For the past two weeks, I have spent almost every day in a professional warehouse inspecting thousands of bottles from what I am now convinced is the greatest cellar in America. Having had the privilege of being in hundreds of great cellars in the United States, I can diligently say this cellar is beyond compare. No windows nor sunlight for twelve hours a day, in a fifty-degree cellar is not the manner one would think of to ring in the New Year. Notwithstanding that, as I went from bottle to bottle, my soul got warmer and warmer. I have had many bottles from this spectacular collection, but never before had I seen such a dazzling array of legendary wines in such quantities. For a collection of this size and magnitude, with this level of legendary wines, I felt it my responsibility to inspect almost each and every bottle.

At Acker Merrall, we believe bottle inspection is the most vital part of any auction offering. Therefore, bottles, particularly older and rarer ones, are not objects just to be stamped and checked off like cookies on an assembly line, but rather something which needs to undergo a verification and identification process in order to be offered in any of our auctions. In order to do that, we put each and every bottle through a painstaking process: First, we test the cork to make sure it is firm. Loose corks generally mean the wine has been oxidized. Next, for at least one bottle in every lot we cut capsules for all rare and legendary wines to make sure the corks are properly branded. Next, we check color and sediment levels in the wine to determine how appropriate the wine is relative to its age. These are all important indicators especially with older wines. Labels are the final test. Signs of photocopied labels or older wines with glossy labels that lack texture are both warning signs, though occasionally can be found on authentic bottles. In addition, if a wine has been reconditioned, these steps will further ensure we properly identify
each and every lot. If it looks too good, chances are it has been reconditioned. Almost all Nicolas bottles were reconditioned decades ago and usually with the original wine. This is one reason they have great provenance and are highly sought after. Considering the magnitude of this offering I felt it important to give our clients a “behind the scenes” view of what we go through each and every time we sell wine.

Fine wine has become a commodity, and unfortunately many counterfeit wines have made their way into the auction marketplace. This fact makes inspecting wines of this rarity increasingly important and time consuming, and consequently made inspecting the wines in this cellar all the more pleasurable, as the condition and provenance here are outstanding.

It is now time to focus on THE cellar again. I know this cellar intimately, having had hundreds of bottles of old and rare wines from it. I have often sourced bottles for our Wine Workshop dinners, as well as our Top 100 weekends, during the past two years. I have had some of the greatest wines I have ever experienced from this cellar. Both the collector and I are so confident in the quality of this cellar, that we are offering something to my knowledge that has never been offered before: a money-back guarantee on any unopened bottles for ninety days after the sale. After going through the time-consuming process of inspecting all these wines in the fashion outlined above, I do not think I will see many returns. It is an honor and a privilege to be able to offer this cellar to you.

Even though I have already had hundreds of wines from the collection heretofore, I felt it my ‘duty’ to sample a few things over the course of the past couple of weeks. It started innocently enough with: a delicious 1990 Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin – just the AC wine. It was fresh, tasty, vibrant and very impressive for an AC wine; it didn’t take much persuading for me to polish it off! A 1990 Bon Pasteur a couple nights later was very good. The wine was classic and taut with nice Pomerol flavors and minerals, indubitably sound and still a bit on the young side. A half-bottle of 1974 Mayacamas got me through my first Friday night in fine fashion. Mountainous, big and still tannic, this half-bottle proved why Mayacamas was once considered one of California’s greatest producers of Cabernet. We rang in the New Year in style with a magnum of 1970 Petrus, which was the best example of this wine that I have ever had. Rich, chocolaty, intense and long, this magnum was deep and chunky, full of life and layers and a nice way to ring in 2006.

We had a couple days off early in week two, but we caught up later that week quite nicely. We had a couple of 1991 Burgundies head to head, a Roumier Bonnes Mares vs. a Rousseau Clos de Beze. Both were supreme examples. The Roumier was classic Roumier: full of red cherry and raspberry fruit and balanced by its stems. Burnt caramel, roses, black pepper, earth, some benevolent vegetable and a distinctive cantaloupe quality rounded out this balanced and delicate Burgundy. The Rousseau had more power and was bursting with vitamins, musk, meat and spice. A veritable forest full of flavors, the Rousseau seemed a bit more precise overall, but both were what I would categorize as excellent. A couple of 1945s that I actually declined to offer due to lower fills were an excellent test later in the week. Despite the lower fills, the 1945 Beychevelle and Lynch-Bages were both absolutely delicious. Both wines were mature yet still fresh and full of life, just as they ‘oughta’ be. The Beychevelle was sweet, nutty and earthy with kisses of minerals and tobacco and an exotic smokehouse tang to it. There were lots of mineral, cedar and tobacco flavors, and excellent balance and length. It was excellent overall. I preferred the Lynch, although that was not a universal opinion. To me, the Lynch was so fat and rich, classically beefy as Lynch always seems to be, sweet, nutty and full of fresh cassis and grape aromas and flavors. Long, earthy and dusty, this masculine wine developed some exotic butter toffee qualities and was outstanding in my book. As the week pressed on, I put a little pressure on the consignor that I should taste some special wines to let the public know how good the cellar is (wink, wink). I think he knew it wasn’t necessary, but he graciously decided not to blow my cover. A 1929 Roumier Bonnes Mares was a thrilling experience. There was a distinctive dill quality to the nose, mixed in with a touch of eucalyptus and benevolent vegetable that reminded me of the1991. Perhaps that stemmy edge that Roumier usually possesses becomes dill at age 75, or make that 77. The palate had a beefy intensity and extraordinary acidity still and a touch of tomato a la older s. Sweet, meaty, rich and lush, the wine actually got richer and stronger in the glass. I couldn’t help tasting it over and over again waiting for the wine to fall apart, which it did not. Possessing great texture and length, its mint and wood components became more pronounced in this timeless classic. Come the last weekend of our journey, it was time for a grand finale, a 1921 Lafleur. It was a ‘wow’ wine. Despite some slight volatile acidity, it was a beefy wine with lots of what I would call ‘that Pomerol motor oil action.’ Rich, meaty and oily, this Nicolas bottle had the distinctive Lafleur style – the minerals, the iron, the beef, the oil and the Pomerol fruit. The bottle had that fresh Nicolas style, indubitably reconditioned at some point in its life but still extraordinary. Port-like and delicious, it was in the ‘best wines of my life’ category.

Actually, the Lafleur which was intended to be the grand finale, wasn’t. I had called upon my good friend and Burgundy expert Allen Meadows to help me out with some tasting note support 48 hours before our deadline. It took some persuading on my part, but Allen was up for the task and provided over 120 additional tasting notes to accompany the first session wines. Suffice to say no one else could provide such a detailed and broad perspective of aged and rare Burgundies like Allen. This is precisely why the most knowledgeable collectors consider him to
be the foremost expert on Burgundy in the world.

