This past summer saw the end of the first year of my first official tasting group, the 12 Angry Men. They said it wouldn’t last, but we made it, nonetheless. All the politics, all the extra effort and all the coordination of doing a group like this seem well worth it after looking at all the great wines we were able to try, and all the good times we were able to share together. Only half of this initial year’s events made its way to the public, as many events remain in the archives of 2004, including one of the greatest evenings of Bordeaux that I have ever experienced, hosted by the one and only ‘Big Boy.’ You’ll read about that one sooner or later. Our first calendar year was actually 15 months for various membership reasons. ‘Brose was closing out the first year with an event at his gorgeous home up in Connecticut. He had gotten a car for the NYC crew to come up, and after fighting through some rush-hour traffic, we finally made it up and were definitely thirsty, despite the bottle of Champagne we had on the way up.

We were welcomed by some more Champagne, that Champagne being a 1985 Cristal, a delicious bottle of bubbly with great bread and toast flavors, possessing that elegant richness that only Cristal can, finishing smoothly and finely. It was exquisite (95). We had a white, or two, but due to some initial service confusion, we each basically got one white. I had the 1989 Trimbach Riesling ‘Cuvee Frederic Emile’ SGN. Ray was quick to share some of his knowledge, citing the fact that Frederic was the grandfather, and that the 1964 Clos Ste. Hune is the best bottle of white he ever had. The 1989 SGN had a lot of minerality, petrol and what Peter pegged as ‘honeysuckle.’ The nose was very racy and intense and not overly sweet. Spicy, zesty and alluring, there were lots of yellow fruits as well. Its palate was rich, meaty, lush and spicy, almost Gewurz-y in style. There was zip and zing with a great, woodsy and slaty spice on the back end. Peter found it ‘consistent and thick,’ while Jim liked its ‘balance’ (95).

It was time to get serious, and a flight of La Missions was first. This bottle of 1955 La Mission Haut Brion was spectacular. The nose was amazing, unbelievable with its super chocolaty and grapy fruit balanced by classic earth and slate. There was incredible depth and breadth to its fruit in the nose, and Mike keenly observed that it had ‘all the stuff that should be there’ and added ‘hickory.’ Ray had to jump in with ‘cinnamon pot pourri,’ but he did just return from the bathroom. HA. There was gravel, spine and edge to the wine, which was long, fine, smooth and intense. It was rich, lush, thick and spicy, and Peter found some ‘bacon fat’ emerging. Wow (98). Eric threw in a 1955 Haut Brion as a ‘ringer’ for our La Mission flight. The nose was a bit caramelized, and Rob immediately thought the wine was maderized. It was affected a bit, but far from being shot and still had a lot of purple flavors, along with bacon, earth, gravel and smoke, but the La Mission did crush it, and it should have been a little closer. The wine was still long and fine with nice earth and gravel. The palate was excellent but still less than it should have been, although its caramel flavors were great. This wine made me want to add a new dimension to my ratings, an ‘A’ for affected bottle (93A). The 1961 La Mission Haut Brion was similar to the 1955 in its grapy and chocolaty profile, although someone said that its finish was ‘lighter and more chalky.’ I saw the chalk in the nose blending in with its slate and gravel. There was lots of spine in the nose; the palate was more gravelly and stony. The finish was a walloper, though, a veritable ‘cedar chest,’ Jim noted. I wouldn’t exactly call this bottle affected, but I have had better (95+). Lastly in this flight was a stellar 1975 La Mission Haut Brion. I found its nose exciting in an almost erotic way. Its seepy, grapy fruit oozed out of the glass, guarded closely by chocolate, fig, walnut and slate. There was lots of character, and supercharged t ‘n a. Make that loads of t ‘n a, spice, power and length; the wine was impressive, as always, for me at least (97+). Actually, the 1975 wasn’t the last wine in the flight, as we had a bottle of 2000 La Mission Haut Brion that I had actually forgotten until turning the page of my notes. Here’s to old age .or too much alcohol. They’re both noble causes. The 2000 was undrinkable in the presence of its elder siblings. Flamboyant, over the top and almost Caliesque after the other three La Missions, the 2000 was the junior member of the team and not allowed to sit in on this board meeting. I am sure 2000 La Miss is a great wine and have had different experiences with it, but on this night and in this context it didn’t matter. Everyone wanted to drink all the other La Misses and knew that there was still plenty of wine to come (Unrated).

The next chapter in this saga was a long one, featuring five wines from 1982 and an ’86 Mouton, beginning with an outstanding 1982 Leoville Las Cases. The nose was deep and intense with a lot of spine. Rob found it ‘quixotic,’ whatever that meant. It was a big word from Big Boy. The wine was still young but brooding in a mature fashion. There were great aromas of grape, cassis, earth and slate. The palate was spicy and intense; it was certainly a great bottle of 1982 Las Cases. Let’s just say that I have already seen considerable variation with many different ’82s. This was a bottle that was still young and should be profound in twenty years. Mike awoke from a deep slumber to utter ‘cucumbers,’ but I actually saw what he was talking about (95+). The 1982 Latour was bready and yeasty in a good way, grilled like meat fresh off the fire. It had deep, chunky, cassisy fruit and was dripping with fat. The wine was so thick, rich and unctuous that it was immediately in charge and told the Las Cases that its turn was over, as good as the Leoville was (97+). A 1982 Pichon Lalande was next and out of magnum. A quick debate ensued between Mike and Rob over the wine. Mike found it ‘unusual’ for 1982 Pichon, and Rob was talking about the magnum factor. I was definitely starting to feel it and missed taking a lot of notes on this wine, but I did find major structure here, and the wine was not as open as the usual ’82 Pichon, so I guess they were both right. There was lots of spine and a spicy finish for this outstanding magnum of Lalande (96). One of my favorite wines from 1982, the 1982 Mouton Rothschild was intense and definitely a wine that one had to dig into. This wine was not going to give itself to us just like that. The breed was staggering, deep and thunderous with a centerpoint, a veritable eye amidst a tornado of a structure. The wine was flat out enormous, almost freaky in nature compared to the personalities of its previous brethren’the cedar was just, just starting to emerge. I immediately told Jefery, of Los Angeles, the real one if you remember, ‘don’t touch this wine for another twenty years,’ because it will be spectacular. There is no doubt in my mind that good bottles of 1982 Mouton will in the end stack up with the other great Moutons of the 20th century, and we all know Bordeaux doesn’t truly get great until the age of thirty, right? The wine was still shy, yet sturdy and sly, quite ‘longgggg,’ I wrote (97+). As good as the 1982 was, the 1986 Mouton was staggeringly so. ‘WOW,’ was the first thing that came to mind. Its amazing concentration was the second. Huge, thick and lip-smacking, this ’86 elevated this flight to another level. Since this wine was served blind, there were a lot of ’82 guesses occurring, and Jefery liked its ‘vanilla.’ As good as the previous four wines were, this bottle of 1986 Mouton made me want to downgrade all of them! This is another Mouton that will be amongst the 20th Century’s Top Ten, and maybe even Top Five Moutons (99). The 1982 Lafite that closed out the flight was anti-climactic yet still outstanding. It had another great nose, filled with peanut, earth, more nuts, tannins, alcohol and spice. The wine was rich, long, smooth and sexy (96).

Words really started to elude me for the final flight, which started off as a flight, at least. The 1994 Harlan had greatness written all over it. It stood up to the previous flight of incredible Bordeaux and the ‘only wine that can,’ Ray added. It was indubitably great, as it always has been, one of the greatest wines ever made in California (98). The 1997 Harlan had tons of milk chocolate in its nose but was clearly not as good as the 1994. There were intense walls of alcohol to get over to get into this humongous, massive wine. It was not that drinkable at the moment, perhaps that moment, but the wine certainly had more ‘oomph’ than the ’94. Comparatively unready, the 1997 did make a good case that it might outlive the 1994, though (95++). The 1998 Greenock Creek Cabernet Sauvignon ‘Roennfeldt Road’ had exotic aromas of apple and plum, ‘green’ apple Ray suggested. ‘Overripe raspberry,’ someone countered, and there was black cherry and tang as well. The wine was rich and kinky but far from incredible. I neglected to give it a rating, but if memory serves me correctly, we were talking probably 92 points. There was a 1997 Shafer ‘Hillside Select’ that I absolutely can’t remember and took absolutely no notes for. Sorry. The last wine I had anything written about was a glorious 1978 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle.’ It was a great bottle, full of coffee, gingerbread, mocha, menthol, earth and bacon, wound and high-powered (98). We somehow managed to get home.

Jefery had just gotten into town that week, for he was staying in New York for a couple months while directing, and we soon thereafter got together along with Rob and some female companionship at Cru, where a new alliance formed as well. What slowly started as an innocent evening quickly turned into the inaugural meeting of the ‘Cru Club,’ a group dedicated to enjoying the fruit off the award-winning wine list at Cru every so often.

