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.

Since first growths are now worth more upon release than aged in the bottle, I figured it was a good time to recount a couple of recent verticals held in New York City of Latour and Mouton Rothschild, held at Jean Georges and Picholine respectively.

Nestled away in a private suite above the restaurant, we started off the Latour vertical 2000 miles and running with the 2000 Chateau Latour, of course. The 2000 had a fabulous nose; its breed, character and strength of finish components were all there. The nose was very chunky and sweet, rich, nutty, lightly earthy, creamy, exotic and very smooth. Dalia noted ‘pink roses and honey,’ giving the traditionalists something to think about. The wine had a lot of baby fat on the palate, a bit lost initially, soft and easy, its backside in hibernation. It had flavors of ‘brown dates’ and was indeed ‘shy’ according to Dalia as well. It clearly had a lot of potential and started to awaken from its slumber if any one was patient enough to let it wait in the glass. It was many people’s favorite of the first flight, which also included the 1996 and 1995 (96+).

The 1996 Chateau Latour had a spinier nose with nice pitch and vigor, more classic in its style with aromas of nut, cedar and pencil. Wendy and Mike combined for an observation of ‘chili oil and pepper.’ The ’96 was nutty, and Dalia observed ‘smoked meats of sorts.’ It almost had a caraway edge to go with its touch of plum and cassis fruit. Oily, spiny, cedary and minerally, the 1996 had nice acidity and a touch of exotic banana, although Dalia gave it a big thumbs down overall (94).

The 1995 Chateau Latour had a decadent nose, aromatic and nutty with a dessert-like, caramel sex appeal and sweet perfume. The nose was rich and balanced, the most expressive of the first flight, as well as the most approachable. There were nice mineral and cedar flavors, and someone mentioned ‘iron.’ It was the most flattering of the first flight as far as drinking on this night at age eleven (95).

We began the second flight with a 1990 Chateau Latour. It had a fabulous nose which was rich, nutty, deep and full of black fruits. There was also a marzipan edge to its singing nose. The palate was rich, beefy and minty, long and balanced with a touch of tasty vegetable. Rich and creamy, its flavors flirted with wood but settled more on charcoal and tobacco. (96).

The 1982 Chateau Latour was paired with the 1990, a good vintage combination for practically any Bordeaux vertical. The ’82 was bready and tasty with a lot of front-end aromas of nuts, minerals, pencil, coffee and cream. Rich and tasty, the ’82 seemed a touch short in the middle, but overall was a long, sensuous and stylish wine, although Big Boy found it to be ‘eh’ (96).

The next flight was comprised of the 1978, 1970 and 1966. The 1978 Chateau Latour was full of Asian spice, mint, earth and carob, very forward, open and smooth. The palate was nutty, pleasant, smooth, soft and caressing, more mature than I remember, but that could always be the bottle (91?).

The 1970 Chateau Latour has never been one of my favorite Latours, but this bottle was rather fresh and rich in its caramel, nut, cassis and grape aromas. It had this sexy, grapy quality to it, and its flavors were similarly those of nut, grape and meat with great minerals on its finish. This was one of the freshest, purist bottles of 1970 Latour that I have ever had (94).

The 1966 Chateau Latour was unfortunately a bad bottle (DQ).

The next flight started off with the great 1961 Chateau Latour, and this was a fabulous bottle, one that had the room buzzing right away. The nose had loads of sweet cream and nut, rich and lush with its grape, fig, cedar and spice. In the mouth, the wine was long, spiny and still very vigorous, full of cedary and peppery flavors (97+).

The 1959 Chateau Latour was equally as good; rich, creamy, nutty and long, and also full of sweet cream but with more caramel. The palate was rich and chewy and possessed tremendous texture. Someone likened the 1959 to Reggie Bush, i.e. young and darting, while the 1961 was O.J. Simpson, aka ‘a killer.’ The 1961 did have more character, but the 1959 had a friendlier, up-front sex appeal. The 1959 was the bottle you wanted for a wild weekend, but the 1961 was the one you wanted to take home (97).

The 1955 Chateau Latour had a very peculiar nose, but its palate was much better, balanced and with nice texture. Sorry for the short note (93).

The 1949 Chateau Latour began our last flight and was consistent with the signature style of Latour that we saw unfolding throughout the evening. Sweet, rich, creamy, nutty, grapy and long, the 1949 had nice t’n a and minerals in its nose, emitting a smooth and balanced impression. There were lots of cedar flavors in this long, balanced and tasty Latour. This was the first time I had had a good experience with the 1949, which was smooth and satiny, an excellent wine overall, but not what I would consider one of the great all time Latours (94).

The 1945 Chateau Latour has always been one of my favorite Latours. Every time I have had it, it has performed as well if not better than any other Latour. This time was again no exception. In the context of the great Latours, it seems to be the forgotten one of the twentieth century. The 1945 had a fabulous, sweet nose, fresh and full of baked cream, cedar, spice, spine, nut, caramel and what Wendy called ‘cocoa butter.’ It was indubitably the best nose of the evening. The palate was rich, creamy and nutty with lots of sweet flavors, long and balanced and just flat out awesome (98).

The 1928 Chateau Latour was a reconditioned bottle and had a rich, almost Port-like quality to it, and it was clearly not as pure as an original bottle would have been. Polished and smooth, it was still excellent but not as great as other 1928’s I have had (93).

Somehow, we ended up at Cru afterwards for a couple of bottles of Champagne, beginning with the 1981 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. The 1981 was absolutely great, incredibly meaty, oily, thick and rich with loads of bready and nutty aromas and flavors and a chunky personality. I was most impressed. Rob called it ‘six stars,’ and it was pretty damn close. Round in the mouth and long in its finish, this was a straight down the middle, 96 mile-an-hour fast ball. Rich, tasty, long and meaty in the mouth, Robert Bohr and I both admired its ‘wine-like’ personality (96).

We paired it with the 1981 Krug Clos du Mesnil. Robert called it a ‘lemon bomb’ and found it fresher and ‘more minerally, but too immature.’ It was much too young and very linear as a result, a touch oaky yet indubitably great, but way too young. It was interesting how the Bollinger was so much more mature than the Krug, although that could come down to storage as well (95+).

Our Mouton vertical also began with a 2000. The 2000 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a sweet, seductive nose full of rich, sweet, creamy and nutty fruit. There was incredible musk and earth to its pure and long nose. Its t’n a blended skillfully into its fruit, and the 2000 possessed a great freshness overall. It seemed as if it hadn’t shut down yet, as many 2000’s have been observed to do. I spoke too soon, as it was shier on the palate with light grit and long acidity. There were lots of earth and carob flavors and a touch of black currant, along with secondary flavors of coffee and raisinets. It lost its focus a little bit compared to the 1998 and seemed to still be in a ‘teen’ phase. Someone found it ‘a little New World’ (95).

