and had so much going on. ‘Great flavors and great everything’ summed it up (99).

Eddie refreshed me with some ’59 Ponsot, as he was insisting it was still the nose of the night. I couldn’t disagree, that’s for sure, although many arguments could be made for other wines as well. Rob actually liked the 1923 over the 1945 Roumier, one of the rare instances I can remember us on such opposite sides of the analysis of a head-to-head wine match up.

The saga continued with a 1929 Romanee Conti, as it was now officially a saga. Robert Bohr was already on the phone trying to get Spielberg to direct ‘THE Cellar III.’ Sorry, everyone, there will be no Part III. We tried to warn you! Back to the ’29; it is a wine that I have had on a couple occasions but found to be tired and disappointing. I generally think great Burgundy is best before age seventy based on my experiences with the 1920s and older. However, this 1929 was the best that I have ever had. Meaty, gamy and oily, there was a touch of that overmaturity to it, but the wine was still saucy and edgy, special and about as old as I like it. Tea, spice and leather rounded out both its nose and mouth. It was Etienne de Montille’s favorite wine of the night (97).

As a side note, Etienne was a spontaneous special guest, winner of the ‘Best Timing of the Year’ category. One we got past those Bordeaux, with each sip the gleeful glow on his face grew brighter and brighter. By the end of the Burgundies, one could tell that he could not wait to share the news of this magical evening’s wines with all his Burgundian counterparts!

It was time to say goodbye to Burgundy and hello to Pomerol. A magnum of 1947 L’Evangile rang the alarm in fine fashion. It had great, concentrated plum and cassis fruit and the slate to balance. It was chocolate city with the Foxy Brown flavors and the Bambaataa finish (that’s a New York thing), but overall it had a soft, satiny impression, easy to drink and mature with a nice kick of acidity on its finish, but its aromatics were greater than its impression in the mouth. It was still outstanding but probably not getting any better (95).

The 1947 Lafleur quickly took over the topic of conversation. It was so kinky and concentrated as Lafleur is prone to, possess both the ripeness of 1947 and that pinch of Rayas sweetness. Musk, nut and almost coconut, more like butternut, were all there. The palate was so rich and concentrated with plum, chocolate and sex flavors. Yes, it is one of the better ways to describe the experience of a 1947 Lafleur; arousing, to say the least (99).

Despite receiving a lot of adoration from many in the crowd, I found this bottle of 1947 Petrus to be a touch oxidized, and by this stage of the night, I wasn’t going to make the effort. Maybe it was just me (DQ). As a side note, even the greatest of cellars will have off bottles here and there. It is part of collecting, especially when you get into the oldest of wines. Often, there can be a couple of off bottles in the same case that has produced spectacular experiences, and so it goes. One has to understand that if one is going to collect old wines. Sometimes, the best-looking bottle can be oxidized, and the worst-looking ones can deliver a thrilling experience. Even unmoved cases purchased upon release can have bottles that are less thrilling than others. I know, it can bea bit maddening, but if it ruins your life to open an ‘off’ bottle, then you should stick to drinking the 21st Century stuff now!

Good thing there was a bottle of 1945 Petrus as a replacement. Although my literary skills were waning, this was the Petrus that I know and love. It had pure Petrus sex appeal; the plum, cassis, cocoa, spice and edge. The structure, fruit and finish were all in perfect harmony in this spectacular bottle (99).

Somehow, a 1962 Romanee Conti emerged. Ok, if you insist. There might have been a couple of other wines floating around, but this is where my notes will end. This bottle was consistent with the La Tache all the way, displaying consistent styles of both producer and vintage. There was incredible concentration and similar ‘wow’ aromas and flavors of menthol, mint, rose, blood, meat, iron, garden and A1, make that A+1. The wine was ridiculous, as is the quality of wines represented by ‘THE Cellar.’ Seven 99 point wines in one night. That doesn’t happen too often (99).

The evening was another testament to the provenance of THE Cellar, the greatest cellar that I have ever encountered.