I quickly found a lonely bottle of 1993 Ramonet Montrachet, which had a gorgeous, waxy nose. Aromas of honeycomb, anise, alcohol, nut, light butter and mature Chardonnay musk danced in its smoky nose. The palate was full of forward alcohol and spice, corn, yeast, candle wax and dry honeycomb (no sweetness to the honey). The palate was saying ‘drink me now,’ not in that it would be ‘or never,’ but in that it is pretty damn good right now. The wine was long, and you could taste the greatness of Montrachet. Three hours later the wine was still singing (95). The 1964 Clos de Tart had a gorgeous, seductive nose with great aromatics of rose, smokehouse, gardenias, pinches of menthol and leather, red cherry, sexy musk and light , underlying earth. Ruth observed how it was ‘unlike anything I have ever smelled,’ while Teona noticed its ‘stinky wood.’ Rob found it ‘Baroloesque.’ While the nose was complex, the palate was delicate and easy. Worcestershire crept in to join its menthol flavors, and the wine softened yet held in the glass (92). The 1983 D’Angerville Volnay ‘Clos des Ducs’ was a real treat. The nose was nutty and meaty with a light brown sugar glaze and accompanying aromas of gingerbread, earth, grape and light t ‘n a. The mouth was ‘rippin,’ according to Rob, and it was rich, mouth-filling and with some ‘pop,’ which translates into a vibrant quality to its tannins/alcohol/acidity, almost explosive on its finish. There was more alcohol and acid than tannins, however, as its tannins were fully integrated. There was still a lot of vigor to its finish in this excellent wine, which was quite nutty and gave some ‘dirty bomb’ impressions, although that is supposed to be a positive thing. Someone called it ‘a revelation.’ The wine held quite well and its ‘oomph’ factor never left. It was another pleasing 1983, which remains somewhat of a sleeper of a vintage at the top level (94). Next, we plucked a 1986 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. off the list, which had a noticeably lighter color than the Volnay. Its nose was amazing with sweet, sweet fruit that was ‘Yquem-like’ with its apricoty aromas. It was quite distinct and an accurate description. There was still the rust, leather, whips and chains of the ’86 vintage, another vintage that I have been having a lot of luck with as of late. There was a touch of milkyness and an amazing kink to its fruit with lots of leather. With a little time, the wine became round and smooth, though a bit short in the middle, but the wine then reversed course to gain in the glass and become more assertive (93). The 1964 La Tache was a ‘Big Boy’ selection, of course, and he quickly put its nose as ‘Right Bank and Lafleur more than La Tache,’ and he was 100% right. It was a Pomerol impersonating a Burgundy, but that wouldn’t be the first time that happened. Its nose was chocolaty, plummy and figgy, and the only sign of Burgundy in its nose was some mesquite. The palate was rich and hearty, full of spice, tannins and length. It had a ‘summery’ taste one of the ladies noticed, and there were lovely strawberry fruit flavors along with leather and musk oil ones. The wine was satiny, on the smooth side, yet still somewhat vigorous in a lip-smacking, roof-licking way (95). The 1991 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg had another intense nose with a lot of character, full of citrus, earth, nut, grape, blackberry and cedar. There was an intense grit to the palate; the wine was very gritty, long and another roof-licker. Its finish was gritty as well, sandy and spiny, but I think this wine needs some more time to find itself completely (94+).

Just when I thought that things were winding down and that the bill might be fairly reasonable since we chose wisely, and since Cru’s prices are phenomenal, Big Boy summoned for a wine list. Gulp. A 1978 Guigal Cote-Rotie ‘La Mouline’ soon came out thereafter. This is the second time I have had a bottle from this very same case, and it was unbelievable again. Aromas of blueberry pancakes, maple syrup, bacon and whip cream jumped out of this exotic wonder. Robert Bohr finally got into the act, calling ‘its concentration of fruit stunning.’ The fruit was so thick, it was bordering on scary. Cassis, violet, black raspberry, leather and musk were all present as well. Its nose was so good, it was almost too good to drink almost! Flavors of spice, bacon, menthol, violet and slate caressed our palates, and if I wasn’t a bit fatigued, and if we had had it earlier in the night, it probably would have been a 99-pointer as the other bottle we had recently (98). Robert Bohr made the last selection of the evening for us, a 1968 Mastroberadino Taurasi ‘Castelfrancia’ Riserva. ‘This is a wine that deserves to be written up indubitably Italian,’ Robert said. Made from Aglianco, Nebbiolo and possibly one other grape, Robert insisted it was the best wine ever made of its type. Volcanic and ashy, the wine had an intense nose full of spine, leather, spice, earth and minerals, chock full on all accounts. Its rich, hearty flavors had great cedar to them. There were a few more descriptors written, unfortunately now illegible a month later. I think one of them was about the nose from an anonymous member of Cru, calling the leather ‘spank me’ quality, but I could be mistaken (94+).

And that was the first official meeting of the ‘Cru Club.’

Meanwhile, the seeds for another group were being planted. Four cities in four quarters, eight members, and some very serious wines make up the recipe, and we had a precursor event at the Four Seasons organized by Jefery, where we were joined by ‘never stand’ Pat, Bruce and some ladies including Gina Gershon, who is very fine, indeed, as Clive would say. The name of the group is the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, of course. C’mon, you know it’s a good one. So this was an exhibition dinner, if you will, as the group has not officially started, but three definite members were in attendance.

A trio of Salons started our evening, and we begun with the 1979. There was some maderization to the nose, but it was not ‘dead,’ as Rob insisted. There were bready and seltzer flavors along with some sherry ones that were too mature for its age. In the end, I had to (DQ) it, anyway. The 1982 Salon was great, just as I remembered the bottle we had last week at Bruce’s place. There was great toast to its flavors, and it was still fresh with plenty of meaty, chewy richness to boot. There was great balance, nice length and tasty flavors to this pure, outstanding Champagne (95). The 1985 Salon was a lot lighter than the 1982, still fresh, but almost like a little brother. It was soft and easy with a nice elegance and freshness but no match for the 1982 (92).

A pair of ’85s were next, starting with a 1985 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee ‘Cros Parantoux.’ Unfortunately, I think this bottle was fake. There was no ‘Cros Parantoux’ on the cork, so it was most likely a regular Jayer Vosne Romanee relabeled as it was still branded by Jayer. This is why we check all Jayer corks when auctioning or offering them through our store, as there are some counterfeits out there due to their extraordinary value. The bottle was also a bit musty and corky, but behind that it was beautiful, smooth, refined, subtle, soft and elegant. It was a very good wine, most likely village Jayer Vosnr Romanee, but not what it was supposed to be and therefore (DQ). The 1985 Leroy Chambertin had a deep, brooding nose with incredible depth and length there musk, meat, nut, vitamin, game and black fruits on the dark side all found themselves in its saturated and complex nose. The palate was big and rugged in the way that only Chambertin can be, although perhaps still on the young side for optimum drinking (95+).

A Clos de la Roche Celebrity Death Flight was next, pitting Ponsot against Dujac. While the Dujac should have been served first, shit happens, so we started with the 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. It had a fabulous nose with a beautiful, pure core of fruit, great balance and an appealing obesity. There were secondary aromas of meat and menthol, and the wine felt like a beast lurking the bushes of the glass. Pat found it ‘sexy and chewy.’ The palate had loads of vitamins and red fruits and a pinch of pungency that someone translated as ‘cat piss.’ The wine lacked some of the weight of other bottles that I have had, but that could have been me on this night. The wine was indubitably outstanding, just not as outstanding as three or four other occasions that I remember vividly (96). The 1990 Dujac Clos de la Roche was a perplexing bottle. The nose was a bit oaky for me, an unusual occurrence when it comes to a bottle of Dujac. There were a lot of oohs and aahs, so I became a bit introspective. The wine was atypically earthy and oaky with a lot of forest flavors, all floor ones, in fact. Some cherry fruit started to emerge, but this bottle just didn’t seem as good as it had been or should have been (usually 95 points); perhaps it was the curse of Allen Meadows regarding the 1990 vintage (92?). The 1991 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. was not a favorite of Bruce’s or Rob’s, but I was digging it. The nose was rich, meaty and earthy with a lot of power and spice there. The palate was on the drier side but more intense with a lot of earth, black fruits and spice. It rounded out well in the glass (95). Again, the 1993 Dujac Clos de la Roche was oakier than I ever remembered it being. Was it possible that two batches from two different vintages could be off this way? Was it me? Or was it the Ponsot taking charge of this head-to-head matchup and leaving the Dujac naked in the middle of the ring? All these questions had few answers. The winedid have beautiful texture but was marked with an oak ‘letter’ (92?).

