As I sit on a plane headed for Bordeaux via Paris, I figure it is a good time to release the second day of my Bordeaux trip last December! Sorry, I have been a bit backed up this year. I will be tasting a wide assortment of 2005s this week, so before that report comes I best catch up, albeit only a bit.

In case you forgot, day one of my Bordeaux trip, which was organized by Bipin Desai, saw visits to Las Cases, Cos (including lunch), Lafite, Mouton, Margaux, Rausan Segla and dinner at Montrose. Day two began with a morning visit to Lafleur, a good way to start any Tuesday in my book.

The owners, [Jacques and Sylvie Guinaudeau], were incredibly warm and generous people. We saw the winery right away, as it is basically a part of the ‘chateau’ (which was more like a house), and people were working away tending to their wines practically on their hands and knees. Despite the big name that Lafleur has, one could see right away that these were artisans rather than big businessmen, and I had the feeling that I was in Burgundy rather than Bordeaux.

We got a few facts straight during an introductory chat. I believe they said the annual production of Lafleur was 8-14,000 bottles, and that 60% of the wine they make goes into Lafleur, with the other 40% going into the ‘Pensees de Lafleur’ second label. I am not sure if that estimate was for both wines or not, forgive me. Jacques began making the wine himself in 1985 and has ever since. They do not make Lafleur if they feel the vintage is not good enough, which was the case in 1987 and 1991. 1987 marked the first ‘Pensees de Lafleur’ bottling as a result. The grapes come from four hectares with four different soils in the center of Pomerol. From outside the house, we could see just about every major Chateau in Pomerol around its horizons.

We began with a 1996 Grand Village, a Bordeaux Superieur (80% Merlot, 20% Cab Franc) that they have also been producing. The wine had a pure nose with aromas of plum, rose and light earth. Smooth, easy and round, with a touch of earth and leather, the 1996 was not bad for ten year-old ‘Superieur’ Merlot. We were informed that the 1996 was opened accidentally, but once it was, they figured ‘what the heck?’ I neglected to write down a score, either for that reason or accidentally myself.

The 2003 Grand Village was next, which should show a big difference in quality, Jacques insisted. Fat yet subtle Merlot fruit, light minerals and excellent character for a ‘village’ wine resulted in a very nice impression. Jacques remarked how in 2003, the young vines were much more difficult to manage than the old vines due to the excessive heat. There was decent richness to the palate, a little lushness and excellent balance with its earth components. Very toasty with nice mouth-filling tannins, this 2003 was one Right Bank wine from this vintage that could be enjoyed without much thought or expenditure (88)!

The 2004 Pensees de Lafleur obviously had more depth in nose. It was more pungent and intense, full of meaty, vitaminy, Pomerol fruit. It had spice, t n’ a, pungent plums, iron and minerals as well in the nose. The palate, still a bit shy, was nonetheless very good with its rich, concentrated fruit, excellent definition and nice length (91).

The 2003 Pensees de Lafleur had a sweeter, more concentrated nose and lots of grape, cassis, blackberry and black raspberry aromas. Jammy with that kiss of Lafleur pungency, the 2003 was tasty and rich in its fruit expression. There were nice earth complements wrapped around the outside, and the 2003 was more approachable than the 2004 but less intense, with more breast and less butt than the 2004 but qualitatively similar, and I only use those terms in the most respectful manner. I adore them both (91).

It was time to get serious, as five vintages of Lafleur were about to be served. Bipin Desai is a most excellent host, I must confess! Jacques commented about what were the most important factors in making Lafleur what it is: first and foremost was the soil, and the blend and age of the vines were the other two, in no particular order.

The 2004 Lafleur (55% Merlot, 45% Cab Franc) was ‘grape juice – almost black,’ Frank observed. It had a deep, intense nose – thick like an impenetrable fog. The fruit was amazingly thick and brooding, almost hibernating but oh so there. Its tannins and alcohol were buried within yet around its edges. There were touches of anise and minerals, but the core of concentrated Pomerol fruit was what set this wine apart, and while there were still a lot of baby fat qualities to its fruit, it was still decadent fruit aromatically. On the palate was a contrast, as the 2004 was very shy and youthful, dominated by its structure and extraordinary tannins and alcohol. So mouthcoating and long, very dry, and possessing a boat load of minerals, the 2004 reeked of extraordinary potential (95+).

The 2003 Lafleur (50/50 Merlot and Cab Franc) was more fruit forward (surprise) but still intense. Bipin was cooing about the ‘soft and silky style of Lafleur.’ There was great anise and a pungent minerality here, almost jumping out like a cat from its box. Pinches of gingerbread, lots of black raspberry fruit and divine earth rounded out its nose. I saw what Bipin said on the palate, as it was softer and silkier, approachable and with less weight in the middle, yet still possessing excellent grip, but the 2003 was clearly not the 2004. ‘Exotic and seductive’ someone remarked. The 2003 made 2004 seem all the more special (92).

An interesting debate broke out about 2004 versus 2003, and the consensus of the house was that in 30-40 years, the 2004 would be a great wine, while the 2003 was atypical, interesting yet far from classic. Guinaudeau continued that the biggest difference today about Lafleur is not the manner in which they make the wine, but rather the selection. Everything used to go into Lafleur, and now they make a stricter selection.

The 2002 Lafleur (60% Merlot, 40% Cab Franc) was a ‘difficult year for me,’ Jacques confessed. It had the pungent anise and cat’s box edge, also having smoke, coffee, plum, an exotic wood spice a la mahogany and a big streak of slate. To me, it was already very nice. There was lots of minerality to the palate and rock solid tannins and alcohol, excellent pungency, slate and good structure, but Sylvie liked its fruit the most. There were approachable flavors of black raspberry and plum in this medium-bodied Lafleur, which was way closer qualitatively to the 2003 than most would think (91).

The 2001 Lafleur had a classic nose with excellent balance between its fruit and finish components. The fruit had gorgeous plum, earth, bacon, and molasses qualities and great balance with its mineral, earth and t n’a qualities. The nose was both open and aromatic but structured as well. The palate was very tasty with its mirabelle, mineral, earth and slate flavors. Pungent, rich and fleshy, this was another great Lafleur. When Jacques said, ‘it will be interesting to compare the 2000 and 2001 over time, and no one talks about 2001,’ I knew it just wasn’t me. The 2001 won the ‘Miss Congeniality’ award of the morning (95).

The 2000 Lafleur had a ‘phenomenal nose,’ Frank cooed. It was classic all the way around with incredible breed – the pungent minerality, the unbelievably pure red and black fruit symphony, the light cedar and jam, and there was an unbelievable harmony amongst all. ‘The ’98 is less concentrated than the 2000,’ Guinaudeau (I think) remarked. There was great structure and intensity, but its balance and high pitch set it apart. The palate was rich, concentrated, mouth-filling and delicious with its chocolaty and minerally flavors. Long, balanced and pure, the wine was dripping with plums, plums and more plums. Believe the hype (98).

It was already a great day, and we were offto Cheval Blanc to lunch with the dynamic Pierre Lurton. Pierre shared some insights about Cheval as well. Generally 60% Cabernet Franc and 40% Merlot, Cheval Blanc was more than St. Emilion; it was ‘unique.’ Some of the keys to making the wine were an early ripening and controlling the water level in the soil, according to Pierre. Generally, Cheval sees 15-18 months in 100% new oak and at least three different types of oak. They believe in picking the Merlot early, as an overripe Merlot is ‘dangerous.’ Not only does Pierre manage Cheval Blanc, but also Marjoresse, Cheval des Andes from Argentina, a new South African project and Chateau d’Yquem, whose 2005 is ‘incroyable’ (unbelievable). When the topic of 2005 Cheval followed, Pierre was nothing but laudatory, citing its ‘exotic fruit and classic structure,’ also noting that each of Cheval’s 23 individual plots were vinified separately.

Ok, it was time for some more wine. The 2003 Cheval Blanc had an amazing perfume, and Bipin found it ‘very true.’ ‘Last year it was completely closed,’ someone observed, but the 2003 was apparently starting to come out of its shell. Its great perfume also possessed purity and elegance, and we were told it was 55% Cab Franc, 45% Merlot. Its nose had red fruits, light minerals, wintry spice and stunning earth aromas to it. The palate was tasty with rich sweet fruit but lacking definition in the middle, similar to Lafleur. The finish was delicate despite some lingering acidity, and the 2003 was very feminine in style. Even Lurton remarked that it was good but not great. It did have an amazing nose, though. Pierre noted its ‘coffee,’ while Bipin admired its ‘sweet biscuit’ aromas and slyly said, ‘almost a touch of Yquem to the nose.’ Its finish came out a bit with time (92).

The 2003 was Pierre’s version of an aperitif, as we sat down for lunch and began with a 2000 Petit Cheval, of which there are approximately 3,000 cases made every year and whose first vintage was 1988. Itwas a ‘great Petit Cheval,’ Pierre proudly stated, as if he was talking about one of his six children. It had an open nose with that Cabernet Franc kink, that weedy quality, but a lot better than the connotation. It had some red and wintry fruits underneath, and Wolf found it ‘very opulent.’ In the mouth, the wine was very tasty, with nice texture and length, and a flash of flesh and earth. Round Two of the wine gave off more purplish hues in the nose, as well as more bread aromas. Rich and in a good spot with its open and semi-lush fruit, the 2000 Petit Cheval also had nice grit to its finish and good character overall. A touch of benevolent Cab Franc green rounded out this very good wine (92).

A 1988 Cheval Blanc had a sexy nose, also in a good spot. Pierre commented how 1988 was a ‘very classic vintage, deep and dark in color,’ and that 2004 was like 1988 with more ripeness, which caused Bipin to mutter something about Pavie that I won’t repeat! Wolf appreciated its ‘great nose’ and found the ’88 to be ‘a wine for Cheval lovers, for the thinking’ drinker. He went on to say ‘nothing (was) overstated’ and admired its ‘beautiful harmony.’ The wine was open and singing, Pierre picking up on some ‘minty’ qualities. The nose did have gorgeous red fruits, nuts, a kiss of vanilla, caramel and a touch of earth. The palate had excellent richness, great balance and a long finish. This was an excellent Cheval all the way. As the wine developed, its bready aromas became divine, and its nuttiness got sexier. Flavors of chocolate, meat and earth expanded on its rich palate, which was a bit rusty in a good way. Tasty and with definition, the 1988 Cheval was a real surprise to me, and its vigor held as tertiary aromas of olive, wintergreen and almost dill joined the party (93).