Some recent traveling brought me together with the owner of ‘The Cellar’ in preparation for the upcoming October auction. After a few days of hard work, we decided to have a memorable meal to celebrate the upcoming sale and were joined by a couple of close friends as well as a couple of the media’s more influential editors. As always, the owner’s generosity was way beyond the call of duty.

We started innocently enough with a bottle of 1985 Krug. As usual, the 1985 Krug delivered an outstanding experience. Full-bodied, tasty and with great balance to its brawn, the Krug had a sturdy finish and the right delicacy to match. It will be a Champagne to enjoy for many years to come and is arguably the Champagne of the vintage (96).

We segued into a 2001 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. The Coche snapped, crackled and popped out of the glass with a super toasty nose, full of kernel, white earth and baked Indian breads. There was a lot of nut oil, and yellow and white fruits underneath. It had the classic, honeyed, kinky and musky Coche sex appeal, although our host found it ‘a bit too fat.’ The palate was smooth, rich and, indeed, fat, fat enough to bury its acidity despite a lot of slate and mineral expressions on its finish. ‘Coconut’ was observed and ‘a touch of botrytis,’ along with ‘fig and sesame.’ This was an unbelievably hedonistic Coche; my only question about it was its seeming lack of backside depth. Was it immature hibernation or is this a more upfront vintage of Coche? Based on rumors of the winery’s infatuation with this vintage, I would have to think it is the prior (95+).

A magnum was next, and not just any old magnum. It was a magnum of 1959 Roumier Bonnes Mares. This magnum came from a cellar this collector purchased that had 18 magnums of this nectar in total! He may have all the magnums that are left in the world, to be frank. The nose was incredibly complex – meaty, rich, and full of tomato, earth and spice, and also touches of mint, fig and something herbal that was dill-like but not quite dill. An exotic beef satay quality emerged, complete with the kiss of peanut sauce, and an additional kiss of cedar. The palate was decadent, rich and long with great definition. Flavors of spice, cedar, meat, tomato, gravy and worcestershire emerged in this saucy mouthful of a wine. It was classic ’59 all the way with its saucy and ripe style, hailed as ‘tropical, yet evolving into a spicy finish’ by our host. He continued, ‘The fruit explodes then comes to a pinpoint that ties it all together.’ A kiss of garden flavors rounded out this muscular wine (97).

There was another magnum of wine, this time a 1947 Lafleur. There was a lot of volatile acidity initially, but it did not bother me a bit. Most ’47s are like that. There was this incredible bouquet of chocolate, plum, taffy and toffee, brittle-like in its sweetness, complex and exotic overall. The palate also had a lot of chocolate flavors, along with a pinch of rust and expressive tannins, but this magnum was more about its juicy fruit than a monstrous finish. The concentration of decadent fruit was extraordinary, and the wine became more and more decadent over time. Tasty, smooth and lush, the wine seemed fully mature and ready to go, which isn’t a bad thing. ‘Amazing tobacco, port-ish, and so chocolaty’ came from the crowd. Our host felt that while this was still outstanding, he has had better experiences from the very same batch that had a bit more intensity in the mouth, something that was not meant to be construed as a negative, but rather just a fact (95).

The equivalent of six bottles for the six of us were not enough, so we ordered something off the list, a 1997 Bryant Family. How would one of California’s supposed legendary wines stack up? We joked the future of California’s reputation could rest with this bottle of Bryant due to its elite company. The nose was rich and super concentrated, a banana boat special as some of Helen Turley’s wines reflect. Very fragrant, thick and chunky, its nose reeked of blueberry pancakes with lots and lots of syrup on top. Its tannins and alcohol were quite vigorous in this spiny wine and its enormous finish. It definitely was a smackdown of a wine with its motor oil-like texture and thick personality. I just couldn’t help but feel like I needed to put a couple of ice cubes in the glass, and that this was more beverage than wine. Perhaps 1947 Lafleur was this concentrated at age ten; unfortunately, I will never know. The finish was earthy and dirty, and the wine was a bit sweet for my own personal tastes, but I had to respect it and its still-existing potential (93+).

Reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. Save a couple of anonymous individuals, the Angry Men have been very angry in 2006, gathering on a more infrequent basis as a whole and quite often in smaller contingents. Of course, I led the charge to gather earlier this year and banded together me angry men, who are always kept in check by the one angry chick.

A gaggle of Champagnes kicked off year two, beginning with a 1982 Dom Perignon out of magnum. Fresh, lightly creamy and meaty, the 1982 was showing excellently with some sweet nutty fruit, hazelnuts, butter and seltzer. In the mouth, the fruit was rich, tasty, creamy and nutty, and its palate was lightly spritely, balanced and beautiful. Its richness and sweetness were one step short of outstanding, but this was still toasty and smooth and certainly benefited by being served out of magnum, which makes a big difference for Champagne in lesser years and after age twenty (94M).

The 1981 Krug was also out of magnum, and Ray immediately found it ‘a touch maderized.’ Its nose had citrus and a little bread while its palate was very citrusy with long acidity. I found its palate rich, creamy and tangy and actually very good, good enough perhaps to outlast the DP but not as good on this night. Rob found it ‘White Burgundy at the bottom and green apple.’ I got lobster in the nose later on, or maybe that was what I ate. Its acidity was still special (92+M).

The 1980 Dom Perignon Rose was almost like a chapitalized Burgundy from the 1950’s. Josh found ‘Maraschino cherry’ fruit, and there was also rose, white chocolate and a touch of Marzipan. The palate was both mature and fresh, with nutty and oaty fruit and nice freshness despite an autumnal edge. Someone found it ‘a little oxidative,’ and that someone was probably Ray, who is working on his new novel, The Oxidation Conspiracy; look for it in 2007. I looked at it as being mature, definitely not going to get better and perhaps one to receive a lower score sooner rather than later but still excellent on this night (93).

A flight of Leflaive’s ‘Clavoillon’ opened up the wine portion of our evening, whose theme by the way was 1980s Burgundy. The 1989 Domaine Leflaive Puligny Montrachet Clavoillon had a great nose full of menthol, butter, wax, minerals, nut, game and white meat; it was very complex. There were classic, yellow, sundried fruit flavors and still a trace of grit on its finish, along with flavors of butter, light minerals and lingering acidity. Waxy and minty, I was struck as this being more Ramonet-ish, but then again I generally have not had many Pulignys this old from Leflaive. We try to stick to Grand Cru as much as possible at age seventeen (93).

The 1988 Domaine Leflaive Puligny Montrachet Clavoillon’s nose was a bit sour with some mildew in it, but that sounds worse than it was. It still had a broad, rich, big palate, a bit clumsy but broad. The 1988 was holding on, but there was a touch of alley and vegetable to the finish, again sounding worse than it was. Mike found ‘a little too much oak,’ and the 1988 is a wine to definitely drink up (89).

The 1985 Domaine Leflaive Puligny Montrachet Clavoillon had a steelier style, with its acidity much more prevalent in the nose. There were wax, butter, corn and yellow fruits there as well. Ray admired its ‘youthful’ quality, and it was the most so. It seemed shier on the palate and more medium weight, still smooth and with rainwater flavors (92).

A 1980 Leroy Chapelle Chambertin was ‘great,’ according to Ray and ‘phenomenal’ according to Mike, who was quickly told by Ray, in true Angry Man style, to stop copying him. It had a sweet, seductive nose full of catnippy, brambly, sweet fruit raspberries, cherries and strawberries, oh my! There was serious catnip action, enough to make it pretty frisky in some back alleys around America. There were also aromas of vitamins, musk, stems and tree bark. Its flavors were rich, tangy, briary and earthy, and it delivered a delicious, round, smooth and fully mature experience. There were vitamins and additional earth on the finish. The only drawback was that the wine ‘faded quickly,’ as Mike observed as it got a little woodsier. Those 1980s need to be consumed in a timely fashion once opened for maximum enjoyment (93).

A 1981 H. Jayer Echezeaux was a little musty or corky; there was some richness behind it and loads of vitamins and dark, plummy fruit. Big Boy found it very ‘chocolaty,’ which was very true. There was great richness in the mouth for the vintage, and its earthy and leathery finish was impressive. Jayer is a master in the ‘off’ years (93A).

