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 🙂 !!!

I told you these articles would be making their way to you more often! This dictaphone is really paying dividends. Before I get into my article, I am proud to announce that I will be representing all of winekind at the World Series of Poker at the end of July. I beat out over 700 players last night at a $200 buy-in game for an $11,000 package into the big dance! It is a big relief, for now I can have free nights again the rest of the month J.

Hear ye, hear ye, the Royal Order of the Purple Palate is now in session. Actually, it has been in session for over 30 years. It is held almost every month in Los Angeles, as it is the personal tasting group of Dr. Bipin Desai. Its members have changed over the years, but the premise remains the same: to taste double-blind (i.e., completely not knowing the wines being served) the finest and rarest wines of the world. Each member hosts at least one event a year and provides all the wines from his cellar, providing only one clue for each flight of wine. Bipin himself was the host of this first event.

The champagnes weren’t served blind, as we had a pair of Bollinger RDs. The 1990 Bollinger RD had a toasty and brawny nose, quite big and arguably one of the biggest in general. The nose was bready and nutty as well, with drops of caramel and honey and great freshness. The palate was quite racy, also brawny, fresh, long and balanced. It had excellent acidity, somewhat buried but still precise (95+).

The 1975 Bollinger RD’s nose was incredibly nutty, toasty and white chocolaty. Aromas of bread soaked in oil, orange blossom and white meat also graced its divine nose. It was still very fresh on the palate, more so than its nose let on. Flavors of orange blossom carried over to the palate, along with seltzer, bread, light caramel and a touch of fresh rain. The only negative was that it seemed to be missing some weight relative to the 1990 (93).

The first flight was a white one, served with the clue ‘Same vintage, same vineyard, three different owners.’ The first wine had a gorgeous nose with lots of kernel, minerals, cracked wheat, butter, nuts and light honey to its very deep aromatic profile. The nose was practically popping out of the glass! Pure white and yellow fruits rounded out the aromas. The palate had butter, corn and light earth flavors. Pure and long, it seemed to be entering a plateau of maturity with its balanced acid soaked up by its fruit. Fabulous, pure and smooth, Christian and I were both thinking Coche Dury, and it was indeed the 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. ‘So precise,’ a close friend of mine observed. ‘My favorite white producer,’ I observed, while a close friend of mine countered ‘Leflaive’ for himself (96). I should mention that the identity of the wine was not revealed until after all three wines were discussed at length blindly.

The second white had a wider nose but was not as forward, more waxy, with nice butter, nut and light nutmeg. The classic citrus came out. The wine had a nice body, shier and less developed though, still with a bit of baby fat to it. The palate was very oily with more slate on its finish. ‘Coconut,’ someone observed, and a close friend of mine observed some ‘botrytis.’ The acids really came out with time in this 1996 Lafon Meursault Perrieres (93+).

The last wine of this first flight was a touch advanced, with more butter and wax and that mature Chardonnay kink. Meaty, with that inner peel, sherry kiss, the palate might have been considered tasty for a white from the 1970’s, but not for a 1996 Leroy Meursault Perrieres. a close friend of mine concurred that the wine was ‘more mature than 1996.’ There was also definitely a case for cork taint, and a big controversy started over Hydrogen Peroxide versus Sulfur Dioxide, although the particulars of it I’ll be damned if I remember (DQ).

Somehow, Christian was discussing Guigal’s La La wines and declared that La Turque was Tyson, La Landonne was Hagler and the La Mouline Sugar Ray. That’s an FY in your I.

The second flight’s clue was ‘Single vintage from the same proprietor, three different appellations.’ The first wine (now red) had a nutty, Bordeaux-like, elegant nose with aromas of slate, minerals and nutty, plummy fruit. Even though the clue led me to believe this was Burgundy, I probably would have guessed Bordeaux on my own. It had a sandy, dusty edge with a touch of must. Rich, lush and delicious, it was easy to get past its must. a close friend of mine called it ‘chapitalized’ negociant Burgundy.’ Despite the doctor’s prognosis, the wine was rich with a nice balance between its fruit and finish, possessing sweet fruit flavors, and a touch of band-aid crept in. The palate did get more corky in this 1964 Leroy Chapelle Chambertin (93A).

The second wine had a more open nose, which was very lush and dripping with rich purple and black fruits. The nose was oily, ‘yet it’s not thick, it’s delicate,’ Christian observed. The nose had a nice nuttiness along with chocolate and minerals. Rich, lush, sweet and long, this was atypical Burgundy, not pure and more of a cross dresser, but that was more the style of the times. The palate had nuttier flavors and was sweet as well, and while someone called it ‘a little simple,’ this 1964 Leroy Grands Echezeaux gained after an hour to border on outstanding (94+).