As we were wrapping up the first session notes, I joked with Allen about how it could be he didn’t have tasting notes for wines like 1966, 1969 and 1978 Romanee Conti. He apologized and said he would sooner or later fill those holes in his database. Consequently, I responded jokingly that we should get a tasting together that evening to fill in a few holes. Naturally, I cc’d the consignor on my email as I knew that Allen and he were good friends. Not to my surprise considering the consignor’s well known generosity, he was up for the challenge, and Allen and I joined the owner of ‘THE Cellar’ with another anonymous friend for dinner four hours later.

First off was the 1962 Rousseau Chambertin. It was a ‘wow’ wine and a stellar start to the evening. It had an incredible nose, so fresh and complex with its menthol, vitamins and meat – all signature Rousseau. Kisses of orange rind and pure cherry fruit rounded out its nose, and the palate was very intense with an enjoyable nervousness on its dry finish. Very dense for a ’62, the Rousseau was all that and then some and a supreme example of Rousseau Chambertin and an outstanding wine, bordering on a winegasm. Next, we went to a 1937 La Tache, which came out of the bottle sweet and exotic, bordering on a Chateau Rayas impersonation. No, this was not Grenache, and over the course of the meal, the 1937 LT kept getting better and better, displaying signature LT qualities like spine, pitch, pungency, cedar, menthol, spice and soy. Before you knew it, the ’37 was ahead in the polls after a slow start and had won over the table quite convincingly. It was a touch reconditioned, but after some air, its true personality took over in outstanding fashion. The secondary and tertiary qualities were fantastic. A 1966 Romanee-Conti was next, from the same case as the six-bottle lot that is being offered in this sale. This was the wine that had motivated us to gather in the first place. It has a stupendous, amazing nose, full of mature yet fresh characteristics. Beef, earth, sauce, menthol, Asian spice and cedar all soared from the glass. It was oozing with fat and oil, and everyone at the table was convinced this was the best ’66 RC that they had ever had. It was simply outstanding. We were three for three, but the fourth wine of the night took things up a notch. The 1919 Liger-Belair La Tache was ridiculous. So concentrated and full of texture, the ’19 was trapped in time at age 87. I hope I am doing as well at that age. Thick and long, there was a touch of maturity to its fruit flavors, but its structure and texture were more amazing than Spider Man. It ended up being everyone’s wine of thenight. Remember that did not take possession of La Tache until 1933, and Liger-Belair had the property at the time. We changed it up with a half-bottle of 1947 Cheval Blanc. I have had this wine between six and eight times, and two of them have been out-of this-world experiences. This was probably in third place all time, and it was from a half-bottle that had a midshoulder fill level! It was delicious and classic, perhaps not possessing the richness of a 750ml, but unbelievably tasty, port-like and Cheval all the way. As if all this was not enough, we popped a bottle of a wine not in this sale, a 1943 Vogue Musigny V.V. It was a very good wine with a shy yet complicated and mature nose, but its palate was soft and easy like Sunday morning. It was still sound, perhaps past its peak, but nonetheless a real treat.

Oh, what a night…and what a couple of weeks. From this random selection of great wines that I had while processing this cellar, there was not one bad, off, or questionable wine. Not one. You can see Allen’s notes for the above wines in the catalogue, as well.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you again ‘THE Cellar.’

www.ackerwines.com/liveauction.cfm

John Kapon

The first half of last week saw me out at the warehouse for various reasons, and Big Boy happened to be there as well inspecting his most recent acquisitions. Some Christmas cheer was in the air, and Big Boy threw his own impromptu holiday party for the gang. Having just returned from a week in Bordeaux and Paris where I literally spent over forty hours at the lunch and dinner tables with many tastings in between, I was a bit wined out, but with the wines and bubblies that Rob was opening, I sucked it up and took one ‘for the team.’

It started innocently enough with a 1966 Dom Perignon Rose, which had an absolutely delicious, honeyed nose. It was very chocolaty for a Rose, also possessing both strawberry and honey aromas and flavors. The palate was big and earthy with tasty wood components yet a soft finish; its acidity was noticeable in the belly but not spicy or ‘kick’-y going down. Rob exclaimed that there were still ‘years of life left,’ and there were due to its subtle, lingering acidity. A touch of Cuban cigar rounded out the palate (94).

We skipped our way over to an original bottle (ie, not Collection) of 1964 Krug. The Collection bottles are those that are released late by the Domaine. Its color was absolutely gorgeous like a White Burgundy. Its nose was bready and yeasty with some definite sunflower oil and yellow fruit aromas. Rob accurately added ‘green apple rind,’ which he finds in ‘every big year’ of Krug. The mouthfeel was full and rich and still had a little sprite to it despite Lou’s opinion that ‘it lost its fizz.’ Honey vanilla and green apple flavors graced its rich and buttery palate. The Krug was ‘a true Champagne lover’s Champagne,’ Rob said, and it was thick, long and wine-like with sneaky acidity. The Krug made the DP seem more exotic, although the Krug also became more exotic with time and developed crème brulee qualities (96).

The party had started, so it was time for some red wines. A 1958 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was next, from a parcel of fourteen cases (yes, fourteen) that had been made available to me out of Europe. This was a sample bottle out of a shipped case for me to try before finalizing the purchase, a purchase whose wines I had already sold out based on this tasting. Thankfully, the wine showed beautifully! It had a ‘wow’ nose, as Rob exclaimed repeatedly. ‘Cigar,’ Lou cooed. The Italians were getting ready to wave their flags, indeed. Being Roberto Conterno’s personal all-time favorite vintage of Monfortino was a lot of pressure for this bottle, which handled it well. The nose was rich, chocolaty, deep and chunky, and the palate matched its richness in a delicious fashion with lots of black fruit, tobacco and tar flavors. Minerals and slate sparkled on its finish, along with its very long yet stylish acidity. Beautiful, sumptuous and classic, the 1958 was a beauty but not a powerhouse Monfortino, at least at this stage (95).

There was another part to this parcel, about 20 (yes, twenty) cases of 1971 G. Conterno Barolo Riserva. The 1971 had a spinier nose with lots of minerals and t ‘n a, a more gravelly and slaty edge with more minerals. There was still deep and nutty fruit behind those, and some signature chocolaty richness. That chocolate quality spread like Nutella in the mouth, as did flavors of tar and tobacco. There were lots of leathery fruit flavors. Rob called it ‘straight down the middle’ and found it on the bottom half of excellence rather than the top like I did (ie, 93 vs. 94 points or 4 stars vs. 4+ stars) (94).

