By the way, that ’45 Romanee Conti I had the other week was a (99+), for those of you that were wondering. It is my first 99+ point wine; the wine was so good it made me redefine my personal envelope of wine greatness. We will taste two bottles again from the same batch at my ‘Top 100/All-Star Weekend’ next October here in NYC. In fact, that event will be made public this week. I expect very few seats available by the time last year’s participants have their say, but I am sure there will be a few, so if you are interested and have not already let me know, I suggest you do it immediately, as in right now. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

As luck would have it, Roberto Conterno happened to be visiting New York City around the time of our last scheduled Angry Man event, so I brought the two superpowers together for an amazing and historical evening of Monfortino, arguably Piedmont’s greatest wine. Wendy was our hostess extraordinaire, the one ‘Angry Chick’ in our group, and she put together an amazing meal at Lattanzi’s in midtown Manhattan. Roberto came with a translator, although much of the (mis)translation was done by our own Italian Stallion, ‘Big Boy’/Angry Man Roberto. This proved entertaining and at times a bit frustrating for Mr. Conterno, who we found out had a little Angry Man in him himself!

We started with a frankly disappointing bottle of 1964 Dom Perignon ‘Oenoetheque.’ The nose was complex, with ‘white toast fresh from the toaster,’ as Ray put it, and there were also additional, exotic aromas of vanilla bean and custard. The bread quality became soaked lightly in marzipan, and there was also nut and honey. It was smooth and round on the palate but did not have any acidity. The sweet flavors of white corn and caramel were not enough to overcome the lack of every Champagne’s most important characteristic: acidity. Therefore, it seemed flabby on the palate but was still complex and exotic enough to score (91), but it was more like a wine (still without acidity).

We started auspiciously with a maderized 1968. The wine still had a beefy and bouillon-y style to it and great acidity. Its mushroom, earth, leather and cedar were noticeable, as was blood and iron. Roberto commented how the maderization process is a three-step one, and how this one was not in the totally dead/third stage of being maderized, and he was right. There were still tannins and acidity, he explained, and also pointed out how some people actually like a wine in this stage. I totally saw what he was saying but still had to (DQ) it. The 1974 Ray was convinced was corked, but I didn’t get it that much and am usually quite sensitive to the affliction. Of course, those of you that know Ray know that Ray is always right! Nonetheless, I enjoyed its spine of leather and cedar with supplemental tar, roses and earth. There was also very good acidity and tangy flavors with some earth underbrush and dust. It was a very good but not great Monfortino and had nice traces of citrus, lit match and almost butter (92). Roberto told us that the 1979 was very hard to find because it was so good and drinkable upon release that everyone drank it up! Ray was loving it and playfully jested that ‘it blew the corked and maderized wines away.’ That was pretty funny. The nose was intense and very complex; there was a lot going on. There were lots of t ‘n a, great minerality, anise, black rose, beef, chocolate, iron and slate. It was a regal wine. It got the universally accepted ‘Wow’ by the Angry Man Roberto, aka ‘RR’ aka ok, that’s enough. The palate was big, beefy and meaty and full of cedar, tar, mineral, smoke and Cuban cigar flavors. It was chewy and long (95+). Someone asked Roberto about the significance of ‘Riserva’ vs. ‘Riserva Speciale’ on bottles of Monfortino, and the answer was absolutely nothing. ‘There is only one Monfortino,’ he said in English, and we all understood that loud and clear. The production of Monfortino averages only 6-800 cases a year, and Conterno makes about 4,000 cases in total on an annual basis.

The next flight began with a controversial 1937 Riserva Speciale (the only non-Monfortino wine of the night). In the end, it wasn’t as controversial as it was when everyone first saw it, because the color of it was horribly pale and light brown and looked more like a Sherry. The color was a tea rose and made everyone nervous, but the nose was actually very good with its perverse aromas of caramel, nut, tea and ‘parmesan cheese,’ as Ray put it. I told Ray that that was just Mike. Ha ha ha. There were lots of chocolaty flavors, and there was no doubt that the wine was more than fully mature. It was still smooth and very good. We found out that Giacomo was Roberto’s grandfather and responsible for the first vintage in 1920. I have never seen a bottle of Monfortino from the Twenties myself. Who out there’s got one? Back to the 1937, Ray caught some ‘pine needles,’ and Mike found it ‘all together.’ (91) The 1943 was in the third stage of maderization and undrinkable (DQ). The 1961 more than made up for it with its great nose that was both young and mature. It had the vigor and alcohol of youth but nutty, mature fruit as well as bouillon, chocolate, tar and rose. It was tasty, meaty and deep (95).

The 1969 had a stinky nose with a lot of horse, shit of the earth and some rose barely behind those with a touch of green. The wine was much better on the palate, containing a lot of ‘sour cherry’ and having a nice mouthfeel. It was very rounded, rich and earthy. It was one of the few wines whose nose was unpleasant (at least to me), but the palate was still very good (92+). The 1970 had a beautiful nose and ended up being one of my wines of the night. It was inviting and deep with its classic nose, and the palate was enormous yet somehow smooth. The fruit was mountainous with loads of beef and chocolate; thick, long and outstanding (96+). The 1971 was very good but disappointing in the context of other bottles of Monfortino I have had from this vintage. There was a touch of coffee and watermelon (I swear) in its exotic fruit. Cedar and anise (some of the usual suspects) were also there, and the nose was beautiful, more silky and feminine, satiny and smoother (94+). This flight probably saw the widest range of different opinions than any other flight of the night. It was at this moment of increased discussion that a whole, ‘nother discussion emerged, so much so that it deserves its own paragraph

Roberto thought that the 1971 would age the longest, but the 1970 took the limelight on this night, as it was more open and ‘took over all the mouth,’ as he put it. Speaking of tannins, Roberto went on to insist how they only use the tannins of the grape, finding tannins from the wood less important and in essence, less real. ‘A long maceration is very important to get the tannins of the grape,’ he said. ‘Alcohol, acidity and tannin are the three important things for aging, and the ’69, ’70 and ’71 have it.’ There were no arguments there, and when that is the case when you are with the 12 Angry Men, you know it is the truth! ‘It is difficult to pick a favorite,’ someone said. The fact that a 1989 Monfortino was never made came up, and the fact that all of the Monfortino went into the Cascina Francia that year. Speaking of which, how come Conterno’s ‘other’ Barolo gets so little attention. Conterno’s Cascina Francia is an amazing wine in its own right, but everyone seems to forget that fact. Don’t! Roberto told us that in 1974, his father bought the Cascina Francia vineyard and went on to give respect to his mother, ‘a pillar in Piedmont’ his French translator reasoned (she spoke Italian but was French interestingly enough). The story from Roberto was that his father went to his mother and said what are we going to do to increase business, and his mother reasoned that owning the land from which they made wine in Serralunga was the answer. Why? 1) To be able to get better fruit from the oldest of vines, to nurture and pay attention to these vines better, and to not be forced to buy random levels of qualities of fruit altogether, as many negociants offer the best of their fruit mixed with lesser quality fruit. 2) At the time, Cascina Francia was selling to other growers, so by buying the vineyard they would have exclusivity to its fruit and have a brand name with the vineyard. This is how they would make better wine and increase prices and business at the same time. Roberto continued about some of the philosophy behind how his family has made wine over the years. The last fifteen days before harvest, he stressed, are critical. In the vineyard, you can see where the grapes are best; these places also change every year. They choose the best grapes to go into Monfortino. The wine is born in the vineyard and spends a minimum of seven years in a giant 5000-liter oak barrel (sometimes a smaller, second barrel for any spillover depending on quantity of wine) before release. They bottle in July and release in the Fall when they are ready to release. The average age of the vines is 45 years.

