Top 100 2005 preview

The Top 100/All Star weekend 2005 is available for viewing on www’topwinesofthecentury.com There are ONLY FOUR SEATS LEFT! Let me know ASAP if interested, as it is sure to sell out soon.

Ok, this week’s write-up is chock full of recent events, thanks to a trip out to LA (I do a lot of my writing on planes), a holiday weekend, and the increased guilt of missing a couple weeks this month due to my recent Partypoker.com obsession. So let’s get right into it

Bruno Giacosa Lunch at Cru

This month seems to be an Italian one for me, with Monfortino a few weeks back and now these. There are other events already waiting in the wings to be written, but I figure let’s stick to Italy this week. There probably won’t be many more Italian write-ups in a while, so all you Francophiles can rest easier. The first and most spectacular event of this issue was a Bruno Giacosa lunch that we held at Cru on Friday, May 20th, the day before our incredible May auction. As all of you should know by now, Cru is my favorite restaurant in the entire country; no one can match the combination of amazing cuisine, fine wine and great atmosphere. Since there is no private room (yet), we were able to talk them into allowing us to do our version of a power lunch.

The first flight warmed us up with a trio of 1996s. The 1996 Barbaresco had a gorgeous nose with all the classic components of sweet cherry fruit, tobacco, leather, tar, anise and rose. Rob S. noted it was very bright. aromatically, but the palate was very dry. There was great grip there, but it was not overwhelming in its tannins. There were some tangy citrus and soy flavors, but the wine lacked definition in the middle and seemed simple by my Giacosa standards. This was the first AC wine I have had from him in a while, so maybe they are best in their first five or six years (90). The 1996 Barbaresco Santo Stefano. (not Riserva) was a jump up with its perfumed and meaty nose. You could see the extra layers, fatness and nuttiness right away. The meat, game and nut components to the nose were delicious. The wine was richer, rounder and more balanced than the regular Barbaresco, and the meat and game carried over to the palate along with some tar flavors. There was beautiful balance, tasty flavors and nice cedar, or as Rob put it, shop. flavors (93). Lastly, we had the 1996 Barolo Falleto Riserva.. We were most certainly in Barolo territory, with much more power emerging from its deeper and darker nose. Aromas of meat, nut, tar, tobacco, cassis and asphalt sang like a booming tenor from this deep and brooding wine that still remained very fresh. Rob called it a mouthful, and its finish crushed those of the first two wines. Minerals and vitamins rounded out its superior palate (95).

We weren’t messing around, as flight number two was one of Santo Stefano Riservas. The 1990 Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva. had a nose like wildfire with its brick, ash, cedar and leather components. Soy, nut, BBQ and Worcestershire were also present, and that last one was not a good sign in this case, as it started to become the dominant aroma with its BBQ and mesquite friends. The wine was very meaty on the palate and surprisingly smooth. Robin noted that it was almost like a Port, and there was a lot of chocolate and some anise, someone noted. Rob and I looked at each other quizzically and started to realize that this bottle was slightly affected. I have rated this wine as high as 97 points, and this bottle was clearly not 100%. It still had many redeemable qualities, but it was not what it should have been. Knowing how great this wine should be and usually is, I ultimately decided to (DQ) it. The 1989 Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva. was more like it, more wound and more my style, I wrote. There was big t n a (tannins and alcohol), racy minerals, anise, fresh glass, and more t n a. The palate was enormous with enough finish for a small house. It was still an infant and has enormous potential (95++). The 1988 Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva. was more forward and ripe with the nutty, leathery and gamy Nebbiolo characteristics taking center stage. There was also fireplace, brick, meat and soy. There were brown liqueur flavors that is best described as hedonistic and early maturing, a quality many feel is prevalent in a lot of 1988s in Italy (93). As I was speaking about drinkablity and how it seemed that the 88 was ready to go, Robin, who was there with some of her girlfriends, asked me What about husbands? When are they ready?. Husbands are always best within the first five years, I replied on cue, which got a big laugh, and a try two. from one of the gang. We quickly gathered ourselves in the presence of the great 1985 BarbarescoSanto Stefano Riserva.. This wine had the best of both maturity and youth, in perfect harmony right now. The leather, the game, the cedar, the meat, the truffle, the soy, the nut the palate was huge a la 1989, but much bigger than the nose led me to believe. The finish could best be described by the words a wallop of, with loads of tannins, alcohol, minerals, slate, fire and rock. The 1985 was definitely in a sweet spot and tickled me all sorts of ways (97). There was still one more wine to this great flight, the 1982 Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva.. The nose was the shiest of the flight, with faint traces of brick, tar, caramel and uncracked nuts still in their shells. The nose widened a bit in the glass, and the palate left no doubt as to its quality. The fireplace qualities were blazing on its wound and taut palate, which had tremendous breed and length. The tannins, alcohol, vitamins and minerals made a case that the 1982 was a balanced breakfast, indeed (96).