We continued the Italian theme with an affected bottle of 1964 Catina Mascarello Barolo. Its nose was still rich and meaty, full of fruit, a touch of Madeira, iodine and a tar, slate and vitamin pungency. It was very spicy on the palate but also a touch sour. Gritty and dusty, we could tell that this bottle was a bit affected and not at full strength (91A).

Rob insisted on a palate refresher before we went to the French side of things, so he whipped out a 1955 Dom Perignon like the wineslinger that he is in the Wild, Wild East. The ’55 was amazingly bubbly and fresh out of the bottle, ‘so fucking fresh’ is how I actually put it, uncouth New Yorker that I am. The nose was unreal and intensely nutty with additional aromas of cracked bread sprinkled with incredible spices. Vanilla sex came to mind with its white earth and chocolate qualities and fresh and smooth style. While not as deep as the ’64 Krug, the ’55 DP was more effervescent and still rich in its own right, very bright with kinky lime flavors (95).

A 1962 Cheval Blanc made an appearance, and its nose was intoxicatingly Cheval with its meaty black and red fruits, olive, cinnamon and baked zucchini nut bread. Aromatically fresh, exotic, warm and wintry, its palate was fully mature and much softer and easier. The wine seemed just past the point of being very good, so while its nose was excellent still, its palate was not (89).

It was off to Burgundy we went to experience a wine from one of the region’s true wizards. The 1966 Rousseau Clos de la Roche had an amazingly pungent yet still fresh nose of Italian cured meat; Sopestrata and Bresola were being debated when Rob interjected ‘Capricola with a hint of Proscuito.’ It was settled. Long and vimful in its nose, the palate was also long yet a bit smoother with tasty, vitaminy fruit and a little less depth. Tasty and smooth with some good character, the wine was rich with good earth components but not extra complicated (92).

After a big production and a return trip to the warehouse, Big Boy came back with a pretty big bottle, a 1955 Romanee Conti. The nose was ridiculous; both laser and razor-like with its acidity. Krystal joined the party with ‘it’s like a glass of roses.’ There was an amazing intensity of vitamins, minerals, dried Japanese beef, garden and dill that could only come from this particular section of land. ‘Gorgeous’ and ‘phenomenal’ were being thrown around, and the wine was also absolutely delicious BUT fully mature with only a touch of citric spice. There were also flavors of dill, rust and ‘peppermint’ as Rob pegged, and he also noted ‘a little Barolo in it,’ meaning its personality, not that he had his chemistry set with him and did an analysis! It was quite accurate, actually. Despite the fact that it was delicious, the palate trailed behind the nose in terms of delivered expectations and was all forward with no backward vigor left (94).

There was one wine still to go, a 1971 Guigal Cote Rotie ‘La Mouline.’ After never having this wine for my entire life, this was the second time I had the pleasure of having it within the same month! The nose was amazing with its mentholy, wintry, peppery Cote Rotie style. Declious, smooth, tasty and lovely, it was an outstanding wine. What a nose (95)!

Thank you Big Boy, and a Happy New Year to all. May 2006 be a healthy one, and a delicious one as well!

It was a good week.

This past Thursday, Nashville’s premier collector flew into the Big Apple and took a bite at his favorite chef’s new restaurant, Alto. Scott Conant is the chef, by the way, and his first restaurant is the critically acclaimed L’Impero. Alto is sure to follow in its footsteps, and we had a wonderful meal accompanied by some extraordinary wines, twelve vintages of Chateau Petrus, all from Tennessee Tom’s spectacular cellar.

I shall quote the concise and factual introduction in our brochure about Chateau Petrus:

Unlike Chateau Petrus’ left bank neighbors, one can speak of a true vineyard when talking about this wine. The vineyard, which is 28 acres (including the two smaller blocks in La Conseillante), sits on the highest plateau in Pomerol. One of the secrets of Petrus is the soil. Whereas the rest of Pomerol is gravelly, black clay dominates this vineyard, making it ideal for growing the Merlot grapes (95%), as well as the Cabernet Franc (5%), that make up the planted vines of Chateau Petrus. By Bordeaux standards, their production is miniscule at approximately 3,000 cases annually. Aside from the unique soil, one must acknowledge Madame Loubat for propelling the Chateau to legendary status and Jean-Pierre Moueix for his maintaining this status and raising the bar even higher.’

We started with a 1995 Salon, which was elegant and fresh, stylish and delicate. Tom found it ‘creamy and crisp, just like the 1990’ (92).

We didn’t dilly-dally around, as the first wine was the 1990 Petrus. Its nose was deep and chunky, full of plums, chocolate, black olives and rich, meaty fruit. Underneath, there were healthy doses of minerals and slate, tobacco and green, dewy earth. The nose became more and more forward with its sexy and luscious fruit aromas; the 1990 would prove itself to be a bit of a hussy after having the 1989, but I mean that only as a compliment. The wine was rich, creamy and lush in the mouth but seemed a bit coy and on the young side, although some food really brought out the acidity from behind the fruit. Definitively more approachable than the 1989, the 1990 proved to be an outstanding wine in its own right, and the fruit and acidity really harmonized with a little time in the glass (96).

The 1989 Petrus was less open and fleshy than the 1990, brooding and wound by comparison. It wasn’t tight, but rather reserved, with more minerals prevalent in its nose. There was also more noticeable t ‘n a here aromatically, but it was incredibly stylish and integrated. The nose was big, long, deep and nutty with hints of mocha and cedar. The palate was big, taut and tight with incredible acidity. The acidity was remarkable, and the wine was long, deep and brooding. Dalia admired its ‘musk and amber’ edges, and Tom C. found ‘nickel,’ a member of the mineral family. There is no doubt this will be a 50 year Petrus and then some (98).

The last wine of the first flight was the 1985 Petrus. The 1985 was more open and wild with a lot of olives, ‘green’ ones Dalia was correct to point out. In fact, I had a difficult time at first getting past that ripe, green, Spanish olive quality. Eventually, some sweet nuts, earth, dark chocolate and sappy plum came out. Medium-weight by comparison to the ’89 and ’90, the 1985 was still excellent with a lot of leather flavors, almost rusty and on the drier side. Tennessee Tom found ‘leather, barnyard, dirt, black fruit and spearmint’ and remarked how he liked the 1985 better now, although the 1989 was still the better wine. ‘The complexities are more indicative of old Bordeaux,’ he reasoned (93).