After the eye-opening 2001 we had at Lafleur, the question of 2001 was asked to Pierre, who felt that 2001 is a ‘forgotten’ year but was a ‘classic’ that ‘will age.’

Pierre pulled out areal treat, a bottle of 1959 Cheval Blanc that had never left the cellars. I had had a great bottle of this wine before, the other also being with Frank (how does that always happen?). This bottle did not disappoint either. From 1950 to 1964, there are a slew of incredible Chevals that seem to be ignored or missed by the American market. Don’t! The ’59 had an amazing nose full of rich, meaty and wintry fruits. Someone was in awe of its ‘amazing sweetness.’ It was fat and meaty with aromas of red brick fruits, a shred of vitamins, oil, earth and game. ‘The wine is perfect to drink. Il vous attendez! (It is waiting for you),’ Pierre gushed. A flash of deep purple, honey-roasted nuts and a pinch of mint rounded out its nose. Rich, sweet and delicious summed up the palate, which still had great t ‘n a, a veritable Raquel Welch of a wine. Incredibly complex and very sweet, this 1959 had hints of 1947 in it. Fig emerged in this rich, lush and gritty wine. It did mature in the glass a bit more quickly than I wanted, but other than that it was magnificent. Some wines are meant to be consumed and enjoyed sooner rather than later when they get to this age. Wolf found it ‘healthy with no flaws,’ while Bipin admired the ‘1959 character of opulence.’ ‘Not a wine of fashion, it is a wine of substance,’ one of my four wise companions said. Raisins crept into its seepy style, and there was some maple to its sweetness (96).

Pierre shared a funny story about how when he was interviewing for the job of Managing Director at Cheval, there was a little discomfort with his last name being Lurton, which is obviously a famous wine name in Bordeaux associated with many other properties. They had asked him if he could use his mother’s name instead, and what was it. ‘Lafite,’ he replied. That got a big laugh. Some people were meant to be in the wine business. One last little tidbit that Pierre left us with was that there are over 1000 bottles of 1937 and 1500 bottles of 1967 still in the cellar at Yquem. Like, whoa.

We changed the dial to modern rock with an afternoon visit with Hubert de Bouard at Chateau L’Angelus. Hubert is one of the more aggressive Chateau owners in Bordeaux right now, working on and acquiring new properties on a regular basis. In 2001, he assumed control of Clos des Jacobins, for one. I must confess that I was a bit exhausted at the start of this tasting, but Hubert’s wines woke me up right away with their more modern style, a style that still managed to respect some of the terroirs’ inherent classicism.

We started with a 2003 Chateau La Commanderie, a property located only 300 meters from Cheval. What was Hubert’s secret to resuscitating this property? Lower yields, stopping fertilizing and paying attention to the different lots within the property were his answers. The wine had a pleasant nose of red fruits, olive, light citrus, and minerals with a limestone edge. One could taste more vanilla from the oak, but it was still balanced and reined in, revealing nice texture and richness. There was a pleasant freshness and sweetness to the wine. Bipin found it ‘low acid,’ but it had a nice, dry finish. The vines were less than ten years old, Hubert pointed out, as well as the fact that 30-40% of the crop was cut back at the end of August for both Commanderie and L’Angelus (90).

The 2003 La Fleur de Bouard was next, a wine consisting of 85% Merlot that was again very modern with the vanilla, new oak edge that was again reined in over its plummy fruit and edges of Cab Franc stalk and perfume. There was more structure and richness here and also good fatness in the middle. There were a lot of vanilla flavors and a nice, dry finish to go with its plum syrup fruit. 1998 was this wine’s first vintage, fyi, and the property (a Lalande de Pomerol) is located 2.5 kilometers away from Petrus itself (92).

The 2004 La Fleur de Bouard was a barrel sample and had more wood accordingly, along with more maple syrup. Vanilla, interior wood and barrel smoke were dominant, but there was still creamy and sappy fruit underneath. While oakier, spicier and longer, the 2004 was a bit square relative to the 2003. Despite all my observations of oak, it was not overwhelming; i.e., it worked, although it probably would be overwhelming to some. The tannins were very gripping, and a touch of bitters rounded out its unbalanced finish (90+).

The 2003 Clos St. Jacobins had an ‘exotic tea’ component, Bipin observed. Hubert countered with ‘dry fruits like fig.’ There were aromas of vanilla (of course), along with smoke, earth, toast and wild Cab Franc stalk. There was excellent structure for 2003 here, but the palate was very vanilla-y and woody with that green Cab Franc stalk flavor. It was a bit aggressive for me but well-made nonetheless (90).

The 2002 Le Plus de la Fleur de Bouard, also a Lalande de Pomerol and basically a reserve selection of the regular La Fleur, had an ink black color. Its nose was also very inky and deep, with syrupy black fruits, vanilla, smoke, earth and pinches of minerals, vegetables and animals. Round, smooth and long, the Le Plus was still on the vanilla side of things but classier, longer and more regal. For a wine from 2002, it was pretty impressive, although I couldn’t help but think that Bouard’s wines reflect his style more than the terroirs, but again it works. Hubert observed ‘minerals and licorice’ (93).

The 2001 Le Plus de la Fleur de Bouard had a milder nose by comparison, and I liked that. Its nose had an exotic, floral edge but still a bit of beef, along with sap, purple and black fruits and a pinch of jasmine. Cleaner on the palate, the 2001 had less upfront density but nice length and a cleaner style. There was more mineral and leather on the finish (92).

The 2003 L’Angelus, 58% Cabernet Franc, had the most regal style, and 2003 produced ‘unbelievable Cabernet Franc’ according to Hubert. There was that kiss of modern vanilla, yet also an underlying style and the elegance of the earth. Hubert found ‘red fruits and raspberries,’ and there was also coffee, chocolate and cassis. The L’Angelus was much denser than the Cheval, with an extra touch of dryness to its finish. Big, rich and robust with a long, dry finish, the 2003 had lots of beefy flavors. It was not my style of wine but quite respectable (92).

Wow, is that dark,’ Frank remarked about the 2004 L’Angelus, which to me also had more style than the 2003. There were deep purple fruits and less vanilla than anything so far, although it was still noticeable. Additional aromas of plum liqueur, chocolate, beef and leather were in this subtle (by comparison) nose. The palate was spiny, with a lot of dry minerality and a leathery finish (93).

There was no time to dilly-dally, as it was off to the office of Christian Moueix to taste through the wines of the first family of Pomerol. While Christian was not around, his most knowledgeable son Edouard was there to lead us through a horizontal of 2004s. He was accompanied by the company’s Sales Director Frederick Lospied.

The 2004 Magdelaine had a beautiful nose and such pure fruit, red cherry and currant to be precise, along with musk, vitamins and earth. ‘Just plain sexy,’ I wrote, the 2004 also had a delicious palate full of rich red fruits, earth, vitamins and great minerals. This was gorgeous fruit for a 2004, and the wine still had a nice, long finish, and its dryness was reined in unlike other 2004s that we had already had. The wine did have a lighter to medium body with a small hole in the middle, but the purity was beautiful (92).

The 2004 La Grave, (formerly Trigrant de Boisset), was a property bought by Christian in 1971. It had an attractive nose of plums, light minerals and slate, but also plump, sweet fruit without being too sweet. ‘Nice and smooth,’ Frank observed, and it absolutely was, but it also had a spicy finish. There were flavors of pure, tasty, plummy fruit and excellent earth to this very impressive and classy juice (93).

The 2004 Latour a Pomerol was a bit more pungent in the nose with more animal, yeast and anise aromas, a touch too yeasty. The 2004 was the ‘last vintage with the old block next to the church,’ we were told, as the vineyard was replanted in 2006. The flavors were anise and a touch of cat box, back to the drier style a la other 2004’s. There was still nice, plummy fruit and a drop of oil (90).

The 2004 Certan Marzelle, a property of which I was unaware, was formerly part of Certan Giraud, now across the street from a lower plot of 20-25 year-old vines, next to La Fleur de Gay. It had a musky nose with more blackberry fruit, but it was missing that second level of complexity and a touch dry with more bitter flavors (87).

The 2004 La Fleur Petrus had a great nose, rich and sappy with decadent, plummy fruit. There was also excellent musk, touches of caramel and leather, vitamins, nice earth and bread aromas, along with a touch of baked something in a good way. Edouard observed that it was ‘more fleshy but needs more time,’ and he was right on in that observation. It had a big palate, ‘a mouthful,’ Frank exclaimed. Rich and concentrated, it had plummy and oily fruit and a long finish (94).

The 2004 Trotanoy had a deep, intense nose full of iron, minerals, slate, earth and the sexiest plummy fruit of the afternoon. While Edouard commented how it was ‘always difficult to taste when young,’ a statement with which I agree, this Trotanoy had no problem expressing itself. It was the most stylish wine so far of this session, and I was really digging the core of blackcurrant jam and musk. The palate was very spiny and had super acidity but was still very tight and coy on palate in regard to its fruit. The Trotanoy was so spicy that I needed to lick my lips over and overagain! Despite it being very dry, its finish was indubitably outstanding. If the fruit can keep up, the 2004 Trotanoy may turn out to be truly great and one of the wines of the vintage (95+).

The hits kept on coming with the 2004 Hosanna. It was on the opulent side of plum with a yeasty backbone. Bipin found its ‘chocolate absolutely remarkable.’ Frederick noted its ‘pepper, spice’ and found it ‘elegant, not heavy.’ Mouth-filling, round, and with dry tannins, the 2004 Hosanna had nice flesh and great structure (93).

It was time to have the 2004 Lafleur again, the second time in one day! It was a new context and therefore a new experience, as well as the fact it was the first time I have ever had the same wine in the morning and then in the afternoon. Yes, even for me, that is a rare occasion. Brooding, deep and intense, its nose was like a lurking giant with its muscular style. Chocolate, earth, slate and smoke rounded out the nose, and the palate was consistent, also with enormous, mouth-coating tannins, great acidity, flavors of purple fruits, vitamins and earth, all of which took a backseat to the tannins (95+).