On to the 1990s, we went. The 1990 Barbaresco had a lovely nose, still very vigorous at first with solid t n a, in stereo with its meat, nut and leather qualities. The wine was smooth and satiny on the palate, balanced and long, just starting to plateau. It made a case for the 1996 being in a dumb phase, but I do not think that the 1990 will get any better than it is right now (92). T/he 1990 Barbaresco Gallina. had another seductive nose sensing a trend? There was chocolate, nut, fig, smoke and of course, leather, cedar and tar (that’s a given by now, I wrote). The palate was rich, meaty and long, the t n a rock solid, and the balance exquisite. The wine was still very vigorous, with a nice expression of fruit on the palate relative to the finish. Nutty flavors were there, and this wine flirted with an outstanding rating but ultimately fell a hair short. It was still great (94). The 1990 Barolo Villero. was almost exotically fruity by comparison to the styles to which we had become accustomed with its red, red, red profile of cherry, tomato, and cherry tomato. Musk, jasmine and exotic spice rounded out its kinky nose, and the palate was also great long, screechy but in control with its classic flavors of cedar, tar, leather and meat (95). The 1990 Barolo Falleto Riserva. again showed who’s boss. My notes started out with the universally accepted Ooooooooooooo, plus or minus an o or two. It was very nutty in the nose, in an oily way this time, and was very rich and almost creamy. The palate was enormous, especially the concentration of fruit. The oily texture of the fruit was amazing and really left an impression. The nose got more and more complex, and the wine had great t n a. The palate was so f.ing delicious, I put. Sometimes, less is more when it comes to the pen. It was beefy and oily with traces of toasted brown sugar. Yum (97). The last 1990 was handicapped since it was accidentally served behind the Falleto Riserva. Oh, well, there was nothing we could do except taste it and see for ourselves. The 1990 Barolo Collina Rionda Riserva. had the classic aromas of nut, tar, anise, leather, meat, t n a and a pinch of exotic fruit soda in there. The wine was more gamy on the palate than its other 1990 Barolo counterparts, smooth, long and pleasant but after the Falleto it just did not seem to cut it at first. It did gain in the glass with time, come out and become more rugged (94+).

Two more flights to go, and the heavy breathing started to commence. In and out The 1989 Barolo Falleto Riserva. also required a lot of oxygen and got another Oooo. out of me, but only four o’s this time. The nose was super intense and wound with loads of t n a, more t n a and some nut, cedar and a chocolate/molasses combo. It was piercing, spiny and deep, delicious on the palate, backside heavy with a great finish in reserve (95+). The 1985 Barolo Falleto Riserva. was unfortunately affected, more mature than it should have been, although again there were many redeemable qualities. At this stage in the game, though, I was not trying to figure it out (DQ). The 1985 Barolo Rocche. was solid tasty, easy, leathery, smooth, rounded and gamy. It got a little better in the glass but seemed to be at its peak (91). The 1982 Barolo Collina Rionda Riserva. was very forward, with baked beans and a white sugar, mint julep quality. It was long, smooth and dry on its dusty palate, and the nose got incredibly nutty (93).

There was a trio of 1978s at the end, but unfortunately, I was toast by this point. I now know that my limit for glasses of Giacosa in the afternoon is seventeen. The 1978 Barolo Collina Rionda Riserva. was corked, the 1978 Barolo Rocche. got a WOW. from me about its nose and Slover couldn’t stop talking about the 1978 Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva.. Unfortunately, that sums up that flight. With an auction the next day, I retreated back to the office a little cross-eyed yet still bushy-tailed. It was quite an afternoon.