The next flight was one a great one: 1988, 1990 and 1993. The 1988 seemed like a whole, new world as we entered a more youthful stage of Monfortino. The wine still had its baby fat in its nose and was nutty, almost syrupy, with lots of black fruits, tar, cement and peking duck. The wine was much heavier in its tannin and alcohol expressions, and the fruit was dominated by cassis and grape. After having all those older wines, this flight was definitively youthful. Roberto found the 1988 to be the ‘most complete at the moment.’ He then continued how 1988 was a disastrous vintage at Giacomo Conterno because it was the year that he started working full-time in the family business – HA! He was then asked when he started making the wine, to which he replied ‘never. The wine is made in the vineyard and in the winery you can only damage the wine.’ Ray found the 1988 ‘a little rough’ by comparison to the older wines, but it was still an excellent, bordering on outstanding, wine (94+). The 1990 was spectacular. ‘What a nose,’ I wrote. It was incredible – the fruit, the finish, the layers – the wine had it all. Roberto called 1990 ‘one of the great vintages of all time.’ There were also bricks, minerals, cedar, thick black fruits and a touch of syrup and liqueur. The palate was huge with great t ‘n a and a long and fine finish full of more cedar and minerals. Ray got ‘licorice’ in the nose and Jim picked up on some ‘peppermint’ (97). The 1993 is generally considered an unimportant vintage, but Roberto feels that it will be regarded differently in time. Wheels called 1993 in Piedmont the equivalent of 1980 in Burgundy in that people trashed the vintage, but in the end it turned out great. There was a hailstorm that limited quantity and put a black cloud on the 1993 vintage. The nose was fine and elegant with spearmint, cherry fruit and licorice. ‘Dolce and elegante,’ Roberto cooed. It was incredibly classic by Barolo standards with its tar, smoke, leather and asphalt and indubitably a beautiful wine, fine and smooth. The elegance and finesse to its style and length were intoxicating. I have to agree with Roberto that 1993, at least for Monfortino, is an outstanding vintage (95). The 1988 was served out of magnum, and Ray went into his magnum conspiracy theory about how a lot of producers put the best barrels into their magnums. Roberto said he does know some producers that do that, but obviously that he did not since they usually only have one barrel!

We went back in time again with the 1958, which had a gorgeous nose of complex truffle, mushroom, earth, nut, mature stew, game, beef and leather. It was on the mature side and not as good as the bottle that I had at Cru during La Paulee weekend. There were some vanilla flavors, but Roberto agreed that the ‘best bottle of 1958 would be the wine of the night.’ The wine still had some redeeming qualities and was not totally shot by any stretch of the imagination, so I gave it (93+?). The 1955, one of my personal favorite Monfortinos, had big-time Peking duck in its nose and was super exotic in that regard. There was also leather, cedar, minerals and earth with mature, nutty fruit but also saucy, rich and heady fruit. There were secondary qualities of soy, marijuana and chocolate. Roberto called it ‘one of the greatest bottles of 1955’ that he has had (96). The 1964 was no slouch, either. The nose was nice with a ‘touch of barnyard,’ someone noticed. It was rich, round and long with excellent mouthfeel and structure. Gritty, sandy, dusty and more gritty, the wine was on the leathery and earthy side with complements of mushroom and forest floor (95).

The 1978 was great as always, a veritable black and white shake in the nose, accompanied by deep cassis and plum fruits. Ray caught some ‘pine needles.’ The wine was smooth as silk and long, and there were complex flavors, but I have had better bottles. This bottle was a little softer than my memories of the wine, but Roberto thought that the wine needed more time to express itself and that it was closed right now and that it had the most potential of the flight. He would know (95+). Someone asked when would be the best time to drink this wine, to which Roberto replied, ‘I can’t speak about the future or thirty years from now. I prefer to talk about now.’ I just realized then that I had my spokesperson for Vintage Tastings, because that is exactly how I feel about wine myself! You can say that a wine is young and has a long way to go, but to say that it will be drinking best between 2015 and 2020, for example, is a bit incomprehensible to me. The 1982 had very dry tannins in its chocolaty and earthy nose, more mature than youthful. It seemed to be on a faster maturity curve than most of the other vintages. The wine was very spicy in an earthy way with sandpaper flavors. Ray was surprised by the 1982 and found it to be one of the better ones that he has ever had (94). The 1985 was a knockout, gorgeous wine. It was lighter up front at first but the tastiest wine of the flight by far with its smooth cherry fruit. The tannins really came out in the glass, and the wine was classic and great. ‘The most complete today,’ Roberto remarked (96).

I kind of lost my steam for the last flight of 1995, 1996 and 1997, but here we go anyway. The 1995 was very leathery and cedary with lots of sandy t ‘n a in the nose. However, it was softer on the palate but still had a long finish (93). The 1996 was great and full of black licorice. It was elegant, stony and long with great tannins and a hearty character. Long lived will be wines from the 1996 vintage in Piedmont (96)! The 1997 was so ripe, similar to the 1979 because of its accessibility. It had lots of potential, but I preferred the style of 1996 to 1997. Roberto liked the 1997 a bit more, his father the 1996, and his mother? ‘The Barbera!’ he joked. He continued that neither he nor is father are making a mistake. We will see how the 1997 stands the test of time (94).

It was a great night, indeed.

Twenty very serious and fortunate wine aficionados gathered at Bouley in late April for a celebration of 1960’s Burgundies. All wines came directly from the impeccable cellar of Dr. Shelley Rabin, with whom we have been doing dinners for years. Every time we do a dinner featuring wines from Shelley’s cellar, the types of wines we enjoy are usually very old and rare. We are talking wines like 1945 Mouton, 1945 Vogue Musigny, 1947 Cheval, etc. However, there has rarely been a disappointment (maybe 3 or 4 bottles out of hundreds), and the wines from his cellar are often exhilarating. Shelley bought most of his older wines during the 1980s and early nineties, and the provenance of his bottles is second to none. I am very fortunate to count him as my friend, and also fortunate that he enjoys sharing and tasting his great wines with others.

Unfortunately, Shelley had to miss the dinner as his wife broke her toe that afternoon in a freak accident. We were fortunate that Chet Kern, known Burgundy lover and expert, was able to join us in his absence at Shelley’s request. We started off with a token white, the 1969 Leroy Meursault Perrieres. While there is a lot of controversy surrounding some of Leroy’s older wines and late releases, there was no doubting the authenticity of this bottle. The wine had a gorgeous nose with beautiful toast, nut, caramel and bread aromas. There was a touch of orange in that orange beef way, without the beef, of course. If I was served this wine blind, I would have probably guessed 1986, as it had a lot of similar qualities to other wines from 1986 that I have had. The palate was very bready, and Joe found it a touch acidic.. Chet observed some lemon-lime custard. action and commented how he thought that the parcel of Perrieres used for this vintage is now under Coche-Dury’s control. The palate was definitely a step behind the nose and lacked the relative definition, but the wine was still very good, especially considering it was a thirty-five year old white (91).