The 1998 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a huge surprise for me. More classic in style, I thought it was going to be this New World nightmare, to be frank, but the nose had great vigor and spine, and it was long, elegant, penetrating and just plain impressive. There were classic aromas of nut, earth and almost a kiss of lemon, ever so slight. It seemed lighter in its weight and texture in the mouth, but its acidity was very impressive. There were classic flavors such as black currant bordering on cassis, earth, nut and minerals. There was this exotic, herbal edge, almost a coriander, soy and pepper blend. Dan observed ‘rubber, spice and tobacco.’ Its acidity really stood out (96).

Mike observed a ‘touch of mint,’ in the 1996 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, and it was definitely there, blending into its minerally t’n a and lightly grilled root vegetable aromas. Again, the wine was more finish oriented than fruit, with medium-weight up front but long acidity in the back, elegant and smooth overall. Ben observed that ‘the acid was a little too dominant and shut down.’ It got slatier in the nose, but the palate was the lightest of the first flight. I was surprised by its showing after news of it winning two separate, blind 1996 wine tastings recently. I expected a bit more based on that news (93).

The 1995 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a nice, nutty nose, back to the sweet and nutty style a la 2000. It was more reserved than balanced, still with great verve and edge but reigned in. There were excellent minerals, and Michael observed ‘more loam (moss) and mushroom,’ and there was definitely mushroom but in a good way. The palate was a lot drier, the driest of the first flight of four, very dusty and leathery, still will good acidity but a bit masochistic at that moment due to its dryness. It was Teona’s favorite of the first flight (93).

The 1990 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a bit green as always, full of vegetable, mint, t’n a and zip. There were also green flavors to this medium-bodied and pleasant Mouton, but you have to like green to like this. Marc remarked ‘for a bad wine its pretty good.’ There were nice acid, stem and band-aid flavors, and Greg likened it to 1961 Lafite. The 1990 got richer in the glass (90).

The 1989 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had lots of cedary vigor, rock solid t’na, minerals, nut and tobacco. It was very racy and vigorous in the nose and voluptuous in the mouth. Its palate was rich, rocky and long, yet smooth and soft. Its rich flavors of coffee and nut were intense, and there was great balance to the wine (94).

The 1988 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a lighter style, prickly, sandy, dusty, lightly nutty and lightly earthy with a nice ray of cassis shining through its gravelly clouds. Feminine, elegant and sexy, I was actually digging its nose, but the palate had much less intensity, solid but lighter and dusty. There was a touch of earth, sand box and tree bark to its flavors, and the 1988 clearly had the lightest body of the flight but was still very good with solid acidity (90).

The 1986 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a return to glory with its spiny, intense and long nose. Razor sharp with a sparkling minerality, the 1986 had underlying aromas of nut, earth, cream and cassis. The nose was long and elegant and continued to get fatter in its fruit over time. The palate was far superior to the nose, incredibly racy and possessing tremendous lift. Its acidity was amazing, and the wine was ‘still very balanced,’ as Michael pointed out. It got sweeter and nuttier over time and was so long and vimful with the best tannins of the night so far (97).

The 1985 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a beautiful nose, Margauxesque with lots of olive and dry cassis aromas. It was sweet and nutty a la the 2000 and 1995 with nice t’n a and earth aromas to support it. The palate was light to medium in its body with flavors of tobacco, pencil and leather, also on the dry side a la 1995. The acidity was long, and there were flavors of ‘coca-cola’ and lots of ‘animal’ present. Someone observed that the wine had a ‘wild chemistry’ (93).

The 1983 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a pleasant nose, nutty and with some sweetness, with good earth and a coppery minerality. I was really digging its nose. Dan observed ‘pencil,’ and it was there 100% in this great nose. The 1983 was also very tasty, with excellent balance and acidity and nice floral and gravelly flavors. Rich and long, the 1983 won the Miss Congeniality award and is a great wine to drink now. I’ll take three of these over one 2000 or four over a 2005, but then again I have a drinker’s mentality as opposed to a collecting one (94).

The 1982 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a ‘wow’ nose that was so racy and vigorous, incredibly spiny and crackling with minerals. Earth, desert, spine, spice and sensuous plum were underneath but far in the distance like a gorgeous sunrise about to happen. The palate was similar but a bit smoother than the nose had lead me to believe but still great, perhaps in a dumb phase. Man, that nose was amazing. I have and will rate other bottles higher (96+).

The 1970 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had ‘sherry and kimchee,’ according to Bob. Mrs. B. observed ‘raspberry vinaigrette,’ and the 1970 was not cooked but a bit meaty and stewed. Plummy and chocolaty, perhaps this bottle was a touch cooked, but I couldn’t quite tell. The 1970 has always been an up-and-down vintage for Mouton; this wine was a bit above average, decent with its cedar flavors and medium-body but not thrilling (88).

The 1966 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a great nose full of green mint and olives, with lots of cedar, supplementary earth and crispy bacon aromas. Dan found it ‘panacea and superb,’ possessing ‘every conceivable meaty flavor.’ The nose was very spiny and intense, but the palate was smooth and satiny, less intense but still possessing some dusty vigor. A breadstick brought out a little power in the mouth, and there was nice slate on its finish (92).

The 1961 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a beautiful nose, subtle with a grapy, sexy sweetness and also with some seed aromas and dripping with gyro-like meat, a lamb-like quality. There were also great earth and carob aromas and touches of caraway and minerals. The palate was rich, smooth and delicious. The 1961 was fleshy yet still possessed a touch of grit and dusty length. There was great balance, and the 1961 was on its plateau with maybe a touch of ascension left. Pretty, delicious, mature, soft and plush, the 1961 was excellent but short of outstanding due to the lack of intensity left in its structure (94).

I had actually had the 1959 Chateau Mouton Rothschild on three separate occasions this very same week! You know the saying, ‘When it rains, drink up.’ That reminds me of another saying, ‘When it’s sunny, drink up.’ Ok, back to the wine. It had a ‘stove top stuffing’ of a nose that was nutty, creamy, meaty and oily, full of fruit and rich caramel aromas. This was the freshest bottle that I had this week, another divine nose that was deep, chocolaty and nutty. The palate was rich and spiny, possessing excellent acidity with flashes of fruit and earth, and great minerals on its finish. This was definitely the best of the three bottles but they were all similarly close in quality (96).

We had a great bottle of 1955 Chateau Mouton Rothschild which some found ‘better than the 1959,’ myself included, photo-finish required. This bottle had come from an original wooden case, which never hurts. Sweet, nutty, chocolaty and meaty, there were great aromas of musk oil, peanut, carob, cassis and plum. This was sexy juice! The palate was rich and creamy, possessing great acid and divine cedar flavors. Long and outstanding, the 1955 held its own if not more than its esteemed brethren from 1959 and 1961 (96+).

The 1947 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a nice nose with a yeasty and bready edge. Also nutty but a bit pruny, this bottle was nowhere near the mentholated bomb that I remembered it to be. This bottle was definitely reconditioned, nice and smooth, but less than thrilling and less than what it should have been. I neglected to write down a rating, so you can tell I was left unimpressed especially after knowing how great this wine can be. Attention all Chateaux no more reconditioning please! As a disclaimer, I will say that I have had some outstanding reconditioned bottles, and I’m definitely not counting the Nicolas cellars for reasons I can tell you if you care to ask, but generally they can be more of an exception than the rule.