The second flight began with the 1982 Petrus, which was immediately noted for its ‘sweet, sugary fruit’ by Dalia and seconded by Cathleen. Dalia went on to find ‘strawberries ‘n cream and crème brulee.’ Tom C. jumped in with ‘creamy, white chocolate.’ The nose was also deep and earthy with lots of that Tom barnyard, earth and green fruit ahead of its plum and mineral core. ‘Now that’s Bordeaux,’ Tom gleefully observed. The palate was nutty and still with great length and breed, along with flavors of smoke, carob and skin. Its fruit was incredibly rich, plump, fat and juicy with nice balance, but the 1982 did seem on a faster evolutionary track than the other great vintages that we already had, the 1989 and the 1990 (96).

The 1978 Petrus had more ‘lemon,’ Dalia noted, and ‘grapefuit’ Tom C. chimed in. Kathleen found it ‘milky’ and another ‘a little green.’ I found a lot of earth, more dirt actually, olive, and Tom found it a dead ringer for ‘Pichon Lalande’ aromatically. The palate was leaner with a little zip but not a lot. Light earth, light mineral and light leather flavors were there; the palate was definitely light by comparison to every other wine so far and probably just starting to hit the downside of its career (89).

The 1971 Petrus had aromas of cola, plum, slate and light stalk. Tom C. found some ‘smoked pork chops,’ and Cathleen concurred with ‘smoked bacon,’ while Tom was into its ‘scented candle.’ Its palate was beautiful and smooth, prickly in a pleasing way with a touch of grit. Tom liked its ‘floral, waxy spice,’ but this particular bottle of 1971 seemed to be a bit less intense than others I have had. Dino felt the wine was at its peak (94).

We were onto the third flight and the 1970 Petrus. This bottle was much better than the last one I had, but only a point ultimately separated my ratings, which is the power of exponentialism at its finest. Sometimes theory wins over practice, I suppose. This bottle of 1970 was creamy and nutty, ‘more flowery,’ Dalia observed. She continued with ‘jasmine, rose, flowers – Mediterranean.’ There was also underlying chalk aromas, and its palate was chalky and a bit square, more two-dimensional but still outstanding. Dalia was really into the 1970, especially its nose and its ‘passion fruit. I smell a basket of fruit in the South of France in a nice villa.’ Hello (95).

The 1966 Petrus was off to a bad start, and Tom noted that he had ‘had better.’ Dalia also didn’t like it and its ‘coffee.’ Cathleen noticed ‘banana,’ while Tom was on its ‘barnyard and band-aids.’ The palate had flavors of minerals, smoke and gravel, and its alcohol seemed a touch out of balance. It wasn’t the best bottle that I have had either, but I enjoyed its chocolaty, plummy fruit, and its acidity snuck out over time (92).

The 1964 Petrus was very slaty and minerally in a pungent way. It had a very rocky style, but Tom was quick to remark that it was the best ’64 he had ever had. It did have a rich, spicy palate with loads of acidity, but I found it also a bit too slaty as well. Additional flavors of anise were there, and while the 1964 was more intense than the ’66, I still had visions of an extraordinary magnum that I had two or three years ago compared to this bottle (94).

The 1961 Petrus came from a very famous cellar, that of Henry Singleton, whose collection was auctioned off by Christies (boo hiss) a few years back after he passed away. It was an extraordinary bottle. It was very exotic with its deep, plummy, chocolaty fruit and touches of garden herbs. The fact that it was Pomerol was quite clear – you got the minerals, you got the earth, and you got the Petrus. There were no doubts as to its authenticity. Its palate had loads of acidity and was quite gravelly at first but continued to get oilier and chocolatier in the glass. Rich, long and with excellent spine, it was a great Petrus. Dalia, who is quickly becoming my alter-ego and partner in crime, summed it up quite eloquently when she said, ‘It’s like Shakespeare; it’s poetic’ (98).

The 1955 Petrus had a lemony, spiny and sprightly nose with lots of acidic vigor. It was very fresh with some mild cherry aromas. The palate also had excellent vigor with great spice, spine, balance and a long finish. Again, I had recently had an extraordinary bottle of this wine, so even though this one was sound and excellent, it was different and did not achieve the heights of that bottle I had at the 1955 dinner that I did at Le Bernadin last Spring (94).

The 1949 Petrus was a Vandermeulen bottling and maderized (DQ).

Oh, what a night.

The next day found me on my way to Los Angeles, and after getting into LA late Friday night, we were on our way to Carmel Saturday morning for an entire day of La Tache hosted by Aubert de Villaine himself at Auberge. Lunch featured eight vintages and dinner twelve, and the wines were served in flights of twos, orchestrated by the most knowledgeable Wilf Jaeger. Before I get into the wines, I must say that the cuisine at Auberge was spectacular and some of the best that I have had this year. The chef is the former chef at the old Patina, and it is well worth a weekend getaway to experience.

The first pair was 1997 and 1985. The 1997 La Tache had a fabulously open and ripe nose a la 1997 with an underlying touch of benevolent green. Its initial impression was much greater than it would have been later on in the day, and that fact is a testament to the greatness of La Tache and how good it can be when it is a first impression, even in a vintage like 1997 which many collectors do not fancy. The fruit was sexy and musky with lots of crushed red and black fruits, a dash of mint, roses, minerals, meat dripping in oil and that incredible sense of terroir that comes from La Tache. The palate was quite spiny by comparison to the nose, a bit stony and minerally, somewhat unyielding but with a flash of beefy flavors and the potential to flesh out. Someone asked Allen Meadows (who was, of course, on the scene) if the 1997 will always have that slight green quality, to which Allen succinctly and eloquently replied, ‘Yup.’ Despite the austere quality on the palate, the acidity was very good. Irs green edge is what I would call ‘garden good.’ Aubert noted how its touch of green was almost ‘foresty’ and how every year La Tache will show violet and that green, and how that green guarantees the wine will age. That’s good news for this ’97 (93+).

The 1985 La Tache had some ‘red meat’ in its nose, a quality off-putting to the fish-only-eating Dalia. The nose was musky and stinky in that good, earthy Burgundian way. There was also menthol, alcohol and some stewed, cherry fruit. The palate was meaty, earthy and bigger than the 1997 with some browned, autumnal fruit. I asked Wilf whether he thought that the 1985 was on a faster evolutionary track than some of its other vintages, and he wasn’t so sure, citing the 1978 and how it has had this quality for a few years without showing any more signs of decay. The flavors were full of sweet soy, menthol and beef along with excellent acidity. The wine was still outstanding in its seepy way, but it seemed a decade older than it should have been. Aubert admired the pairing, citing ‘a rose petal character that the 1997 will have’ (95).