I was a bit disturbed at the showing of these Dujacs, but three La Taches were on their way to the table, starting with a 1991. Rob came out with a ‘spectacular’ right away, and I must admit that the wine was (is) in a great spot. Rich and meaty, its bouquet was filled with iron, vitamin, spice and leather. Intense, long, balanced and gorgeous, this was some serious Burgundy. It was a step up from the Clos de la Roche, possessing more intensity, spice and tannin than any of the prior wines. The palate was similarly rich and long with a touch of cola flavors (97). The next bottle had the honor of becoming the best 1993 La Tache that I have ever had. It was classic 1993 all the way with its intense, long and spiny nose, which was also loaded to the gills with vitamins. The palate was also loaded with vitamins, earth and spine; the wine was more than outstanding; it was ridiculous and the first glass that I finished on this night (97+). Compared to the 1991 and 1993, the 2001 La Tache was ‘superfly,’ forward and aromatic, dripping with cherry fruit, cherry fruit that needed to be popped. There were also lots of vitamins and nice spice, but it seemed ‘Junior Varsity’ after the 1991 and 1993. It was still outstanding; it only needs time (95).

We headed south to the Rhone Valley, where a flight of La Mouline awaited. The 1976 La Mouline had an incredible nose, amazing, even ridiculous again! There was first some confectioners sugar and molasses, but behind those the classic aromas of great Cote-Rotie. Violets, bacon and even biscotti graced the nose, as did coffee and blue fruits our palate. The wine was super, super smooth, possessing a finesse and grace that only thirty years of age can (97). The 1983 La Mouline, one of my all-time favorites, was a little weird, having some brett issues. There were band-aids and licorice aromas, and some fruit started to break through with a little coaxing, but the wine was not 100%. The palate was especially gravelly and stony, but its length and power were unmistakable. Its flavors were internal, affected by brett most likely, and although one could understand the wine’s greatness, its flavors were not complying (95A). I was pretty much out of gas by the time the 1985 La Mouline came out, a gingerbread man of a wine with lots of pungent and lethery spice and a smooth, long, regal palate (96).

There was one wine left, a fantastic bottle of 1974 Heitz ‘Martha’s Vineyard.’ It was a great bottle, a veritable chocolate ice cream soda loaded with minerals that was amazingly fresh. It stood up to all the Old World wines quite well and was the perfect finishing touch (97).

And that is my summer tasting group update.

First of all, I’d like to thank all the concerned readers who constantly remind me how I’m slacking off and not writing enough tasting notes. I am a bit backed up, I must confess. There has been no shortage of great wine events over the summer, albeit at a bit of a more civilized pace than the usual Fall and Spring seasons. Hopefully, I will be caught up over the next few weeks, current and ready for an amazing Fall season of incredible wine events. For those of you that don’t know, many of these events are open to the public you can check out the schedule at www.ackerwines.com/workshop. Our Top 100/All-Star weekend this October is officially sold out.

Eighteen of us gathered at the Four Seasons this past May for a comprehensive retrospective of the great Lafite-Rothschild, one of the world’ most famous wine properties. When it comes to the First Growths, my experience has led me to favor three of the ‘fab’ five. Margaux has always been my least favorite First Growth, especially when you go back further than twenty-five years. This does not mean that there are not great Margauxs that I have enjoyed, but in the context of this century, which is the active drinking pool for all of us right now, Margaux has never been at the very top of my list. Its elegant style usually has me looking for more, but perhaps the modern-day greats like 2000, 1996, 1990 etc., will deliver on their perceived promise. Lafite would be next on my personal preference list, working my way up from the bottom. Again, Lafite has also had a more elegant style over the years, and while I have had some great bottles of Lafite, mainly the 1996, 1990, 1988, 1982, 1959 and 1953s, it has just not been my cup of tea, so to speak. The continental divide forms here, and then we have Latour, Haut Brion, and Mouton. Now, it gets interesting. I know Latour can be a very strong argument, but for me at the moment, I would have to put it in third place. I know what you are going to say, and yes the 1982, 1961, 1959 and 1928 (maybe even the ’45) are amongst the greatest wines of the century, but Latour has been inconsistent and less than stellar in years it should have been great; furthermore, I have found some of the ‘better’ older Latours to not be so hot anymore, but that could always be bottle variation. So that’s that. That leaves us with Haut Brion and Mouton Rothschild, and second place is a close call over third. Haut Brion, with the 1989 cemented as probably the greatest First Growth of the modern era, along with wines such as 1928, 1945, 1955, 1959, and 1961, is my second favorite of the moment. I have found it more consistent overall, and I guess I am a sucker for Graves, as if La Mission was in this contest, it would finish ahead of Haut Brion and perhaps even Mouton. Yes, for me, Mouton Rothschild wins the blue ribbon. The 1986 and 1982 stand like bouncers outside a hot nightclub in NYC, ready to deny admittance to anyone that approaches. 1961, 1959, 1955, 1949, 1947, 1945, 1928 even and the 1945 is one of the top ten wines of the century, period. The 1947 is perhaps the most overlooked, great wine of the century as well. Every chateau has had its ‘off’ years, but if you look at the best ten wines produced by any chateau, I do not think that anyone stacks up 1-10 against Mouton. It has also been my favorite of the 1982s, although see me in twenty years, so we can actually enjoy them!

But I digress, it was Lafite’s turn at the table, and we started with the 1961, served out of two half-bottles. The 1961 has never lived up to the status of the vintage overall, so I did not think that having half-bottles here mattered that much, and besides, it was also an interesting experience. The 1961 had nice carob, nut, pencil and cedar. There was a touch of metal there and some awkward flavors that blew off. It was obviously not a great wine but still good, smooth and easy with light traces of caramel. It was good, enjoyable but unexciting (87). The 1970 had a little green and horse stink to its nose; it was definitely a dirty Lafite, one that might not be invited to the dinner table if guests were coming. The wine was smooth with good character and nice dust, earth and cedar flavors. The dirty qualities of the nose translated into game on its palate (88). The 1975 had a touch of must to its nose that lessened with time, translating into sweet soy fruit laced with brown sugar. The wine was gritty and round, yet less complex than other bottles that I have had. The palate was a touch musty as well, but its tannins were the most noticeable so far. I think this bottle was affected a little by cork issues as well as possible heat exposure, although each in a slight way (88+?). The 1976 rounded out the first flight and had a great nose full of menthol and chocolate, very Mouton-ish circa the forties and fifties, I thought. This has long been reputed to be the ‘wine of the vintage’ by many, and I could easily see why. Its rich, complex nose was supported by a smooth, chocolaty palate that was a step behind its aromatics (92).

The next flight was made up of 1985, 1988 and 1989. The 1985 had a lovely nose, almost having this exotic orange/citrus edge, along with peanut, carob, grilled meat and white flowers. This was the ‘first Lafite nose,’ Bryan keenly observed. The palate was a bit lost at the moment with little expression and definition at first. It did open up with time (91). The 1988 was excellent as always, clearly having more intensity in its nose than anything prior. Nut, chocolate, cocoa, espresso bean, alcohol and the slightest hint of menthol all graced my nose. There were good tannins and balance to the palate with lots of minerals on the finish. The wine gained in the glass. It is an excellent Lafite and perhaps the wine of the vintage (93). The 1989 had a perfumed, lavender edge with the usual carob and nut. It was very classic in many regards and quite expressive and showy at the age of sixteen. It was the most expressive so far, in fact. It had great balance and nice acidity and some additional flavors of stone and green bean (94).

We went back in time with the third flight, beginning with two bottlings of 1900. The 1900 BG bottling was a bit suspicious, a little fresher than I remembered and expected. The wine had a metallic streak as well that was unsurpassable, so I had to (DQ) it. The 1900 that was recorked by Whitwham’s smelled much more authentic. Some feel that bottles recorked by Whitwham’s are a bit unpure, and Bryan felt that this bottle had a ‘hollowed out quality.’ I found a lot of positives out of it, though, as there was lots of cedar, hay, earth and cobwebs there. The wine was smooth, soft and tasty and definitely a bit hollow, although I think most 105 year-old wines will be! It was like a frame with half a picture, but it held well to reveal lots of sand, dust, earth and desert flavors (92). The 1953 was unfortunately a bit maderized, but in that ‘second stage’ way that Roberto Conterno alluded to when we did a vertical with him this past Spring. It was affected but quite tasty, and I still enjoyed its candy corn and caramel-driven personality. However, it was not what it should have been, which is one of the most charming and seductive Lafites ever made, so even though this bottle was in the 93 point territory, it should have been 95-6 (93+?). The 1959 more than made up for the 1953. It had a spiny nose with lots of t ‘n a and a cleaner edge. There was also nut, grape and cassis – its fruit was very young and very fresh for its age, and the wine also had lots of oomph and finish, the biggest finish of the flight. There was lots of edar, earth and mineral flavors and a great, long finish. The palate was round and long and had it all fruit, finish and acid. It was an outstanding bottle (96).