The 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was the grand finale. Even though this, too, was a reconditioned bottle, it was a Nicolas one and many people’s favorite wine of the night. Rich, succulent and delicious, the wine was great. As you can tell, I was a bit out of gas, so I guess I will explain why the reconditioning done at Nicolas is far superior to most. First, the cellars of Nicolas were kept around forty degrees (some say 38), delaying the maturation process significantly. Second, they reconditioned their bottles using the same vintage as opposed to topping the wine off with younger wine. Third, whatever methodologies they used were excellent and allowed the wines to maintain their original personalities, or maybe that was just the fact they used wine from the same vintage, but I’d like to think that the methodology had something to do with it (97).

We went around the table to see which wines were everybody’s ‘Top Three’ favorites.
The 1945 won by a landslide, followed by the 1955. There was scattered support for the
1959, 1961, 1982 and 1986. What was most surprising was how many times the 1985
actually appeared on people’s top three lists, which was five times. The 2000, 1983, 1966
and 1947 also made appearances.

I think it’s Margaux’s turn this Fall – hopefully, we will see you there.

I have to say that my first week using the dictaphone has been a resounding success. Expect a flurry of notes from me this summer, as I have a lot of catching up to do, and the following notes are Part III of my trip to Bordeaux…last December.

My third day in Bordeaux last December was centered around a lunch at Chateau Figeac. When we arrived at the Chateau, I was practically falling asleep due to some irregular sleep patterns, but I was quickly able to gather myself in time for a spectacular lunch by our most hospitable and generous hosts, Thierry and Marie-France Manoncourt, the proprietors of Chateau Figeac.

It started innocently enough with the 2004 Figeac, for which I only have a brief note, as I was still warming, make that waking, up. The 2004 was classic, rustic and gritty. Thierry commented how Figeac was the only Right Bank wine with such a high percentage of Cabernet Sauvignon (91).

Next up was the 2003 Figeac and not counting the wines from Hubert de Bouard, the Figeac was the most concentrated Right Bank wine that I had tasted so far from 2003. It had more natural concentration and purity and was very tasty and ready to go. I was very impressed by Figeac’s ’03, even more so than Cheval Blanc (93).

The 2001 Figeac had a deep plumy nose with lots of wintergreen, plum, chocolate and spice aromas. It was quite impressive in the palate with its subtle spice box, solid tannins and alcohol, and long minerally finish. There were also plum, chocolate and earth flavors; the wine had elegance, length and style. It was very impressive, but after the 1990 and 1986 that followed, it didn’t seem quite as special (93).

The 1990 Figeac was very aromatic with lots of olive aromas, both green and black, also with lots of red, wintry fruits, earth and stalk. There was excellent concentration in the mouth, and the wine was very rich yet still so smooth. The nose got saucier and riper, sexier as purple joined the party. There was a nice Cabernet Franc kick to its flavors on the finish. Bipin admired its balance and great acidity. I was then told that the average blend of Figeac is generally 35% Cabernet Franc, 35% Cabernet Sauvignon and 30% Merlot. Olives continued to dominate the wine in a fantastic way (95).

The 1986 Figeac was all about the leather at first, “cuire” someone commented. It had a beautiful nose with more wintergreen, meat, nut, and plummy, sweet, purple fruits. There was a cake-like quality to its sweetness. There was also a kiss of olive, but that was secondary. The palate was rich, long and with excellent tannins and acidity, just a flat-out great Figeac. The ’86 actually had more vigor then the ’90 as it stayed in the glass, still maintaining its level of richness and style, and Madame Nicolas of La Conseillante, who was also a guest at the lunch, also admired its character (95+).

We then time traveled back two decades to the 1966 Figeac. Frank was having a “winegasm” over the nose, but I found it a bit shy, with pinches of anise, minerals and cat box, an edgy personality overall. There were also black fruits underneath. The palate was smooth and pretty, supple with nice earth and forest flavors and a kiss of mineral grit. Bipin thought the ’66 “had everything,” and he could not believe I preferred the 1986 more, but I found the ’66 a bit mellow and liked the whips and chains of the ’86, I joked. The 1966 did put on more weight with time in the glass, and the nose became more and more classic with the wintermint, red fruit and leather flavors, but the palate never quite caught up to the nose in this excellent and beautifully mature Figeac (93). The grand finale was a rare bottle of 1950 Figeac, a vintage that Bipin hailed as a “great Figeac.” The bottle had a cognac-like edge that really jumped out at me, and even Wolfgang found it “very alcoholic.” Mrs. Manoncourt felt that this bottle needed aeration and some extra elbow action, so to speak. Behind that cognac was some chocolate, but this bottle did have a touch of oxidation to it. The wine was “very powerful,” according to Bipin, “more than normal,” according to Wolfgang. There was a lot of concentration on the palate but it was a bit figgy in its flavor profile along with secondary flavors of rust, earth and chocolate. There was a lot of alcohol, earth and leather on the finish, but a kiss of must on the palate. Upon further review, Thierry went down to the cellar to get another bottle, as this one was a bit off. About twenty minutes later, Thierry returned with a second bottle of 1950, and we were all very glad he did. The second bottle was much better. Initially it had shy and sexy fruit, black and purple with pinches of fig and chocolate, all supplemented by light earth. The fruit was so rich that it buried the earth and light leather as well. There was a touch of minerals, baked bread and sexy spice, almostgingerbread in nature. The fruit was so fresh, and the second bottle was night compared to day, or vice versa. The wine was unbelievable in the mouth – rich, big, round, long and with a huge finish. There was plenty of dust and wintry spice and “fabulous!” and “extraordinaire!” came out of the mouth of Madame Nicolas. It was a special experience, indeed. We were then told that three double magnums of the 1950 remain in the cellars at Figeac – what a treat those will be! The palate was long, gritty and decadent with its plum flavors and extraordinary concentration. We were told that at this time Figeac was bottled barrel by barrel, which would account for variation. There was great structure in the nose and excellent grit in the mouth of this extraordinary wine. The rust, leather, earth and tobacco delivered “oomph” and “kapow” like Batman, and Bipin loved its “candy-like sweetness.” This wine was so fresh, as were all of the wines we tasted in Bordeaux that were older for that matter. “Something has to be said about the wines coming from the vintner,” Frank wisely observed (97).

I was most impressed with the wines of Chateau Figeac and left not only feeling fat and happy but also a bit perplexed that this extraordinary Chateau does not receive the recognition that it deserves in the context of other St. Emillions. I can see no logical or sane argument that excludes Figeac from having the highest rating of Premier Grand Cru Classe in St. Emilion. Thierry has always beat to his own drum and is certainly still a fiery and intense personality despite the fact he is approaching ninety years of age. Perhaps he has rubbed some people the wrong way, but I would think that those in control in Bordeaux would be able to put that aside and rate this classic wine on its obvious merits.