The 2004 Petrus had a much more playful nose despite the same brooding intensity as Lafleur. It was also a bit more approachable, redder in its fruit, muskier and with additional aromas of earth, smoke, vitamins, jasmine and light cedar. The style on the palate was more Muhammad Ali than the George Foreman style of Lafleur. The Petrus danced on the palate with shy yet delicious flavors of plum, earth and tobacco, along with a long, dry finish. The Petrus was indubitably in the same class as the Trot and Lafleur, although perhaps a step behind in its intensity, but that was probably the point! Bipin found it ‘restrained, balanced, beautiful,’ and Edouard made a 1975 analogy and went on an anti-extraction speech citing the ‘delicacy of its dryness,’ summing it up succinctly by saying ‘the better is the enemy of thegood.’ (95+)

You would think that the above would be enough for one day, but remember this is Bipin we are talking about! Dinner was soon to be served, and tonight was ‘Bipin’s Thanksgiving,’ a dinner he hosts every year at Chateau Lafite featuring a who’s who guest list from Bordeaux: Herve Berland (Mouton Rothshild), Jacques Boissenot (enologist), Hubert de Bouard (Angelus), Jean-Louis Charmolue (Montrose), Charles Chevallier (Lafite), Jean Delmas (formerly at Haut Brion), Alexandre de Lur Saluces (formerly of Yquem and still with de Fargues), Thierry Manoncourt (Figeac), Jean-Francois Moueix (Christian’s brother and negociant), Paul Pontallier (Margaux), Jean-Guillaume Prats (Cos), Christoph Salin (Lafite), Christian Le Somer (enologist) , and there were two people who were invited but couldn’t make it: Pierre Lurton (Cheval Blanc) and Christine Valette (Troplong Mondot); and the guest of honor, Jean-Pierre Perrin, who is from a chateau of different sorts, de Beaucastel. Pierre is a Paul Bunyan of a man, tall and broad, and I swear he told me that he biked 200 kilometers that very same day already! There is no doubt he could beat me in any form of any race whatsoever.

We had had our fill of young wines for the day, so we started the meal with a 1985 Montrachet. I had almost forgotten what Burgundy tasted like but soon remembered! Reticent aromas of wax, corn, butter, alcohol and minerals graced the nose. A bit of yeast and wild field were on the outskirts as well. The palate was very toasted and buttery, burnt like smokehouse wood in jerky. Very tasty, the 1985 was creamy, lush, oily, rich, long and smooth, with hidden acids, exotic yellow fruits and wax and nut flavors. Although it might be at its best now, the was still very fine indeed. I asked Bipin if it was at its peak, and he said yes, but then a philosophical discussion regarding the concept of peak begun with Paul Pontallier. To paraphrase Paul, ‘over time we lose some things yet gain in others, what is a peak? Not sure there is such a thing.’ He continued the wine was ‘absolutely delicious – not sure it’s at its peak but it’s everything I like.’ The food brought out the alcohol and acid on the palate a bit, supporting Paul’s thoughts (95).

It was back to our regular programming with anything but a regular wine, a 1945 Calon Segur served out of magnum. It had a great nose full of minerals, chocolate, cassis, nut, old cedar and earth. The wine had such beautiful and fresh fruit, almost grapy. Creamy, lush and elegant, the wine still possessed a nice delicate length to its finish and flavors of slate and old cedar. Simply a delicious wine, the 1945 Calon even got sturdier in the glass and its tannins came out more and more with time (96).

There was another magnum of 1945 claret, this time a 1945 Gruaud Larose. This magnum had a lower, mid-shoulder level but was not bad, perhaps not as good as it could have been, but if I didn’t know, I might not have noticed. It had nice fruit, dark plums and grapes, and a lot of soft, supple structural aromas such as earth, straw, hay and light minerals. There was a touch too much minerality to the palate in its earthier profile, but it still had depth to its fruit and excellent tannic expression. Long, fine, still sturdy and possessing more tannins than alcohol, this was still an excellent bottle, despite the kiss of sherry to its flavors (94A).

Paul gave me some facts about the 1945 vintage: there was a Spring frost, a low crop, a very nice summer that was hot (but not like ’03 and ’47), dry (not like ’05) and there was an early harvest about 9/15 or earlier. Charles Chevallier was in awe of the amazing color that these 1945s were able to retain.

The 1945 Rausan Segla was another excellent wine, more musky in a minerally direction with meater fruit and a sprinkle of brown sugar, wheat! (that was it), caramel and decadent cassis. Rich, thick, meaty and mouthfilling, the Segla coated the mouth with its cassis fruit and long, minerally finish. It was spectacular at first but seemed to get oakier in the glass, but there was no doubt its port-like concentration was incredible (94).

A 1945 Leoville Las Cases had more straw and chalk to its nose, vimful and vigorous in a spicy way without being spicy. There was still a wealth of plummy fruit there and almost a touch of cinnamon, blending into a foresty wood. The palate was smooth and minerally with nice grip and length but an overall milder impression, but like that 2004 Petrus showed, that can be a good thing! Very pencilly, the Las Cases was initially outclassed by the Rausan Segla but surpassed it in the end (94+)!

It was interesting to study this renowned group’s reactions to this flight. Paul preferred the Calon, Hubert the Rausan Segla, while Charles did the Leoville Las Cases. So much for a consensus! I figured now was as good a time as any to make my ‘bring back the foudre’ stand, especially at a table where it would actually mean something. Paul countered that most fermentations are still done in wooden vats like foudres, and that there were always barrels, just not necessarily new ones, but everyone would have used new ones if they could have afforded them.

Back to the Burgundies we went, and this group of illustrious Bordelais seemed intrigued like kids in a 7th grade biology class dissecting their first frog. and Montrachet was one thing, but I swear that there was a healthy minority at the table who had never even heard of Dujac! It was at that point that I realized that the Bordelais are truly in their own world. One attendee later confided to me that when he is at home, he drinks Burgundy, but he shall remain nameless, as I don’t want to be the guy who gets him exiled to Chile!

The 1985 Dujac Bonnes Mares was first and served out of magnum. It fell all over me like welcome and needed rain with its beautiful nose, a left turn indeed, but definitely one in the right direction! The nose seeped out of the glass with its bright red cherry and raspberry fruit, decadent musk, leather and earth aromas, definitively Bourgogne as opposed to Bordeaux. The nose was also bready, sweet, and with a pinch of citric vigor to get the hair on the back of my neck just right. A whiff of menthol finalized the aromatic profile. The palate was very rich and concentrated by Burgundian standards, possessing spicy alcohol and acid. There were also excellent earth flavors and a kiss of maple sweetness to go with its red cherry fruit. The Bonnes Mares was noticeably breadier than the Clos de la Roche (96).

The 1985 Dujac Clos de la Roche was also served out of magnum and similarly styled to the Bonnes Mares but with more menthol and chocolate; that was what really separated the two. There was also a touch of fresh bouillon and darker fruits in the Clos de la Roche – more black cherries. The wine was firm with more buried alcohol, its flavors redder, and there was less weight than the Bonnes Mares, along with a small hole in the middle of the palate (94).

The 1985s continued with a 1985 La Tache. ‘Still young,’ Paul admired. ‘The older I get, the more I love Burgundy,’ he drifted off, surely a state of temporary insanity if this came to trial! The nose of the La Tache was a bit shut down, a bit dirty to be frank. There was a lot of oil and dirt to the nose, but the palate recovered and was ‘absolutely stunning’ with great lift to its finish, but it did taste a bit beefy and advanced overall. There were great earth flavors and still excellent stuffing to the wine, which had plenty of upside potential left (95A?).

The 1985 Romanee St. Vivant was a fresher style of ’85. The fruit was redder, but the wine still had that dirty edge like La Tache – maybe it was the vintage rather than the bottles? Oily and nutty, there was more seaside action in the nose. There was a similar dirty edge to the smooth and supple palate (92).

The last 1985 wine in this flight was a 1985 Leroy Ruchottes Chambertin, which had a deeper, nuttier, darker Leroy nose that seemed more winemaker than terroir. The palate was full of dark fruits, cola, leather and earth flavors. The finish was very tannic relatively but quickly softened yet maintained a gritty finish (92).

It was time for some wines from the Rhone Valley and our guest of honor. The 1981 Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape was another left turn, but more slight of a turn. It had a mild nose by comparison to the Burgundies yet also had some Burgundian edges to its fruit. Aromas of meat, red fruits, leather, earth and leather slinked out, along with bits of sap, soy, oil and rust. The palate was very hearty with lots of acidity and nice, medium-bright red fruit with autumnal edges, earth and light grit to its finish (92).
We were in for a treat, a magnum of 1954 Beaucastel, from the cellars of Beaucastel, of course, as was the 1981. Nut and earth were the first aromas to show themselves, followed by meat, soy, red fruits, animal fur, a touch of Provence, mineral and more earth. ‘Sauvage,’ Bipin added. Rich and fleshy, the ‘1981 was very good, but the ’54 great,’ Paul decided, and Charles agreed. It was delicious and still hearty (95).

It was time for dessert, and this meal ended in as fine a fashion as it begun. The 1945 Yquem had a fabulous nose full of wax, honey, creme brulee, caramel and orange peel. The palate was so thick, so rich so oily and so concentrated that small children should not be within a mile of an open bottle, for they would definitely get wind of this one and want, want, want. Long, spiny and still youthful, there were additional flavors of biscotti and vanilla. Frank called it ‘perfect,’ and it was pretty damn close (98+).

One more to go, a 1935 Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port. I think I can, I think I can. ‘OOMPH!’ was aboutall I could muster up. White peppery, pruny and alcoholic, I summed up this port from Bipin’s birth year with a ‘yeah’ (95).

And that was day two.

Last month, I took a weekend trip to Europe to inspect a major European collection. I was able to negotiate to be able to offer wines from this extensive collection through our retail operation, offerings that will start this week and continue over the next month as organized by era. The cellar is that vast – some wines were purchased in twenty case parcels! Keep your eyes peeled for more of the ‘Lugano Collection.’

Of course, part and parcel of the inspection process was an extensive tasting of a random selections of wines from this amazingly diverse collection. We settled on ‘six wines from six decades’ and gathered in a small bistro and ate and drink the night away.

We began innocently enough with a 1992 Joseph Drouhin Clos Vougeot. The wine had a pleasant nose, lightly layered though perhaps entering the last stage of the benevolent maturation process. The wine had edge – cedar, mineral, animal and vegetable with kisses of bouillon, earth and hay. Everything was nicely balanced in the nose with a touch of prickle. The palate was tasty and smooth with a pinch of green flavors from the vintage, a wine not to age much longer but still enjoyable. There were nice earth and leather flavors on its finish, but one could sense the animal and vegetable gremlins waiting to bust out in a bad way soon, which is the vintage more than anything else, as the bottle was quite sound. Drink up (88).