The next pairing was the 1966 with the 1956, both of which were apparently reconditioned; I was unaware at this time that any of the wines were reconditioned and will touch upon that later in my notes in more detail. This bottle of 1966 La Tache was an outstanding one and many people’s favorite wine of the session. Sweet, musky and similar to the 1985 except even fresher and more precise, the 1966 was beefy and meaty with additional aromas of cedar, spice box, iron and minerals. Its palate was full of fresh, red fruits wrapped by some drier, autumnal flavors. Rich, long and fleshy, it was balanced with acidity that was far from its decline. Wilf cooed that it was a ‘good bottle’ on more than one occasion. Dalia keenly observed some ‘green apple and nutmeg,’ and a bit more wood came out with time in a cedar and mahogany direction. Saucy and long with a nice touch of autumnal flavors, I found some similar qualities in this ’66 to the ’85, and Wilf concurred aromatically but found more zip in the ’66. Me, too (96).

The 1956 La Tache smelled almost chapitalized in style, not that it necessarily was. It was the beefiest and meatiest so far, along with a bunch of mushrooms, a dash of Worcestershire, and ‘Chinese herbs that remind me of when I was growing up,’ a close friend of mine added. A bit oaty, the 1956 was flirting with stew, but a good, home-cooked one. It was pretty tasty in that earthy and foresty way, mature and sweet in the beefy, leathery and truffly direction. The 1956 was still holding on gracefully, but Wilf said that he had had fresher bottles. Spearmint came out, and a close friend of mine and Allen got in a 1956 RC vs. LT debate, with Allen firmly in the LT camp (90).

We were discussing 1985 vs. 1986 white Burgundies and a future event when Wilf made a humorous observation, ‘Just add a little Yquem to your 1985s and you get 1986s.’

The next pair was a celebrity death match of sorts, the 1993 vs. the 1990. The 1993 La Tache had a great nose, somewhat shy and brooding yet with incredible intensity without a high volume. There was tremendous pitch along with a refined elegance fit for kings or queens, in the pocket, of course. Dalia found ‘pink roses,’ while a close friend of mine was reminded of ‘2001 with more color.’ There were great stems and purity to the wine, along with mocha, soy and brick. Someone commented how amazing it was that this vintage was trashed ‘not once, but twice’ by a major wine critic, and how it was declared a vintage for ‘masochists.’ It seems now as if most Burgnuts are masochists, then. On the palate, there were stems, minerals, rust, earth and length. It was ‘sneakily long,’ as Allen noted, and it was; it kept going and going in the glass, so fine and ‘so long,’ Wilf concurred. ‘The 1993 is regal; the 1990 opulent,’ Allen concluded. I must confess that the 1993’s feathers got a little ruffled by the 1990, which was a staggering example. On its own, the 1993 was stupendous (96+).

The 1990 La Tache was ‘a poster child for great 1990s, and you know what I think of the vintage,’ Allen led off. The 1990 blew away the 1993 for pure sex appeal with its ‘succulent, sappy vibrance,’ as Wilf admired. Allen added, ‘it just throws itself at you and jumps on you,’ and it sure felt good. Its sex kitten of a nose was sappy, creamy and saucy full of rich, almost syrupy black cherry fruit. Musk, minerals and iron were there, and its t ‘n a were tremendous and vigorous but melted into its enormous fruit. Someone said its finish was ‘more corset than bra,’ and it was obvious by then that the 1990 got all of our hormones raging. The finish had a lot of verve with a super spine and spice. It had the same structure of the 1993 but more power, and much more concentration to its fruit. Paul called the 1993 ‘a Democrat’ while the 1990 was ‘Republican.’ Aubert summed up the flight by calling the two ‘two fighting brothers, one of strength and one of charm, but you can see the parenthood of soil’ (98+).

The final pair of the afternoon was the 2002 with the 1942, which seemed like an odd one, but Wilf explained that he felt that the 1942 would have been like the 2002 at a similar stage. The 2002 La Tache was such a baby by comparison to anything that we had so far, but one could still appreciate its fresh, red cherry fruit. It was not fat and seepy but rather reserved with its mineral and stalk supporting beams. There was that hint of green that Aubert affectionately referred to before, which means that this should have a long, bright future ahead of it. There were stems, ‘roses and almonds,’ Dalia observed. The 2002’s structure was excellent, a little ’93-ish but with redder fruit. All of its component parts were there in a drier style. Wilf was quick to point out that the 2002 was ‘showing surprisingly good, scary good.’ An exotic, mandarin orange edge developed in the nose (96+).

The 1942 La Tache had a mature, musky, meaty, brown sugared nose with flavors of beef, soy, leather and oat. It was not as good as the bottle I had at CRU at the weekend of the Top 100, but still excellent although more advanced. Paul joked that the 1942 had ‘something’ about it, like ‘Grenache.’ He was kidding (93).

It seems that eight wines were not enough for this crowd of connoisseurs, as after lunch a bit of a wine party broke out in the cellar of Auberge, beginning with a 1962 Roumier Bonnes Mares that was fairly consistent with the magnum that I had at the top 100 but not as good, but still alive and kicking but disappointing given the context on the 1962 vintage and Roumier being the producer (92). We had a head-to-head between the 1999 and 2000 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachets. The 1999 was awesome and showed tremendously despite its obvious, youthful nature. It had power, length, breed and its delicious baby fat was just starting to morph into real fruit, and its acidity was staggering (96+). The 2000 was sweeter and less powerful, with more finesse and that clean, fresh 2000 style (94). A 1997 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet finished our palate-cleaning trio of whites in very good fashion. 1997 is a pet white Burgundy vintage of Wilf’s at the moment, who, by the way, was trumpeting the 2004 whites, and he would know. The Niellon was very aromatic with some pinch and pungent fruit, white fruits, along with nut skin, oil, butter, minerals and rain. There was nice flesh, tang and good meat to this rich and long 1997, which was in a good spot now (93). What was this, Bordeaux? It was ok, for it was a 1982 Latour. Classic, beautiful, long and stylish, the Latour had an elegant power to it, although it did seem in reserve, but it probably did not get nearly enough time to come into its own before we animals devoured it (96+). A 1982 Bon Pasteur was delicious, bordering on outstanding (94+), and a 1997 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was outstanding, perhaps never to be better than it was right then/now but absolutely delicious and right there in that signature Coche way (95). There was one more wine, a 1945 Mouton. It had a low-to-mid shoulder, but the bottle was still sound and showing its classic ‘mint chocolate chip’ and meaty fruit. With good acidity still, it was missing a layer or two, but considering the fill level, it was a good show (95A).