After a trip into the actual city of Bordeaux that afternoon, I skipped Wednesday night’s dinner with Alexandre de Lur Saluces, as I was exhausted and needed to rest. All this drinking can be very tiring! The next day, Thursday, we said goodbye to Bordeaux and headed up to Paris where we had a very special dinner planned at Le Cinq at George V, with Aubert de Villaine, only a mere two weeks after I had the La Tache vertical with him in California.

We started with the 1992 Krug Clos du Mesnil, which Frank and I were not feeling at that moment. I didn’t even feel like taking a tasting note. I’ve had this Champagne on later occasions and have found it to be much better. Perhaps it was just that moment in space and time, but it did not leave an impressive impression on that evening. In our initial conversations, Aubert separately shared that he felt 1999 at was the closest vintage he had ever seen to perfection, where both man and nature were in perfect harmony. Take that one to the cellars, folks.

We started with the 2001 Lafon Meursault Charmes, which had a lovely, youthful nose full of tangy and waxy citrus fruits and dust. It was very bright in its wax and mineral components and had a nice dollop of butter. The palate had good richness and roundness, very good acidity, and was quite tasty with nice dust and minerals on its finish. There were lots of citric yellow flavors, and the wine was a touch lighter in the middle but not quite having a hole. 2001 was “a serious vintage, almost too serious, different for whites, good for reds and has never gone through bottle sickness,” Aubert shared. “It is root biting more than fruit biting,” Aubert (or someone else might have) shared about 2001 Romanee Conti(s?) (92).

Next up was a most generous gift to all of us from Wolfgang, a 1978 Montrachet, from Wolf’s cellars. The wine had an amazing nose and was still possibly the best white wine I have ever had. Wolf’s bottle was perfect, amazingly sweet and buttery in its nose with supporting honey, nut and oil. It was deep, long, fat and balanced and had big-time minerals. A botrytis debate developed between Bipin and Aubert about whether there was botrytis in the ’78 or not. Bipin felt there was a touch in not only the ’78 but also the ’71, a claim which Aubert vehemently denied. Wolfgang changed the topic, admiring the ’78 and finding it “like being wrapped in feathers.” The palate was rich, mouth-filling, long and still young, and its acidity lingered in my belly for an incredible amount of time. There was a small tribute to Bipin by Wolf for introducing him to Burgundy a long time ago, which Wolf called “the epitome of pleasure.” The Montrachet had great earth flavors and terroir, and that terroir of Montrachet was clearly evident. There was a touch of benevolent root vegetable flavors, and Wolf likened drinking this wine to a “hole in one – you need a witness.” Bipin called the Montrachet “the only white wine that can match the intensity of a red wine.” The food made the acidity stand out even more and this was certainly a spectacular experience (99).

Aubert shared that the ’69 Vogue Musigny was an epiphany for him. The issue of corks came up, and Aubert said that he has to buy all his corks two years ahead of time, has eight different suppliers and rejects a lot of corks before bottling.

It was time for some red wine, and we had a 1999 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg on tap. Frank murmured to me that the Meo was “not a zinger or doing it for me; maybe it needs some more time.” There was a lot going on in an elegant way for a ’99, lots of crushed red and black fruits, cedar, long t’n a, and some secondary brick, cinnamon, and rust aromas. The wine was very spiny and rusty, and Bipin found there to be “more oak,” but I found the oak under control. Aubert wisely observed that it was “nice to see a wine in its birth after another that is in its completeness.” The palate had razor-like acidity but was still not doing it for Frank. While Wolf and I found more merit in the wine. Bipin joked that he “had never seen Frank in such a sacrificial mood,” to which Frank countered that it was “too young,” to which I added, “we all know Frank likes his wines eighteen and older.” Frank replied in Europe, “Hey, in Europe, it’s sixteen,” which got a laugh. Aubert ended the debate by saying “Forgive me, but I’m used to young wines&I like it!” (94+)

The last wine of this most memorable meal was a 1978 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle, a bottle that came directly from the Domaine. It had a great, classic nose, with deep and dark black fruits, anise, plum, chocolate, minerals, pepper and rust. It was dank and brooding in the nose, a terminator of sorts. The palate was huge with loads of t’n a, still very youthful and almost infantile, shy in its fruit expression but definitely having the “zing thing,” according to Frank. The acidity was like an avalanche on the finish, which had a figgy edge as well. The palate was shy at first with more anise, mineral and slate, but indubitably enormous, and a pinch of flesh crept in over time as the wine gained weight in the glass. This wine was amazingly young, and its youth came across as a bit of emptiness in the beginning, but little by little the wine started to come out of its shell, but it probably needed another four to six hours for us truly to get to know it better. Earth and forest nuances developed and by the end of the evening, we all clearly saw that this was just the beginning for the 1978 La Chapelle (96+).

Aubert was still admiring the 1978 Montrachet at the end. He was clearly moved by Wolf’s generosity and he observed, “you can almost bite the fruit.” He then reminisced about his wedding in 1972, where his 600 guests were treated to twenty-five cases of 1970 Montrachet! “I would never do that today; times have changed.”

The more they change, the more the best taste better.

Ok, I know, I know. I am a bit backed up with my notes in 2006. I know it doesn’t do anyone any good for me to tell you how many notes I have taken, how many wines I have tasted in the first five months of this year, etc. Sorry, but I keep getting busier and busier, and it is the one thing I have had to sacrifice. I tried to have someone take my written notes and type them out, but it took me just as much time translating and double checking as it did writing them in the first place! So, I am going to the audiotape now, and after each event I am going to ‘write’ the event on tape to be then typed out. I hope to be able to catch up and maintain a brisker pace on my reporting duties from here on out. I am still taking notes for all my events and dinners – that you can be assured of! It might be a very newsworthy summer if I can get in a rhythm. One author’s note: I have added ‘M’ to a rating when out of magnum and will do so with ‘J’ or ‘I’ for jeroboam, imperial, etc.

I know I haven’t finished my State of Bordeaux article – that is next, I promise, but after writing about Bordeaux for a while, I had to change gears back to Burgundy for a second, and what better way to do that than to share my notes from Daniel Johnnes’ La Paulee weekend.

Daniel Johnnes did his annual ‘La Paulee’ weekend with a twist this year. Instead of the usual format, he started with a dinner at Daniel, his new home in New York, followed by a Rolling Stones concert for many and then a trip to Aspen for some skiing and more drinking, where the actual La Paulee technically occurred. This year’s La Paulee was a bit more civilized than usual due to its remote location, as a select group of connoisseurs made the trip to Aspen. Daniel, being the gentleman that he is, gave New York a taste before the show hit the road with’The Rock Stars of Burgundy at Daniel,’ as we were joined by Christoph Roumier, Dominique Lafon, Jean-Marc Roulot, Jean-Pierre de Smet of l’Arlot and Pierre Meurgey of Champy, all close friends of Daniel who had brought the wines from their personal cellars for all to try.