Two wines from 1969 were the next flight, and they were accompanied by one of the best dishes of food I have ever had in my life, one involving egg, shrimp and truffles that was so unbelievably good, the urge to lick my plate came over me. Thankfully, that is why God invented bread. Normally, I do not write about food that much (writing about wine is enough!), but I have to say that David Bouley is still one of the great culinary geniuses of this era, and his restaurant is one of my personal three favorite in New York City. This was one of the rare times where the food was so good it stole the show from the wines this particular course, at least. The 1969 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes had an intriguing nose with menthol, earth, carob, leather, band-aid, mushrooms and a touch of Worcestershire. There were both pronounced animal and vegetable aromas and flavors. The palate had lots of alcohol and acid in its earthy profile, and also what seemed like a touch of wood must or barrel skin flavors. The palate was gamy and rusty, hot in the glass at first, but it did expand and gain in the glass, with which Chet concurred (93). The 1969 Bichot La Romanee had a deep nose, also with menthol as well as wound fruit, earth and tobasco. There was good structure on the palate, which was more classically rendered for a 1969 with its rust and earth (the Vogue had more lushness to its fruit). There was nice balance up front in the mouth, in a rugged way, but the finish had more spine and heat than the Vogue, and I found it to be a bit too much. The wine became more and more finish-heavy and lost its balanced qualities with more time in the glass, becoming a bit of a bruiser, though still respectable (91).

The third flight was arguably the flight of the night, and it made many of the attendees coo affectionately over the virtues of great, old Burgundy and the 1966 vintage. The first wine in this most memorable flight was the 1966 Vogue Bonnes Mares. Having had this wine before and finding it extraordinary, I was prepared for a letdown but got none. The nose was gorgeous with its milk chocolate, earth, stalk and pinch of white sugared Burgundy fruit. There were also secondary aromas of cherry and tobacco, and its earth component flirted more with actual dirt, but good dirt. The palate was great: spiny, gritty yet fine. There was nice citric tension to its palate with good animal flavors and lots of stony ones on its finish. Both Rob and George gave the wine 20/20 or 100 points (take your pick), and it was extraordinary. My only potential complaint about the wine is that it did not seem to get stronger in what little time it had in the glass, but there is nothing wrong with a wine being fully mature as long as it is still delicious, but it is a wine that I think should be enjoyed now (95). The 1966 Grands Echezeaux tried to deliver a knock out blow to the flight and almost succeeded. ‘s Grands Echezeaux remains the real bang for your buck when it comes to . The wine had a sensuous nose full of rose, black cherry, stalk, wet slate and chalk. What a palate, I wrote next, as it was meaty, rich, fine and still sensuous. There were great leather flavors, and while this wine also seemed fully mature, it seemed to have more inner strength without showing any signs of decline. Its power and richness held, and there was great depth to its Asian spice, dark chocolate and citrus dust components. Overall, the wine was clearly the most powerful of this flight and remained young in the glass (96+). Its sibling, the 1966 Richebourg, had a reticent nose by comparison but still possessed divine, fat, nutty fruit to its nose. There was this almost indescribable aroma of hot earth with its first sprinkle of summer rain. There was amazing power here as well; a lot of oomph but somehow reined in. The wine seemed to be spilling out of its bra. There was rose, mature cherry fruit and leather on the palate. George found it to be the third best wine of the flight, but still 18 frac12;. points. There were good dry tannins, and the wine was sneakily long (95).

The next flight was one of 1964s, beginning with the only magnum of the night, a 1964 Louis Latour Corton Grancey. There was good vigor to the nose with its pure red fruit, dust, light earth and pinch of brown sugar. The wine was sturdy, solid and earthy, and despite its decent finish, the wine was one-dimensional on the palate, both in general and more than any previous wine. Especially considering the last flight, this wine was in a bit of a handicapped position, but the wine was still very good out of magnum with nice minerals, earth, rust and iron on its finish (90). The second wine of this flight of 1964 wines definitely won most controversial wine of the night, and it was the 1964 Remoissenet Romanee St. Vivant. There was just not the depth or intensity one would expect out of Romanee St. Vivant, and the wine was lacking fruit. Chet wondered whether or not some Rhone wine was part of this blend, to which I responded that it was great Algerian wine. The wine was still average overall, but many felt that it was not what it was supposed to be, to no fault of anyone except those that made the wine (85?). The 1964 Leroy Mazis Chambertin was a crowd-pleaser and had a great nose with lots of components, including bread, nut, earth and animal. The nose was browned, but not in that tired or cooked way. This wine was excellent but still did not reach the heights of the last flight for me. Chet noted the iron of Mazis. in the wine, and it was there in a big-time way. There was also some earth, but the wine got a little dirtier in the glass with time (93).

There were only two wines to go, but they were both La Taches, and 1962 and 1961 at that! The 1962 La Tache had an amazing nose. The fruit was so pure, sweet and mature in the way that only great Pinot Noir can be with its game, mint and chocolate. It was amazingly delicate in the nose yet still full of stuffing, loaded with complex spices. The wine was super smooth, satiny and fine, and it had tremendous spice on the palate as well. Its lingering nature was the stuff of legends (97). The 1961 La Tache was a bit funky, still full of meaty and gamy spice but a bit tired. The wine had a touch of shit and dirty flavors to it, and although the wine was still meaty, I think that the bottle was not 100%, especially after having a mind-blowing jeroboam of this wine at CRU a couple of months ago that was out-of-this-world great. Remember, often bottled barrel by barrel back then, and many feel that the large formats got the best barrels. So while that jeroboam that I had was in 97 or 98 point territory, this bottle was a (93?) at best due to its texture and implied qualities despite the bottle variation factor and its tired nature.