The final wine of the flight was a 1964 Leroy Pommard Aux Vignots, since the cat is out of the bag here. It had a very nutty nose, more so peanut butter, along with vanilla cream, earth and some wood, but a nice touch of wood. The Pommard actually had the best acidity of the bunch. Long, balanced and with grapy and nutty flavors, it was both a close friend of mine’s and my favorite of the flight, a West and East coast young gun consensus, although he did concede that the Grands Echezeaux had better concentration (95).

Frank noted of the Leroy flight that there was ‘a lot of barnyard across the board.’

The final flight’s clue was ‘Same vineyard, same proprietor, four different vintages.’ The first wine in this flight had a very youthful and intense nose, full of long and unevolved t’ n a. The aromas possessed lots of licorice, tobacco, earth, tar, leathery cedar and black fruits underneath. The palate was long and vimful with cedar, mineral and slate flavors. This wine was long, balanced, pure and pretty. There was fleshy and plummy fruit, by Italian standards, that is. The finish had expressive tannins and excellent acidity, and someone observed that it was ‘amazing how sweet Monfortino can be.’ The wine got sweeter and redder in flavor, but its minerals, slate and chalk held it together as porcelain aromas developed. This 1985 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva kept getting better and better (96).

Unfortunately, the 1971 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was oxidized (DQ).

The third wine had another fabulous nose that was so classic with superhero-like tannins and alcohol, cedar, anise, mahogany and tobacco aromas. It was what I like to call a very screechy nose. a close friend of mine was humbugging, however, noting its volatile acidity. The palate was similar to the nose; long, rich and with flesh to its fruit, its flavors were nutty and oily with deep, dark black fruits. The wine was very spiny and intense with minerally, kernel-like flavors and a great finish that was a bit earthy. It was the 1967 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva. Bipin found it seductive. (95).

The last Monfortino had a beautiful nose that was the sexiest of the flight. Possessing more rose in the nose, it was ‘almost Burgundian,’ Christian observed. It was so sexy with its cinnamon, cedar, tar and red fruit aromas. In the mouth, this wine was rich, lush and round and possessed great fruit with supporting iron, mineral, cedar and tar flavors. Flat-out gorgeous, the 1961 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was so feminine and elegant but still sturdy and vigorous. It was a great bottle (97).

I was lucky enough to be in town for another meeting of the Royal Order, and this one happened to be hosted by one of my fellow enthusiasts himself, newest and youngest member of the ROPP. Yeah, you know a close friend of mine, and I actually must confess that I came out to LA specifically around this event in early February. Any official tasting held by the Doctor is well worth traveling across the country for, and this was no exception.

We started with a magnum of 1976 Krug, birth year of the Doctor. It had a nutty nose with great bread, caramel and white chocolate aromas and was amazingly fresh and toasty. The palate was racy and vivacious, full of zesty bubbles and acidity. There were mineral flavors and kiss of citrus rind that expanded on its rocky finish. This outstanding Champagne also got earthier in its nose (95).

The hint for the first flight of whites was ‘same commune,’ and I had three queens in the pocket as my guesses, Montrachet, Chevalier Montrachet and Batard Montrachet.

The first wine had an amazing nose full of character. Its citrus screamed out of the glass along with minerals, rainwater, quince and lemon tart. The palate was also very lemony and full of acidity, along with a rocky finish. Very pungent, there was a lot of cat’s pee to the flavor, but the 1992 Ramonet Montrachet was intense, vigorous and long. We later found out this was a magnum (95).

The second wine was very buttery by contrast, possessing smoky aromas of exotic guavas resting on clouds (no drugs necessary), corn and also a little pungency. Very smooth on the palate, it had yellow hues and light earth flavors but not a lot of vigor, and the wine got more caliesque. Everyone was a bit puzzled, and we found out that this wine was technically not a part of the first flight and a ringer by the Doctor, a 2000 Contratto Chardonnay ‘Sabauda’ from Piedmont. Ha, ha very funny. I didn.t know the Doctor was a secret lover of Italian Chardonnay right back at you, a close friend of mine. Actually, it was the restaurant that insisted on slipping something in the middle to throw everyone off the scent, so to speak (86)!

It was back to our regular programming with the third white, which we soon found out was another trick from up the Doctor’s sleeve. This wine was very pungent as well, similar to number one, with aromas of anise, smoke, slate and acid. I would call the nose rock hard, very slaty and white earthy with lots of racy rocks and minerals in the nose. The palate was less defined than the first wine, still pungent and full but possessing less intensity, and it was then that we found out it was the same wine as #1, decanted 30 minutes as opposed to being served straight out of the magnum! Yes, Ray, we know that a footnote is due you here, inventor of the split pour out of magnum in a blind flight. Since I rated this glass a couple points less than the first glass, I can only conclude that the lesson learned is never decant a white older than ten years.

The clue for our second flight, now reds and only two wines, was ‘Battle for Supremacy…Again.’ Paul deadpanned in his unique way, ‘Lafleur vs. Petrus,’ as if he was saying ‘here we go again, sigh.’