We began with a 1992 Roulot Meusault ‘Perrieres’ served out of magnum, and it had a fabulous nose, very smoky with yellow fruits, straw and dust, a touch tropical but also with a touch of vegetable rot, slight but there nonetheless. The palate was full of butter, cream and minerals, and the wine still possessed excellent acidity, a nice mouthfeel and great minerals for a 1992, more vigor than most ’92s, which was probably a combination of format, vintage and vineyard. There was also a touch of that rot/root veggie on the palate, but overall the wine was very nice. The rot wasn’t that bad, and the wine held well. It was more aggressive than the ensuing Lafon with its wild edges but qualitatively equivalent (93M).

The 1992 Lafon Meursault ‘Genevrieres’ had a cleaner nose, though a bit pungent, anisy and waxy with touches of spearmint and honey. The alcohol and acidity sparkled on the palate as there was nice crack and pop to the wine. Racy, spicy yet balanced, the wine smoothed out but maintained its pungent, rocky character (93).

Next up was a real treat, a 1989 Roulot Meursault ‘Charmes’ served out of Jeroboam, the only one he made! The wine had a very deep and intense nose with some aggressive edges that evened out with some air. ‘A little sulfur in nose,’ Brian keenly observed. Some questioned ‘corked?’ but Roulot said he didn’t think so. There was butter and sweet fruit in a very kinky way. ‘I wouldn’t guess an ’89 if served blind,’ Michael observed. I think it was a kiss corked but not enough to make a difference. The acidity was far superior to that of 1992, and its flavors were taut, needing more time. After some food, the wine became more caramelized, and I decided it was definitely corked, but the quality underneath was quite extraordinary with lots of vim and vigor and tremendous potential (94A+&J).

The 1983 Champy Corton Charlemagne had a very exotic, banana cream pie nose. Smooth, a bit oily in its flavor but not in its texture, the wine was not bad but not good and musky in a Mark Gastineau way, and a bit of morning mouth didn’t help. The fact that it was 23 years old and still drinkable was its best quality (84).

The 1991 Champy Clos Vougeot had a fresh, bright nose with vitamins, some soap (?), a little must and nice red fruits, a pleasant overall impression. The palate was also pleasant but a diluted a bit, smooth and easy with a bit of bitter earth on its finish and some light leather vim along with a kiss of citrus (87).

The 1978 Lafon Volnay ‘Santenots du Milieu’ was very earthy and animaly, possessing the barnyard with out too much barn. Fleshy and a good stinky, the wine had a touch of horse sweat and saddle, nice citrus, nice pungency and great minerals behind all that. We were then informed that there were only 35 bottles left in the cellar! This complex wine had roses, a good stink and that brown, gamy mature quality, a tea-like edge in a good way. The palate was delicious, smooth and with red, brown and citric flavors, nice vitamins, nice earth, nice balance – just plain nice&and tasty (93).

The 1990 l’Arlot Nuits St. Geroges ‘Clos des Forets’ had a nose full of pungent intensity and meaty fruit, red, black and beefy fruit. There were secondary complexities of brick and cinnamon, and lots of t and a. There was no sight of Allen and hence no ‘1990 disease’ issues, ha ha. The palate was sturdy, hearty, full and long, with nice earth and black cherry flavors. I was very impressed by this very tasty and fulfilling, muscular Nuits St. Georges (93).
The 1991 l’Arlot Romanee St. Vivant, served from magnum, also had a very intense nose, with lots of smokehouse, citrus, vitamins and healthy wood. Cinnamon crept in. The palate was lean but tasty and vigorous with flavor and character, more leather and cedar than fruit, but I still liked it yet preferred the NSG (92M).

Ahhhh, some Roumier. The 1991 Roumier Ruchottes Chambertin had the most intensity of any of the 1991s, possessing great vigor and long spice, intense musk, earth, leather and great t ‘n a. The palate had stupendous acidity and great spice flavors. The wine was excellent, bordering on outstanding, and won the vigor award for the night (94).

The grand finale of the evening was an incredibly rare magnum of 1985 Roumier Musigny. The wine had a very gamy, earthy and musky nose with great animal, rose, t ‘n a and rainwater aromas. The palate was soft, plush, long and tasty with good earth and mineral flavors and excellent definition. Round and delicious, the Musigny had great dust, earth and vitamin flavors, along with beef, citrus and spice as well (95M).

That should have been enough fun for one night, but there was an after party&at Veritas. Uh oh.

First up was a 1991 Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses,’ which had a lovely nose that was soft and delicate yet firm and aromatic. There were lots of brimstone and brick and beautiful, perfect, dark, plummy fruit. A touch of vitamins, a kiss of stems, that caress of Roumier&I officially made myself horny. The palate was full of vitamins, acidity, earth, stems and vigor. Long, stylish and smooth, Lafon remarked that it was ‘a big wine for Amoureuses’ (94).

The 1999 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos’ had a nice nose and served as an excellent palate cleanser. Strong, minerally and rippling with character, there were aromas of smoke, nuts, white earth and that Chablis kink and verve. Brian found it ‘a little short on the palate,’ and it was, but it was decidedly in hibernation. It had a minerally palate and nice expression therefore, and secondary flavors of rainwater, hidden citrus and light anise, but it definitely wasn’t one of the great ‘Les Clos’ (92).

We temporarily continued with the palate cleansing with a 2002 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet. It had a very tropical and buttery nose, real exotic with its pineapple, mango and buttered, spiced yellow fruits. Some anonymous burgophiles were bashing a ‘lack of character,’ and the wine was atypically soft and easy at first, but it gained rather quickly and expanded to excellence with its stony, defined finish (93).

It was back to the reds with a magnum of 1986 Richebourg, which had a fabulous nose out of magnum with that great ’86 rusty verve, that racy, lean, iron, stem and cedar spice. The wine was very sturdy with lots of vigor in the nose, but the palate was very smooth, still very good but not past that (91M).

A 1996 Fourrier Griottes Chambertin V.V. was intense and full of character, masculine with its big, hearty style. It had a big, rich nose with a touch of gas, but the earth balanced it. The palate was rich, long and vitaminy, full of tannins and dark purple fruits. There was lots of potential here (92+).

We changed gears with a 1988 Chave Hermitage out of magnum. It was another fabulous nose; sexy, musky, aromatic and ripe yet so Hermitage with its bacon, menthol and spice. It also had an excellent palate, excellent acidity, great spice and great length. It was a tremendous wine out of magnum and absolutely delicious, although this wine might be a point or two less out of bottle by now (94M).

A 1979 Romanee Conti came out, an absolute steal off the list at $2100 I might add. Thanks to that most generous guest – who was that masked man? The most serious of my fellow wine geeks quickly hovered around like bees to honey. My notes started out, ‘whoa&yeah&hell yeah, only what RC can be.’ True, it was better out of a close friend of mine’s Methusalem last year (98 or 99 points, I believe), but I was not complaining! The wine still had great spine and verve out of bottle and tremendous aromas and flavors of earth, cedar, citrus and rose. Traces of tea, cherry and stem joined the party. The wine had medium-weight but long length with great tobacco and cedar flavors along with a razor-like precision (96).

