After a year off in 2004, Daniel Johnnes of Montrachet restaurant brought the glory of La Paulee back to New York City earlier this month in a weekend of decadence, excess and camaraderie unsurpassed in the wine world. There were more serious collectors in New York than I can ever recall, and everyone seemed to have not only the right bottles with them, but the right attitude as well. While many bitch and moan that La Paulee is too decadent and out of control, I beg to differ. It is first and foremost a party; yes, when there are 300+ collectors wifth 600+ bottles (or more) and many in large format, things are going to get a bit silly, but there are so many great wines in this world, sometimes it is better to have tasted and lost than to have never tasted at all. I know that many are in the I would rather have a few wines and more of them. camp, and I understand that sentiment completely. Personally, I like to try as many things as possible, which is what La Paulee is all about. Yes, you do not get to see the wines unfold and develop in the glass as much, but if the wines are mature in the first place, as many of them were, what’s the big deal? Move on to the next experience is truly the best teacher. I was very fortunate to know a lot of people there and got to try a wealth of wine as a result. I could not even get up from my seat until after the third course, as I was furiously taking notes the whole time and always playing catch up. Regardless, despite a little seating arrangement drama, a great time was had by all. But first, let’s start with Thursday night.

There was a pre. dinner held at Montrachet on Thursday, where we were joined by an incredibly talented quartet of winemakers/owners: Christoph Roumier, Dominique Lafon, Veronique Drouhin and Jean-Marc Roulot, all close, personal friends of Daniel. The dinner featured three or four rare and older wines from each of these Burgundy legends, and we started with a trio from Roulot. The first wine served was a 1996 Roulot Meursault Charmes, which had a great nose that was both ripe and buttery but unmistakably racy like a good white Burgundy should be. There was smoke, toast, intense mineral, nut, more butter, corn, honey and rainwater in its pure, clean and righteous nose. The palate was more delicate and easy than I expected, with less acid than I expected as well. It was then when we found out that this wine had had eight hours of aeration! WOW. I am sure my score would have been higher without the extra aeration; now, that is probably a controversial statement. It almost poses the question, is more drinkable less desirable? Let me discuss a little further before I am misinterpreted. Now, I know the idea was to make the wine more drinkable, softer and appealing by giving it that much air, or by decanting in general. However, there comes a point where too much air can cause a wine to lose some of its vigor, giving a less intense impression than it normally does, and that happened here. So by making the wine more drinkable, it became less vigorous and perhaps a lesser wine in my mind than it probably is. My reference for 1996 White Burgundies is much different and not relative to so much aeration, so my perspective was a bit skewed as well as to the performance of this wine. It was still excellent, but I had to give it a plus, let’s make it my first double plus (93++). In general, I think Bipin Desai’s rule of thumb is a good one: always open and decant thirty minutes before you are ready to serve. The 1992 Roulot Meursault Charmes was served out of magnum, and a close friend of mine noted a touch of botrytis, but these are so pure.. Well, that’s 1992, the Burghound replied, referring to the botrytis. Of course, Allen was on the scene, as any self-respecting, leading expert on Burgundy in America would be. Allen continued how he preferred a lot of 1993 whites to 1992s actually, and that a lot of 1992s were past their prime, but not this one. The 1992 had nice citrus aromas, good dust and earth flavors and was smooth, holding well. I enjoyed it (93) . Next up was an incredibly rare magnum of 1979 Roulot Meursault Charmes, which got a lot of oohs and aahs. a close friend of mine went straight to a Ramonet flashback. The wine was very mature, with orange fruits, burnt honey, petrol, marmalade, stone, earth and even leather. It had the good stink of maturity. The palate was still fresh, yeasty with good spice and nice earth flavors (93). It was an excellent flight of the great and overlooked wines of Jean-Marc Roulot. When Allen spoke to the room and started talking about 1992, Lafon gave him a machine gun. hand gesture to which Allen replied, we.ve had this discussion before.. Either he was telling Allen that he was going to kill him, or that he was a fan of 1992. I think it was the latter. Jean-Marc said he liked the energy. of the 1996 vintage, which was his favorite since 1989, the year he took over. Allen was admiring the balance in Roulot’s wines, whose parcel of Charmes is apparently the oldest in the vineyard at 70 years of age!