The 2001 Gajas with Angelo

With Angelo Gaja himself in New York City a few weeks ago and all this talk about 2001 being better than 2000 in Piedmont, I decided to hop over to the Four Seasons Restaurant in the afternoon and take in the 2001 Gajas and see what the man himself had to say about 2001 and wine in general.

Founded in 1859, the Gaja winery in Barbaresco has been owned and operated by four generations of the Gaja family. With now over 250 acres of vineyards in Barolo and Barbaresco, they recently acquired two estates in Tuscany, Pieve Santa Restituta (Montalcino) and Ca. Marcnada (Bolgheri). All Gaja wines are exclusively made from grapes grown in estate-owned vineyards. Angelo has been responsible for not only numerous innovations in Italian winemaking, but also for elevating the stature and international reputation of Nebbiolo. For this, all of Piedmont will be forever in his debt. Soon enough, I will go into detail about the things that Angelo said himself which make for fascinating reading.

We started with the 2001 Sito Moresco, an equal blend of Nebbiolo, Cabernet and Merlot. I found the wine harsh, rustic, high in alcohol and rough. I suppose it could flesh out, but it was very rough at the moment (86+). Not to worry, the 2001 Barbaresco was next. The nose was pretty with soft red fruits marked by playful spice and leather. It was inviting with its delicate, feminine charm (delicate and feminine by Italian standards, I should say!) There were nice, secondary aromas of earth, more layers of spice and a splash of tar. The core of red fruit stayed. The wine was very youthful, high in alcohol and firm with lots of bitter tannin flavors (the bitterness of youth). One could sense the seriousness of the wine(s). The wine got dusty in a Wild West way in the glass to go with its spine, spice, leather and pitch. The sandy and leathery flavors dominated in this youthful stage, and the finish sparkled with its minerals and acidity (92-3).

The 2001 Costa Russi. can no longer be called Barbaresco because it is 5% Barbera. The same goes for the Sori San Lorenzo and the Sori Tilden. Obviously, Gaja dos not care. His name and the names of his vineyards mean far more than the designation of Barbaresco. Indeed, he is larger than life when it comes to the world of Italian wine and its governing laws. The 2001 Costa Russi had a deeper nose than the Barbaresco with much more flesh and presence of fruit black, purple and red were all neck and neck in a three-way race for most present. The nose also contained sand, leather, minerals and a kink of petrol. Black roses came to my mind as I prepared to taste, and the palate delivered tremendous power. The tannins, alcohol and acidity were all very present; in fact you could not ignore any of them. The wine was razor sharp yet big like a boulder. There was lots of earth, plummy fruit, coffee grinds with a hint of mocha and meat on the bones of this well-bred and built 2001 (94+). The 2001 Sori Tildin was next, which surpised me as I always thought it was the big boy of the three cuvees. Regardless, the Sori Tildin had a spinier nose than the Costa Russi with less fruit and more sand, leather and dust. There was still some fatness to the wine, however, and some red fruit, chocolate and black licorice emerged with heavy coaxing. The palate was hotter, more wound, spicier and lingering yet less approachable than the Costa Russi. The acidity was spine tingling, I must admit. This will be a great wine (96). The 2001 Sori San Lorenzo seemed to have the best of both the Costa Russi and the Sori Tildin. There was great balance in the nose with a touch more yeast (positive) to go with its black rose fruit, leather and earth. Its plumminess really seeped out with time, and the nose became sappy and rich, round and literally dripping with fruit. The palate was much tighter and rugged; hot, alcoholic, spicy and rocky. The wine was the biggest of the three, after all, but also the squarest on the palate, but the nose made me think that something special was happening here (95+).