From 1959 we went to 1982, and the 1982 we had seemed more Mouton or Heitz than Lafite, and Bryan noticed it as well. He went on to say how he had had it a dozen times and never like this, and I was probably the only one who could concur. The finish was enormous and the biggest of the night, and Bryan was really digging the wine, enjoying how it had ‘the yummyness of 1982’ and how it ‘may be atypical, but it’s a humdinger!’ He went on to call it the tastiest 1982 Lafite he ever had. It had big-time eucalyptus and flirted between excellent and outstanding. It is a great wine, but I am not convinced yet that it will reach that next level of greatness (95+). The 1986 had a pine sol/exotic flower tension in its nose with some other classic components on the palate but was overall disappointing. It was Lester’s least favorite of the flight, and I agreed. There were nice grape flavors and good tannins but more polished than I remember. It did kick into overdrive on its finish with time in the glass, but I need to revisit this wine again some time soon (93+). The 1990 had a beautiful nose, classic yet with good stink. This wine has always been one of Clive Coates’ wines of the vintage, and this bottle did not disappoint. The mouthfeel was rich; this was a high density wine. The palate was full of chalk, minerals, slate, hay and black fruits. It is an undervalued Lafite (95).

The final flight was composed of the ‘young bucks,’ beginning with the 1996. Now I have had an elusive ’99 point’ experience with this wine, but not on this night. It was still outstanding. The 1996 is one of my all-time favorite Lafites. ‘There’s a Lafite nose,’ I wrote. It had a touch of earth, the ‘pine spine’ and deep purple, grape ape fruit. There was also some buckwheat flapjack there, and the wine was rich and meaty. Tobacco and dirt were also present. The wine did come out a little cold and kept unfolding in the glass (96+). The 1998 gave me a first impression of earth, stink and expressive black fruits. The nose was a blend of Old and New worlds, but the palate was more Caliesque. I had flashes of Harlan and Maya without the power and balance. The wine seemed shut down with very little except tobacco and green bean on its finish. Someone said, ‘I could drink this tonight. It lacks complexity or delineation.’ Yup (90). The 1999 was more nutty with nice coffee, caramel and toast aromas. The wine was very Caliesque again. WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH MY BORDEAUX??? That’s all I am going to say on the matter. The wine was still very good but lacked oomph and verve (92). The 2000 had the most intriguing nose of the flight, eliciting an ‘Mmmmm’ out of me. The nose was very deep and layered with lots of coffee, smoke, cassis, herb, fresh green grass and great earth. The wine was long, balanced, smooth and gorgeous. The 2000 quickly put my paranoia to rest after the 1998 and 1999. Lester felt that the 1998 and 1999 were ‘overstuffed’ to make up for each vintage’s deficiencies. He also remarked how this last flight had ‘a uniformed style I couldn’t find in other flights. Admittedly, it was a closer range of years.’ I will leave you on that note.

This article comes to you from the archives of the lost year, 2004. About 75 other articles remain in the vaults from last year. I’ll have to save those for that elusive book deal. A recent cellar made me remember the event and pull it out of the safety deposit box to share.

The stars had aligned in San Francisco last Fall for a historical vertical of Jayer Richebourg, one of the rarest and most expensive Burgundies in the world today, one of the only wines to equal if not often surpass the price of ‘s Romanee Conti. We had two gracious hosts who had invited everyone as their guests for this incredible journey. I knew it was a heavy crowd when I introduced myself to someone and he replied, ‘Gordon Getty, nice to meet you.’ a close friend of mine and I flew up together from LA that morning for lunch; I believe it was a Sunday, after a couple of heavy nights of winebauchery. We were still ready, willing and able, of course.

Daniel Johnnes was there (of course) and led things off with an introduction about Henri and his wines. He said that Jayer’s wish was to make wines that were meant to be drunk; in that regard, Daniel said, Jayer does have a modern approach. 1948 was his first vintage, and Daniel called Jayer ‘true to his style from his first vintage to his last.’ Allen Meadows was there as well (of course), and he mentioned Jayer’s use of new oak. Richebourg is split into two subsections, one being ‘Les Richebourgs’ and the other being ‘Les Varoilles.’ Jayer’s vines are in the Varoilles half, which produce ‘more elegance’ than the vines across the way. His holdings are 0.36 hectares, roughly about an acre which could produce 100 cases maximum if yields were not kept low. So one or two barrels, 25 to 50 cases, is the norm. Jayer also destems, which a close friend of mine found tough to believe due to the pervasive dryness of some of the wines.

There were only three flights, organized chronologically except that the theoretical best vintages were saved for the final flight. There were seven wines in the first flight and six in each of the last two. The first flight showed how Henri is a master of making the most out of every vintage. We began with the 1987 H. Jayer Richebourg, which had a tight nose full of alcohol at first. There was some gamy Pinot fruit behind it with soft cherry, dry leather, good earth and a chip or two of semi-sweet chocolate. There was a lot of elegance and style. The palate was citrusy, taut with bright, citrus flavors and a soft finish that still had long acids. White cola emerged in the second go-around, but citrus held its grasp on the flavor profile and made me smack my lips more than once. It was a very good wine for 1987 (91). 1986 has been one of my sleeper vintages of late after having extraordinary wines from Roumier, Mugnier and Rousseau. I think this could be one of those vintages that fell off the radar, only to reappear twenty years later and become quite desirable. We shall see. I am working on a comprehensive 1986 event for 2006. The 1986 H. Jayer Richebourg was another excellent 1986. It was much more forward on the nose than the 1987 in regard to its fruit. The nose was very fragrant and had plum, blackberry and even a touch of boysenberry. There was light mineral dust and a core/spine of leather and cedar. The nose was exceptionally creamy, as was the palate, and the finish had excellent tension and balance. Tannins were present, the acids were good, and the fruit was nice with a hint of the same citrus found in the 1987. The wine got very Asian in the glass, flirted with an outstanding score, and held its length (94). The 1984 H. Jayer Richebourg had a mushroomy nose with a touch of vegetal earth but also nice rose aromas. There was a hint of cardboard that might have been cork. The palate had good structure and balance, but there were more cedar and leather components here, along with dirty flavors of mushroom, earth and garbage, for lack of a better word. You know, that Beverly Hills garbage. The wine was a bit stewed and had a small hole in the middle of it, but for a wine from 1984, which is about as bad a vintage as Burgundy has ever had, it was not bad at all, especially since it was 20 years old (87). 1983 is another ‘forgotten’ vintage with which I have had more good luck than bad over the past year or two. The 1983 H. Jayer Richebourg was very fragrant with sexy, sultry, sweet red fruit. There were supporting aromas of chocolate, caramel, carob and a pinch of brown sugar. Some overripe plums, right before they enter prune territory, rounded out the nose, which seemed to be on a faster evolutionary track. Then again, it was twenty-one years old, so fast is probably a bad word choice! The rich fruit carried over to the palate and flavors, and there was lots of grip here; the wine was surprisingly, very sturdy. The palate exploded more than any other of the previous three wines. The fruit held and remained very exotic, the finish stayed balanced and reined in, and its earth flavors exerted themselves on the backside. It was outstanding (95). The 1982 H. Jayer Richebourg had an intense nose as well with more classic, gamy, Burgundian fruit. It had stinky fruit in that good Burgundy way with lots of fresh vitamin intensity. One might say iodine. There was also good leather in the nose. The palate was quite wound, ‘very dry and stemmy,’ a close friend of mine noted, despite the fact that Jayer does not use stems. I agreed. The 1982 was a little kinder and gentler regarding its acids. The citric intensity crept out of its nose, and the palate was the longest of the flight so far. The citrus flavors were beautiful and not too tangy (95+). The 1981 H. Jayer Richebourg was another wine from a vintage that most people have written off by now. Its nose was shier with some alcohol and mineral aromas upfront. There was a touch of supportive, green stalk, a flash of plum and red fruits, and a light cedar edge. The palate was taut and on the citrusy side of the flavor wheel; red grapefruits, in fact. There was nice vim but less vigor here, but the wine was rock solid and in a good spot right then and there. a close friend of mine called it a thirty-minute wine, although I thought it held well for at least an hour. It was excellent for that first hour, but ultimately very good (92). The last wine of the first flight was the 1980 H. Jayer Richebourg. There were incredible caramel aromas, a home-made, fine caramel with a chocolate center twist. It dominated the nose. The palate was a lot drier than I expected with tight and dusty flavors. It was a tale of two wines the nose was amazing but the palate was tight, shy and unyielding; will it ever yield at this stage? Since this is one of Jayer’s personal, favorite vintages, perhaps the bottle was off. a close friend of mine complained about its ‘oak tannins, not fruit tannins’ (90+?).