I went to get a massage, and when I came back, I found out I had missed a 2001 Romanee Conti and God knows what else. a close friend of mine had not stopped drinking all afternoon, and by the time we got through the second course, he was in early nap mode at the table, but I am getting ahead of myself.

The evening session started with a round of 1995 Salon, which I now figured out had been recently released. It seemed a bit fresher and better than the one I had on Thursday in New York, perhaps because it was out of magnum (93).

The first pair of the evening session was the 1989 with the 1980. The 1989 La Tache had a sexy nose – rich, sweet, oily, musky and full of dark black cherry and raspberry fruits and traces of red as well. The 1989 was consistent with my recent impression of the vintage experienced at the first Angry Man dinner of Year Two. Yes, the reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated, but I haven’t gotten to writing that one up yet. The wine was a bit spiny, ‘square’ a close friend of mine interjected. I was talking about how this seemed to be the best, forgotten vintage of the last two decades, and Paul proceeded to slam it and praise 1988. ‘I don’t know how anyone could prefer 1989 over 1988,’ he said as he called the 1989 ‘screechy.’ I liked the 1989’s spiny vigor, its citric tension and gritty style. There was solid acidity; perhaps the wine was a little less complex than the average La Tache and on the drier side, but there was plenty of potential left. Aubert commented how the 1989 was ‘closed, but you can see the potential in the nose, but blocked as if it had a psychological problem’ (93).

The 1980 La Tache was a reconditioned bottle; until now, I was unaware that the Domaine had started or did this practice. I believe it was reconditioned in 2002. I think that the Domaine keeps these bottles for events and does not recirculate them. Everyone should know how I feel about reconditioned bottles by now and that generally, I am not a fan of the practice and feel that reconditioned bottles never achieve the heights of original ones, although they can still be very good in their own right. After checking, I found that the 1942 was reconditioned from the earlier session in addition to the 1956 and 1966. Back to the 1980, which Paul described as having a ‘brilliant bouquet.’ Dalia found its nose a bit offensive with its ‘salami’ qualities, but then again she thinks pork is one of the worst things known to man. I was more in the Paul camp, finding its aromas intoxicating. Meat, rose, iron and sweet, sweet cherries and strawberries were all present. Paul commented how the 1980 ‘has been at this stage for a while; like 1989, it hasn’t budged in six years, but the 1980 is integrated.’ Allen concluded that he saw a better future for the 1989 than Paul at this point. The wine seemed sweeter as a result of it being reconditioned. The palate was rich, bright and spicy, certainly exquisite but a touch short relative to its paired 1989. Sweet, musky and beautiful, the 1980 was fresh (reconditioned) and seemed on a plateau of maturity, but it did get more spiny and vigorous. a close friend of mine thought it had a ‘simpler’ edge, probably from the reconditioning. Aubert felt the 1980 ‘was giving what the 1989 was not – charm and delicacy’ (94).

The next pair was the 1957 and the 1947, the latter being reconditioned. Despite being a ‘bad vintage,’ as Aubert said, the 1957 La Tache had a sexy nose that was very musky with rose, sweet red cherry, sweet leather, earth, band-aid and meat aromas. It was delicious up front with a touch of brown sugared fruit and that pinch of Worcestershire. There were nice earth flavors, and while the finish was short, its acidity was integrated, and the wine was gorgeous. Wilf commented how the ’57 ‘always had a slight burnt quality, as in wood or charcoal.’ (93).

The 1947 La Tache had a musty nose, but beneath that was some incredibly sweet and decadent fruit, along with some leather, Worcestershire and band-aid. Smooth and with long acidity, the palate had nice citric tension. Wilf said how ‘neither of these two have ever been great La Taches,’ and he would know. Paul and Allen concurred that the 1947 could never have been a great wine. If you could get past the fact that it was slightly corked, the 1947 was still a beautiful wine with some nice citric kisses and light meat flavors (93A).

We came back to the nineties with a 1996 versus 1991 showdown. The 1996 La Tache was better than the one I had last week with its racy, spiny nose, which the other bottle had as well, except this bottle was also full of sweet fruit – cherry, raspberry and red currant to be precise. The nose was also firm with its minerals, slate, vitamins and pinches of cinnamon and nutmeg. I was astounded how sweet this bottle of 1996 was. There was a touch of rubber galoshes in there, in a good way like on a rainy day. Tasty and very 1996 with its acidity and stony and stalky personality, the 1996 was a touch young and mean on its palate but still great. Paul found it ‘too structured,’ while Aubert saw the 1966 in it (95+).

The 1991 La Tache was a revelation of a bottle. Dalia was loving it and its gorgeous fruit, which had strawberry joining the usual reaspberry and cherry. There was a similar racy, slaty and vigorous edge to the 1991 as the 1996, but there was even more depth to its fruit and a bready appeal. It was an unbelievable bottle; rich, long, vigorous and deep on the palate with layers of fruit on its thick palate and lip-smacking finish. Paul purred ‘as usual&old faithful.’ It was so rich; someone said that Aubert once mentioned he thought it would even surpass the 1990 (97)!

Paul prefaced the 1962 La Tache by saying, ‘when it’s on, it’s liquid sex.’ It was on. Allen quickly said, ‘we’re rockin’ after one sniff, and it had a gorgeous nose. The bottle was ‘a little sweeter and a touch advanced,’ Allen conceded, but both he and Wilf were like ‘who cares,’ because it was still so great. There was a prickly and edgy quality to the nose, which was decadently full of beef, earth, soy, spice, leather, vitamin and iron. Incredibly concentrated and with tremendous acidity, the 1962 was decadently sweet in a leathery and autumnal way. It still seemed young, and its acidity was ridiculous. Despite the fact that both Allen and a close friend of mine thought the magnum at my Top 100 was better, I preferred this bottle (98).

The 1962 was paired with the 1934 La Tache. While 1934 is a great vintage, this particular bottle seemed a little watered down, though that is the wrong word. There were some spiny edges underneath and nice earth, musk, vitamin and stalk aromas. Flavors of band-aid and earth were on its sturdy palate, but it had that reconditioned feeling, though the finish really came through. Someone said, ‘if it weren’t sitting next to the 1962, you’d like it better. The ’62 shows its flaws.’ Allen agreed by saying, ‘I like it, but it ran into a buzzsaw. ’34, ’59, ’90, ’99 – all very high quality and big volume, which is rare’ (94). The second-to-last historic pair on this historic day was the 1971 and the 1964. The 1971 La Tache was not a great bottle; this wine is always a 98 point wine, and this reconditioned bottle was a little metallic and not ‘the ’71 I love and know.’ Carraway, old wood, iron, vim and vigor were all present, but this metallic edge really marked it. Someone remarked that it did not have the richness of 1971, and while there was some intensity and length underneath and probably enough to merit an excellent rating, at this stage in the night I disqualified it (DQ).