About a week later, after a record setting April auction and a Henschke Hill of Grace vertical dinner (you’ll read about that one next week), I found myself in Las Vegas again for the Wine Spectator weekend. After a twenty-hour day on Wednesday generating the May catalog, I arrived in Vegas Thursday afternoon, still suffering from four hours of sleep and the traveling factor, only to be trapped in my hotel room facing a deadline to get the May sale done. Twenty-four hours later, around a good night’s sleep of eight hours, I finished the catalog just in time for a 2000 Barolo dinner hosted by Robert Parker at Valentino’s in the Venetian (you might read about that one later as well), although I feel that tasting should have an asterisk since the wines were open for eight hours in advance! While it did make the wines wonderfully approachable, I feel strongly that that much air time for young wines gives a skewed perspective on said wines. Therefore, I might not write up that event, although Parker was his usual charming self and full of some great stories and points throughout the night, so in the end I will probably end of sharing my notes for this evening, but I digress. After the Valentino dinner, we ended up in a close friend of mine’s hotel room for the real. tasting of the night and an unofficial afterparty for many of those in attendance, such as Thomas Duroux, the young and talented winemaker for Chateau Palmer, Gil Lempert Schwartz (aka Mr. Wine Vegas), Matt and Jef from LA, and many others that I cannot even remember. Thanks to my good friend Damani and his female friends for which we were waiting, we were running a little late to the afterparty. I arrived just in time for a swallow of 1962 La Tache out of magnum. Damnit! When a close friend of mine starts opening up bottles, you have to move quickly, but I was grateful to have just a swallow of this wine, which was extraordinary and consistent with the bottle that I had a week ago, perhaps even richer and fleshier (97+). a close friend of mine wasted no time opening up a bottle of1978 Romanee Conti, which was also extraordinary. While I am not as big of fan of the 1978 s as other vintages and often find them on the earthier and beefier side of ‘s style, this bottle had insane menthol flavors and incredible texture, being all it should be and then some. Its richness, mouthfeel and length all proved why this wine is $5000 a bottle or more (97). As if those two wines were not enough, 1996 Dom Perignon was flowing by the case, and other wines started to uncork themselves such as 1989 Palmer, 1964 Cheval, 1943 Cheval and one or two more that I cannot remember. Unfortunately, none of these wines I can effectively review for you except one, one wine which became a nuclear bomb for the evening, destroying every wine in the room once it was open, and changing my personal history of wine forever. After finishing off the last of my 78 Conti, I noticed that a close friend of mine had disappeared from the main room in the suite, so I investigated. Inside the bedroom, I found Carl and a close friend of mine quietly huddled in the shadows of this dark room with a bottle in a close friend of mine’s hand. Both of them looked like I had caught them with their hands in the cookie jar for a split second, but once they saw it was me, I was quickly welcomed to try the wine that was just opened, a 1945 Romanee Conti. There is not much I can say about this wine other than it is the greatest wine that I have ever had. I hate to deal in absolutes, and I have been blessed to taste many of the greatest wines made over the past hundred years, but this wine took the cake and proceeded to eat up memories of the dozens of other wines that I have had that could contend for the elusive title of Best Wine I Have Ever Had.. The aromas, the texture, the flavors, the finish all of its components were flawless, and the wine was amazingly fresh but decidedly and deliciously mature as well. The wine lingered for minutes after each swallow, and trying not to drink it all immediately required a superhuman effort. After a quick double. off the rocks, we let the cat out of the bag for a few select people and shared the wealth. I took my glass to the bathroom with me as the evening was catching up with me, and I had to take a piss, to be frank. So I place my glass of 1945 Romanee Conti on top of the back of the toilet, and there were at least two or three good tastes left. So I start to go to the bathroom, and within a few seconds, CRASH! My glass of 1945 Conti slipped off the toilet tank top and crashed to the ground. What kind of place has slightly curved toilet tank tops, so slight that you cannot even notice until your glass of 1945 Conti slips off of it! The Venetian gets my vote for worst-designed toilets of the last century. Since I am on the topic, they also need to learn how to stack a mini-bar in ALL of their rooms, particularly the ones with bars built in them, and they can also add a radio or sound system to their rooms as well. And slippers. Ok, I feel better now. Disappointed but unfazed, I emerged from the bathroom unscathed to the delight of the crowd who roasted me quite well. We partied away the rest of the night until I passed out on the couch, only to awaken the next day at 8AM, still hammered and feeling noticeably drunk. I took a quick look around me to get my bearings, only to find myself sleeping next to a close friend of mine on his bed! I must have crawled in at night since a close friend of mine was kind enough to let me stay sleeping on his couch. This is not how I had planned my weekend to go, I thought to myself. Now, save your jokes for another time, as there was no Planes, Trains and Automobiles action, aka no spooning or cuddling, and I was fully dressed on top of the covers while a close friend of mine was safely underneath. I gathered myself and quickly headed down to my room, scaring a few small families in the process (let’s just say that I wasn’t exactly prim and proper at the time).

So, my agenda for Saturday (and actually Friday all day too before the catalog got in the way) was to play poker, Texas Hold Em, No Limit, the greatest card game known to mankind. Unfortunately, I woke back up at noon, and a close friend of mine called me in a timely fashion to remind me that Carl had invited us to lunch over at Tableau in Wynn’s Resort and Casino. It was opening weekend at the Wynn’s, so there were a lot of people in town. Carl had a special hookup at Wynn’s so we ate in a VIP area where the Donald (aka Mr. Trump) was holding court with a few people and his beautiful wife, Melania, who definitely checked me out for at least four seconds. I can’t blame her J. Steve Wynn walked by, etc., so all that was fun and exciting, but as lunch drew to a close, my poker itch had to be scratched, as I only had about four hours of time to play before the Spectator event. So I went to the poker room at Wynn’s and played, breaking even in the end but gaining valuable experience in my quest to play with the pros one day. Don’t worry, I won’t be leaving my day job for that! There were a lot of $1000, $2000 and $3000 pots at our table, not that I was in too many of those, but I did go all-in three times successfully, and it was a good table. I made about three or four bad plays that I am chalking up to lessons learned. Players welcome in NYC.

So the Spectator event was fun, but after going to it I wished I had spent the extra two hours playing more poker! The most noticeable wines being poured were 1996 Dom Perignon, 1996 Margaux, 1996 Cos d’Estournel, 2001 Palmer, 2001 L’Angelus, 2000 Magdelaine, 2002 Rudd Estate Cabernet, 2000 Rivetti Barolo, 2000 Giacosa something-or-other, and a few others I cannot remember right now. I got to see old friends such as Kent Rosenblum and Giorgio Rivetti, but overall there were not a lot of truly great wines there this year. Earlier in the day, while I was playing poker, a close friend of mine bumped into Daniel Boulud, who insisted that a close friend of mine go to his new brasserie at Wynn’s. We had a fabulous meal there and had some great wines, including a very good 1976 Dom Perignon Oenotheque. (i.e., recently disgorged and released) that was nowhere near the 1973 in terms of greatness, but still a very good bubbly in its own right (92). We then had some outstanding bottles (there were ten of us) of 1985 Richebourg, which was full of menthol, beef, iron, earth and autumnal fruit flavors, with excellent acidity still (95). We segued to a magnum of 1978 Stag’s Leap Cask 23. courtesy of Matt which was excellent, very cedary and minerally but also with some chocolate-covered coffee fruit flavors and a long, gritty finish (94). We finished with a couple of 1990 Cheval Blancs, still a baby in terms of its development yet somewhat approachable on this night. The monstrous alcohol and tannin of bottles past were more under control, and its shy, sexy red fruit qualities seemed to be coming out of their shell. The earth, mineral, wintergreen and Cab Franc kink were all there, and Carl and a close friend of mine were really feeling the wine. I think it will be a great wine, but patience is required, and it is far from a state of opulence, remaining in a state more suited for wine intellectuals than actual drinkers (95+).

There was another afterparty, but I was quite exhausted by the time it started happening. A jeroboam of 1983 Margaux had been opened but was slightly musty, although many found it undrinkable. I did not have the energy to monitor it for what was the remainder of the evening, however (DQ). There were three more wines that I sampled, and all were outstanding plus (95+): the 1974 Heitz Cabernet.Martha’s Vineyard, the 1990 Sandrone Barolo Cannubi, and the 1990 Altare Barolo Arborina.. The Heitz was from the same case as the one I had a couple week’s prior and consistently great. The 1990 Sandrone is one of my favorite all-time Barolos, and this bottle was a great one, although I was too exhausted to pinpoint its greatness other than the fact that it was at the very least outstanding. The Altare, which is still an insider’s Barolo, stood toe-to-toe with the Sandrone and was also outstanding. The Altare was more classic in style and did not have the fatness to its fruit that the Sandrone possessed, but picking a favorite between the two would have required a good night’s sleep and a fresh start the next day. When I saw a close friend of mine dozing off first on the couch on this night, it looked like the best idea anyone had all day, so I proceeded to slither downstairs and call it a night.

Nex trip to Vegas, I am playing at least twenty hours of poker, though. Come to think of it, I need to go to Atlantic City more often. Who’s all in?

I shot out to Los Angeles in the middle of the week before our March auction, a rare mid-week trip for me, but L.A. was calling thanks to a very special event put together by the real. Jef Levy, as his friends like to call him. No slight to the other Jeff Leve out there in L.A. who is a most knowledgeable and passionate collector in his own right; it is more of a running gag than anything else.