A 1988 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle’ had a smoky, toasty nose with lightly roasted Hermitage fruit, deep plum and cassis fruit, and a nutty, raisiny sex appeal. Meaty and oily, its nose was impressive, but its palate was a bit dry with extreme acidity. It lacked the fruit and depth of a great La Chapelle, but it was still a very good one with dry, leathery flavors and a long finish. On the second go-around, it reminded me of 1975 Bordeaux a bit (90).

Speaking of which, the next wine was a 1975 Beychevelle. The nose was amazingly fresh, still with a lot in reserve, but also with deep, dry cassis, minerals, anise and spicy earth aromas. The nose was high-pitched, a summit for tannins and alcohol. It was ‘ruff n’ rugged’ in a good way on the palate, spiny and intense with much more finish than fruit, and a lot of anise and mineral flavors. I like this vintage in general when I need a good spanking (88).

As a side note, I know in today’s number-crunching world that 88 points seems like a scarlet letter, but I would like to take the time to remind everyone that a wine can be perfectly enjoyable and ‘good’ in that score range, especially when dealing with mature wines when the price is right, and the ’92 and ’75 proved just that.

Unfortunately, our wine from the ’60s was corked, so we moved on to a 1959 A. Ligeret Santenay Gravieres, Tasteduvin bottling. Now we were talking. Perhaps it was just the randomness of selection, but the older we went, the fresher the wines seemed to be! The Santenay had a seductive nose of meaty, sweaty and sweet Pinot fruit. There was rich, black, smoky fruit with pinches of prune, animal and bread. The wine was delicious and ‘right thurrr’ – who says Santenay can’t age? Rich, chewy and creamy, the wine had the hot fig flavors of the ’59 vintage, that deliciously brown sugared fruit, complemented by earth, spice, seeds and skins. It gained in the glass in a citric and oaty way (92+).

The grand finale was indeed a grand finale, an original bottling of 1947 Borgogno Barolo Riserva (Borgogno has released numerous older wines as of late, but this was an original). This was my first great experience with the legendary 1947 vintage in Barolo. Yes, I, too, still have much to learn! The nose was perfect Piedmontese bliss – tar, leather, meat, earth, tobacco, roses, book, fireplace, truffles. It was symphonic in its complexity and still youthful in many regards. Absolutely delicious, it got nuttier and stayed spiny with its great t ‘n a. There were great sawdust, mineral, anise and spice flavors, a kiss of citrus on each cheek. This was aged Nebbiolo at our service, a meal unto itself with all the food groups. What was also interesting was the light and browned color the wine had, common for older Nebbiolo. Most wines that had this color would be DOA, but not Nebbiolo (96).

After a random and thorough sampling, I was both excited and confident in the quality of the cellar. There is something to be said for those European cellars, and I look forward to offering you many wines from the above cellar over the next month.

Before I get into the weekend, I would like to let everyone know that you can check out every article I have written over the past 15 months on www.vintagetastings.com/all I know, I need a searchable website. It’ll happen this year.

I am currently in the middle of my ‘State of Bordeaux’ article that describes my trip to Bordeaux this past December, but it seems like it will be one of those articles that ends up being 30-40 pages! It was indeed an amazing journey, but I am about ten pages into it after day one of six! Ugh – this one is going to take a lot of effort, so I decided to skip ahead to a very special weekend, the one where we auctioned off ‘THE Cellar.’ By the way, La Paulee weekend was the weekend before ‘THE Cellar’ weekend, and that was pretty special as well. By the looks of it, look for that article towards the end of February.

I think I was out every night the week of the auction, beginning Monday. I can’t remember Monday or Tuesday now, to be honest, but Wednesday I was at Fleur de Sel with Frank guzzling down an 88′ Zind Humbrecht Gewurztraminer (Clos Windsbuhl VT, I believe) and a 1971 Tommasi Amarone. They were both excellent and in the 93 point territory, but that’s about all you will get out of me for that night!

Thursday was the official kickoff to our version of a ‘Super’ weekend, the weekend we changed auction history by auctioning off the third largest collection of all time, totaling over $10.6 million in sales. I know you know by now, unless you have been in Antarctica for a couple weeks, but I had to say it again anyway – it sounds so good! Some select people came together at Per Se for a very magical evening, courtesy of ‘THE Cellar,’ as all the wines poured that night came from what is considered by many to be the greatest collection in America today. There is no doubt that this dinner affected some activity over the weekend!

It started innocently enough with a flight of two 1991 Burgundies, beginning with the 1991 Vogue Musigny V.V. The Vogue was ‘pretty and elegant’ Ed initiated, and it did have a gorgeous, pure and elegant nose with great aromas of vitamin, musk, iron, red cherry, mint and earth. The palate was solid, youthful but not massive though still firm with nice balance and length. It was still a bit taut and on the earthy and gritty side, but beautiful nonetheless (93).

The 1991 Leroy Richebourg clearly had more power and oak with its big, earthy and woody nose, full of tannins and earth. It was that big, Leroy style, although it managed to stay reined in despite my Kistler and Marcassin flashbacks. The palate was sturdy, big and long, more finish than fruit. Bob noticed how the wine brung out the fishiness of the caviar in the first course more, and it sure did. Roy commented how the wine was ‘too young – her wines need four decades almost.’ Mike concurred with the ‘too young’ sentiment (92+).

OK, enough of the warm-ups, it was time to get serious. The 1959 Roumier Bonnes Mares was incredible. It had a fabulous nose, meaty with lots of iron, tangy musk, vitamins, light iodine, bouillon and autumnal fruit. Rich and expansive on the palate, the 1959 still had lots of vigor and acidity. There was this dark and wild edge to the wine in a good way. The wine was round, lush, fleshy and very tasty, a kinky Burgundy all the way. ‘Phenomenal’ and ‘ridiculous’ came from the crowd (96).

The 1959 Rousseau Chambertin was no slouch, either. It had a milder nose but was still ‘precise,’ as Ed pointed out. There were subtle red fruits, nice t ‘n a, spice and musk, and the Rousseau kept gaining and gaining as the quality and power of Chambertin came out of their shell with a little air. There was good balance and vigor in the mouth, but the Rousseau lacked the layers of the Roumier. There was more citric tang on its brawny finish. The wine was excellent overall but short of outstanding, perhaps only because of the presence of the Roumier served before it. a close friend of mine preferred the Rousseau, I should note, and there were no signs of the hotness of the 1959 vintage in this well-made wine (94).

A notable side comment came from Ed when discussing the difference between Bordeaux and Burgundy, and why he found himself drinking Bordeaux more regularly. He found the wines of Bordeaux to be more consistent and that one could acquire 10-15 cases of a given wine with relative ease, but with Burgundy one has to spend fourteen years looking for that next bottle! If only we could all acquire 10 cases, Ed!

One of the most notably possible showdowns was next: Roumier vs. Vogue Musigny from the great 1962 vintage. The 1962 Roumier Musigny picked up where the 1959 Bonnes Mares left off. At first, it was a little musty, but it thankfully blew off. One bottle was unfortunately severely corked, but not mine. Stylistically, the 1962 was similar to the 1959 except it was fresher and more vigorous, and the Roumier style shone through first and foremost. There was a touch of caramel to this long and sturdy Musigny, which had quite a bit of kick despite being so elegant (95+).

The 1962 Vogue Musigny V.V. took no prisoners. It had an absolutely incredible nose that was singing in the spotlight. Robert called it ‘amazing,’ and it was about as ‘WOW’ as ‘wow’ can get. There were stupendous aromas; everything you could want in your nose of mature Burgundy was there. Someone called it ‘magical.’ Characteristics included fireplace, roses, brick, cedar and earth. The wine was so balanced, gorgeous and sensual, as well as smooth and beautiful. Everyone went ‘gaga’ for this spectacular wine (98).

That was a tough act to follow, so good thing we had a couple of 1978 s on tap. The 1978 La Tache had a meaty, intense and classic nose full of beefy fruit, menthol, citric tang, earth and leather, both spicy and spiny in its symphonic aromas. The fruit on the palate was a touch autumnal, as it should be, very forward and smooth. Ed said it was the best bottle of this wine that he had ever had, but a close friend of mine said that he had had slightly better, and I have had at least one that left a more lasting impression, but then again it was not tasted after wines of such magnificence as the previous four. There was a lot of game and wild boar flavors on the palate for this outstanding La Tache (95).

The 1978 Romanee Conti was served out of magnum, and while Ed liked the aromatic profile of the La Tache better, I found the structural components in the nose of the RC incredible. It was so penetrating in an elegant way and had this decadent, cherry vanilla ice cream thing happening. There was great verve to the palate, as only RC can provide, and additional flavors of earth and leather (96+).

Sadly, that was the end of our Burgundy programming; happily, it was the beginning of the Bordeaux one. We warmed up again with a couple of ‘modern-day legends,’ beginning with the 1990 Margaux. You know it is a good night when a ’90 Margaux is basically a palate cleanser! Taut, wound, and classic, the ’90 was great but seemed like such a baby now, infantile in its ability to express itself after the mature wines that we had just experienced. There was still a lot of Margaux elegance, length and style in this smooth, supple yet vigorous wine (95).

I broke down on the 1986 Mouton and could not gather myself to take a note. This bottle was incredibly closed, despite the fact that I had a near-perfect experience with it only six months ago (DQ).

The 1945 Mouton was another story in the next flight of two wines. Dripping with that old Mouton sex appeal, the ’45 had caramel, menthol, earth, sweet cream and forest floor aromas, all typical for this great vintage. The wine was very smooth on the palate, more so than the three or four 99 point experiences I have had with this wine, but it was outstanding nonetheless, ‘mintier than most,’ someone observed, but I found it par for the ’45 Mouton course, and tasty, long and balanced, perhaps reconditioned and hence the dip in normal intensity (95).

The 1947 Cheval Blanc was out of magnum, and it was a ‘wow’ wine. Inky, chunky, deep and expansive, the ’47 was chocolaty, motor oily and chunkily good. It was a great magnum of this wine and rich, deep and long on the palate with lots of vigor and grit. ‘Oomph’ summed up my notes (97+).

The final flight, or supposed final flight, of the night consisted of four 1961 Pomerols. Yeah, baby. It is no secret that I consider the 1961 Pomerols to be amongst the greatest wines ever made, and we had a Murderers’ Row assembled, beginning with the 1961 Trotanoy. Ed found it ‘Left Bank-ish,’ and I saw what Ed was talking about with its touch of cedar. I was enthralled with its seductive and fabulously decadent nose. It was so sexy and plummy with exquisite mineral and slate balancing out its classic, sweet Pomerol fruit. The palate was outstanding; delicious, gritty, long and balanced, the Trotanoy had prune, plum and mocha flavors with tender kisses of minerals. The wine was absolutely delicious and the sleeper of the flight (97).