If that was any indicator of what was to come, we were in good shape! And we were, indeed. We started flight number two with the 1979 H. Jayer Richebourg. It had a fragrant nose with ripe red and purple fruits black cherry, cassis and plum. It was very open and complex and had lots of cola as well. Someone noted how they ‘love 1979s’ as it was a ‘very aromatic vintage.’ A touch of brown sugar rounded out the nose. The palate was intense, full of acid and citrus. The wine was long and lingering but very taut, bordering on mean. That touch of brown sugar carried over to its rusty palate. The nose got very exotic and saucy, and the fruit became oily and pungent (94). The 1977 H. Jayer Richebourg had mint jelly jumping to my mind first, and it came with a side of lamb chops as it had a meaty, grilled quality as well. It was very aromatic with faded, dried rose and a touch of vitamins. The palate was rich and delicious with nice, earthy fruit and good grip and length. It was surprisingly good. Eric called it ‘a little harder on the finish,’ and a close friend of mine said ‘it doesn’t have the mid-palate of ’79.’ It got a little earthy and stinky, but mint flavors developed as well. What a show for a ’77! I think this is the only Burgundy I have ever had from this vintage, and it wore it well (93). a close friend of mine noticed the chapitalization in the 1976 H. Jayer Richebourg right away, and it did have a sweeter profile that almost flirted with banana. It was definitely different than the ’79 or ’77 with that sweet, masked quality. one of my fellow enthusiasts was definitely operating! The palate was round and fairly rich, with decent leather, but it seemed simpler by all the other standards already set (88). The 1971 H. Jayer Richebourghad a ’45 second finish’ according to Eric, who was liking it a lot. The nose was brooding, shy yet forceful. It certainly did not have the chapitalization of the 1976, but a close friend of mine was wondering if there was still a pinch of it here. There were black olives in the nose, along with good leather and a touch of sugarplum. The flavors had lots of brown sugar, cedar and earth. The finish was long and strong, and there were loads of tension still to the palate. The finish went on and on and on, but in a fine, distinguished way. Eric added, ‘it sits on the mid-palate and sinks in.’ Someone called it ‘foxy.’ It was the finest finish of the afternoon so far, by far. It was reserved and brooding, and its fruit got sweeter and plummier (96). The 1970 H. Jayer Richebourg was a Lichine label but still domaine-bottled. It was surprisingly open in the nose with the brown sugar, tobacco, earth and a touch of tomato stew. There was good t ‘n a, very secondary but noticeable; make that tertiary as coffee grounds were secondary. The palate was a bit clumsy in its earthy, dirty flavors, although there was good wood on the back side. The mid-palate had a tiny hole in it, and a touch of benevolent garbage flavors rounded out the palate (88). The 1966 H. Jayer Richebourg hinted at what I like to call ‘hubba hubba.’ Its nose had gorgeous fruit on the black and purple side with nice t ‘n a. There was a rugged, earthy edge. The wine was sturdy and very dry on the palate will it ever flesh out? Eric loved the wine and gave it an EG 98! The palate was rustic and earthy, and I kept waiting for the wine to come out of its shell and never quite felt it like Eric (or Allen, as I later found out), although it was excellent and still had more potential at age 38 (93+). a close friend of mine could not get over the stem thing and vowed to do his own stem cell research in the cellars of Jayer. That was the end of the second flight.

The third flight had all the big guns lined up, starting with the 1985. The 1985 H. Jayer Richebourg at first blew me away. It was supercharged and a ‘wow’ wine. a close friend of mine added that the wine was ‘very big.’ There was a pungent intensity inherent in the wine with a touch of cat’s pee, some varnish/turpentine (really its t ‘n a), black cherry and citric acid. Someone gave it an ‘oof,’ adding that it had ‘so much fat.’ There was huge intensity to the palate with lots of grip, acid and citric intensity, or ‘stem acids,’ as a close friend of mine continued on his march. The wine was fine, o so fine, but then something happened in the glass. It started to get a little flabby with some air and very candied. The oak came out more and more, and there was a quick, noticeable drop in character quality. The coffee came out, but the mid-palate went home. What started out as the wine of the day so far transformed from a beautiful swan into a, I don’t want to say ugly, but rather a confused duckling. The wine was still excellent, but it went from 97 points to (94?). It was one of the more rapid transformations I have ever seen in the glass for a twenty year-old wine. The 1978 H. Jayer Richebourg, one of my all-time favorite wines, picked up the slack and more than made up for the deflation of the 1985. The color was so dark and young, always a sign of a great vintage. Musk and vitamins took charge in the nose. Twists of citrus, rose and leather danced around the nose as well. The palate was huge, and the finish was humongous, monstrous and gargantuan as if it was King Kong amongst a herd of gorillas. Ok, I know it’s not herd, but I can’t remember the right word, ok? What is it, gaggle? Tribe? Flock? Any anthropologists out there, let me know. We found out that this bottle came directly from the cellar of Henri. There was a touch of cotton candy, and its fruit got meatier, and its vigor held. The wine kept redefining itself on its finsh; it was an amazing, amazing wine (99). The 1964H. Jayer Richebourg was a left turn as it was maderized, the first really ‘off’ bottle for the day. It happens (DQ). The 1962 H. Jayer Richebourg had an exotic, luscious nose full of exotic black and purple fruits, a sweet glaze, and not much more. ‘It’s Zinfandel,’ a close friend of mine cried, half-joking, yet half-serious. ‘A la ’83 Lafleur,’ he continued. The wine was very meaty, dusty and long on the palate, with excellent definition on the finish and a pinch of citrus. There were also flavors of banana bread, old dictionary and brown confectioners sugar, if there were such a thing. It was outstanding (95). The 1959 H. Jayer Richebourg, unfortunately, was corked (DQ). I have had a 99 point bottle of that before. There was one wine left, or so we thought. The 1957 H. Jayer Richebourg had a stinky nose with a bit of hay and diaper along with earth, tobacco, wet dog and mushroom. The flavors were rich and ripe, however, but also dirty and meaty with its brown fruit, leather and autumnal flavors. Gordon was impressed with the entire afternoon, calling them ‘all smashmouth wines!’ (92)

A couple of other 1985 Richebourgs made their way into the lineup at the end, beginning with the 1985 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg. The wine was incredibly pungent with a nose full of cat’s pee, earth, citrus, old book and leather. The wine was huge, pungent and intense on the palate as well with that great Burgundian stink. It was a style of wine not made for everyone; you had to like pungency and intensity, an intensity bordering on masochism. Bacon, game and vitamins all emerged in this crazy wine, one bordering on genius in my book (98). The 1985 Mongeard-Mugneret Richebourg held its own in the nose and was quite fresh and youthful. There were citrus, game and ham aromas. The palate was soft and easy, nice but not great, perhaps suffering from the unfair position of 21st wine of the day, especially when Henri had a hand in the first twenty (90)! Someone opened up a bottle of 2002 Chateau de Puligny Montrachet Montrachet as a ‘fresher-upper.’ There were lots of bananas in the nose, and the wine was amazingly exotic with its guava and mango. The flavors were banana bread, and it was a New World Montrachet, ‘too much and not Montrachet for me,’ Eric said. It still had a lot of character, even if it was Caliesque (92).

There was a lot of heated discussion at the end of the tasting. We were told that Jayer’s favorite vintages were 1980, 1985, 1978, 1959 and 1962 by a nose over 1961. Allen liked the 1962, 1978 and 1966 the best on this day; Daniel the ’62, ’66, ’57 and ’78. I am not sure if it was in order of preference or not. one of my fellow enthusiasts made a very controversial statement, not saying that it was a definitive one, but a statement in the context of the afternoon. He felt that as the vintages got older, the wines did not necessarily get better, whereas in Bordeaux it seems that the older wines always get better in a similar, vertical-styled tasting. Someone then said that maybe Burgundies get older quicker, and another said maybe old Burgundies are great ’60 minute’ wines, not meant to be consumed over long periods of air-time due to the fragile nature of the Pinot grape. Another was quick to jump to Jayer’s defense, citing the fact that many winemakers take decades to discover their true genius, and perhaps Jayer did not hit his stride until the 1970s, and that older bottles have more variation for Pinot than for Cabernet. Another stood up for the extraordinary quality in the lesser years like 1984, 1977 and 1957, to name a few. Larry Stone shared a quote from the incomparable Clive Coates, who called Jayer’s wines ‘too oaky and not substantial.’ Wilf admitted that he was also not in a state of adoration but was quick to point out how much he appreciated the wines and how amazing the off-vintages were as well. Daniel was an adamant defender of the wines, saying how perhaps his personal feelings, due to knowing Henri so well, entered into his judgment, but he was not ashamed to admit it.

Personally, I thought that from 1971 through 1987 the wines were extraordinary overall except for one or two wines, that’s for sure. The 1978 remains one of my all-time greatest wines, tasted twice with consistent notes. The 1962 and 1966 were no slouches either, and the 1959 was corked, so what can one do? I did understand a close friend of mine’s point in that the tasting did not build into a grand finale and that the 1978, being the wine of the day for many, stole the thunder out of the end. Nonetheless, it was an amazing afternoon, and many thanks to the generosity of Wilf and Eric and their willingness to share some of their amazing collections.

1995 & 1996 White Burgundy Retrospective Hosted by Steve Tanzer

Steve and I always do a white wine tasting together in June, and this year we decided to take a peek at 1995 versus 1996 in White Burgundy, taking pairs of select, top producers and comparing them side by side. Steve decided to do the tasting ‘single, semi-blind;’ ie, where you know what is in each flight but not specifically which wine is which, and that added an extra dimension to our perspective.