It was back to reality with a very good 1989 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ The nose was deep and full of mint chocolate, and by now I started to feel like it was time to put it on a pillow and tuck myself in. Meaty, saucy and rich yet smooth, there was a touch of game to its beefy palate, which was a bit monolithic, but it did have a tough act to follow and still had some nice vim to it (92).

A 1990 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ followed, and it was more seductive and sexy with its gorgeous perfume and fruit. It was also meaty with some band aid, a caramel glaze and a bit of Christmas cheer to it! Meaty yet smooth and with good acidity, the 1990 still had the femininity of Amoureuses. Don kicked in some wisdom that ‘Drouhin made great ’90s’ (94).

A 1985 Pol Roger Cuvee Winston Churchill was just what the doctor ordered and outstanding, just enough gas to get me out the door and get me home on this wintry, January night (95).

Two or three nights later, I can’t remember to be honest, a whole new crowd had gathered at the Little Nell in Aspen, with a few diehards making the trip out from New York, myself included. Friday night was the organized dinner featuring more wines from the cellars of Daniel’s five fabulous ‘rock stars.’

We started with a 1993 Roulot Meursault ‘Perrieres’ out of magnum, which seemed to be in a sweet spot with its lovely butter, smoke and mineral trifecta and a tasty, root vegetable edge. Very aromatic in its acidity and mineral components, the palate was also full of zesty acidity as well as good slate flavors and a kiss of citrus. It held nicely with excellent sparkle and white earth and fruit flavors (94M).

The 1993 Roulot Meursault ‘Charmes’ was a touch more buttery with excellent caramel aromas and a long and wide impression. The nose had nice bread crust (hard ones) aromas and got a bit spiny with time, and more bread emerged as the wine got broader in the nose with a benevolent streak of really good wood. The palate was round and dusty, flavorful and smooth but definitely on a plateau (92).

The 1993 Champy Savigny les Beaune ‘La Dominaude’ was about the oldest Savigny I’ve ever had, and it had a nice vitamin and earth pungency to it, along with a meaty edge and a pungent spice. There was some bright bing cherry to it, but the palate was soft with some nice cedar on the finish, but not a lot of fruit (87).

The 1990 Champy Clos Vougeot was aromatic and perfumed, with piercing t ‘n a and a lot of alcohol, baked bread and earth. Deep and possessing a lot of intensity, the Clos Vougeot was toasty, long, meaty, earthy and hearty, altogether an excellent wine (93).

The 1989 L’Arlot Nuits St. Georges ‘Clos des Forets St. Georges’ Jeffrey likened to ‘vine ripened strawberries,’ and it totally was. There were also some vitamins, musk, iron and good intensity, a lot of alcohol and vigor. Very muscular, with a bruising style, I liked it a lot. It was rich, meaty, tasty – excellent again! Its nice verve and vigor complemented its thick wood flavors that were just right (94).

For the second night in a row, I preferred the Nuits to the RSV, this time being the 1993 L’Arlot Romanee St. Vivant. It was very pungent and stinky with lots of cat piss and pungent earth, but tough to get past the cat piss. The palate was pungent with less cat piss, more minerals along with rose, gardenia, garden, lemon and lime but not as complex or intense as I would expect (90).

The 1993 Roumier Ruchottes Chambertin was served out of magnum and had a fabulous nose, displaying the best qualities of the ’93 vintage: great verve and vigor, volcanic earth, vitamins, forest, and kisses of nut. It also had deep, dark, black cherry fruit and almost black roses in it. There was stemmy, stern spice on the palate, excellent length, nice balance, excellent acidity – it was another excellent wine. Its flavors were hearty, sturdy and earthy as ’93s tend to be. It didn’t hold as well as I hoped, which was the only negative thing I could say about the wine, but it had been opened about three hours (93M).

From one of the forgotten vintages that I have had a lot of luck with, the 1983 Roumier Bonnes Mares had a gorgeous nose, full of sweet cherry fruit. Nutty, wide open, saucy, fat, lush, and with great musk and spice, the Roumier was ‘outstanding for a 1983,’ Jeffrey observed. The wine had a kiss of wood that was great. The palate was long with nice grit and cedar definition on the finish. Jeffrey continued that it ‘might not be a 30-40-50 year vintage, but a damn good nose.’ I still found the palate delicious with earth and dirt flavors (95).

We changed gears with some whites to end, both of which had a sweeter edge to them. The 1983 Roulot Meursault ‘Luchets’ was served out of magnum, and it had a rich, honeyed, sweet, almost nectar-like nose with tons of butter, orange and apricot. I’ve got to give Daniel credit for serving this last. It also had some peel to it, and the palate was very hearty and vigorous, more so than I expected. Rich and creamy, toasty and with nice acidity, this exotic 1983 was just right for what it was (94M). The 1986 Lafon Meursault Charmes was a little fruity in the nose, waxy, anisy and buttery, although it was also a little corked with some noticeable VA. It had some butter and corn flavors, very fresh as it did come from Lafon’s cellar, of course, but I thought that this bottle might have been topped off as it was a little weird (89?).

A mystery wine was served, and it was a 1949 Remoissenet Grands Echezeaux. It had a pungent nose and seemed half Algerian. It was not 100% 1949, or even 50%, and had a lot of cat box and bret, icky in mouth (DQ).

Another wine was served courtesy of one of the guests, a 1990 La Tache, and three bottles were needed to make the rounds! There was a lot of t ‘n a, but this bottle was a woody one. The palate was big and rich with awesome structure but marred a touch by its wood, which completely took over nose. Even Jeffrey said ‘it just doesn’t sing.’ The structure and length were excellent, but its flavors were ‘oooof’ (95+?).

An after party of sorts happened again, and it started with an awesome and delicious 1979 La Tache. Sorry, those are my notes (96).

Wilf strong armed me into opening my La Paulee red wine, a 1990 Roumier Musigny, as he was not coming to the lunch tomorrow. He invited to me to his ’50th’ birthday celebration the following evening in kind. Christoph gave it an ‘I love it!’ It was full of red and orange fruit, vitamins, minerals and stems. Pungent, fleshy and chunky, the Musigny had a vimful, razor-like finish, one with great earth and finesse (96).

There was one more wine left, a 1996 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, which had me feeling guilty about drinking it as it was so, so young. It had amazing extraction for a ’96 that was atypical. Wilf commented how it was ‘amazing how he hides the oak.’ It had a kiss of gas. It was such a baby, an infant. Rich and full, it was all front and mid as its back side was buried, its acidity struggling to come out but there, lingering in the belly with a citric twist (95+).

Good night, Gracie.

Many spent the next morning skiing down the slopes of Aspen, but not I, for skiing has never been a strong suit of mine. I have only done it four or five times, I confess, and I am a warm weather person and the type of guy who would be staying at the cabin in front of a warm fireplace with a&but I digress. We had to go to the top of the mountain to have lunch at the lodge, and Greg and I hopped a ski lift up, up and away into the Aspen sky.