So Jef belongs to a tasting group in Los Angeles called DDB, aka Deaf, Dumb and Blind, the brainchild of Los Angeles. #1 kvetch, Matt. Those of you who received my short-lived printed versions of Vintage Tastings (there were four published volumes in 2003 and early 2004) may remember the DDB. It is still going strong, and the premise behind the group is simple: the host puts together the wines and serves all the wines blind with no leaks of inside information prior to the event. So the onus is on the host to select some great wines, as if the host does not, kvetch, a close friend of mine and others in the group are sure to bring shame to said host and most likely their children, grandchildren and grandchildren’s children for many decades to follow. Everyone pays their own meal at any given DDB event, and this one happened to be at Spago’s.

So Jef started us off with a couple of magnums of 1982 Champagnes, not served blind, and they were the 1982 Louis Roederer Cristal Rose and 1982 Dom Perignon Rose. Now that is a good start to any evening. The 1982 Cristal Rose was gorgeous and pure in the nose with the classic Cristal elegance and finesse but still meaty underneath. There was a kiss of rose flavors as it was just starting to show some signs of maturity but still showed very youthfully. There was a long finish and another kiss of bread flavors (this bubbly had me blushing, for sure). George observed similarly that the Cristal was very smooth but still has meat behind it.. There were lemon flavors underneath, and this outstanding magnum of Champagne widened out in the glass (96). The 1982 Dom Rose was no slouch, either, as its nose exploded out of the glass with more chocolaty bread and strawberry fruit. The palate was big and brawny, but its flavors struck me as a bit oaky. The palate was still very fresh, with more razor-like qualities to its overall impression, both clearer and quicker as well yet not as meaty and full of cherry fruit as the Cristal. The nose got crusty in a rye bread way. The Dom might outlive the Cristal, but it lacked the expansion and expression of the Cristal on this evening, and the oaky streak bothered me a bit on the palate (94+).

The games began with flight #1. I should say that I knew 90% of the wines in advance, as I served as Jef’s advisor for the evening. However, even knowing most of the wines in advance, I still found it difficult to identify many of the wines exactly. Tasting blind is one of th198e hardest things to do, no matter how much experience you have, and that is the premise behind the group. Jef gave everyone one clue about each flight, and this flight’s clue was same decade, two different countries.. The first wine was unfortunately maderized, which happens sometimes when opening up wines such as 1928 Haut Brion (DQ). The second wine had a seductive, deep nose with some aromas of caraway, chocolate, bread and pollen. There were wood shine and rye flavors to the wine, which was smooth, mature, earthy and bready. The palate was quite velvety with lush tannins that were fully integrated, and food made the palate more chocolaty and brought out a touch of dandelion sweetness. It was the 1925 Marques de Murrieta Castillo Ygay Gran Reserva Especial (93). All identities for each wine were not revealed until after each flight was tasted and discussed, fyi. The third wine of flight number one had a sweet, leathery nose with more black cherry aromas, seemingly lighter than wine #2 at first, but in an on its feet. kind of way. The palate was soft and sumptuous, fully mature and beautiful with its leather, cedar, nut, earth, ash and morning-after fireplace aromas and flavors. Smells like Lafite, a close friend of mine hypothesized. It was a beautiful 1928 Gruaud Larose (94).

The next flight contained four wines, and Jef’s clue was same producer, two decades and one ringer.. The first wine had a gorgeous nose, and it was clear that we were in Burgundy territory. Our resident sommelier to the stars, aka Christian, definitively put the stamp on the fact that we were tasting Burgundies by calling it, serious wine.. The nose had a soft and inviting quality with its rose, cherry, light earth and prime real estate action. The palate was rich, meaty and beefy, both sturdy yet mature at the same time. The finish was big, firm and earthy yet balanced. With some air, its tomato qualities came out, and I believe it was a close friend of mine who commented on its sweet, chapitalized fruit.. It got a little BBQ in the glass as well, but it did not have as much staying power in the glass as the other wines in this flight. Christian and I liked it a lot though, and it was another tasty wine from 1983, a 1983 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (94-). I have decided to add a minus. to my scoring system for wines that evolve quickly in the glass and therefore seem to be less likely to improve, and more likely to become inferior, with time. However, it was so tasty for the first half-hour that I felt it deserve its 94 as I began with 94 and ended with 93 points over time. The next wine had a much younger nose with more black cherry fruit and a touch of menthol, noticeably more modern in style. a close friend of mine noticed that this producer flirted with the line between modern and traditional.. The wine was rich, beefy and loaded with vitamins, possessing menthol flavors as well. The wine was very big, shy and young, but you couldn’t ignore it in that bouncer-outside-the-club-you-want-to-get-into kind of way. a close friend of mine loved this wine and its purity, and so did I as there were tremendous, secondary complexities and acids. It was the great 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (96+), one of my favorite wines from 1990. The next wine was corked, and what a bummer as it was a 1990 La Tache. We all consoled Jefwith the it’s the thought that counts. routine, as all benevolent wine lovers should do in the case of a corked or cooked bottle. The last wine of the flight had lots of pepper, Dave observed, and a close friend of mine guessed accurately that the last two wines (not counting the corked wine) were from the 90s and the first one from the 80s.. This wine was similar to the second wine of the flight in its sturdy, beefy nose and traces of menthol. There was black cherry fruit and more presence of stems as well. The palate was big and sturdy, Leroy-esque I thought even though I knew it was not, and there were more vitamin flavors. This 1993 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V., which has disappointed me on more than one occasion, was squarer next to the 1990 but still excellent in its own right and one of the better showings that I have had. (94) a close friend of mine wrapped up the flight with some astute comments about Clos de la Roche being all about the chocolate and liqueur, and called the 1990 atypical Ponsot..

The next flight began with the following clue from Jef: two different producers, same appellation.. The first wine had a sweet, cedary nose that had rich and fat fruit and additional aromas of carob, pencil, walnut and light vanilla extract. The wine was smooth, supple and delicious. It lacked that extra weight or dimension but was still excellent, and it was the 1953 Lafite Rothschild (94). The next wine was a touch maderized, still rich, creamy and lush on the palate with more old oak and vanilla flavors. It could easily have been DQ’d, but I saw enough in the wine to give it a (92?) due to its texture more than anything else. It was a 1953 Latour. The third wine smelled great. Andy remarked right away, and it did have a delicious nose. The nose was deep, chunky and chocolaty and really stood out as youthful, containing a touch of malt soda. The wine was rich, creamy and smooth, long yet feminine in a skin-tight, full leather outfit kind of way. Delicious and exquisitely balanced, the wine was super smooth yet noticeably larger than the first wine of this flight, almost like a bigger, stronger brother. The wine got spicier in the glass, and it was the best 1959 Lafite Rothschild that I have ever had (97). There was a bonus wine in this flight, just for the heck of it, and the wine was fairly rich, tasty and smooth, yet more one-dimensional on the palate after the 59 Lafite. The 1962 Latour had a good finish, but its flavors were on the gravelly and earthy side (90). a close friend of mine commented how he felt that the 53s were starting to fade and just getting to that last hurrah. stage of holding on. Others have said that the 1953s have been fully mature since release, and I think that most of the better wines from 1953 are definitely on a plateau, perhaps on a slight decline, and are definitely wines that should be enjoyed over one or two hours as opposed to three or more since they are not wines with a lot of stuffing. They are certainly delicious, though.