The first red had a deep, deep, deep, abyss-like nose with nut, mocha, coconut, chocolate, earth, garden and a touch of oak that wasn.t bad. Stones and minerals were supporting this house of a wine. The palate was extraordinary; precise, long and possessing great mocha, stone, plum and oil flavors. Gritty, long yet smooth, this 1989 Chateau Lafleur was intense, minerally, earthy, tannic and had loads of acid. I still think it is the greatest Lafleur between 1975 and 2000, perhaps between 1961 and until the future. It is built to last decades (97+).

The second wine was not a Petrus, but rather a 1990 Chateau Lafleur. It had a kinky, ripe, Rayas-like nose that was so ripe and sexy, oily and jammy and dripping with black cherry, blackberry and cassis fruit that I wrote ‘has to be Lafleur.’ The palate was rich, jammy, long and smooth, and while the 1990 did not have the power of the 1989, it still had a lot of acid. Someone called it ‘kinky’ (96).

Our next clue was ‘One owner but not necessarily the same vineyard.’ Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The first wine was rich and creamy in the front end, but some found it ‘slightly off and maderized.’ There was still a lot of grapy fruit in this oily wine. I called the wine ‘grape city’ as there were grape seeds, grape nuts and grape oil all there. There was a bit of yeast to the palate, which had a leathery finish. There was great acid and length here, but the wine was definitely off in its flavor. There was an Amarone-like, figgy edge, but the acidity was still superb in this 1961 Chateau Latour a Pomerol (95A+).

The next wine had a gravelly, smoky nose but still plenty of fruit to go with it. There was great cassis and plum fruit, bordering on perfect. The nose was rich and decadent with a drop of honey. In the mouth, the wine was rich, fruity, gravelly and delicious with flavors of nut oil and divine, grapy fruit. Joe admired the ‘great complexity’ in this 1945 Chateau Latour a Pomerol. a close friend of mine shared how overshadowed 1945 is in the Right Bank compared to 1947, but that Right Bank wines from 1945 actually had more structure. There was a Graves-like intensity with its great gravel and gritty edge. a close friend of mine called it ‘complete,’ and it held amazingly well in the glass as some garden edges developed (98).

Paul, being the Burgundian that he is, awoke from his Pomerol slumber to give us ‘big knockers,’ or perhaps he was daydreaming of Musigny and noticed a woman outside. The third wine in this spectacular flight had a musky and smoky nose, more plummy than grapy, but still very concentrated in its fruit. I was stunned when it was revealed it was a Pomerol, as based on the fact that the first wine was a bit off and the second and third were so gravelly, I thought we had a La Mission and Haut Brion tango happening. See, one never stops learning as long as one keeps drinking. Kinky, sappy, long, smooth and a good yeasty, this 1921 Latour a Pomerol was still very fresh and with nice vigor still, absolutely delicious and ‘spectacular.’ It kept growing on me, ‘spectacular’ was echoed again along with ‘phenomenal’ by Frank (97).

I forgot the write down the clue for the last flight, but it had to have something to do with ‘same vintage,’ as you will soon see. The first wine had an amazing nose, full of (finally!) Burgundian characteristics. Rose, tea, garden and spice led the way into this party, along with incredible t ‘n a. There was great citric vigor and long tannins to this intense and vigorous wine, although Bipin found it ‘a bit tight and tannic.’ The t’ n a was spectacular in the mouth as well, along with fresh flavors of garden and bouillon. Long, intense and still young but with mature flavors and kisses, this 1945 Rousseau Chambertin became a bit drier after some food. Paul commented that it was ‘showing the 1945 character,’ and it maintained great spice (97).

Let’s just cut to the chase. The next wine was the 1945 Romanee Conti, the third time I have been blessed to have a bottle, all with a close friend of mine and all from one case that he was very, very, very fortunate to acquire; make that good! It is still the greatest wine that I have ever had. The RC was more forward and meaty than the Rousseau, with more edges of old book and some boullion in there with a saucy, leathery, kinky edge. It was very exotic with its garden and earth, sweet steak sauce and fresh snapped green beans. Smooth yet intense, long and divine, simply spectacular the ’45 RC had it all again, and a close friend of mine preferred this bottle to the other two even though I was on the other side of that coin, but that was a very fine hair to be split (99).

The 1945 La Tache was more beefy and chunky with some wood and iodine, the wood being a bit much and mushroomy and nutty, by itself probably great but ‘paled in comparison’ to the RC according to Frank. The bottle was a touch affected and maderized (92A).

The 1959 J.J. Prum Riesling Auslese Goldkap had a vanilla, creamsickle nose with lots of wood, heavy cream, lychee and forsted glaze. Fresh and respectably long, its flavors, however, came across a little cream-sickly (90).

It was another magical evening brought to us by a wizard of wine. Thank you, a close friend of mine. We should do it again some time soon, no really, I insist.