Upon arriving, the festivities were already in full swing, and a table by the entrance was already full of opened bottles, most noticeably a slew of older Lafon Meursault Charmes brought to us by none other than Randy Lewis of Lewis Cellars! Nice job, Randy. You can always tell who the most serious winemakers in California are by the amount of Burgundy in their cellar, so Randy immediately got voted into my ‘Top Ten’ poll for the week!

I tasted the 1978 Lafon Mersault ‘Charmes’ first. It had a very honeyed and nutty nose, with caramel everywhere, also bready and earthy and still with firm acidity. The wine was still quite rich and had a bready palate, mature yet with vim and good acidity. A nice, dusty citrus kiss graced the finish of this excellent wine (93).

A 1976 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was next, and it was also toasty and nutty, with more kernel to it, and lots of citrus and bright flavors. Smooth, long and with more integrated acidity, the 1976 was tasty and better balanced with less butter and caramel than the 1978, and I preferred it slightly (94).

The 1973 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was very sweet in its musky and caramel-laden nose, which was deeper, more brooding and rounder than the previous two vintages despite being older, also having more apple aromas. The palate was round, smooth, rich, nutty and very sexy – wait a second, that sounds like my ideal woman! Tasty and with good acidity, the 1973 had the best of both the 1976’s and 1978’s worlds (95).

Lastly for this spectacular cocktail round of Meursaults, the 1971 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was exotic with a smoky and buttery nose with a kiss of orangy maturity. ‘Time to drink,’ Christoph Roumier wisely observed. The nose was very buttery and creamy with a touch of caramel immersed in a veil of white smoke. The palate was tasty with an integrated, buttery finish, a little mature for one female guest but just right for this Goldilocks (94).

I finally assumed the position and sat down to a 1990 Paul Pernot Puligny Montrachet ‘Les Folatieres,’ which had a beautiful nose, fresh and bright, with great toast, nut and kernel, balanced with buttery and minerally fruit. This was a tasty wine all around, with nice minerals to its finish, a light sparkle and a satiny smooth impression (93).

It was time to take it up a notch with a 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault ‘Perrieres.’ Wow – the Coche lept from the glass with its signature kernel, nut and toast. Very long and regal, it had great ‘pop’ to it, long and massive yet with buried alcohol and acidity. A touch of root vegetable rounded out its complex and crackling nose. The wine was absolutely delicious, sparkling, popping and singing. Long yet balanced, thick yet light on its feet, the 1996 Perrieres from Coche was outstanding wine, toasty, lush and with enough great acidity to make any chemist proud (96).

What better way to follow up the Perrieres but with a 1996 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne? The Charly was more high-pitched in nose, a bit musty at first, but thankfully that blew off with a little air to reveal a razor of a nose, crackling with wheat, rye, grain and acidity even more serious than the Perrieres. It elicited another ‘wow’ from me, as it was so balanced and harmonized on palate. Long, elegant and smooth, there was a small lack of air/cork controversy, but after stirring it up this ‘Cocha Cola’ left 9 out of 10 tasters in awe. There was a dirty, white earthiness to it, and Daniel was still not liking nose despite his own infatuation with the palate. The acidity rapped to me, ‘I ain’t no joke’ (97).

The 1997 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne had a tough act to follow. While it did have a similar style to the ’96, it was more forward. Very aromatic, with more musk and citrus, the 1997 had the Coche signature there but was milder on the kernel and nuttiness. Still very tasty, of course, the acidity had some pop, but this was a more medium-bodied vintage for not only Coche, but all of White Burgundy, of course, although some food did bring out its acidity more and more to the point of excellence (93).

It was time to pick up the pace. A 2000 Ramonet Chevalier Montrachet had a very lean nose but was still regal with its anise, mineral and overall breed. Corny yellow fruit graced its smooth and easy palate, and I wondered a bit whether this wine was hibernating (92).

The 2002 Jean-Marc Pillot Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Vergers, Clos St. Marc’ (Monopole within Vergers) had some youthful, tropical fruit, with lots of apricot, banana and mango in its exotic profile. Smooth, with nice length and dried minerals, light butter, this was a solid wine, albeit a little different than the usual standard (91).

The 2003 Champy Corton Charlemagne was rich, tropical, tasty and easy – wait a second, that sounds like another one of my ideal&Ok, sorry, I know, I know, I can’t help myself sometimes, wink wink (90).

The 2001 Roulot Meursault ‘Perrieres’ was a beauty yet a baby, full of minerals, very regal, bred incredibly well. It had an absolutely fabulous palate, which was pure, stony, minerally and possessing such purity. The wine was indubitably excellent, and my only question was whether it will put on weight and improve or not (93+).

The 1993 Coche-Dury Meursault ‘Rougeots’ was served out of magnum and had a super, smoking nose that was very vibrant and minerally. It was again signature Coche, and as Donna keenly observed, ‘you could never mistake it for anything else.’ Tasty, toasty and minerally, the wine was long and still very ‘right there,’ and the magnum factor certainly helped define its youthful edge more, I’m sure (93M).

Ok, it was the middle of January and we were on top of Aspen mountain – enough with the whites already! Greg broke the ice with a 1993 Dujac Charmes Chambertin, which was vibrant, smoky and fresh in the nose with aromas of stems and black cherries. Stewed plums, vitamins and musk also permeated through the nose, where one could see the influence of stems. Dujac did make amazing 1993’s, but the palate here was on the smooth and tender side, seemingly more mature than the nose led me to believe but still possessing nice earth and stem flavors (92).

A 1989 Groffier Bonnes Mares had a musty, vegetable nose that seemed a bit off. The palate was much better with the hearty, vitaminy ’89 style and big-time citrus flavors, but still a musty finish. I have always found Groffier’s wines to be very wild and wooly, hit or miss with a few more misses than hits, to be frank (90A?).

The 1998 Roumier Bonnes Mares had a sexy, reserved nose, musky, earthy and stemmy with sweet, cherry fruit looking over those shoulders. Lengthy, brooding, regal, deep and balanced, the palate was defined by peanut and light iron more than anything else at this stage, also by a bit of leather, but this wine was more closed and a bit shut down on the palate, but with lots of potential (92+).

The 1999 Roumier Bonnes Mares got an immediate ‘ooh la la’ from Christoph himself, proud papa that he was at that moment. The nose was very musky and sexy with great breed, brooding with its earth, stems, peanut, vitamins and minerals but also with its dank, dark black cherry, rose and blacker fruits. The 1999 was also very shut down on palate but reeked of a lot more potential and will indubitably merit a higher score eventually (95+).

A jeroboam (that’s three liters for Burgundies) of 2000 Dujac Bonnes Mares made its way over to us. Its nose was full of cinnamon, leather and lots of musky, fragrant fruit. The 2000 was more forward as the vintage is prone to be, with a purple, floral edge, and the wine overall was smooth, tasty, balanced and nice (91J).