It was after tasting through these three wines that Gaja decided to speak. Well-versed in English, he spoke in a style that was open, honest, warm yet firm. It was as if E.F. Hutton had entered the room. He started off by discussing his fundamental principles. One, all quality wine must be estate-bottled, and good land is necessary to make good wine. Two, one must respect the dignity of the wine, not only the land and varietal but also the climactic conditions each and every year and NOT bottle everything when Mother Nature dictates so and NOT to be afraid to declassify your best vineyards and sell of the juice to other negociants in those years that are more difficult than others. 2002 was a perfect example. It was not an easy vintage, and they kept waiting and waiting for Mother Nature to give them something late in the Fall, but the rains came instead, and the wine did not meet Gaja’s standards. As a result, they did not bottle any of the aforementioned five wines. 1972, 1980 and 1984 were other years that the same was done. Gaja spoke about the recent vintages and called 2000 and 1997 approachable;. 2001 and 1998 approachable but not like 2000 and 1997;. 1999, 1996 and 1995 need time. They will be the most classic and have impeccable balance for long-term aging.. Funny, those are the vintages that are good buys at the auction right now, and 1999 is almost a forgotten vintage already! He also stressed the importance of an operation having one vision and one mind, which is why he never did a joint venture with anyone. He told us the story about how Robert Mondavi had approached him in the early 1990s, and how he almost accepted. He was obviously very fond of Mondavi, whom he called, a great man who gave credibility to California wines.. Obviously, their paths are somewhat linked in their respective regions. He went on about how they had a first meeting in New York, and when he walked into the room, there was Mondavi with a team of advisors and lawyers and how he was slightly embarrassed that he came to this meeting unprepared for such serious discussions. He continued that a joint venture is like a wedding. You must have complimentary characters, reciprocation and share a dream. You must also have good sex, literally for the wedding and figuratively for the joint venture. I am a mosquito with my 300,000 bottles. Robert is an elephant with 25,000,000. How can a mosquito and an elephant make love?. In the end, this is why he politely declined. The whole experience, however, made Gaja start to think differently. He was flattered and started to ask himself why shouldn’t he expand and increase production a bit? That is how his involvement in Tuscany was born and eventually led to the purchase of the two estates in the mid-nineties.

He also told us some stories about industry pioneers like Frank Schoonmaker and Bill Sokolin. He remembers meeting Frank for the first time and how Frank wanted to buy all of his 1961s, which Gaja found arrogant and pretentious at first. He also did not like the idea of having to put a Frank Schoonmaker Selection. strip label on all of his bottles, either. It was his selection, after all. He remembers the wholesale (his) price of the 1967 being $0.75 a bottle, and how Bill came knocking looking to place a 100 case order, but get it half-price, of course. The answer was no. There were missed opportunities, but others came, he reminisced.

He said that Costa Russi is normally the most approachable of the three cuvees, that Sori San Lorenzo is normally the longest aging, and how Sori Tildin was named after his grandmother, whose nickname was Tildin, but no one dared to call her it even grandpa! He affectionately went on to describe his summers with grandma in Barbaresco, and how she never smiled and was always correcting his behavior and homework. She was a strong character and influence in Angelo’s life, instilling a discipline in him that he carries with him to this day. In regard to the 2001s, he said that these were wines that needed time to be completed. and that in eight to ten years, they would be fantastic. He admired the soft, noble tannins of 2001. More from Gaja later

We continued with his two Barolos (again a small percentage of Barbera does not allow Gaja to call either of them Barolo. The newer 2001 Conteisa had a deep, layered nose full of dark blue fruits, nut oil, grape, plum and musk with hints of modernity and less of the leather/sand/tar typicity of the Barbarescos. It was still far from a modern wine, but it did have a whiff of cult Cabernet in it, a la Harlan or a quality of the sorts. The palate was surprisingly round and forward, and its finish a touch light despite good acidity. It seemed like an early bloomer and lacked the stuffing of any of the Barbarescos. Perhaps Angelo is still getting a feel for the property and vineyard and needs some time to get his signature on this estate (92). The 2001 Sperss was very tight in the nose with only hints of aromas, but those that were there were more classic in style. Tar, leather, darker, blacker fruits, spice, sand and hints of vanilla were all late to the party unfolding in the glass. The wine coated the mouth with balance; the fruit and finish had great symmetry actually. There were classic flavors and good spice despite its chunky personality, and good acidity on the finish (95).