The 1961 Lafleur was the only bottle that I would characterize as disappointing on this magical evening, but it was an affected bottle, a touch oxidized. It was gamy and wild, open yet funky in a fleshy way, with kinky fruit and supplements of bandaid and leather. Long, smooth and balanced, the wine still had great character despite the slight maderization. Someone called it ‘The Roumier of Bordeaux,’ but this bottle did not do this deservedly legendary wine justice (94A).

The 1961 Latour a Pomerol came, saw and conquered most of the guests on this night. ‘Wow’ began my note – we were in familiar territory! Its nose was sexy, musky, kinky, almost Arabian in its exotic spice. Big, rich and kinky, its nose was meaty, oily and Amarone-like as it should be. It was tasty, fresh and vigorous in the mouth, yet it maintained a delicacy that would charm any Burgundy lover. A gritty and sturdy finish rounded out this true classic (98).

What was this! The owner of ‘THE Cellar,’ who was in attendance, pulled out a magnum of the same wine! Creamy, smooth and exotic, the magnum had banana, plum, heavy cream and great minerality. Thicker, heavier and tighter than the bottle, the magnum was slightly marred for me by a touch too much oak. It will indubitably outlive the bottle, but I found the bottle to be more delicious at this stage (95+).

The last wine printed on the program was a magnum as well, of 1961 Petrus. It had an A++ nose full of plum, mocha, oil, nut, smoke, minerals, cedar and leather. The palate was awesome; balanced, taut and long, it was about as good as it gets, although out of magnum it showed a touch less fruit than some regular-sized bottles that I have had (98+).

So we thought the night was over, but there were more goodies in the bag of this most generous collector. We finished up with a 1921 Lafleur (99), 1949 Lafleur (97)and 1934 La Tache (99). They were all spectacular bottles, incredible wines achieving the near impossible fact of following the final flight. The 1921 was from the same batch that I had while working on the cellar, but this bottle made the prior one look almost junior varsity. It was staggering, and the 1949 was spectacular as well, but lacked the concentration and intensity of the 1921 comparatively. The 1934 LT held up to the legacy that the ’34 Romanee Conti left three months prior and proved equally as spectacular.

Another magnum of 1947 Cheval Blanc was opened later on, and mercifully I left after that one to miss a second magnum of 1978 Romanee Conti. Geez, Louise.

As if that wasn’t enough hedonism for one week, ‘Big Boy’ was holding court Friday night with a very special dinner for eight of his closest friends. Everything was served blind. After an exhausting day on the podium hammering down the first session, I was a bit late to the party but caught up quickly. It was the first official meeting of ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.’

The first wine had a mature, seductive nose that was deep, old yet strong, very meaty with lots of iron and iodine, nice t ‘n a and a firm character. There were library flavors on its thick, big and long, long, long palate, and enormous finish. Consistent with last night, this bottle of 1959 Roumier Bonnes Mares was outstanding again. When it rains, it pours (96).

Smoked meats and a powerful melange of wild herbs jumped out of the second glass. There was a little marijuana in there, for sure. The palate was chocolaty, long and sturdy, thick yet with less weight up front and in the middle. There was a tasty streak of vitamins on the finish in this 1959 Vogue Musigny V.V., which could easily last another twenty years. Dalia later added ‘coffee and dried beef’ and motivated me to find some tree bark in the wine as well (94+).

There was lots of t ‘n a in the third wine, which had aromas of smoke, garden, meat, black cherry and soda in its long nose. A sweet perfume permeated the room, and flavors of sun-dried cranberries graced its big, long and smooth palate. It was a 1962 Roumier Musigny. Hello again (96).

The fourth wine had an incredible nose with huge concentration and aromas of nuts, cherries, iron and vitamins. The wine was delicious: balanced, exquisite, gorgeous, delicious and pure. There was great earth and grit to the finish of this 1952 Roumier Bonnes Mares, which eventually surpassed the 1959 with its staying power. Man, I love ’52 Burgundies (97).

The hits kept on coming with the next wine, which had an unbelievably pure and fresh nose but in a subdued and long-term way. There was sexy, musky fruit, deep in its plum, oil, juice and seeds. Its flavors of cherry, rose and leather were long and oily, and the wine blossomed into an extraordinary flower. It was a 1949 Vogue Musigny V.V. (97).

The following wine was distinctively older in its nose, more booky and browned with its earth and oat aromas. Tasty, delicious and mature, the wine was balanced and sexy though definitely a wine for a necrophiliac. It was a 1911 Vogue Bonnes Mares, after all (92).

Water, please. Wine number seven had a pungent, intense and wild nose full of exotic grapefruit; its citric intensity was quite vigorous. On the palate, chocolate, garden, rose and nut oil made their way onto the flavor wheel, and I was quite impressed how this 87 year old bottle of 1919 Vogue Musigny V.V. kept expanding and expanding and expanding until it left everyone speechless, and it was a tough room to do that in (98).

Somehow, I managed to have some of a jeroboam of 1995 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet as a palate cleanser at this point, as I was running upstairs to check on a couple of special friends dining upstairs. Dalia, one of those friends, noted ‘green apples and figs’ as well as ‘pink roses,’ and she was spot on as usual. I added minerals, citrus, sweet corn, and ‘white jasmine’ came from Dalia as well. Her descriptors are as exotic as she is! It was a very complicated wine, at least out of jero (95).

I scurried back down to the private room, only to find some 1964 Krug Collection that was opened three hours ago offered to me as another ‘palate cleanser.’ It was still intense and long, razor sharp and spiny with lots of buttered cream. Wow. It could have rated higher if I had it earlier but was still outstanding after three hours (95+)!

It was back to our regular programming with a 1945 Rousseau Chambertin. It had a mature nose, of course, that was nutty, syrupy and sexy, containing aromas of granola oil, leather, vitamins, earth and grain. It was thick, figgy, long, intense and gorgeous. Absolutely delicious at first, the palate was full of tobacco and cherry flavors, all balanced and exquisite in their expression. An Asian tea thing exoticness developed along with a mesquite characteristic, and despite the wine getting some knocks by a few of the lucky guests, I still loved it, but it did lose itself in the glass more quickly than some of the other wines, and I am not sure if that was the wine in general or just the bottle (95A?)

The next wine had another great nose with a lemon-like intensity but a lot of minerals and spice to go with its big and long personality. Intense in the mouth, the wine was meaty, plummy, oily, fat, juicy and minerally. It was the 1949 La Tache, at our service, outstanding but not as spectacular as some of the other wines served before and after (95).

The marathon continued with a spectacular bottle of 1959 La Tache, which, unlike the ’49, had La Tache written all over the nose and many guesses came out accordingly. The menthol, green pepper and roasted earth trifecta were unmistakable, and the wine was thick, mouthcoating and leathery in a way that would make the Gucci sales racks. It was an awesome wine (98).

I was officially starting to feel it, as there was not much spitting happening on my part. There were four wines to go, and they were all Romanee Contis, beginning with the legendary 1929 Romanee Conti. It was definitively mature, and I think that 50-60 years is the optimum drinking time for a great RC based on my experiences this year, as any RC I have had from the ’20s (only two but still) have both seemed on the declining side, although that ’34 I had in October was as fresh as fresh can be, so perhaps it comes down to the bottle, but the older you get, the riskier it becomes. Nutty and oily with cinnamon sprinkles, the ’29 was deep and fairly intense still, still holding on to outstanding but not much more and perhaps not much longer (95).

The 1937 Romanee Conti was not as good as the bottle I had in October at Bouley for the Top 100 event, but it was still excellent, more on the earthy and garden-y side with lots of old library, cigar and cherry ice cream aromas and flavors (94).

The 1955 Romanee Conti, from the same case that I had before at Big Boy’s holiday party and rated 94 points, was a completely different experience. While the bottle we had in December seemed fully mature and lacked back end vigor, this bottle was the exact opposite…and they were from the same case! It just goes to show you that when it comes to older wines, there is no definitive rating or judgment, just snapshots frozen in time and the eternal memories that follow. This bottle of 1955 was unreal and incredibly intense, causing some Big Boy huffing and puffing (you have to see it for yourself as it is kind of indescribable). The nose was explosive and soared from the glass; and we were in definite winegasm territory. Huge and delicious, that was about all that needed to be (or could be by this point) said (97).

The 1959 Romanee Conti was unfortunately maderzied (DQ), but for so many old and rare bottles it was an amazing show orchestrated by Big Boy. Oh shit, the second session was starting in eight hours.

There were a lot of players in the room for ‘THE Cellar’ auction, and they started to drink accordingly. Somehow, some way, I got corralled into tasting a couple things during the lunch break, make that ten things, as once I started it kind of went from there. I couldn’t take any notes, but I took scores and will add some impressions. The 1990 Beausejour Duffau was spectacular, a humongous wine with tremendous texture, fruit and length. Someone called it a ‘baby ’61 Latour a Pomerol.’ Considering that the 1961 went for over $100K over the weekend, maybe it is time to load up on the 1990 Beausejour Duffau while it is still around $9000 (97+)! The 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. was outstanding, still young and very perfumed and full of Ponsot character (96). The 1989 Clinet I could have lived without. It was still a very good wine, but after the first two, it seemed as if this emperor had no clothes (91). The 1990 Mugnier Musigny was great. There was no sign of Allen Meadows, so this bottle of 1990 decided to show very well and even better than previous experiences. You could see why many put Mugnier in Burgundy’s upper echelon today (96+). There was a 1988 Guigal La Mouline, rock solid and outstanding, but a little more lost in the sauce than it usually shows (95+). 1991 Vogue Musigny V.V.? It was back again and consistent with Thursday night’s bottle (93). There was a magnum of 1947 Petrus that followed from a most generous attendee. A bit controversial as it was definitely reconditioned, I am not sure how much 1947 was in it, but there were signature Petrus characteristics and deep, chunky, chocolaty, Pomerol fruit. It was incredibly concentrated, a touch too much for some, but it was an amazing wine nonetheless with a thick and chewy texture, an enormous finish and decadently rich fruit. I had to give it the benefit of the doubt because it was that good (97). A 1995 Rayas snuck in there and proved that it is as good a Rayas as was ever made, even though it is still half the price of the 1990 (96)! That’s my tip of the week for all. We finished with two more Burgs, the first being a 1991 Meo Camuzet Richebourg, which was lean and spiny with a lot of leather, minerals and purple/black fruits (93), and a 1990 Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Amoureuses’ that I wrote down as having but am unsure if I tasted. Sorry. It was time to get up and do the third session.