The 1992 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee was an interesting wine. Musky, earthy and classic Jayer in its meaty, dark nose, there was also some menthol and earth there. The palate was tasty and smooth with a touch of beef stew but by Jayer’s standards seemed timid (90).

A 1991 Romanee St. Vivant had a nice, edgy, pungent nose with a pinch of vitamins and stems. The palate had rose flavors and nice intensity, also cedar and a vimful, acidic finish, although Ben called it ‘strength without elegance’ (93).

The next wine was probably the rarest wine of the afternoon, at least, and it was a 1990 Drouhin Vosne Romanee ‘Petits Monts.’ Doug informed me that only 50 cases were made and that I may never see it again. It had an unbelievable nose, so perfectly Burgundian – the musk, the spice, the leather, the earth, the meaty fruit, the edge. Just flat out beautiful, it had pure, delicate fruit, finesse and was a gorgeous wine. It might have been at its best, but it was beautiful and the elegant wine lover’s wine (95).

The 1993 Georges Mugneret Clos Vougeot was super spicy and vimful and also had an absolutely fabulous nose with great stems, tension and structure, and red fruits to match. Long, tasty, stemmy and with great spine, the 1993 had a lot to say and a long ways to go (95).

The 2001 Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Cras’ was a bit gamy at first but blew off into a beautiful, classic, medium-weight Burgundy (91).

Someone generously brought a 1943 La Tache which was unfortunately a touch maderized but still very fleshy, meaty, stinky and wild. The palate was gamy, smooth and stewed, still flavorful and with good texture and sound in many regards but affected. Roumier was loving the experience (92A).

The 1934 Clos des Lambrays had a great nose, very pungent with a lot of brown sugar, earth, soy, bing cherry and citric vigor. The palate had those mature, earth and brown sugar flavors (93).

A 2002 Lafon Volnay Champans was excellent, possessing great character and balance, a nice mix of taut fruit and subtle earth, along with vitamins and purple forest flavors (93).

There were a couple more notes that got lost in translation, a mag of 1999 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin ‘Clos St. Jacques’ and a 1 989 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. Sorry, I’ll get to them again sooner or later.

It was Saturday night and time for the unofficial grand finale with one of the best hosts known to winekind, Mr. Wilf Jaeger, who was celebrating his ’50th birthday,’ although I later found out that this was one of many celebrations over the course of this year, or many years, but you’ll have to ask Wilf for the dirtiest of details. It ended up being a most incredible meal, and I was very grateful for the invite.

A little bubbly got us going, a rare and unusal 1953 Philipponat ‘Clos des Goissets,’ their tete de cuvee. Smooth, soft and mature, it had lots of toast, nut and earth with light caramel flavors and not a lot of fizz left, but still a nice impression (92).

The 1989 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was aromatic with a touch of that ‘must’ that sparked controversy earlier in the afternoon. It also had the butter, corn, citrus and minerals. It was obviously mature yet still fresh, though, with some anise and sparkle. The palate was very tasty – mature, round and smooth with flavors of white earth, minerals and light butter. Jean-Marc Roulot commented that 1989 was a low acid year but that this seemed to have more acid than most memories. It still seemed to me to be entering a plateau of maturity, and secondary white smoke flavors emerged (94).

The 1973 Ramonet Batard Montrachet came out ‘a little too cold,’ Carmel observed keenly, but once it warmed up it was candied and caramely. Its mature nose smelled closer to something from the 50’s than 70’s, a bit stewed with corn and vinegar and some cooked fruit, the kind to make candy, though. Musk, lanolin and oil rounded out the nose. The initial flavors were not pleasant: old morning mouth, rancid butter and butterscotch candy with out sweetness. A little vanilla developed and more caramel emerged in its flavors, which got significantly better as the wine kept improving in the glass, smoothing out and also becoming more vigorous at the same time. My score went from the low-80s, practically disqualified to the upper 80s, although I thought the bottle might have had some issues. Wilf summed it up well when he said, ‘Old wine, eh?’ (89A).

A 1996 Montrachet had am amazing nose, so precise and penetrating yet also elegant. Once past the alcohol and acidity in that nose, one discovered minerals, butter anise and smoke. The palate was long, refined, elegant and steely, its acidity very deep and lingering, not in your face but there. It was outstanding for sure, but not more than that for me, although Eric hailed it the ‘Greatest Montrachet ever,’ a sentiment he echoed at my ‘Top 100’ event this past Fall (96).

The 1964 Pousse d’Or Volnay ‘Caillerets’ was a real treat. It had a fabulous nose that was sexy, musky, bright and vimful, with amazing alcohol and acidity still. It also had gorgeous fruit, a rose, plum and cherry mélange supplemented with vitamins and earth. Carmel called it ‘perfect.’ It amazing nose was so good that it smelled good enough to put on the back of my neck and go to the bar. The palate was delicious with great verve, unbelievable acidity and bright cherry, vitamin and earth flavors. Wow (96).

Its counterpart, a 1964 Pousse d’Or Pommard ‘Jarolieres,’ was more meaty and pungent in the nose, still with a similar vitamin and fruit mélange, though more pungent and oily. Wilf and Christoph thought they both might still be improving, and the Pommard also had great character, brawnier and clumsier on the palate but still with nice citric vim and good earth flavors on its finish (93).

We were in for another treat, another one of those wines that does not exist, a 1947 Drouhin Chambertin, and it was a ‘fucking amazing’ bottle, someone muttered in glee. OK, it was me. It had an intense, deep nose full of meaty, chunky fruit, loaded with iron and minerals. It was also a killer on the palate with huge and massive concentration and a long, long finish. The only negative thing I can say about it is that after the next wine, it seemed lesser (96+).

&which brings me to our next wine, a 1929 Drouhin Chambertin. I doubt I will have either of these wines ever again, and if I do that they will not be as in good condition! The 1929 was more elegant with its smooth and round nose and gorgeous aromas of cherry ice cream, mahogany amd light iron. The palate was rich, round, mature and sweet; heavy and with great acidity, amazing and still so intense..let’s just call it ridiculous. It was definitely the wine of the weekend (98+).

While that could have been the grand finale, we had two wines left, the first being a rare 1956 La Tache. Wilf and I had shared this bottle together a couple months prior, but not from his cellar, which he brought tonight. This bottle had a nice nose with good intensity and an earthy mask. This bottle proved very tasty and balanced, with excellent alcohol and acidity and great earth flavors. Its intensity was retained in its nose, and it had long, lingering acidity. Now I understood what Wilf was talking about two months ago (93).

It was a sledgehammer to go as the last wine was a 1993 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee ‘Cros Parantoux’ out of magnum. It had a humongous nose with a deep, dark, chunky edge. A bit of gas needed to blow off, and then the wine revealed deep, dark purple fruits and a mountainous quality. The palate was mountainous as well, shattering in its enormity, so meaty and thick that I ran out of things to say except ‘Thank you, Wilf, and here’s to many more’ (97).