We continued this experimental flight with a 1982 Rousseau Chambertin, which had lots of wild animal in the nose and tangy and vitaminy fruit, supported by rank meat, citrus, sweet rose and stem. There was lots of citrus on the palate, which lacked flesh but still had good richness, along with good tang and earth on its finish. ‘Asian spice was all over it,’ Mike noted, and we weren’t sure if he was talking about the wine or the porn he was watching last night. Ray then followed with one of his favorite descriptors, the ‘tea bag.’ All hell broke loose early, and if you don’t know, trust me, you don’t want to. Ray also got secondary beef flavors, although usually he is one to be at the primary source of any beef (90).

The 1986 Roumier Bonnes Mares had an incredible nose full of menthol, mint and spice with this incredible rusty vigor to match. I have been a huge fan of Roumier’s 1986s as I believe he struck gold in this vintage. Mike pegged ‘orange peel.’ The wine was balanced and with great menthol flavors and long acidity. It was clearly the wine of the night so far, but I had it as excellent, but not outstanding (94).

Another experimental turn, the 1987 Jadot Musigny, had everybody blasting Jadot and forming a lynch mob. I, for one, was into it. I thought it would be cool to have every vintage from the decade represented and the Jadot just happened to be in the right place at the right time, as you do not see many 1987s hanging around these days. The Musigny still had nice citrus, earth, vitamin and musk aromas. Ray said, ‘it smells like old Bordeaux.’ ‘Palmer,’ Mike observed while Ray countered ‘La Miss,’ though Mike served a forehand winner with a ‘not enough hickory’ comment. The palate was like most ’87s by now tangy and rusty without the vigor or acidity of ’86. Mike observed ‘a little band aid’ and said it reminded Mike of BV ’77. We tormented him a bit about that being his house wine. Ray wisely observed that this is a wine that needs to be drunk within thirty minutes (88).

The 1985 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin ‘Clos St. Jacques’ elicited a ‘welcome to the big leagues’ by none other than Big Boy himself. The CSJ had an amazing nose that was fresh and full of vitamins, rose and wound citrusy fruit. There was also cherry, mint and Gorky found ‘iodine;’ its nose had almost everything. The palate was outstanding to match, full of vitamin and citrus flavors. Its rich, creamy, taut, spiny and vigorous personality was great, and while it is probably at its peak (where it should rest for a few years), it was absolutely beautiful and a quintessential example of a great Burgundy shedding its adolescence (95).

The 1985 Roumier Bonnes Mares was a controversial wine and a bit of a let down for many. Mike found ‘urine’ in its nose, and Ray corrected him with ‘golden shower.’ I can’t take these guys anywhere. The nose was citrusy and spiny in a mild, feminine, elegant way with lots of musk, earth and almost steam. The palate was all about the citrus and vitamin, balanced and long in an elegant way and still with excellent acidity. Rob noticed ‘smoked oak,’ and the wine, indeed, got woody. Insert Beavis or Butthead laugh here. While the acidity of the 1985 kept it in the excellent ballpark, I would have to say I would be disappointed if I paid $1000 for the bottle, especially when I could pick up an ’86 or ’83 even at less than half the price (93).
The 1985 Dujac Bonnes Mares won this head-to-head, 1985 Bonnes Mares showdown. Ray was all over the wine, oohing and aahing, cooing and sighing, and it got embarrassing when he started licking the stem of his glass up and down, over and over. Ok, I’m kidding, but he was not shy about his adoration of the Dujac. The nose was at first very subtle and shy with aromas of linen, black cherry, earth and charcoal. The palate, however, was exquisite and rich with flavors of iodine, earth, vitamins and minerals. Mike found it ‘complete and balanced’ but didn’t get the extra level of complexity out of the wine that Ray, myself and others did. Ray gave it a 98+ (95).