A post-auction massage revitalized me just in time for the after-party at Thor. It was a little more low-key than the rest of the weekend, which is not saying much because I think the rest of my life will be low-key compared to this weekend! My notes are brief because this was a party, but I hope my impressions are enough to still make one on you.

We started with a pair of Peter Michael Chardonnay ‘Cuvee Indigenes,’ 1995 and 1996. They were both excellent and bordering on outstanding, more Montrachet-like than the Montrachet that followed. Bigger, sweeter and with more acidity, I was in a generous mood so I gave them each (95), although perhaps 94 points was in order based on the comments of a few guests.

The 1998 Jacques Prieur Montrachet, served out of magnum, was smooth, easy and nice, but unexciting for a Montrachet (90).

The 1972 La Tache brought by King Richard of California was a great bottle. This overlooked vintage of LT had a great nose with lots of leather, dark meat, beans and truffles. Full of grit and character, this written-off vintage of LT is a winner (93+).

A 1993 William Seylem Pinot Noir ‘Rochioli Vineyard’ followed the LT quite admirably with its sexy, nutty, musky nose and smooth palate that still had excellent acids. It was very nice (92).

The 1996 Dujac Echezeaux, another magnum, had a great nose, brooding with aromas of dried fruits, nuts and apricots. Long, stylish and reserved, it never quite found itself on the palate and seemed to lack definition at first, though a couple hours of air time really did the wine some good (93).

The 1993 Groffier Bonnes Mares was a bit out there. Groffier’s wines can be delicious, and they can be wild and aggressively green. This one was way too barnyardy and animalistic, and I could not deal with it (85+?)

A 1983 Grands Echezeaux was soft and on the earthy side, and Dalia picked up on ‘green beans and pears’ (91).

There was a magnum of 1971 Latour, which was a beautiful magnum. Smooth, supple, soft and pretty, it goes to show that great producers make at least good wine almost every year (90).

A 1982 La Conseillante was very good but not great and a bit disappointing for the wine and the vintage (92).

The 2000 L’Angelus, though about as modern as I can tolerate my Bordeaux to be, was still an excellent wine and full of a lot of beefy and chocolaty character (93).

A 1978 Vieux Telegraphe Chateauneuf was a treat to try, but it seemed a bit on the dry side, long and full of cocoa but a bit square (92+?).

The 1989 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf is never a wine you can go wrong with, and tonight was no exception. It was delicious as always (95).

A 1990 Chateau Musar held its own amongst this esteemed group, showing perhaps the greatest acid of the night outside of the Dujac and was delicious in that exotic and uniquely funky Musar way (93).

The 1995 Dalla Valle Cabernet, not the Maya, rocked the house with an outstanding showing. Some of these early-to-mid 1990s Dalla Valles are outstanding wines and have always been some of my favorite Cali Cabs of the decade. It was huge and great (95).

Dalia took over the tasting notes for the 1979 Heitz Cabernet ‘Martha’s Vineyard’ with ‘nectarines, pine nuts, brown figs and green squash.’ Whoa! She has me a bit self-conscious about raising my adjective game now! The Heitz was very good, indeed (92).

The 2003 Robert Foley Claret was the grand finale (before the six bottles of Cristal), and it was served out of magnum. Even though it was a 2003, which is supposedly a bit of a tougher vintage for Cali, the Foley showed why he is one of the hottest producers in Cali right now. ‘Red curry, cherry bomb and cloves’ came from the crowd. The Foley was full-throttle, rock n’ roll Cali Cab and outstanding (95).

The party would have gone on longer, but some jackass who was a bit too inebriated got in a minor tussle with someone as he was trying to escort that someone/party crasher out of the party for some reason, proceeding to almost tear his shirt off in the process and then slam a chair on the ground, breaking it into pieces while taking a piece out of the ceiling. Some people just don’t know how to act, I tell you.

Just another typical Acker auction weekend…

This past December, I took my first trip to ‘wine country’ in a long time, but not the Napa Valley with which so many associate the term, but rather to the shores of Bordeaux, my first trip there as an adult. Could I have possibly been in the wine business for over ten years and not have visited such hallowed ground? Why, yes. It has only been little over a year since I have reacquainted myself with the retail side of the business, and it did not make sense for me to go there until my experience in the wine business had come full circle to where I begun, as it has now with retail on my mind. Don’t worry, you can still call me 006 as auctions are forever!

I was very fortunate to have the ultimate tour guide, a personal sensei of mine, Dr. Bipin Desai. Every December, he makes his yearly pilgrimage to Bordeaux, accompanied by his two most trusted friends, Dr. Frank Komorowski and Wolfgang Grunewald, two of the most serious collectors in the entire world, and great guys to match (they don’t always go together!) So, there we were, four horsemen united in spirit and spirits, looking for some answers to the age old question, ‘What’s going on?’

My three cohorts were actually already ahead of me, starting off with a couple of nights in San Sebastian in Spain, which many feel is one of the world’s great culinary destinations now. If you end up in the area, let me know and a recommendation or three will follow. Having my December auction on the 10th, I had to miss that part of the trip. In fact, I was on the redeye flight that left right after the auction. Suffice it to say that I was jello by the time I had gotten to Bordeaux on my connecting flight. After a six-hour nap and then a decent night’s sleep on Sunday, we began our journey on Monday at Leoville Las Cases.

On the way to Las Cases, the first thing I remembered was that wine country is actually farm country. Despite all the big names and world-renowned chateaux, there is very little modernization on the outside on a surface level. It seemed as if the place looked the same twenty years ago, and probably fifty before that as well. Being such a lover of older wines, I felt at home and quite comfortable amongst the vineyards and old chateaux, these magical places trapped in time. While the city of Bordeaux is quite metropolitan, its wine country is not, and that’s not a bad thing.

We were greeted at Las Cases by its winemaker, Bruno Rolland, a third-generation winemaker who has been the official winemaker since 1996. He did not speak much English, so we did our best in Franglais to communicate. Sometimes, the wine spoke for itself. Chateaux Nenin and Potensac are also managed by Las Cases now, so we had a healthy introduction to the week at 9am featuring three chateaux, their second wines, and two vintages, 2004 and 2003.

First up was the 2004 Fugue de Nenin, which was 92% Merlot, the rest being Cab Franc. Youthful and pleasant with a touch of bitters was about all I came up with. Young wine is not as easy to write about for me as it is for others, and I was trying to take quick snapshots as we had a very busy schedule, and time was of the essence (85).

You could see the immediate ripeness of the vintage in the 2003 Fugue de Nenin. Its nose was much more aromatic, and its palate more open, which was grapy, young yet smooth (87).

The 2004 Nenin itself had more depth and a smoky, meaty, gamy, Pomerol nose. It was medium-bodied with nice richness, and good slate, plum and chocolate flavors. A decent finish rounded out this good, almost very good wine (89).

I actually preferred the 2004 Nenin to the 2003 Nenin, which was not as ripe as I had expected. This was a trend that would continue throughout the week when it came to Pomerol. The 2003 still had some sweet plum to it, along with chocolate, soy and earth. Drier and with more acidity than the 2004, there was a long finish and olive and bread flavors, but I enjoyed it a touch less than the more classic 2004. Dr. K was in agreement, also in the fact that we both ironically preferred the 2003 Fugue, the second label (88).

We changed lanes and domaines with a 2004 Chapelle de Potensac. The nose was pleasant and had some sweet fruit, but the palate was very uninspiring, a bit lemony and lacking depth or weight (82).

The 2003 Chapelle de Potensac had more structure in the nose with nice mineral aromas. There was lots of structure by comparison to the 2004, but the 2003 still suffered from the same deficiencies overall. Bipin was taken aback by the fact that it was ‘so alcoholic,’ and we whispered amongst ourselves that perhaps Potensac should not have a second wine (84).

The 2004 Potensac had nice aromas and rich fruit in its nose with bread, grape, earth and some baby fat to it. The palate was drier, classic in an earthy and slaty way with a dry finish. It was a good wine (87+).

The 2003 Potensac had more meat, nut and oil to the nose, more flesh on the palate but less structure than the ’04. It was pleasant and nice to drink with some dryness to its finish, but again I preferred the 2004 by a small margin (86).

The 2004 Clos du Marquis,. the official second wine of Leoville Las Cases, had a nice, nutty nose that was softer and fleshier than Potensac. The palate was too dry and a bit sandpapery, however. I found it average (85).

The 2003 Clos du Marquis was the first wine to crack the 90-point barrier (phew). The week was off to a bit of a slow start by my usual standards, I know. The nose was very nice, sexy and musky with a very good balance between its nut and fruit components. The nose was open and flirtatious with lots of mouth coating tannins and some ripe fruit to match, cassis and coffee flavors mainly. The wine felt like it still needed more time to truly open, unlike the other wines that preceded it (90).

The end was near, beginning with the 2004 Leoville Las Cases. The nose was deeper, elegant yet robust at the same time, with meaty fruit underneath. Aromas of nut, cassis, oil, earth and tobacco intermingled complexly. The palate was rich and long with refined tannins and excellent acidity. Flavors of leather, earth, sandpaper and lemon graced its finish. Only 34% of the crop made it into the 2004, versus 54% of the 2003! The palate had flesh without sweetness and was very good, just short of excellent for the time being, but I do have a bit of a handicap sometimes appreciating younger, Old World wines (92).

The 2003 Leoville Las Cases was clearly at the head of this class, jumping out of its glass and taking center stage quickly. Nutty and aromatic, the 2003 had coffee, vanilla bean, smoke, earth and dark fruits underneath. Its concentration was on another level. Its tannins were long, acidity fine and flavors mineral, earth, cassis and tobacco. Everyone was definitely awake after this wine (95)!

We said our goodbyes, and we were off to Cos d’Estournel for a tasting and lunch with Jean-Guillaume, the dynamic son and successor of the legendary Bruno Prats. I liked the guy even before we met him, as he is a ‘John William’ as am I. My middle name is William, for which Guillaume is the French translation. We arrived a little before Jean-Guillaume and began to taste some recent vintages of Cos, one of the hottest Chateaux in Bordeaux over the past ten or fifteen years. Upon pulling up into the chateau, we noticed three flags were flying out front, one from India (for Bipin), from Switzerland (for Wolf) and, of course, the good ol’ USA (for Frank and I). Now that’s class. Cos also has a beautiful museum and tasting room, where we gathered for a vertical of 2002 through 2005, the only ’05 we ended up tasting the entire trip!