The 1964 La Tache was ‘classic 1964 – big, rich’ and ‘ripe’ Allen interjected and took over for Wilf. The 1964 was heady, rich and meaty with nice t ‘n a, minerals and molasses. On the palate it was also rich and meaty with great animal flavors, both sweet and vigorous with nice earth supplements. Wilf summed it up nicely: ‘This is how I remember 1964; the texture and richness – only Vogue Musigny is close’ (95).

The last pair was the 1999 and the 1978, and it was a no contest. The 1999 La Tache was arguably the wine of the weekend. Bruce was in awe of its ‘jammy’ quality, especially since it was so young. Intense, super thick, full of t ‘n a, the 1999 was so dark and deep, spilling out of the glass with its midnight-like black fruits. There was also menthol, musk, tree bark and minerals in this intense, rich, long and deep wine. ‘Wow,’ I wrote; I could see why Wilf chose this for the grand finale. There was great acidity. It was so juicy and tasty that ‘you could nibble at it,’ someone said. Allen called it ‘impressive’ (98+).

The 1978 La Tache was itself outstanding and a great bottle, but the 1999 took the wind out of my sails. Consistent with the bottle I had over the summer, the 1978 was still delivering despite the storm that the other nineteen vintages had created. Dalia admired its ‘fresh sea’ qualities, and that was all she, literally, wrote (95).

From October 21st through October 23rd, approximately 45 people (though only 35 pours) gathered in New York City for a celebration of the finest wine and food that the world has to offer, our second annual ‘Top 100’ weekend. The weekend was spectacular, of course, and I figure it will make excellent reading over Thanksgiving weekend, so I am sending out that write-up next week before the holiday.

However, something very special happened that weekend as well, something that was not on the itinerary. On Saturday night, CRU received their well-deserved ‘Grand Award’ from the Wine Spectator, and a few of us gathered there for dinner to help Robert and Roy celebrate that achievement. Now, keep in mind that most of us were already at Cru from about noon to 5pm for the second session of the Top 100 and had already put down about 30 wines. I rented a hotel room nearby just to take a nap for two hours; otherwise, I knew I would be toast for that evening. It was the most expensive nap I ever took, but well worth it when one considers the wines that we had.

The evening was definitely a ‘Big Boy’ production, as he was the one that really led the charge to make this happen. Patman, his usual partner in business and crime, was on the scene along with the Burghound, Allen Meadows, and his New York alter-ego Doug Barzelay. Robert and Roy of Cru, and Julianne and Amanda of AMC almost filled out out our consortium. Last but not least, Eric G. was strong enough to endure the doubleheader as well and partied with us all weekend long, in fact. It was good to see all that time he spent in the gym paying off!

***AUTHOR’S NOTE: I was told that I need to do one wine per paragraph to make my notes easier to read for those people out there that have trouble reading. There are more of them than you think! Anyway, let me know if you prefer this broken style of a paragraph per note, or if the old style is better. I would appreciate some feedback!

The games began with a 1964 Louis Roederer ‘Cristal.’ The nose was tangy and waxy with baked, yellow fruits – baked in a mature way; not cooked, just baked. There were additional aromas of bread along with traces of light caramel. The palate was beautiful: smooth, long and fine with nice elegance in the mouth. Bread flavors and that same touch of dry caramel kissed the palate. Its backside was long and lingering with another kiss, this time of citrus flavors. Amanda picked up on its caramel as well, and the ’64 held gracefully in the glass (93).

If the 1964 Cristal was Grace Kelly, the 1990 Krug ‘Clos du Mesnil’ was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Served out of magnum, it was night and day, the Krug being the screeching rooster at the crack of dawn, or the music being played too loud at a nightclub at night. Take your pick; they both work. The Krug was so young, fresh and racy – it was such a baby. Pure-bred all the way, there were reticent aromas of nut, bread, waterfall, minerals and a pinch of caramel. The palate was racy, fresh and long and absolutely gorgeous with tremendous acidity. It lingered like sexual healing and was a spectacular, young Champagne (97+).

We slipped into a 1964 Lafleur, which was very rich in the nose and oh so Pomerol. Rich and fat, the nose had loads of chocolate and plum aromas, a firm slate edge and touches of grilled nuts and bacon. The palate was rich but clearly not outstanding, still very good in its own right but missing that roundness of fruit in the mid-palate. There were nice chalky flavors on the finish. Amanda found ‘dark cherry’ and Julianne ‘leather and smoke,’ although I think that last descriptor might have been a hint (92).

Enough with the Bordeaux; Allen was there, and we did not want him to get dizzy or any hot flashes from a lack of Burgundy, so we quickly segued into a 1952 Vogue Musigny ‘V.V.’ A touch of stew was in the nose, along with some baked fruit, a vanilla ice cream sundae thing and a bit of wood. Both Doug and I concurred that this bottle seemed a bit past its prime, not that 1952 Vogue is a wine past its prime; just this particular bottle. Someone noted that is was ‘more Barolo-like, almost an old Monfortino.’ There were bsolid cherry flavors, excellent dust and nice acidity to this affected bottle of Vogue (93A).

The next wine was a spectacular one, a magnum of 1952 La Tache recently acquired from one of our auctions. The ’52 mag had an unreal nose screaming with terroir; when I say unreal it is a compliment like ‘out of this world,’ not that it was fake, etc. There were incredible, absolutely incredible aromas of slate, earth and minerals on one side, and the rose garden, leather and amazing spice box on the other. Eric called it ‘immortal’ and Allen echoed my sentiment of ‘unreal.’ Pinches of caraway and smokehouse rounded out the nose. The palate was super tasty, veritable catnip for the feline wine lover in us all. Long and sensuous with sexy strawberry fruit and great earth, the palate had amazing length. It was one of the all-time great bottles of wine that I have had, definitely ‘Top 100’ worthy (98+)!

It was at this point that I tried to jot down the wines we had at Cru the night before after the first session of the Top 100. Yes, we went to Cru Friday night as well for a small after-party. Some people love pain. There was a delicious magnum of 1987 H. Jayer Echezeaux, which I would give about (93) points and an ‘excellent’ rating, and an incredible bottle of 1959 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle,’ only to be rivaled by a 1961 that I had in 2004. It was one of the greatest La Chapelles I have ever had and certainly (97+) points. We also had two way-too-young large formats, a magnum of 1989 La Mission Haut Brion and a jeroboam of 1998 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape ‘Hommage a Jacques Perrin,’ neither of which I could rate at the time. Sorry, guys, I wasn’t making this paragraph into four!