The 1985 flight continued with a 1985 J. Gros Richebourg, which was also shy yet meaty and chocolaty as well. It had a toasty nose with a kernel quality, maybe a touch of gas and some secondary black cherry and band-aid action. Its palate was rich and meaty with lots of vitamins and just a touch of a positive, medicinal quality. Its acid really lingered and there were loads of citrus on its rusty, toasty and pure palate (94).

We finished this flight with a 1985 Roty Charmes Chambertin Cuvee de Tres Vieilles Vignes. If one wine stood out in this flight as being different or the one that didn’t belong a la Electric Company, it was the Roty. There was ‘Pomerol’ here as Big Boy noted. The wine was incredibly extracted especially after the first four wines in this flight, meaty and dripping with oaky, vanilla fruit. Someone likened Roty’s style to ‘Jayer on steroids.’ There were lots of vitamin flavors, great acidity and what Mike called ‘petrol tires.’ While it may be a modern style and not what everyone wants in their Burgundy, I had to respect its long, tangy and dark fruit flavored style (95).

Sixteen wines were down and only eight to go. Make that nine, as the next wine was served out of magnum, a 1983 La Tache. The LT had an incredible nose. ‘Now that’s a real wine,’ I wrote. Its sweetness was incredible, as Big Boy quickly called out ‘ballgame,’ meaning the competition was over. There was also great iron, big Asian spice and musk. Incredible kept coming up over and over in my notes. The palate was off the charts – rich, creamy, lucious, vigorous and spiny, it certainly did not change my opinion that 1983 wines are delicious right now, especially out of magnum (96M).

Yes, it was a flight, and thanks to a very generous Big Boy we had a 1985 Romanee Conti. There was a bit of cobweb to the nose at first, but once it opened up, it got a ‘six stars’ from Big Boy and a ‘not even fair’ from Robert Bohr. Its nose was earthy, musky and meaty, bordering on seepy. I found it also a bit dirty but in a ‘xxx’ way. The palate had extraordinary concentration as only RC does; so rich, long, briny, earthy and meaty with a syrup-like concentration. The last two wines reminded me about Allen Meadows’ keen observation about the difference between La Tache and Romanee Conti, how ‘La Tache goes to you while you must go to RC.’ I enjoyed the 1983 LT better on this night but would clearly take the 1985 RC long term (97+).

We also had a 1988 Romanee Conti, which was much shier than the ’85 but still extraordinary. It was sandy yet still meaty, soy saucy in an oozing way. Oily and nutty, it was rich and spiny, not like the ’85 but still a killer in its own right. It had both a rustic power like many ’88s, but also an elegance most 88’s lack. That elegance caused the ’88 to take some abuse after the 1985, but make no mistake about it, this was an outstanding wine (95).

The 1988 La Tache was also a great wine, sweet, sturdy and spiny, but it did have some tough acts to follow. Someone noticed ‘a little pencil shavings.’ It was rich and meaty, oily, thick, oozing and saturated in the nose. The palate was long and smooth, less intense and more earthy than the nose and perhaps would have shown better if served earlier on in the night (94).

There were five wines left, and my notes became very brief after the flight, but here they go anyway. A 1988 Leroy Romanee St. Vivant had the deep, rich, meaty, plummy, vitaminy Leroy style. The palate was incredibly musky, rich and tasty. Long, balanced, smooth yet hearty, the 1988 was a solid wine (93).

A 1988 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes had ‘super sweet, candy-like, Blue Slide fruit,’ according to Ray, who always has to pick out one Burgundy and go on his Cali tilt every tasting. The palate was delicious – rich, long, tasty, and flirting with outstanding and just barely missed it (94).

The 1989 Leroy Chambertin had an intense nose; rich, meaty and beefier than the ’88. Mike found ‘graphite with lead’ yes, indeedy (94).

The 1989 G & H Jayer Echezeaux was concentrated and so Jayer, with lots of acid and rich, earthy, dark fruit flavors and sundried, intense, Sahara flavors (95).

Apparently we had a 1989 Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux as well, but I somehow missed it. By this point, it was no surprise. All of our collective anger had been washed away.