The Darmagi, 95% Cabernet, had a funny story behind it. Angelo was always fascinated with Cabernet and ended up being one of the pioneers of the grape varietal in Piedmont. There was this vineyard next to the house that had been torn up for replanting by his father. After seeing the vineyard manager’s work, his father looked over the vineyard and cooed how we will make excellent Nebbiolo here.. In January, Angelo’s father went away for two months before the vines could be planted. Well, Angelo had something else in mind and had Cabernet planted instead. Of course, his father never liked the wine. I guess some people in the Gaja family know how to carry a grudge! In fact, the wine is named after what his father said when he found out what happened. Darmagi. translates into what a pity. in Italian! The 2001 Darmagi let us know right away that Cabernet was in the house. There was classic cedar and cassis there (classic for Cabernet, that is), but with the Italian earth, sand and leather behind it, the terroir. It was very fragrant on the fruit side, almost perfumy. The wine was round, rich, spicy and balanced on the palate with charcoal flavors (93).

We ended with the two Brunellos from 1999, since that was the most recently released vintage. The Brunellos do not say Gaja on the wine as the producer; they have kept the Pieve Santa Restituta name. The 1999 Rennina was a left turn as we headed south to Tuscany. The nose was bready with light leather and some sundried, meaty fruit, red in nature yet earthy in its personality. There was an autumnal center/edge (one or the other), perhaps its wood components. There was also vanilla, boat interior and old paint. There was a gamy flavor with old wood edges. It was surprisingly approachable and tasty but less powerful than I expected. The wine still had grip but was without much length (91). I much preferred the 1999 Sugarille, which had more pinch and less game to the nose. The wine was richer and longer with more fat, chewy, red leathery fruit and a sprinkle of cotton candy sweetness/sexiness. It was more classic and mountainous in style with its tasty, meaty, cherry flavors (94).

Angelo summed things up by stressing how all of us should see how the wines were evolving in the glass, which is particularly important in young wines. He spoke of Europe being the cradle of wine, and the wine revolution.. We were all about terroir in Piedmont, he said, and looked down upon Tuscany forget about Southern Italy, but a revolution started, and started in the U’s. Things like using stainless steel to control temperature during fermentation, the use of small barriques and the experimentation with grape varietals helped vineyards everywhere in the world. Speaking of barriques, he went on to say how many producers overoak their wines when using barriques, but that they can be used effectively and that many producers have improved their use of them with experience. In the U’s., there is one Robert Parker. In Italy, everyone is a Parker because everyone is an expert!. (If you know some headstrong Italians, you know of what he speaks, right Big Boy?) He introduced his daughter, Gaia, who has been involved in the business full-time for six months. In fact, this was the first, major, commercial tasting that he has done with his daughter by his side. He said their vision is to keep things the same as they are now, but if his daughter has more vision to expand the operation later in life, so be it. She has his blessings.

There is a lot of confusion in Italy, he reasoned. It comes from Parliament and the Vatican with a German now as the Pope, who knows?. That got some laughs. But confusion in Italy, it works. All the different wines are good; we must maintain confusion in what we do..

I got to say hello and shake Angelo’s hand at the end. It was truly an honor and privilege to hear him speak and taste the 2001s with him present.

A 2000 Barolo Tasting with RP in Vegas

The last time I was in Vegas (I did not go again!), there was a tasting of 2000 Barolos hosted by Robert Parker at Valentino’s in the Venetian. Parker was his usual, charming, warm and endearing self and was a great host for the event, full of anecdotes and personal stories that made the dinner a real pleasure. However, halfway through the event I found out the wines were opened about eight hours before the event! This was not Parker’s decision, I must add, but it makes for an interesting point of discussion about aeration. This was my first major experience with the 2000 vintage in Piedmont since wines of this level I usually have when they are older. I was thinking to myself how soft, supple and charming the wines universally were, and it all came together when I found out how much airtime they had. Now, the wines were probably drinking as well as they could have due to the extra airtime. All signs of bitter youth, overt tannins, alcohol or acidity had melted away into Father Time. However, I feel that given how rare it is to evaluate wines with this much aeration, by opening up these wines so much in advance, it gave a skewed perspective on the vintage for me and many others and made the 2000s seem less vigorous than they probably are. Therefore I have a tough time putting definitive scores on these wines. All the wines were quality and still showed very good (90-2 points) to excellent (93-4 points), with a couple of outstandings as well. The standouts were the 2000 Sandrone Barolo Cannubi Boschis. and 2000 P. Scavino Barolo Bric del Fiasc, which both managed to get (95) points from me, but might have gotten more with less air, who knows? My notes on the Sandrone read: Grapy nose the fruit, seed and oil and nuts, why not? Very expansive and chewy fruit in the nose like the Gaja, and the plummy side really comes out. It has a perfumed quality unmatched so far and great structure the longest of the night but still somehow fine. In between modern and traditionalist, RPkicked in.. For Scavino: Intense nose with lots of anise and alcohol, along with animal, leather and fat fruit. Rich, long with great structure and balance. Long, smooth but firm. Sandy, sturdy, charcoal flavors.. The 2000 Giacosa Barolo Rocche del Falleto. and Corino Barolo Giachini. were right behind them, and then there were the rest. I just don’t feel that my notes are in the same context that I consistently review, so it would be askew to get into a full, in-depth review. Sorry.