The 2002 Cos d’Estournel had nice spice to its nose, and I almost saw the Indian connection on display at the Museum, or perhaps I was being subconsciously influenced. Cos has a history of trading with India a lot over the years. There was nice earth and great balance with its fruit, accompanied by lightly toasted bread, meat and cassis. The wine was pure and had lovely fruit and great flesh, balanced all the way. ‘2002 was a great success in St. Estephe,’ Bipin commented, and Jean-Guillaume’s assistant called the ’02 ‘classic Medoc.’ The palate also had great fruit with vanilla, smoke and mineral kisses and a fine, delicate finish. ‘Really good’ was how Bipin summed up the 2002, and it was. It was beautiful but did not have the concentration or weight of the greatest of vintages, but I bet it will be delicious for the next 10-15 years (92).

The 2003 Cos d’Estournel was a bit muted in the nose at first, with some fat fruit churning underneath. I had some glass issues, so I got a re-pour and started fresh. Pure minerals, light toast, light nut, and subtle earth all graced its nose. The palate was very concentrated and hedonistic, making me sneeze due to its intensity. The wine was a bit Caliesque in its fruit, but oh so Bordeaux on its finish. Someone (sorry I forgot who) said the wine was ‘exotic with a round attack…for such a young wine, this is extremely unusal.’ Secondary aromas of coffee, nut and musk emerged, and the nose started to ripple with minerals. Its finish was first class, loaded with minerals and length, and great earth flavors. Wolf found it ‘very roasted,’ while Bipin felt that quality was ‘burnt’ (95+).

The 2004 Cos d’Estournel had coffee and its grinds in the nose, along with some sexy plum and chocolate behind it. There was a bit of a stalky edge, this pungent earth to it that I liked. Very dry on the palate, the 2004 reminded me a bit of 1986 or 1975 in its tannic and dry personality. There were roasted coffee flavors and plum ones, too, but this baby clearly needed some time. After the 2004, when we went back to the 2003, we could all see how atypical the 2003 really was, and that it was indeed more ‘Caliesque,’ as Clive has been insisting. The enormous finish of the 2004 reeked of potential. Jean-Guillaume joined us in the middle of the 2005 that we were about to sample, and he said something very interesting about his 2004, that in 2-3 years the 2004 will be a wine that many prefer, as it is the most classic of the first three wines we sampled. It is pretty rare that I make a ‘buy’ recommendation, but this is one of those rare occasions where I feel I should say something, and no, I do not have any in inventory as I am writing this (94+).

The 2005 Cos d’Estournel was still ‘grape juice,’ as Bipin noted, ‘but still very balanced.’ Jean-Guillaume was quick to caution us that they just finished the first blend, and that this was more for fun than to be able to seriously evaluate it. He continued that 2005 had ‘the balance of 2000’ but was ‘more profound and with more expression. There is a pulp on the mid-palate, a fatness very rare in Bordeaux.’ The woman from Cos cooed about ‘1945, ’47, ’61.’ As Paul Wasserman said to me in Carmel a couple weeks prior, the 2005 vintage is ‘a fait accompli.’ That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, get ready for a big-time Bordeaux futures campaign this Spring. Back up the trucks and take out your second mortgages now, because they are not going to be cheap, either. Back to the wine&despite the non-sample quality that was insisted, I could see the style of Cos come through the roasted earth, the plum, the cassis, the exotic spice. There was a lot of baby fat and a touch of mint with defined cedar despite its grapy personality. Despite that grapiness, there was balance and distinguished length in its classy, stylish finish (95+).

It was off to lunch we went, after a quick gathering in the salon with some 1988 Krug. After just a few minutes with Jean-Guillaume, one could tell that this was a driven, classy, and intelligent young man (hey sounds familiar), and that the future of Cos d’Estournel is in the most capable of hands. It is clear that Bruno’s torch is at the very least in the process of being passed. Lunch was a trio of older wines (finally!), beginning with one of my all-time favorite Bordeaux of the last 25 years, the 1982 Cos.

The 1982 Cos d’Estournel had a fabulous nose. ‘I love this wine and always have,’ I wrote. Jean-Guillaume was quick and proud to point out how they made 35,000 cases of the 1982 compared to only 18,000 estimated cases for 2005. Regardless of what may have been a high production that year, the 1982 was still singing to a sold out audience. Its nose was fabulous with great nut, cassis and plum fruits with cedar and chocolate supplements, a touch of raisinet, oil and caroby flesh. The palate was rich, creamy and fleshy with the perfect amount of nut there, great cassis flavors and excellent t ‘n a. It was a first class wine with hints of autumn but by no means autumnal. I have rated it as high as 98 points, and it was good to see this bottle be consistent, as I hadn’t had it in a while and was starting to wonder if I had gone too far that one night after seeing my note over and over in our catalogs! I didn’t (97).

The 1970 Lafite Rothschild required us to go through two bottles, as the first one was slightly corked. The second bottle was a bit fresher, nuttier, meatier and oilier with a Thai peanut edge. The palate was nice and fresh, smooth with a nice ‘Burgundian’ quality someone noted. Velvety, smooth and lush with pleasant, old red cherry fruit, leather and earth on its finish, the 1970 was nice but did not hold in the glass all that well and is definitely in a period of decline (88).

The 1961 Pichon Lalande was a real treat and had an excellent nose with nice vigor of its t ‘n a, peanutty fruit and underlying cassis, a real autumnal cassis. There was this exotic perfume to it blending into the nut that I couldn’t quite put my finger on for a minute and then it came to me: lavender. Words such as ‘elegant, forward and silky’ came from the group. This bottle was actually in the cellar of Cos since 1961, as was the Lafite since 1970! Now that’s provenance. You could see the freshness in both of these wines accordingly. Some Asian grill rounded out its complicated nose, a nose that was much better than its leathery palate. Frank got ‘cassis’ flavors, and the 1961 was smooth and supple, just holding on to its very good status despite the intoxicating aromas (90).

I took a few interesting tidbits from our general conversation that were not related to the three wines we tasted. Jean-Guillaume thinks that Chile is the best place to make good value wine in the world, but that Argentina had better grapes and vineyards, except for the fact that Argentina is much more difficult to deal with. He also cited South Africa and Eastern Europe as the next two potential hotbeds for quality wines, particularly Romania and Bulgaria when they join the EC in 4-5 years. The question of Cos vs. Lafite came up, and what was the difference, and Jean-Guillaume reasoned 1) terroir; 2) Lafite’s consistency over 150 years; and 3) the fact that Lafite always had the financial resources to declassify in bad vintages and make a better wine. Jean-Guillaume went on to define longevity as market penetration and brand recognition, and also stressed the importance of educating one’s workers about wine. The topic of reconditioning came up, and, of course, Bipin had the last word when he said, ‘Those who recondition wines have never learned elementary physics.’ Praise the Bipin!

There was no time to dilly-dally, as we had appointments with Lafite, Mouton and Margaux that afternoon. Lafite was first, where we sampled a trio of 2004s with Charles Chevalier, manager at Lafite.

The 2004 Carruades de Lafite had a sexy nose of sweet fruit and that Bordeaux reserve. Grape and cassis were everywhere, and there was a nice perfume to the wine and a touch of earth, but the nose was decidedly plump. The palate was plump too, rich and delicious with light grit. ‘For such a tannic vintage, there are very ripe and soft tannins,’ Bipin concurred. A higher percentage of Merlot was our answer, of course; 47% compared to 28% for Duhart and only 9% for Lafite in 2004 (90).

The 2004 Duhart Milon had more structure in its nose and was more consistent with the vintage with its minerals and earth along with nut, vanilla, beef and cassis behind those. The palate also had more structure and tannins and while the Duhart was not as pleasing as the Carruades right now, there was greater richness and lots of minerals and length. With time, some depth to the fruit emerged on the palate and more coffee came out. At first, the Duhart was surprisingly close in quality to the Lafite and more enjoyable, but with time the Lafite distinguished and separated itself a bit more (92+).

So the Duhart vs. Carruades brought up the interesting debate of a wine being rated less but at the same time being more enjoyable. I am sure that concept would keep a wine chat room or two up late at night.

We finished with the 2004 Lafite Rothschild, which immediately reeked of a different level. Its regal qualities were quite noticeable, and there was exquisite earth, light nut and deep, black fruits to the nose – not sweet, but deep. The palate was very chalky with a touch of ‘burnt’ to its tannic finish. The wine was very inky and full of unsweetened, plummy fruit. The long and regal finish was impressive and its acidity piercing, but this was a brooding behemoth of a Lafite that needs a lot of time to find itself (93++).

Off to Mouton we went, where we were able to sample a trio of 2004s and 2003s with manager Herve Berland. We began with the 2004 D’Armailhac, whose pleasant nose had a unique dash of cinnamon and floral characteristics. There was also nice cassis aromas, and supplemental earth and leather with a touch of carob. The wine was rich and inky on the palate with concentrated fruit and a nice, sandy grit to its earthy finish. It bordered on excellence, until the Clerc Milon knocked it back to very good (92).

The 2004 Clerc Milon was another impressive wine, though it had a milder, shier nose that was very classic but seemingly shut down. The palate was clean, round and precise with nice balance, length and dryness. While the D’Armailhac was fatter, the Clerc Milon was more classic with its earth, tobacco and dry cassis flavors (93).

The 2004 Mouton Rothschild was very fragrant with lots of nutty decadence. It smelled sappier and nuttier and had lots of coffee aromas, along with firm t ‘n a integrated within its thick fruit. At first, the wine was relatively closed on the palate yet very long with its spicy finish and flavors of sand, leather, earth and mineral that accompanied it. It got an ‘amazing, long and classical’ from Bipin. The Mouton certainly had more depth than the Clerc, but the Clerc was definitely more expressive at the moment. I was quite impressed by this trio of 2004s (94+).

The 2003 D’Armailhac also had a fat nose but was less expressive than I thought it would be. There were nice, subtle aromas of plum, smoke, slate and tobacco. Its fruit was a bit roasted in the mouth, and the wine was more two-dimensional, and ‘more astringent’ Frank chipped in. Bipin loved its silkiness ‘now,’ but I was not as impressed, although it was obviously good wine (89).

The 2003 Clerc Milon mimicked the 2004 with its shut-down personality, but it was still pure with classic cedar, minerals and light earth all in reserve. The palate was in line with its spicy finish, but again I preferred the 2004 counterpart, and I did go back and forth a lot. The 2003 did not seem to have much fruit going for it on the palate, which is supposed to be the hallmark of this excessively hot vintage – was it shut down (91)?