Hollywood’s own Jefery Levy had invited a small group of friends to come to his new house in LA and celebrate with a cellar raid of anything already in his cellar, which was the first room Jef had dealt with when moving in; obviously, he is one with his priorities straight. a close friend of mine and Matt, always ready to hit where it hurts when it comes to a good cellar raid, were well rested and prepared for an evening of yo ho ho-ing and many bottles of wine, along with Mark, Arthur, Dave, Graham, Steve, Dalia and Chris Tucker, the star of the Rush Hour movies, along with a few others.

If I remember correctly, it was a close friend of mine’s birthday or pretty close to it, so we started with a bottle from his birth year, a 1976 Krug. The Krug had a great, toasty nose with bready and caramel overtones, great seltzer, and a rich and creamy profile. Dalia noted ‘strawberry flavors’ and was 100% correct. There were also caramel flavors, nice grit, and the bubbly was long and balanced, perhaps on a plateau but still with some ascension to it. It was in a really good spot; its acidity was long and fine, and it was rich, meaty, toasty and full of white meat and oil flavors. a close friend of mine gave it ‘5 stars’ (95).

We followed with a 1982 Krug, which had a similar style with the bread and caramel, but it seemed a bit flat in the nose and didn’t have the lift in the mouth, more seltzer and almost watery. It was a flat and affected bottle (DQ).

We had to follow up with one more bubbly accordingly, a 1983 Cristal, which was very fresh and delicate, light on its feet with a lot of seltzer, citrus peel, minerals and a pungent kick. Fresh, very smooth, elegant, but not what I remember when I had it recently out of magnum, the 1983 Cristal was lighter out of bottle but still had some extra acidity (93).

The cellar raid officially begun with a 1959 Mouton Rothschild, which had a great nose, similar to the one I had at Picasso in Las Vegas five days prior, as well as the one I had shortly thereafter at Picholine that I wrote about last week. Its nose was incredibly rich, meaty, honeyed and nutty with carob, caramel, meat, and dripping with coffee fruit. There was also a wealth of rich cassis and grape fruit (not grapefruit!). Dalia pegged ‘white vanilla cream,’ while Phil, a man who knows his wine very well, called it ‘milk.’ There was a similar story on the palate, which was also rich and meaty, as well as smooth, supple and with cedar and slate kisses on its finish but lacking a lot of tannin, but just enough to keep the wine in perspective. It was very close to the other bottle at Picasso, having more fruit but less vigor on its back side. Its rich caramel flavors were ‘pure’ according to a close friend of mine. Graham, also with us in Vegas along with a close friend of mine and Big Boy, was ‘leaning here’ as to his preference between the bottles. This bottle’s palate had more fruit, and that means a lot at age 47 (96).

What better way to follow up the 1959 Mouton is there than a 1961 Latour? This bottle was a great Latour, very fresh and youthful in its nose, dripping with plum and cassis fruit and supporting minerals, slate, walnut and earth. It possessed rich, pure, sweet Bordeaux fruit and had a long finish that was also balanced. Rich, smooth and long, with mature sweet fruit, carob and earth flavors, its tannins were polished and its acidity superb. Dalia got ‘butter.’ A second bottle proved slatier with more tannin and vigor but not the fruit of first one, and although it did get richer with time, Dave found it ‘more powdery’ (97).

The 1961 Palmer was a good place to go next. It also had a rich and creamy nose full of ripe fruit, with an earthy balance and a kiss of benevolent natural gas. Its fruit got sexier and sexier, dark fruits, ‘black currants and pear,’ Dalia observed, while a close friend of mine called her pear ‘more like Lychee. I love this wine, so Burgundian.’ The palate was rich, creamy and long and possessed the best fruit so far. It was so lush and rich, full of mouth-filling fruit and kiss of olive. Wow (98).

A 1955 Trotanoy also had really rich and luscious fruit. We were really on a roll thanks to Jefery’s cellar! Phil commented that the ’55 was ‘better than any 1961 Trotanoy that I have ever had and Trotanoy’s my favorite.’ It was full of red cherry fruit, ‘cafe au lait avec chocolate,’ Dalia added while Phil noted ‘Persian sour cherry and brine from acidity.’ Plums, chocolate, minerals and slate were all to be found on its rich palate, which was tangy and with more sour cherry than the nose, as I instantly saw what Phil was referring to. It was very briary with lots of citric vigor and vim to the palate, busty, fresh and tangy (96).