Onwards, we continued, and it was right about now that half of us couldn’t eat any more. They do feed you well at Spago’s, I must say. Our clue for this flight was same wine, three decades and two magnums.. The first wine had a deliciously minty nose full of sweet cassis, cedar and caramel. The cat was out of the bag quickly as Dave immediately guessed Heitz Martha’s, and Brad agreed that the wine did have a lot of eucalyptus.. The flavors were chocolate sprinkles and vanilla ice cream in this super smooth and lovely 1965 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. (93). The next wine had a gorgeous nose with its mint, chocolate and eucalyptus we had to be in 1974 territory. The palate was rich, chunky and chocolaty with good earth flavors to match. The wine was long and smooth, beautifully balanced yet possessing lots of gut-checking acids. A rich touch of toffee flavors and a dash of cinnamon aromas and flavors rounded out this outstanding 1974 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. (96). The next wine had a tough act to follow, but the similar style came through. It was definitely younger, possessing more cassis in its nose, and its alcohol components were more noticeable, blending into its varnish/polished quality. The wine was quite sturdy on the palate and gave a very youthful impression, and the magnum factor certainly heightened this fact. There was a Cote-Rotie spike to the wine, which was rugged and dirty on the palate, where its polish and varnish qualities became accentuated in the glass as a little cardboard crept out in this magnum of 1978 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. (91). Unfortunately, the next magnum of Heitz, the 1985 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard, was corked (DQ). That is another wine that I have had more bad luck than good. Someone said at this point that Bob Foley, California’s hottest winemaker at the moment, worked for Heitz during the 1974 vintage, not that he made the wine, though. Can I get a fact check, anyone?

The almost final flight was all 100 point Parker wines, according to Jef. It was at this point that we got into a brief 100 point debate and how I do not believe in perfection, but rather the pursuit of perfection, which is why my highest score is 99 points. Then someone remarked, well, 99 points is your 100 then.. I never quite thought about it like that, but it was a good point, I will admit, one that put a small pinhole in, without bursting, my bubble. The first wine was super-duper. intense (all that education and super-duper still applies). It was meaty with menthol, bacon, white pepper, earth and mineral. On the palate it was incredibly rich, oily, thick and creamy, both tasty and balanced in a massive way. There were flavors of roasted meat and a distinct impression of muscle, cut, ripped and agile in its enormity. The wine was long and fine only to become longer and finer. We were in 1983 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. territory (96). It was after this wine where words started to elude me, but the impressions were still staggering. The next wine had a 45 second finish. according to Dave, so I joked, did you time that finish?. Right on cue, he checked his watch. It was a wow. wine, for sure. The wine was emotionally intense, so rich and meaty and full of coffee liqueur. It was amazingly young, but both Dave and I concurred that it was older than we thought. a close friend of mine gave it the elusive six stars, and I gave this 1978 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. (99). The third wine had another fabulous nose, young, musky and sappy, marked by blue fruits and oil. It was long, rich, smooth and lush, another wow. wine. It was the 1991 La Mouline.(97). Yum. When it comes to Guigal, La Mouline is the one for me.

The last official flight was five wines, and the clue was two producers, basically a decade except it’s five decades.. That got a big laugh. I only had one note left in me though. Someone noted the first wine’s port-like. qualities and guessed 61 Latour.. It was incredibly rich, chocolaty, meaty and big. It was a spectacular bottle of 1959 Latour (98). I was officially shot for the 1961 Latour, 1961 Lafite (which was kind of cooked anyway), the 1947 Latour (which was kind of corked anyway), and the 1982 Lafite, which a close friend of mine loved but seemed very anti-climactic and simpler in the context of all these other wines. Perhaps I was shot by this time, perhaps it was this bottle, or perhaps it was the truth! It just left a less than va-va-voom impression. I declined to rate this one for the record.

We all headed over to the Grand Havana Room for cigars and cocktails, a divine 1900 Taylor Port and a pretty good 1924. We soon disappeared into the haze of the Los Angeles night one by one, some two by two, and some good night, Gracie.

Before I get into the California Cabernets that I tasted this past month at two separate events, I would like to remind everyone that I will be hosting another All-Star/Top 100. weekend October 21st.23rd , 2005. For those of you who missed it or for any new readers, you can read about last year’s incredible event on The Top 100+ Wines of the Century aka The Big One

This year’s event will not be quite as extravagant as last year’s but will feature many wines from the same, great producers, but there will be different vintages and bottlings and some new faces, of course. There will only be three meals (no doubleheader on Saturday), and we will not feature more than 100 wines for the weekend as opposed to the 150 we approached last year. It will be another incredible weekend and hopefully give everyone reason to come to New York this Fall and enjoy the city in all of its autumnal splendor. If you are interested in being one of the first to hear about this amazing weekend, then email me back ASAP, so I can get you on the advance notification list. There will only be 30-40 seats available, so space will be very limited. I am sure you will at least want to take a peek and see what we will be putting together!

Back to our regular programming Earlier this month, we did a tremendous perspective of 1970’s California Cabernet at BLT Steak, thanks to my West Coast friends, Andy and Matt, who relinquished a few gems from their magnificent cellars. Things got off to a bumpy start at BLT Steak, as the Champagne was being served in regular wine glasses (until I noticed), and then I discovered that the food was being served family style, aka help yourself. Now, don get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, and there was plenty of delicious food, but it was a surprise to me and a first, so it made me a little uncomfortable when the food came out and I saw what was happening. It bothered me so much at the time that I flipped out a little in the back, which I am proud to say was the first time that ever happened. Normally, I am pretty easy to please at these dinners. It was too crowded in the private room for them to really serve us, but thankfully everyone was relaxed and fine with the whole format, so it was no big deal. These dinners do bring out the best in everyone. As I said before, the food was excellent, as Laurent Tourondel is a great chef, and I highly recommend that you bring a coat to check for reasons that I will leave to the imagination.

I quickly settled down to get into the first flight, which started with a 1978 B.V. Private Reserve. This was the only bottle NOT provided by my friends, as Andy discovered that he did not have it in his cellar after all, so we went on the internet and found the best-priced bottle we could find. It was shot. When it comes to wine, the best price on the internet is not necessarily a good thing (DQ). We quickly recovered to enjoy an excellent 1978 Mondavi Reserve, which had a fresh nose, was purple in color and had a nutty, bready quality with touches of caramel and chocolate. There was a touch of earth and minerals to its palate, which was full of rich, cassis fruit. The wine was meaty, rich and smooth with a kick of alcohol and integrated tannins. The wine was fully mature with good grit to its palate and a drop of honey (93). The 1978 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. closed out the first flight with a very complex yet shy nose. There was some signature mint and eucalyptus, good tannins and alcohol there, and a little chocolate rounding out the nose. The palate was meaty, rich and hearty, younger than the Mondavi and more wound, but ultimately not as satisfying. Some floor wax/cleaner flavors marked it a bit (92).

We started the second flight with an amazingly fresh 1978 Diamond Creek Volcanic Hill.. There was pure fruit full of grape and cassis, light earth and nut. The nose was incredibly youthful. There was good structure to the palate; the wine was very slaty, chalky and minerally, very much on the rocky and earthy side of the flavor wheel. There was good flesh to the finish, but overall the fruit was taut on the palate, and one could see the volcanic. side of this wine, which did not hold as well in the glass as some of the other wines (91). The 1978 Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley. (they made a Sonoma this year as well) was again amazing, just like it had shown a couple month’s ago at an Angry Man dinner. The nose was rich, hearty and smoky, full of nut, cedar, cassis and plum. It left an intense impression with its rock solid t n a, meaty core and marinated, grilled and medium-rare nose. There was great power to the palate, which was intense, full-bodied and long. The wine was balanced and gritty with a touch of emerging coffee flavors (95). The 1978 Caymus Special Selection. was perfumy, according to Bob. The nose was very sandy, minerally and leathery with some plummy fruit behind it and a touch of cedar and alcohol buried in its shy, wound personality. The wine was spicy on the palate, a bit hot in a sandpaper way. It had the biggest finish of any wine so far, and a monster fruit profile. as Matt (who was in from Cali) noted. Some green olives crept in, but the fruit did continue to ripen as the wine expanded in the glass (94).