Some tidbits from RP: he called Nebbiolo the Pinot Noir of Italy. and La Morra the Pomerol of Barolo.. He reminisced about growing up around bourbon, not wine, and how he had to give away issues of the Wine Advocate for free when he was starting up the newsletter just to get the word around (I know that feeling!) He called wine the greatest gift Mother Nature has given to mankind, and how 98% of the wines produced in the world don’t get any better.. He called Barbera Piedmont’s version of a bistro wine. that does not improve much with age. He made a great point how all of Barolo is only 3000 acres, which is the equivalent of one chateau in Bordeaux. You are always a student, when it comes to wine, he mused. Each new vintage you have to go back to school and learn again.. Here here.

A Celebrity Death Match: 1989 Clinet vs. 1978 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva. at Alto

An old, wine-loving friend of mine, who had moved to Hong Kong a couple years ago, was back in New York for the week with his father and stunning, new Indonesian girlfriend, so we all headed to Scott Conant’s new place off Madison Avenue, Alto. I have a feeling you will be hearing more from me about this restaurant in the future. The wine list is tremendous and very fairly priced, and Scott is one of the great, young chefs of my generation.

A celebrity death match for wine is when you have two different types of wine for dinner, two types that really have no relation to each other outside of the fact that they are (hopefully) quality. I suppose it could be done with a Beringer White Zinfandel and a Sutter Home Chardonnay, but you get the idea. So, Dave’s dad brought the 1978 Giacosa and ordered the 1989 Clinet off the list, as Alto has a one-bottle maximum corkage policy. Anyway, it is always good form (in New York at least I know California people think differently and feel BYO is a right of passage) to order at least one thing off the list when BYO-ing.

We started with the 1989 Clinet, which had a sexy nose. It was shy at first but still incredibly intense in an alluring way, kind of like the veiled woman waving her finger at you, partially behind the curtain. (Ladies, insert your male fantasy here). Its mineral and earth components were singing out of the glass, forward but not shrieking, sprinkled over the top of some lightly covered-in-chocolate, plummy fruit. There was also a caraway-ish edge in its earth aspects, but it wasn’t exactly caraway. The palate was also a bit shy but still delicious with its plummy core, nice cedar edges and twist of non-citrus tang (good earth as well, of course, as that was the dominant characteristic on this night). The palate was satiny and silky, smooth and fine, long and lightly gritty. It was still a baby and lingered well, but it was far from the winegasm that others have had over it (94).

As fate would have it, Dave Sr. brought a 1978 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva, the same wine that I would not have the energy to take a note a couple days later! We sampled bottle number #565 out of only 4,536. The nose was the kind of nose that makes a great wine seem average. Dave was in awe of how much was going on. The leather, tar, soy, black fruit and anise quintafecta was astounding. There was great spice and gamy fruit on the palate, which bordered on being hot. There was big-time rose in the nose as well. The wine was intense without being screechy but still had lots and lots of alcohol, which fortunately smoothed out with time, giving a silver streak of an impression. The spice got more and more exotic in this amazing wine (96+)

The Clinet put up a good fight but was no match for the Giacosa in the end. That’s the way the Clinet crumbles.

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.