Steve was chock full of information to start. Most of this paragraph is notes from his intro. Steve initially referred to the 1985 vs. 1986 tasting we did last year, and how he still remembered how ‘green’ the last drop was. In fact, he said that he was starting to drink his red Burgundies younger and his whites older. The reason he was most curious to look at these vintages is the fact that in the mid-nineties, many producers changed their cork treatments in white Burgundy to a peroxide solution that has not always worked out for the best. As a result, many wines have this early-maturing, oxidized edge that is unnatural. I asked Allen about this the next night, and he did confirm there being issues there as well. So, we had another controversy floating around about Burgundies, but I was still hoping for the best in this retrospective and that this controversy was more of an exception than a rule. Steve continued that he originally thought 1996 to be one of the great vintages of his generation for white Burgundy before the tainted cork issue started to change his opinion. In 1995, there was a combination of high grape sugars (from the small berries) and low yields, which was especially important in the flatter vineyards; 1996 did not have this problem as the crop was 50-75% higher! Better fruit could be selected overall as a result. There were murmurs early on in 1995 about rot, and the malos were very late. The quality was a bit all over the place, but many excellent to great wines were made. 1996 had a quick and regular flowering (similar to 2004, Steve noted), and the summer was not that hot or sunny. The rainfall in late August triggered fears of rot and unripe fruit, but the sun returned in September for three weeks of straight brilliance, and the North Wind kept the nights cool and the acidity high. It was a large crop with strong acidity and the cleanest fruit seen in a long time. The best 1996s are still young; the only downside to 1996 was that the yield was too high, and some producersoverproduced.

We started with a flight of four wines, featuring the Colin-Deleger Puligny Montrachet ‘Demoiselles’ and Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes.’ We did not know the order in which they were served, though, although we obviously knew that there was a 1995 and a 1996 of each. The first wine had an exotic nose with some edges of banana flamb eacute;, cinnamon, sweet butter and musk. There was a touch of yeast and yellow fruits, a pinch of caramel and corn. The nose was fat and wide but seemed to lack a centerpoint of acidity. The palate was oily, rich and round with nice minerals on the finish, a touch yeasty with a dash of inner citrus peel. Again, that centerpoint of acidity was lacking a bit. Custard developed in the glass, and it did have ‘sweet’ flavors as a woman at my table observed, but it lacked lushness to its fruit. Steve found it ‘leesy and nutty like an old Champagne.’ The unintegrated acidity held the wine back from greatness, and it came across lightly bitter as a result. It was the 1995 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ (91). Steve told us how Lafon has the best parcel of Charmes, which sits right next to Perrieres and has 40-65 year old vines. The next wine had a more buttery and richer nose, seeming similar in style to the first wine. It was also rich and buttery on the palate with caramel and banana flavors and aromas. The palate was also oily, with more acidity, just enough to hold it all together. There was light citric tension, slate flavors, and the wine was stonier and dustier. The acidity was there, but the wine could improve with more time and integration on the palate in this 1996 Colin-Deleger Puligny-Montrachet ‘Les Demoiselles’ (92+). Steve told us how the ‘Demoiselles’ vineyard was right next to Chevalier Montrachet and Montrachet and specially situated. The 1995 Colin-Deleger Puligny Montrachet ‘Les Demoiselles,’ served third in this flight, outshone its 1996 sibling. The nose was zesty and spiny with lots of great spice, bursting with yellow and white fruits, minerals, and ‘fairy’ dust as in a magical quality to the dust. There was excellent acidity here, although the wine was ‘back-ended’ on its flavor profile with the dust, chalk and earth components. There were still white fruit flavors, though. Steve found it ‘soft and broad’ with ‘perfect integration of acidity’ (93+). The last wine reminded me more of the third instead of the first wine even though it was the 1996 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes.’ So much for inside info! There was excellent zest and spice here with an extra layer of honey and banana, and it was also loaded with white smoke, steam, minerals and more spice. The wine was very tasty featuring great balance and length. It had the best balance of the first flight, and there were great flavors of dust, minerals and rocks (94).

We crossed the border with our second flight and left those premier crus behind. It was an interesting pairing: the Chablis ‘Les Clos’ of Raveneau versus the Corton Charlemagnes of Verget. We all agreed that if we could not at least tell the difference between regions in this flight, then we should hang ’em up! Verget’s parcels of Corton Charlemagne varied between 1995 and 1996, negociant that he is. In 1995, he made a blend of two parcels from the original Delarche holdings, including a West-facing and an East-facing parcel. 1996 came from only the East-facing parcel. Even Guffens (owner of Verget) himself has confided with Steve that some 1996s are fresh, and others are oxidized, referring to the cork taint issue. Steve also told us that despite the hype about 1996 being the vintage of the century in Chablis, Raveneau prefers his 1995s at the moment. Ironically, in Chablis, things were opposite vintage-wise, and 1996 was the tiny crop! It just goes to show how minor distances in geography can make a major difference in vintage quality. The first wine in this flight was brilliant. It had a fabulous, Chablis-like nose deep, long and clean, full of anise and minerals. There were secondary white and yellow fruits and a sweet, smokiness overall to the wine. It was unmistakably Chablis with its starfruit, smoke and granite. The wine had awesome breed. It was a white wine with grip, encompassing the mouth with its round and rich texture and long, gritty finish. It was a classic; the only negative was that it was a bit unyielding in its greatness, not necessarily ready to be disturbed. It was Bryan’s favorite of the flight with its ‘dense core of unevolved fruit, long finish and lots of promise.’ It was the great 1996 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos’ (96+). The second wine here had a more smoky, toasty and buttery nose, rich and oaky with an exotic banana-wax edge. The wine had a rich mouthfeel and was high in alcohol, which was somehow, still reined in. The wine was sturdy and very nice on the palate, more classic as its terroir took over, more classic than its exotic nose led me to believe. Steve noted the ‘great density and lift in the mouth’ in this 1995 Verget Corton Charlemagne (93). The 1996 Verget Corton Charlemagne at first seemed awkward. It was even smokier, oakier and toastier than the 1995 with the same kink as the 1995, except that it was more brutish and aggressive. It was also toeing the line with the oxidative issues to which Steve had alluded. The wine was rich yet clumsy at first, but with air it kept rounding out and growing, becoming very nutty. The power of the 1996 was amazing by comparison to the 1995, and ultimately it surpassed it, but the 1996 needed a lot more time in the glass before it was able to shake off its cobwebs and perhaps some cork taint. The 1995 may have been purer, but the 1996 was so powerful. Steve told us Guffens called 1996 ‘tight, high in acidity and young.’ Sounds good for the cellar (94)! Lastly, we were treated to the 1995 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos.’ Again, there was that distinctively Chablis nose, but the fruit was sweeter with more yellow spectrums and floral edges. Sweet pineapple joined the party, as did wax. There were great citrus flavors and spice on the finish. Bob noted ‘brioche,’ and Steve ‘a fascinating, wild nose of orange oil, coconut and great acidity.’ The 1995 was much sexier on this night, but the potential of 1996 seemed greater. The 1995 did become more classic with time in the glass. Steve called Les Clos ‘the Montrachet of Chablis’ and ‘great value for Grand Cru white Burgundy’ (96).

The final flight had six wines in it, each of them no stranger to greatness: Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Ruchottes,’ Niellon Batard Montrachet, and Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet, Domaine Leflaive, of course. The first wine had serious spice to the nose with intense alcohol and a pungent, lit match edge along with citrus wax and an iceberg-like quality which was tough to put into words. The flavors were very rocky, and there was fat to its fruit, but overall the wine was shy on its definition. There were some secondary vanilla and sulfur edges and lots of earthy flavors on its finish. Steve loved the wine and its ‘green, truffly edge,’ but I was left a bit confused, respecting its raw materials but wanting more in this 1995 Niellon Batard Montrachet (93+?). The next wine had an amazing nose that was incredibly forward, practically leaping out of the glass. It was full of vibrant, bright yellow fruits and had a drop of honey with a lot of musk. The wine was very exotic and floral and also had great minerality. The balance and length were just short of outstanding, and its spiciness delicious. It was a great bottle of 1995 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Ruchottes’ (94+), which flirted with an outstanding (95 point) rating. The 1996 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet took no prisoners. Joe noted the signature ‘hazelnut and flint’ qualities of Leflaive. I called it ‘toasted nuttiness,’ and Steve chipped in ‘gunpowder.’ We were all right, and the combination of the three observations resulted in the classic, aromatic profile of Leflaive’s wines. The wine was incredibly smoky with great spice. The minerals and freshwater finish were very expressive; the finish intense and spicy. Steve found the wine ‘very sexy and graceful’ and more ‘exotic orange’ (96+). The fourth wine of this flight won the Miss Congeniality award for the night. It was very exotic with loads of wildflowers, bread, mint, sweet cream and caramel. The mint was a Ramonet clue, as his winesoften take on that characteristic with age. The palate was rich, forward and spicy, still young yet balanced and fleshy, meaty and rich with supporting menthol and mint. Steve pegged ‘macadamia’ and admired its ‘Grand Cru weight.’ The 1996 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Ruchottes’ may not get better, but it will be drinking well for a little while, for sure. Man, those Ramonet ‘Ruchottes’ are great around age 10 (95)! The 1995 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was corked and (DQ). The 1996 Niellon Batard Montrachet was a special wine. The wine was smoky, exotic, oily and ‘dusty,’ Steve chipped in. There was a gorgeous floral quality, exotic orange and a ‘honeyed, buttery’ texture. The texture was superior rich, long, pure, beautiful amazing and superior. It is a magical wine (97). You can find more of Steve’s reviews on www.internationalwinecellar.com