The 2003 Mouton Rothschild left no doubts as to what was the ‘grand vin’ for this session. It had a great nose full of fruits, nuts and earth, and someone chimed in ‘cigar box and pencil.’ Bipin said, ‘it is not burnt like many 2003s.’ It was gamy in its nose with a hint of coffee, chocolate and lots of vigor. The level of concentration of fruit in the nose was a sight to smell, so to speak. Some youthful vanilla rounded out this incredibly rich nose. The finish was enormous, layered and seemingly endless. The palate was rich and oily with lots of vanilla and nut flavors, complemented by earth and animal ones, and the wine still needed to flesh out a bit as it was reined in stylistically, but that finish was like a shot of Novocaine! It coated the mouth for a long, long, long time. ‘We like dry years,’ Herve commented, calling the 2003 the ‘most comparable since 1982’ (96+).

Mouton was a tough act to follow, but Margaux was up to the challenge. We started with the 2004 Pavillon Rouge de Margaux, which had a seductive and charming nose. There was rich plum and cassis fruit, nice nut and vanilla, good minerality and a touch of roast. The wine was delicious, seemingly tannic by Margaux standards but still elegant and refined. There was nice expression of fruit on the palate and a long, mineral-laden finish (92).

The 2004 Margaux was almost identical to the Pavillon Rouge except there was less fatness to the fruit and more structural components. There was great breed to the wine, both aromatically and in mouth, where the palate was spicy, long and sensual, with excellent balance between its fruit and finish. It still retained the elegance, light on its feet as a great Margaux should be. It struck me as the 2004 of the day. Assistant winemaker Phillipe Bascaux commented how the 2004 had much more Merlot and a strict selection to make the best wine possible in this vintage (95).

As good as the 2004 Margaux was, the 2003 Margaux took things to another level. While the 2003 retained the signature style of Margaux found in the 2004, the 2003 was more ripe, heady, forward and sexy than its younger sibling. Wolf found it ‘roasted,’ while Frank picked up on the ‘similar characteristics to Mouton ’04 vs. ’03.’ Bipin joked it was like ‘Chateauneuf du Pape,’ as the wine was so ripe, and its rich, decadent fruit was full of plum, cassis, vanilla, nut and light minerals buried in there with slate aromas. The palate was very rich and super spicy, and this was definitely the wine of the day. This was clearly an exceptional wine, although Bipin noted that it was ‘so unusual to see wine like this in Bordeaux’ (97).

The 2004 Pavillon Blanc de Margaux had a fresh, Sauvignon Blanc nose with aromas of grapefruit, passion fruit, guava, pineapple, ‘quince and melon,’ Wolf added. The nose was quite exotic, and the wine, which was 100% Sauvignon Blanc we learned, had flavors more on the glue and mineral side and was clean but not crisp. It was a nice palate refresher, though (88).

We had one final stop for the day, a visit to Rausan Segla, where we were to taste both some Rausans and some Canons, both under the same management of John Kosala. First, we tried five vintages of Canon. The 2004 Canon had a nice nose with redder fruits, earth and minerals and a touch of wintry spice. The palate had good richness on the attack, those same redder fruits, some Cab Franc stalky complexity and nice earth on the finish (92).

The nose of the 2003 Canon had more 2003 in it than Canon, somewhat mild in its overall personality, red in hue. There was concentration in the mouth but some definition missing in the middle despite a spicy finish (90).

The 2002 Canon had a milky nose with a touch of herbalness, and a palate to match yet a decent finish (87).

The 2001 Canon again was a bit milky and herbal but less so on both accounts with some redder fruits in the nose. The palate was nice with its red fruit, stalk and mineral flavors and long finish. Medium-bodied, this Canon was flirting with being very good (89+).

The 2000 Canon had a classy nose with a lot of breed on the structural side and a feminine personality overall. There was nice balance in the mouth despite some heat on the finish, but the fruit seemed shut down at the moment (90+).

We changed gears back to Margaux with the 2004 Rausan Segla. The ’04 was fragrant with lots of cassisy baby fat and supplementary vanilla and smoke aromas. It seemed a bit overly dry, but I did note that my palate was starting to feel worse for wear (90).

The 2003 Rausan Segla was excellent, starting with its rich fruit in the nose and nutty kisses. There was good earth and a pinch of garden goodness as well. There was nice breed in the wine without any overipeness, although there was certainly more fruit than structure in its balanced nose. Smoke and brick rounded out its aromas. The palate was rich, long and balanced. It had excellent spine and still retained that Margaux elegance. It was an excellent 2003. Frank found all the 2003s throughout the day to be ‘leathery’ (93+).

The 2002 Rausan Segla had a very mild and reserved nose but was nice in that regard. There were touches of cassis and nut there. The wine had a lighter body and lacked weight up front, but it also had a pleasant finish (88).

Finally, we made our way to the last wine of the afternoon, the 2000 Rausan Segla, which had a nice nose with good, nutty aromas that Bipin found ‘absolutely incredible.’ There was a lot of elegance and style here in this classy wine. The palate was long, elegant and fine, with nice structure and length, and Frank found it ‘heads and shoulders above’ any other wine in this session. I liked the 2003 equally, to be frank, or make that not Frank (93)!

So you think that would be enough for day one, right? Did I mention to you that Bipin orchestrated this trip? There was time to shower and change and get right back in the car to go to Chateau Montrose for dinner with the lovely and charming Jean-Louis Charmolue, and his wife, Anne-Marie.

We started with a white, a 2000 Olivier Leflaive Corton Charlemagne. The nose had a touch of baked fruit, very waxy and yeasty in its personality, and a little corn underneath. The wine seemed very advanced for a 2000. There were morning mouth flavors (yes, that is not good), and the wine was too yeasty and weird despite some decent acidity (83).

The theme of the evening was 1975, and we begun with a 1975 Giscours, every lumberjack’s favorite wine. The spiny character of the 1975 vintage jumped out of the glass with anise and alcohol, but there was a surprising wealth of cassis and chocolate aromas along with a kiss of old oak. The palate was also surprisingly rich and fleshy, and its finish had good acidity and tannins that were just starting to melt away. There was nice grit and tasty plum and wood flavors. It was ‘a star of the vintage,’ someone noted, and also the most ready of the evening and actually showed fruit (93).

The 1975 Beychevelle continued showing the style of the vintage with its anise and alcohol aromas. Its nose was earthier but also had cassis and flesh. Perhaps the hardest of 1975s only needed better storage! Its mineral components were stellar, and the wine got nuttier and plummier, dare I say sexier, with its mature yet fresh fruit qualities. The palate was stonier and even bigger than the Giscours in its acidity. There was still nice balance and a long finish. The Beychevelle was spinier and more intense on its back side, and despite this fundamental difference between it and the Giscours, they were practically equivalent qualitatively, although the Giscours was more delicious and fruit forward, more ready, but perhaps the Beychevelle will ultimately surpass it with more time (92+).

The 1975 Ducru Beaucaillou was classic Ducru with its pencil/mineral aromas and plummy fruit lurking underneath. A touch of bread crust, earth and a hint of garden were there as well. The Ducru, as it is prone to be, seemed softer, kinder and gentler than the first two wines, but there was still vim and lots of class. The wine got nuttier, but the palate was able to retain a high-pitched character, vigorous yet elegant. I preferred the muscle of the Beychevelle, but I could see many preferring the finesse of the Ducru, and many did (92).

The 1975 Leoville Las Cases was more open and had a touch of wild animal to its nutty fruit, a bit of old oak around its edges and some vanilla and cream. It had a flash of woody fruit up front on the palate, a kiss too much, but the acidity and spine on the finish were there (90).

Wolfgang was talking to Xavier Borie, proprietor of Grand Puy Lacoste, who was there as well, about 1975 and what happened that year. Xavier said that he felt that the vintage was picked too early overall because there was too much excitement after the disastrous 1971 through 1974 vintages, and as soon as some ripeness came, no one could wait. One or more weeks could have made a big difference, he felt, and because of the early picking, the huge potential of this vintage was missed. Some other comments of note included Wolfgang’s ‘I like Burgundy,’ to which Xavier quickly replied, ‘Nobody’s perfect.’ Yes, the Bordelais are very ‘nationalistic’ when it comes to their wine. Wolf, with the quickness of a great politician, quickly countered that ‘I am married to Bordeaux, but Burgundy is my mistress.’ While the Giscours was Miss Congeniality of the flight, Bipin felt ‘it won’t get any better,’ and the general consensus was Beychevelle and Ducru were the best wines.

The second flight began with a 1975 Pichon Baron, which had a stony nose full of meat and perfume. Carob, earth, nut, grape seed oil and cedar rounded out its aromatic profile. The palate had some flesh and spine, but less than any other wine so far. There was pleasant grit and flavors of nut, leather and cedar, but the wine delivered a lesser impression after the first flight (88).

The 1975 Pichon Lalande was more plummy and approachable in its nose, still possessing slate and mineral components, but its Merlot content showed sexily. It had an intoxicating and alluring style with its nut, oil and meat supplements. The palate was soft and fleshy up front and had light vigor in the back with decent acidity, but the wine was not as good on the palate as it was aromatically, similar to the 1961 we had earlier in the day (91).

It was time for the ‘house’ wine, the 1975 Montrose. The Montrose had a classy nose with a lot of breed, but that 1975 edge of pungent alcohol, anise, minerals and earth. There were shy, deep, dark fruits there, and the palate was quite tasty; long, balanced and elegant by Montrose standards but still with plenty of stuffing. I was torn between 92 and 93 points, ie very good or excellent, so I gave it the home court advantage (93).

While the 1975 Mouton had a ‘very good nose,’ it was ‘better than taste.’ There were nice aromas of cedar, caramel, plum and nut, but the palate had dry, old oak flavors, and the nose quickly followed in that oaky direction. There was solid length, but the flavors were just too oaky for me (87).

Bipin was commenting how ‘many reject the (1975) vintage,’ to which Mr. Charmolue exclaimed, ‘C’est une erreur!’

We ended with a 1934 Siglas Ribaud, a Sauternes with a lovely nose full of burnt orange, caramel, hay and straw, but there was too much oak again for me, kind of like a grumpy old man in the glass (87).

So that was Day One. Since I do not know when I am going to get to Days Two through Five, I would like to make some general observations about the entire week and the State of Bordeaux, some of which I have already made, and others that will come forward in the succeeding chapters of this journey.

1)