We changed gears to a 1947 Lopez de Heredia Rioja Gran Riserva Vina Bosconia. It had great cigar aromas along with chocolate and that Spanish leather. Dalia found ‘black olive,’ and there was also earth and graham cracker in its meaty and long nose. The palate had earth, dry vanilla and cedary flavors, and this bottle was much better than the last bottle I had had. There were also great leather flavors and a touch of what I call ‘Spanish egg.’ The Rioja held its own amongst its more distinguished counterparts (93).

The 1975 La Mission Haut Brion was another great nose. I said that I have had nothing but good luck with this sometimes maligned wine, but Matt countered the opposite was true for himself, although he conceded that this was a good one. There was lots of earth, iron, cedar and minerals in the nose. Dalia found ‘green herbs, romaine in French’ and ‘green and brown figs.’ She does have an amazing, innate ability to identify aromas and flavors for someone who does not drink that often. She is always a welcome and fresh perspective. Rich and long, with lots of spice and t ‘n a and vigor to the palate, a close friend of mine humbugged that the ’75 was ‘too tannic, and the wine will dry out.’ Graham also found it ‘bitter.’ I thought that while it was finish-heavy on the palate, it still had plenty of rich fruit to match its very dry vigor, which I loved (97+).

Matt quickly hailed the 1961 La Mission Haut Brion the ‘Wine of the Night.’ Dalia noted ‘red peppers and parsley or garlic,’ whichI saw. There was rich, chunky fruit, dripping black and purple ones, and lots of iron, minerals and cedar. ‘Some lemon cream in the back,’ Dalia cooed. The wine had a divine balance of its wood components, practically perfect. The palate was superb; its acidity blew away the other 1961’s and made me want to downgrade every other wine. Its acidity was that superior. There was great t ‘n a, great vigor, and it was indeed ‘WOTN.’ Phil stuck with the 1955 Trotanoy, but the cedar and mineral flavors of the La Miss were ridiculous. It was a magical bottle that makes tasting old wine so worthwhile and the occasional off bottle a distant and forgotten memory (99).

We started to wind down with the 1983 Lafleur. Phil quickly called it ‘not for me; it doesn’t have the subtlety.’ The 1983 is always a wine with super ripe, Zin-like fruit and this bottle was no exception. Dalia noted ‘hazelnut and pistachio,’ and when I added ‘menthol and mint,’ she corrected me with ‘Moroccan mint.’ Yes, ma’am! Its brambly, Zinny fruit was ‘sunny’ to Dave, and Dalia, who was on fire by this point, added ‘honey and very dark chocolate, cocoa.’ Its rich, Zinfandel wannabe palate still had lots of minerals and rock flavors, and while the palate was very overripe, it was still excellent, but you have to have a bit of a sweet tooth to enjoy (93).

A couple of negociant Burgs rounded out the night. A 1945 Morin Pere & Fils Musigny had a rich, nutty and chapitalized nose. Its palate was honeyed, rich and with sweet cherry, rose and earth flavors. Sweet rich and tasty, it still had good acidity and a nice finish, with some length, meat and intensity although most likely reconditioned (92).

The 1949 T. Moillard Chambolle Musigny was another negociant bottling and had a beautiful nose with a nice elder quality of sweet chapitalized fruit and slaty minterals. Honeyed and with red cherry fruit, it also had a bright citrus musk. Its palate was rich, a touch watered down but extremely tasty and 100% excellent. Rich, meaty and long with excellent definition on the finish with minerals and slate, this 1949 Chambolle was actually just short of outstanding and 100% delicious. Back in the days, the quality of village wines was much better (93).

Some boys were getting a little frisky, so I decided to call it a night before it got ugly. Well, actually, it almost did, but that is another story. Thank you and nice work, Jefery. Keep buying at those Acker Auctions 🙂 !!!