Amoureuses Dinner with the Burghound

The following night found us at AIX on the Upper West Side with the Burghound, Allen Meadows, and a delicious assortment of Les Amoureuses, Chambolle Musigny’s most sought after and collectible vineyard. Allen has been a champion of the vineyard, feeling that it is one of three red (and one white) vineyards that strongly merit consideration for a Grand Cru upgrade. The others are Cros Parantoux in Vosne Romanee, Clos St. Jacques in Gevrey Chambertin, and Perrieres in Meursault. Due to politics, real estate taxes and the nature of inertia in the wine world bureaucratically, it will probably never happen, Allen reasoned. Even if they did get approved, some producers might not want to pay more taxes on their vineyards anyway! He said when an acre of Chevalier Montrachet is estimated at a worth of $30 million today, one can see how those taxes would add up rather quickly. Point made! Allen continued that Amoureuses is 5.4 hectares (2 frac12; acres per hectare), meaning about 15 acres. The thing that separates Amoureuses (and the other two red, Premier Cru vineyards just mentioned) from many other vineyards also is the fact that all the producers who have access to fruit right now are high-quality producers. So, not only is the greatness of Amoureuses due to the intrinsic quality of the terroir, but also due to the exceptionally serious grower community. Griottes Chambertin is another similar vineyard in that regard, he added. Cros Parantoux and Clos St. Jacques are even more extreme examples, as there are only three and five owners/producers of wines from each of those appelations! Allen was quick to point out, though, that none of his top ten wines of all-time come from any of these Premier Cru vineyards. Allen called Amoureuses ‘a more forward Musigny,’ a ‘Musigny-ette’ if you will, and said the main difference between Amoureuses and its Grand Cru neighbor is the structure and ageability. Amoureuses will age about 30-35 years, Allen said, and not much more usually. Amoureuses are good, middle distance runners. They will not hold as well as Musignys do. Allen continued on the topic of terroir. Clos de Beze was established in the 600s (as in A.D.), and the care and attention put into that vineyard over time is part of its terroir. Terroir is not just about land, he reasoned, and said ‘there is a cultural aspect to terroir.’ It was a brilliant observation, I must say. Allen is the most knowledgeable person about Burgundy that I know. If you love Burgundy and are not a subscriber, then you do not love Burgundy! His website is www.burghound.com

We did the tasting youngest to oldest, and the first wine was the 2003 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses,’ fresh off the boat, so to speak. Jefery of Los Angeles was here in New York and joined us, and he was impressed with its forward, ‘hedonistic’ qualities. Jef and I were instantly reminded of Steve’s comments the night before about 2003 being one of the hottest, if not THE hottest, vintages ever in the history of Burgundy. The nose was very musky and exotic full of sappy, black cherry and raspberry fruit. There was nice dust and light mineral components, but the wine was most definitely fruit driven, which most young Burgundies are not. The palate was chewy but marked by its youthful, alcoholic nature. Stems and edges of bitters were present as well. The wine was Caliesque (‘Cali Pinot’ Ray bah-humbugged later) in regard to its ripeness but still Burgundian in character and finish. The wine lacked layers, though, but perhaps that is a function of its youth and ripe fruit masking them (91). The 2002 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a much more classic nose with more tension, earth and vitamin. There was sexy, cherry fruit underneath that flashed like skin on legs. There was great character aromatically; the wine was deep and long, yet so refined and elegant. The wine kept sweetening in the glass and became a symphony of red fruits. The palate was huge, seemingly enormous for Amoureuses. It had a tidal wave of a finish with a crest of alcohol and a body of acid. We were in the presence of an outstanding wine here, full of character and length. It would ultimately be my wine of the night (96). The 2002 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a beautiful, pure, gorgeous nose. It was super-feminine in style with a wintergreeny, cherried fruit quality; one could argue menthol instead of wintergreen. There was light earth and leather rounding out the nose. The wine was very tasty, voluptuous and long. It was not nearly as powerful as the Roumier but still beautifully balanced and exceptionally rendered (94). Allen had a few, interesting (of course) comments about the first flight. He called the 2003 Roumier ‘a well done 2003,’ adding that there are not as many of them out there as one would hope. He stressed that 2003 is NOT a terroir vintage, not that the vintage was completely devoid of terroir, but 2002s are much clearer as a reference. He then warned that 2002 was ‘still not a vintage to back up the truck and buy everything in sight.’ I might disagree based on the two we had on this night! ‘I prefer 2001s,’ Allen continued. You know what that means? Buy 2001s! Five or six years from now when the prices explode like the 1993s are now (another Allen favorite), don’t say I did not warn you!

The second flight started with a 2001 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses,’ and I immediately saw some extra depth to this 2001 in comparison to the 2002 just before. There was more meat, fat, depth and breadth. Perhaps it was Allen using his Jedi force! Aromas of red cherry fruit, musk, earth and pinches of vanilla, nutmeg and cinnamon danced around my nose. There was nice spine to the wine; you had to dig to get to it but once you got there it was quite nice. The palate was big and brawny with lots of body, a touch rugged but still flirting with outstanding. The acids were long, great even, and the palate had excellent weight. The wine was just a touch brutish at this point, but the balance is there to suggest that in time it will be great. It was Rob S.’s wine of the night, and definitely at the top of my ladder as well. Allen cooed about Mugnier how understated it was, almost too subtle for most people, a little austere and not shouting at you. He continued that Mugnier makes a wine that requires you to meet it in the middle, and that you have to get to know it. He also cited D’Angerville as that kind of winemaker (95+). Back to Roumier we happily went, and the vintage was 2000. The 2000 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ was very musky with aromas of firewood, cedar, minerals and nutshells. There was excellent structure here, more so than I expected. The flavors were complex and in a slate, rainwater, dust and young rust direction. The fruit was good yet shy, and there was currently more fireplace and stem action. I was reminded of what my friend and known, Burgundian fanatic Don told me recently: when he is in the mood for something young, he reaches for a 2000 (92). The 1999 J. Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a shy nose, almost figgy and pruny but not in a cooked way. Upon further investigation, the wine also had smoke, tea and good wood aromas as well. The palate was tight and young with a great, vibrant finish that had lots of ‘pop’ in a rusty way. There was a nice, leathery intensity to its flavors; it was a complicated wine with a lot of personality. Bruce agreed that it had lots of personality as well as ‘direction’ (94). At this point, Bob quoted a famous ‘WC’ (either Fields or Churchill, but he couldn’t remember), saying ‘I only drink to keep my friends interesting.’ We were all amused at that one. Woodson then went into one of his tried and true theories, about how wine tastes/shows/is better on high pressure/low humidity days (ie, sunny and dry), as opposed to overcast, rainy, muggy ones. Ok, back to the wines the next wine was also a 1999, the 1999 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ It had a sexy nose with nice balance and still tension between its fruit and finish. There was bright fruit, lots of spine, earth and almost a benevolent glue. The palate was shut down, as most 1999s are, at least to me, a little screechy but hibernating. The texture and body were great, but the wine was super shy and reserved overall; it was like weight without mass. The flavors were nothing but rusty at this stage, but this should improve in time (92+). Allen took center stage again and spoke about the use of stems in Burgundy, and how many of the younger growers are shying away from using them, or only using 5-10% of them. Allen feels this is a grave mistake. He did cite Henri Jayer, however, as being very against the use of stems and quoted Henri once saying, ‘Have you ever put one in your mouth and liked it?’ However, look at , who uses up to 100% of the stems and indubitably makes the most ageworthy and complex wines in all of Burgundy. Yes, the wines are less interesting and enjoyable when young, but the tradeoff is longevity and complexity down the road. Sounds like a good trade to me! Allen also touched upon other vintages in Burgundy some more, saying ‘2002 is for wine lovers while 2001 is for Burgundy lovers,’ since the 2001s are transparent regarding their climate. He also went ‘sideways,’ most likely brought upon by a question or two from our eager group of attendees, saying how the Achilles heel of 1996 was the lack of mid-palate density, although the wines were transparent and pretty as well as the cleanest vintage of all time. 1999 was a ‘miracle’ vintage because there was high quantity and high quality. 1995 and 1998 both share a lot of similarities: both had rot, both didn’t ripen, and you needed vignerons that were ready to wait. The ’95s were much denser, he added. He continued that the density had to be there in order to use stems, that you have to have lower yields, and lower yields are where the dollars come in. Lower yields mean less grapes which means your wine has to be more expensive. Not everyone is willing to take that chance or make that sacrifice.