It was Dominique’s turn at bat with two Meursault Perrieres and a Montrachet as his ammunition. The 2000 Lafon Meursault Perrieres had great precision to the nose, full of Asian grill, minerals, spice, butter, smoke and light toast. The nose was very clean and fresh as well, possessing another level of purity. The palate was so pure, long and balanced with gorgeous depth and length of acid without being acidic. There were also great citrus and corn flavors in this magnificent wine which held tremendously in the glass (96). The 1994 Lafon Meursault Perrieres was no match for the 2000, and a little soft. by comparison, as a close friend of mine noted. The nose had nice citrus aromas but a touch of sour milk as well. Robert G. defended that it showed the Perrieres and minerality.. a close friend of mine then clarified that he loved Lafon’s Perrieres in general and even preferred them to his Montrachet, to which Allen agreed. The palate was smooth and easy with good earth, light minerals and yeast, but it was lacking the extra layers of a better vintage. Nice but not fantastic, a close friend of mine concurred, and the wine was holding on but drink up (90). Lafon’s last offering was the 1992 Lafon Montrachet, which I have always thought was a great wine. The wine was very controversial due to its exotic and tropical nature, its Pina Colada. aromas as a close friend of mine observed. Someone asked in jest, What would you give it as a tropical drink?. Someone played along saying, Four ice cubes and two umbrellas.. Allen was quickly defending it and rightfully so, saying he was an agnostic when it comes to style.. That’s a quotable for sure (better than the umbrellas, I know). The nose was intense, very buttery in a pain grille way, with intense mineral qualities. It was buttery and on the modern side of Montrachet and a little honeyed (in the comb way). The texture was oily, and there was good spice and a long, regal finish. The wine had more weight to it than the Perrieres, which was cleaner, clearer and a touch racier. TheMontrachet was still precise (95). Lafon called 1994 a pleasure vintage, meaning one could enjoy it now, and also enjoyed the 1992 for its honey. and refined. qualities. Wilf dropped by and shared some of his infinite wisdom regarding 1966s and 1961s being tremendously underrated vintages, mentioning , Ponsot, Gouges and Drouhin’s wines in particular. I don’t mind sharing his confidence since he already has them all!

Time for some red wines, and we started with the 1990 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. There was lots of tannins and alcohol (t n a for all you new readers) in its nose, which had smoky, figgy and gamy fruit with that unpure 1990 edge that Allen keeps bringing up every time 1990 is a topic of discussion. There was a touch of soy and leather, and the fruit was stewed, as Allen noted. There were also touches of raisin, liqueur, chocolate and earth. The wine was complicated and smooth, but the flavors were a bit funky, and I told Allen that whenever I hang with him (which invariably means we are tasting), every 1990 shows poorly, and Allen said vindicatingly, funny how that happens.. (90) The 1985 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses was next and recovered nicely. The 1985 had a pretty nose with beautiful rose fruit, soft cherry, subtle wood, forest floor and game. There was a wide-angle, gamy edge to it, and the palate was very tasty, still with lots of vigorous alcohol. There were gamy flavors, fleshy and sun-baked meaty, with light earth and tannins yet still a lip-smacking finish. The wine is starting to plateau and probably won’t get any better, but I do not get into the forecasting/weatherman routine too much (94). The very rare 1980 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses had a delightful nose full of citrus, dust, leather and earth. There was a lot of terroir character in its nose, although a close friend of mine was questioning its hotness somewhat. There were also hints of vanilla and tannin there, and the palate was very spicy, with lots of citric tension and vitamin flavors. a close friend of mine found it a little square, but I liked it and found it balanced, intense and still vigorous, although a little horse crept in with some air time (93). The 1971 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses was drop-dead gorgeous, like a beautiful woman who walks into a room and causes immediate silence. The nose was gorgeous and pure, wit soft, caressing red fruits and forest, citrus, Chicken bouillon and a triple play of light vitamins, heat and earth. The palate was very rich and meaty, with some earthy and ceramic edges to its flavors. The texture was gorgeous meaty, long, earthy and gamy. The wine was long in the belly, long and tasty. It was a close friend of mine’s only 6 star wine of the night (96). Roumier spoke to the room and commented how the 1980 was a big surprise to him as he liked it very much, that the 1985 was good to drink now and possibly at its peak with its ripe and low-acid personality, and that the 1990 was rudely young.. Daniel chipped in that the wines that bring me to tears are Amoureuses and Musigny.. Allen interjected that the way Amoureuses is spelled actually means two female lovers as opposed to just lovers, to which Jean-Luc Pepin of Vogue once told him, it doesn’t mean just two.. Ha! I was embarrassed at the lack of my imagination, Allen jested. Indeed, it was a rare scent missed by the Burghound. Someone said, I think it was Allen, how there was no 90 disease here, ie, the aromatic profile far ahead of the structure.. A few smokers couldn’t stand it any more, and Lafon, Roulot, myself and Jeff Sokolin went outside for some fresh air, where we were joined by Joe S., who was just getting some air. We had a brief yet fascinating conversation about Bordeaux. Joe was telling us about how the other night he had a dinner party at his house and opened up all the 1959 First Growths, and how he could taste the difference between Latour, Mouton, Lafite, etc, ie, Latour you knew was Latour just by smelling it.. He then continued that he then opened up all the 2000s just for fun. at the very same tasting, and he complained that they were all the same, that he could not tell the difference anymore, as the wines are being made in a more universal style. If you have been paying attention these past few weeks, then you see how this topic comes up often in my life nowadays, don’t you? I told him maybe it was just the youth of the wines, asI think the 2000s are fabulous, incredible wines, and that Bordeaux wines need more time to develop their personalities, but he wasn’t buying that 100%, and neither was I to be honest, despite the devil’s advocate that I was being.