We put the 1978 vintage behind us as we began the third flight, which brought us back to B.V., a 1976 B.V. Private Reserve, to be exact. The 1976 had a simpler nose, the stewed tomato thing. Matt pinpointed, going on to call it typical 76 B.V.. It did have some leather, chalk dust, carob and oak in its nose as well, and the palate was caramelized, possessing no tannins whatsoever anymore on its short finish. A touch of lemon juice and weird spice emerged in the nose, and Bob called it undrinkable, which he modified to not that bad, but not pleasant.. The wine was average at this stage in its life (85). The 1976 Caymus Special Selection. had the same perfume of 78, Bob noted right away. The 1976 seemed both more mountainous and ripe to me at first, and there were distinct charcoal, chocolate, cassis and nut-crusted bread aromas. There were some light traces of olives on the palate, which was very dry despite a flash of blackcurrant fruit. The palate was still rich, fleshy and gritty, and Adrian noted a touch of mint. (93). The 1976 Joseph Phelps Insignia. had an exotic nose full of perfumed, leathery and nutty fruit. The wine was sexy with its perfumed cassis, plum and vanilla aromas. The wine had an incredible finish, a lip-smacking, great finish that was long, defined, gritty, sturdy and spicy. Jim had a La Mission. flashback, and it was a good call as the wine did have that touch of gravel and ripe, chunky fruit of La Miss. The wine was indubitably great (96). The 1975 Joseph Phelps Eisele Vineyard. also had an exotic nose, with that Italian pastry/marzipan quality in its bready and spiny nose. There was no mistaking its alcohol, and there were truffles and a scallop edge, I curiously wrote. The palate was sturdy, gritty, rough and rugged and seemed like it needed more time to open up. It was a touch dry, and the fruit was on the earthier side in the mouth (94+).

The fourth flight was all about the fours, the 1974s. The 1974 Mondavi Reserve was an off bottle, although the nature of its off-ness. was debated a bit; i.e., was it corked, cooked or miscellaneous other. I thought it was corked first and foremost (DQ). The 1974 Mount Eden Estate had a gorgeous nose full of fireplace and cinnamon aromas, spice, smoke, earth and oatmeal. Bob picked up on its leather flavors, and there was also nice touches of menthol and earth ones (93). The 1974 Mayacamas had that pungent Mayacamas nose, I wrote. It was forceful, alcoholic and loaded with anise and mountainous, dark, dank, deep purple fruit not a ripe purple, but rather a deep purple. The palate was very alcoholic, sturdy and long yet still smooth. The tannins were buried here, but definitely there (94). It was 1974 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. time. Is there a more storied and fabled Cabernet in all of California? Perhaps the 1941 Inglenook, but there is a much smaller group of storytellers for that wine than the 1974 Heitz. This bottle lived up to the hype. It had huge mint. in the nose, a veritable printing press for currency, I thought, and then I had my own flashback of Mouton Rothschilds from the 40s and 50s. Bob joked a julep at Churchill Downs.. I think those are enough references for its minty qualities! The wine was meaty, rich, smooth, chocolaty and delicately spicy. The wine also gave me an acupuncture impression with its precision and prickle on the palate. Chocolaty, meaty and rich got written again by me you get the idea (97).

It was a tough act to follow, and the 1970 B.V. Private Reserve had the dubious distinction of being the first wine in the last flight. Bob said that this was B.V.’s last chance. here, and he took the words right out of my mouth! The nose showed more promise with its butter, caramel, honey, musk and oak aromas. The palate was fairly rich, hearty and spiny. The rich, caramel flavors, tannins and earth qualities were all solid. The 1970 saved B.V.’s day, but it did not hold in the glass as well as its initial impression gave me (91). The 1970 Mayacamas had a bit of a urinal aspect to its nose, that floor wax/chemical/anise gone bad thing all in one. The wine was quite tannic, and there were those same chemical flavors along with tree bark, leather and spice. The wine was a bit weird, but its chemical components did start to blend into its other qualities with time in the glass (92?). The 1970 Heitz Martha’s vineyard had a good stink, according to Adrian. Raw and uncensored?. I asked, playfully. The nose was rich, chocolaty, meaty and minty sensing a signature style here? There were eucalyptus flavors and a sun-dried meat quality to its palate (94). The 1971 Ridge Monte Bello. was the grand finale, and any one lucky enough to have a 1970 Monte Bello. or 1971 Ridge Eisele Vineyard. know that Ridge is as good as any Cali Cab producer from this era. The 1971 had a firm, intense and deep nose and flirted with an oaky, woodsy, barky edge. There was an exotic touch of banana and some weirdness at first. The wine needed some time in the glass to overcome its weirdness and integrate into an alcoholic, spicy, long, fine and classic California Cabernet (94).

This evening yet again proved that some of California’s pioneer producers, especially Heitz, Phelps, Montelena and Ridge, deserve a little more credit in today’s cultish world of California Cabernet. These are great wines that were made in a style true to the earth and the grape, a style that may be becoming a bit of a lost art when it comes to today’s producers. Given the price of these wines on average compared to some of the new releases out there, I have one final piece of advice: buy.

Two weeks later, we hosted a blind, no holds barred tasting of 1995 California Cabernets at the Warwick hotel. These tastings are always a lot of fun, as the labels cannot influence one’s judgment. At any blind tasting of a similar peer group, it is as if the wines are standing before you naked, and any predispositions are thrown out the window. We always have everyone vote on their top five favorites of the evening, awarding five points for every first place vote and one point for every fifth place vote, etc. We then unveil the wines from least favorite overall to the group’s favorite, which always adds some fun drama to the evening. It is nice when drama can be fun, as that is a rare occurrence! Remember, we did not know the identity of any wine until the end of the tasting and after all the votes were submitted.