Ok, now that I got that off my chest, we can go back to our regular programming, which was a 1942 La Tache. Someone uttered ‘amazing’ right away. The nose was so deep big, rich and long. Rob summed it up as ‘ridiculous,’ which is another high compliment in Big Boy’s world. Musk oil, leather and deep, dark rich fruit oozed out of its nose. The palate was enormous, expanding like a tidal wave in the mouth at first, and Allen also found it ‘incredibly vibrant.’ Long and spiny, the wine was a bit massive but smoothed out sooner rather than later, costing it a point or two in the grand scheme of things, but for those first twenty minutes or so, it was even more extraordinary (95).

What better choice to have next to the 1942 La Tache than the 1943 La Tache? The 1943 was more wound and subtle, nutty with more cola and dark, plummy fruit. Possessing even bigger acidity and alcohol than the 1942, the 1943 seemed a bit out of balance at first and squarer, but while the 1942 lost a step or two, the 1943 improved and got more delicious and more balanced with time. The acidity was long and strong, and it was also an outstanding wine, equivalent to the 1942 in quality but stylistically different. Allen, on the other hand, said that he has tasted these two side by side three or four times and has always preferred the 1942 (95).

Next up was an incredibly rare bottle of 1946 A. Rousseau Chambertin, possibly one of the last bottles in existence. Allen found it ‘delicious’ and called it his ‘surprise wine of the year.’ Doug found it ‘lovely.’ It had a unique, nutty nose in a fresh popcorn way, a little gassy but still with nice smoke and earth aromas. The palate was also unique and delicious. Someone noted ‘there is real grip here,’ and the wine was absolutely rich, creamy and luscious, but ‘more Brooklyn than Manhattan,’ Rob accurately assessed. That is strictly a New York thing for those of you that might not get it, and it was 100% accurate. A touch dirtier and more rugged, the 1946 may have been more at home in detention than in a school play, but it was still excellent, alive and kicking. Long and with classic, citric tang on its palate and a pinch of what used to be vitamin, the 1946 stirred the pot up when Eric called it a ’92 point wine but a 99 point experience.’ Allen talked me down a point, but I think I talked him up one back (92).

Allen then commented how to have four wines from the 1940’s that were all so distinctively different was amazing. Oops, sorry, I forgot you didn’t know that a 1945 Grands Echezeaux was already on the table. The 1945 had another amazing nose, with deep, rich, plummy, violety and sensual fruit, more floral in its expressions. The wine was smooth with a long backside that was marred by a touch of metal. The metal blew off, and the acid came out, but the wine lacked overall weight; not strength, but weight. There were great earth flavors there, also (93).

The 1929 Vogue Musigny V.V. was a beautiful wine with classic Musigny in its nose but clearly reconditioned. Doug found it ‘a bit topped off,’ and Allen ‘incredibly young.’ Doug and Allen are like State Troopers at the Burgundy Ball, always enforcing good order, behavior and conduct from the bottles! There was gorgeous strawberry fruit in its nutty and meaty nose, and a long and elegant palate, elegant in the way Musigny always is. Allen went on a sidebar that 1929 was the greatest vintage in the greatest decade Burgundy ever saw, citing 1925 and 1927 as the only two clunkers and 1922 as the only average-to-good year. He then cited 1915 as the best of the teens with 1911 and 1919 behind it. The palate of the 1929 was long, still possessing great acidity but falling just a hair short of outstanding for me (94+).

The 1911 Vogue Musigny V.V. was a maderized bottle, still rich and creamy with a long, gritty finish. I felt like the wine could have been 95 points but not much more than that (DQ).

Next up was one of the greatest wines I have ever had, the 1934 Romanee Conti. It immediately got a ‘woof’ from the Burghound and a ‘serious’ from Big Boy. There were lots of oohs, aahs and even a ‘sexy’ from Julianne. Wait a second, she was talking about me, sorry. The nose was incredible with all the classic rust and iron along with a perfect pinch of citrus. The palate was amazing with smoky, meaty, rich, oily, nutty and earthy flavors. Super intense and long, its palate’s rust and leather qualities were great and even had Burghound dreaming of perfection (99). Allen went on to say that he has only rated six wines even 99 points, three of which were the 1962 La Tache, 1928 Roumier Bonnes Mares, and the 1915 La Romanee. He also mentioned that he preferred 1999 over 1996 and 1993 over 1990 in general.

A magnum of 1985 La Tache followed. You know it’s a good night when you go over to the magnum of 1985 La Tache and are like, ‘that’s nice,’ which is exactly what happened when the Burghound found out! It was a great bottle of 1985 La Tache, pure, long and classic with lots of iron, minerals, smoke, citric tang and red fruits that only La Tache could have. Its musk was beautiful, its rust tasty, and its finish long (95).

A 1959 Leroy Mazis Chambertin had a sexy, rich and luscious nose with those classic Leroy dark purple fruits and nutty qualities. Its sweetness was of a violet nature, and its palate excellent with nice richness and meat to its bones (95).

We finally changed gears with the 1966 Guigal Cote Rotie ‘La Mouline,’ its first vintage. I think it was Robert who gave us some musical perspective, noting that 1966 was the year that The Beatles released ‘Revolver’ and ‘Rubber Sole,’ and that it was also pre Jimi Hendrix or Cream. Rob called it ‘like a Rhone Pomerol,’ and it did have a rich and amazing nose that was still so La Mouline. Its violet, pepper, bacon, deep purple and earth aromas all added up to La Mouline’s signature style, and even though this was the first vintage and almost 30 years old, this bottle was incredibly fresh and vibrant, fresher than many other younger vintages that I have had. I couldn’t take my nose away from this wine for about five minutes as I kept digging and digging into its layers of aromas. The wine was everything it should have been, still young, and stylish like Park Avenue apartments. The acidity and length were tremendous, and Allen even called it ‘insane’ (99).

There was still one bottle left, a 1978 La Mouline, but after the 1966, I couldn’t even go there, and I have had near-perfect bottles of the 1978. The 1966 was that good. The 1978 seemed too young and relatively grapy, but perhaps that ’66 took everything I had left out of me. I could not judge the ’78. I had the 1966 again about two weeks later in Los Angeles but from a not-so-good bottle. The 1969 was another story, but you will read about that one in due time.