Flight number three began with another Mugnier, the 1998 J.F. Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ It was a little wild in the nose with a touch of mildew and stew. It blew off a little but was still there. There was nice, pure cherry fruit behind it, smooth and supple and accompanied by a splash of strawberry and stems. It got muskier in the glass. The palate was very bright, long and smooth with a great, satiny texture. It still had a bright and spiny edge in that Amoureuses, subtle yet sensuous, way. That mildew edge, though, never left, so I had to wonder if we had a perfect bottle, as 1998 is a fabulous year for Mugnier (92+?). The 1998 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ left no doubt as to the quality of the bottle. ‘Mmm’ is how my note started off. The nose was deep with waxy, plummy fruit and that same ‘twinge’ that the ’99 Drouhin had. There was solid t ‘n a with a nutty intensity that blended into this Moroccan spice. A splash of vitamins rounded out the nose with an edge of cinnamon. The palate was very spicy with lots of rust, earth, minerals and light citric tension. The acid was rock solid in this excellent wine (94). The 1995 Comte de Vogue Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had lots of ‘black licorice,’ as Bob observed. It seemed simpler in the nose by comparison to all the Roumiers, Mugniers and Drouhins we’d been enjoying. There was some t ‘n a, meat, yeast and a plummy side to the fruit. The palate was broad, however, earthy, spicy and screechy. Jefery didn’t like the style, and there were some stewed flavors (but good ones), and lots of vitamins emerged in the glass (92). The 1995 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a touch of benevolent green bean at first, with wintry aromas and cinnamon. There was a touch of that rotten, stewed 1995 edge found in the Vogue; perhaps rotten is a bad word choice as it was not a negative rotten. It was a ‘Dirty, Rotten Scoundrel’ rotten like MichaelCaine or Steve Martin. The palate had nice leather and spice and was quite meaty and fleshy. There was a shot of vanilla extract there, and the finish separated it from the Vogue (93+). Rob S. generously brought a 1995 R. Groffier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ Thanks, dude! Allen let us know that Groffier is actually the largest landowner in all of Amoureuses. Now why couldn’t it be Roumier? The Groffier had a shy nose, but it was consistent with the other 1995s. All the 1995s seemed to have the spice, spine and anise thing happening along with the rotten, meaty edge. The palate was sturdy with great balance and intensity. Long and sturdy with some green beans as well, the 1995 Groffier was very good, bordering on excellent (92+). Allen made a side comment as to why Bordeaux was more consistent: it is all about the quantity. If Roumier has two barrels of Amoureuses, he cannot declassify a barrel. The microscopic production levels of Burgundy wines make Mother Nature all the more powerful.

The fourth flight consisted of three 1993s, the vintage that ‘had it all,’ Allen cooed. ‘Naturally dense,’ it was ‘the best vintage since 1978.’ The 1993 J. Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ batted leadoff in this flight quite well. The nose was pungent and meaty with a touch of cat’s pee, meat, earth, citrus and ‘shine,’ almost like a varnish. Underneath, there was some red cherry fruit. The pungency stood out. The palate was rich, round, hearty and long. It was classic with its earth, leather and rust, all very primary. The meat, citrus and violet were secondary. The wine was bright with excellent tension (94). The 1993 Comte de Vogue Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ was loaded with ‘cough syrup,’ as Jef keenly observed. The wine was very stewed, and it was tough to get past the cough syrup in the nose. The palate was better, mentholated but with great density to the fruit. The wine smacked of potential but was still a little sickly and stewed. I think the bottle was a bit off (91+?) The 1993 G. Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had a weird nose in that a) there was not a lot there and b) what was there was violet, nut, light caramel and some earth. The palate was long, smooth and satiny, earthy, rusty and dusty with traces of game. It was very fine and long, and its density was superior. Pure and sexy, it was a ‘wow’ wine on the palate (95). FYI, Ron and Bruce brought up (and obviously felt) the 1990 over 1993 point of view, but it was then counter-noted how even Aubert de Villaine actually prefers his 1991s to his 1990s.

The final flight was upon us, beginning with the 1991 Comte de Vogue Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ There was ‘diatomaceous earth’ action, ie living organisms in the earth. It had to be Allen to come up with that one! There was dark fruit full of vitamins and stewed fruit. The palate was bright but a little weird. It could have been another off bottle (90?) The 1986 R. Groffier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ had the classic, stinky, Groffier nose, with an aged twist. Beefy, wild and weedy, the wine was intense, rich and meaty with citrus and Worcestershire. It was fleshy and gamy in a good way, and often his wines rub me the wrong way (91). The 1986 J.F. Mugnier had a gorgeous nose silky, satiny and plummy with a shot of grape juice. There were Welch’s flavors, good acidity still, excellent balance and nice length. The finish was spicy, and the wine was rich and smooth. Those of you who remember my review of his ’86 Musigny V.V. know that 1986 was indeed a special year for Mugnier (93+).

I will leave you all with one last, wise comment from Allen: ‘Americans are too vintage-centric.’ That is for damn sure. Great producers make great wines every year. Some just have to be drunk sooner than others.

Notes from our own Dave Hamburger on Part III of our 2001 Blind, Cali Cab Showdonw

I actually missed our final showdown, Part Three, of our 2001 Blind Cali Cab tastings (BUMMER). About 50 Cab lovers were in attendance, and our own Dave Hamburger took charge and took some notes from the tasting, and he kept the final tally of all the votes. Everyone got five votes, first place getting five points and fifth place getting one. The wines were not revealed until all the votes were tallied.

Here are some brief observations from Dave, who is studying to be a Master of Wine, and the final results. It should be noted that Foley and Switchback finished in the top five for the other two tastings as well (Foley got two first places, I believe, and Switchback a definite second at least once). Bob Foley makes both wines, as well as Pride. He seems to have the magic touch of the moment and has catapulted himself into the select group of elite winemakers in Napa Valley.

1. 2001 Switchback Ridge Cabernet Sauvignon Peterson Family Vineyard
Very expressive aromas of black fruits, full bodied with a creamy texture. Very hedonistic and sexy.
104 votes

2. 2001 Robert Foley Vineyards Claret
Out of magnum. Very young still showing, hard tannins, full-bodied, dark fruits yet balanced and well structured. (Perhaps the magnum prevented a third, first-place showing – JK)
86 votes

3. 2001 Pride Mountain Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve
A bit more closed then the Switchback but similar in personality, showed a bit more elegance.
58 votes

4. 2001 Merus Cabernet Sauvignon
Medium to full bodied, showed earthy tones and a bit of old world complexity, still excellent fruit on the palate.
51 votes

5. 2001 Harlan Estate Proprietary Red Wine
Still young, evolved greatly throughout the night. Obvious breed and character. Not as overt as Foley’s wines but more complex and sophisticated – a perfect mixture of new world power and Bordeaux style, great depth and structure. Longest finish of the night.
44 votes

6. 2001 Screaming Eagle Cabernet Sauvignon
This wine took a long time in the glass to open up; at first it was too earthy showing some old world funk. As this evolved, incredible aromas of licorice, minerals, red and black fruits emerged, along with a touch of old world leather.
43 votes

7. 2001 Colgin Cariad Proprietary Red Wine
This wine was the most exotically fruity of the bunch, The fruit was more citrus then black or red; it displayed an almost banana split ice cream kind of thing on the palate. An obvious crowd pleaser.
41 votes

8. 2001 Darioush Cabernet Sauvignon
In past tastings, this wine was more hedonistic and fruity; this time it showed more earth tones and was more on the elegant side.
27 votes

9. 2001 Paul Hobbs Cabernet Sauvignon Beckstoffer To-Kalon Vineyard
This wine was one of the most jammy and candied. The texture was round with low acid and fat ripeness.
23 votes

10. 2001 Lewelling Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Wight Vineyard
Also rich and ripe with lower acid, a bit short on the finish.
20 votes

11. 2001 Diamond Terrace Cabernet Sauvignon
This wine was more elegant; it showed good balance and was very St. Julien. Good structure and still young. Aromas had a hint of mineral and reminded me of the gravelly soil in Bordeaux.
19 votes

12. 2001 Schrader Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon Beckstoffer Vineyard
Very ripe and concentrated; a lot of flavor and fruit on the palate, showed a bit low acid, but was hedonistic and delicious.
15 votes

13. 2001 Stanton Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon
High toned red fruits on the nose, cherry and strawberry, medium bodied. A wine of elegance and balance. Surprised it didn’t show better.
8 votes

14. 2001 Dalla Valle, Estate
Surprisingly in last place, yet the wine did not show well. It was disjointed and had excessive wood on the nose and an astringent quality.
1 vote