The first wine had a touch of bubblegum to its cassis and cedar aromas. There was sweet fruit and traces of tobacco, and that bubblegum touch became more definitive. It was perfumed and feminine in style with some traces of cherry fruit emerging. The palate had black cherry flavors to match and a lot of alcohol at first. The wine did not seem that well integrated but was still very good, although it did lack some fat in the middle. The wine became more exotic and cinnamon joined the party, but in the end the wine was more one-dimensional and simple than most of the other wines but still tasty. My brother James put his foot in his mouth while commenting to the group about this wine when he said that number one comes too quickly in the mouth.. You can make these things up! The wine was the 1995 Behrens Hitchcock TLK Ranch, and it finished tied for last place with the dreaded goose egg: no votes (90). The second wine had a smoky, cedary nose with lots of pine and forest action. The nose was both mild and intense at the same time, penetrating like a needle in one’s jugular. There were also leather, earth, tobacco, cedar and herbs emerging. Its chocolate and black fruits also entered stage right, but in a secondary, supporting way, as did a bit of wild grass. The palate was sturdy and long with nice cedar flavors and length. The flavors were fresh in a good grassy kind of way, and this wine was my favorite of the first five. It was the 1995 Shafer Hillside Select, which got 43 votes and a second place finish overall. However, given the reputation of this wine, I thought it left a less than incredible impression a la 1994, 1997 or 1999 in similar, recent tastings. It was a trend that would continue (94+). The third wine in the first flight was more herbal and stinky, containing a bit of rotten, green fruit (a bit, I must stress). Justin pegged its cranberry quality, which it did have with its underripe notes. The nose was definitely dirty, possessing underlying redeeming qualities of cedar, earth and tobacco. The palate was sturdy and balanced but lighter, probably as good as it gets right now with its cedar, rock and earth flavors. The nose did blow off, and the wine did level out. I guessed Togni, but it was the 1995 Chateau Montelena, which got only seven votes, which was enough for an 11th place finish (out of fifteen wines) (91). The fourth wine was also a bit green but more in a grassy way, accompanied by some morning dew. There were blackberry, cassis and almond aromas, all light. Justin also got the grass. and chalk. as well. The wine was a bit unpleasant on the palate, and Justin wondered whether the wine was flawed. It was too grassy, light and a bit bitter on the finish. Someone in the crowd called it dirty laundry socks, and Dave found it lacking in structure.. There were no fans of the 1995 Philip Togni, the other wine that tied for last place with no votes. I am still waiting for my first good bottle from this heralded producer (85). The fifth wine, and last in the first flight, elicited an initial wow. from me because it was so much more in my face (make that nose) than any of the previous wines. It jumped from the glass with its coffee, chocolate, vanilla and oak. With time, the oak started to become a bit much, however, and Justin agreed that the wine was dominated by the char from the barrels.. For lovers of vanilla and smoke, there were good flavors, length and balance on the palate, but this was a wine which had about as much char as I can handle without it being overboard, although I could see how it would please a lot of people. Dave admired how it was drinking now, while Justin called it the most integrated. but concurred that it was a bit oaky for his taste. It was the 1995 Venge Reserve, which got 21 votes and a respectable tie for seventh place (92).

The next flight began with a wine which had a shy nose, more on the alcohol and cedar side, a touch spiny with hints of anise, vanilla extract and some member of the cinnamon spice family. The wine was a little buttery on the palate with edges of cassis in its rich, supple profile. The wine was very tasty, smooth and with decent length. It did give me the impression of being a wine at its peak, though. It was the 1995 Joseph Phelps Insignia, a wine that has almost always finished in the top five in these tastings, but tonight it only got 12 votes, good enough for only tenth place. It was in my top five, for what it’s worth (94). The seventh wine of the night and second of this flight was another stinky nose, pungent but not green. It was a good dirty with some coffee, earth and mild stalk aromas. The palate was round and easy, not terribly defining but still possessing tasty bell pepper flavors. It was one of Justin’s favorites, who sensed some Cabernet Franc and called it a kinky, whips and chains wine.. It was the 1995 Arrowood Reserve Speciale, which got seventeen votes and finished with a ninth place medal (92). The next wine caused Justin to comment that this was the first blockbuster.. I saw it, as the wine was very aromatic in that showboat, opulent, banana split style that made me think Bryant or Colgin. The wine was very lush on the palate, smooth, elegantly long and fine. It was very tasty and sexy juice, which Justin called exotic.. As the wine stayed in the glass, it became more and more upfront, making me think that now is a good time to be enjoying the 1995 Colgin, which got 27 votes and finished in sixth place (93). It was at this point that I made the observation that besides wines #2 (Shafer) and #6 (Insignia), there did not seem to be that much tannin expression in these wines on this night, and #6 wasn even that much. More on that later. The next wine had big-time underarm in its nose at first it was very distinctive, but some exotic, cinnamon fruit as well. Justin politically corrected me with earthy complexity.. That it did have, with a kiss of citrus and some meaty, cassisy, blueberry syrupy fruit to round out its nose. The palate had no fruit whatsoever, though, and was all finish, which was good, but not exciting. Someone noted its Gruaud Larose like. qualities, which I saw, but the wine was either shut down or never going to be great. It was the 1995 Ridge Monte Bello, which received only 6 votes and a 12th place finish (90+). We had made it two-thirds of the way through with the next wine, one that Justin noted had a chemical/nail polish/varnish. thing happening, but in a good way. The nose was super chunky, meaty, smooth, chocolaty and full of cherry fruit. I found its fruit sexy with its caramel and chocolate in the nose. The palate was smooth and satiny with light grit. Our own Andy commented how there were equal parts of fruit and stiffness, and she went on to add that the wine was long, but not as long as I.d love.. Hmmmmm. Someone else liked the cotton candy. flavors in the 1995 Etude, which was tied with the Venge for seventh place with 21 votes (93+).

I began the last flight with a sense of anticipation that the heavyweights were finally here for the sipping since I did not experience one outstanding wine (95 points or more on the JK-ometer) yet. The first wine of the last flight finally delivered, with a deep, smoky, earthy nose and heavy, underlying fruit. There was beef, plum, cassis and blackberry aromas, and its finish was the most serious of the night so far. Justin was thinking Colgin, while another wondered Pride Reserve. The style of wine was, indeed, mountainous, with a big presence of tannins and alcohol. It was the 1995 Araujo Eisele Vineyard, which won the overall tasting by a comfortable margin with 55 frac12; votes (95). The next wine had a big, in-your-face nose with a hint of green as well as some smoke, earth, banana and coffee on the pot a little too long. The flavors and aromas reeked of Helen Turley. The wine was smooth, gritty and balanced yet somewhat simple overall in its personality, although the finish did gain in the glass for this bottle of 1995 Bryant Family. The wine got 38 votes, still good enough for a third place finish (93+). The lucky thirteenth wine of the night had my kind of nose, I wrote, with complexity and balance of fruit and finish. There was a touch of date, grilled meat, coffee, earth, some sort of nut syrup and caramel rounding out its delicious nose. The wine was tasty, balanced and smooth on the palate with similar flavors and nice grit and chalk components. It was another great show for the regular. bottling of Dalla Valle, and the 1995 Dalla Valle Napa Valley. (not Maya) finished in a close fourth place with 36 frac12; votes (95). The second to last wine of the night was an off-bottle and not representative of what the 1995 Dunn Howell Mountain. brings to the table. However, it still got three votes and finished ahead of two other wines gotta love the theory of relativity as it applies to wine (DQ). Last up was my wine ofthe night, but it finished in fifth place overall with 35 votes. It was a close race between 3-4-5. The palate was the most tannic and long. There was exquisite definition in its meaty and balanced texture. Its mountainous fruit was akin to the morning after cup of coffee and cigarette all in one (95+).

So the group had Araujo in first by a healthy margin, followed by Shafer Hillside, Bryant, Dalla Valle and Pride Reserve. I had it Pride Reserve, Araujo and Dalla Valle tied (yes I was the half-point guy), Shafer Hillside and then Insignia. I then asked myself, Where the F is Harlan???. Oops. I am sure the Harlan would have had something to say about the top five. I wonder why I did that did I really miss it or perhaps I was having a moment of frugality in regard to the event’s price? Oh, well. The thing about this tasting that surprised me the most was how mature most of these wines seemed. When 1995 came out, many were saying it was very close to 1994 in quality, etc., but as time has gone on, the 1994s have distanced themselves from the 95s as a much greater vintage, I feel. Only my top four or five wines even had hopes of continuing to improve with age, and it was not necessarily that certain of a fact for those said wines, and this was a cross-section of some of the most highly-rated wines of the vintage. It seems when it comes to 1995 California Cabernets, it might be best to drink up sooner rather than later.