We ended with four Musignys from Drouhin, and what a foursome they were. The 1985 Drouhin Musigny had a meaty, sexy nose full of leather, spice, earth and game, accompanied by some iodine. The flavors were pure and smooth, and Fred noted its wonderful raspberry fruit, which was its essence. The wine was smooth, soft and supple now, and if it was rated on drinkability alone would be 99 points (95). The 1978 Drouhin Musigny had more earth, fig and mature, brown sugared fruit in its nose, while the palate had more beef bouillon , citrus and fig flavors. The finish had great grit and wonderful flavors of earth, citrus and leather. This is a good example of the I need the wine to sit in the glass. theory, as it kept unfolding and developing in the glass until it had surpassed all the rest of the Musignys! If I had had this at La Paulee, I might have judged it differently; then again maybe not as many wines did, indeed, sit in my glass before I got to them, but you get my point, I hope (96). The 1971 Drouhin Musigny had a sweet, perfumed and balanced nose with wild oats and both brown and granulated sugar. It was classic Drouhin, and the vintage and vineyard came through like a duet between Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder, both in perfect harmony. It was a smooth, satiny, gorgeous Musigny with great balance (95+). The 1969 Drouhin Musigny had a very minty/spearminty nose, also rusty. There was iron there but also sweet fruit; in fact, it was the sweetest and purest 1969 wine I think I have ever had, as sweet fruit is not that common in 1969. I guess it’s only fitting that 69 would be a bit of a dirty vintage. Bad JK, bad. The wine was smooth and supple and atypically drinkable, but a little more typicity for the vintage came out in the glass with time. This was the best flight of the night, and that is saying a lot (94+). Jeff called these Musignys, the epitome of elegance.. Veronique wisely said, Wines must reflect where they comefrom and the vintage in which they were born.. She also said, A wine that ages well is a wine that remains young.. If they made fortune cookies in Burgundy, that quote would most certainly be in one of them! She also shared how we never drink these wines in Burgundy.. Allen snuck in a plug for the 1993 vintage, for which he admired the race, precision and purity of 1996 with greater density..

There was a gathering of a few of us for an unofficial afterparty, where we were treated to a few wines by Jeff, starting with an incredible 1990 Louis Roederer Cristal Rose. The nose was forceful and bready, stony, long and yeasty as well. It was indubitably outstanding. The palate was huge. One could see the rose qualities more on the palate, which was meaty, long and very rich. This champagne was incredibly tasty, long and rich and showed unbelievably this night (97). We had a pair of 1996 Burgundies, starting with a controversial 1996 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux. The nose was meaty and vitaminy with animal, sweat and saddle aromas, a touch modern in style without crossing the line. There was this fireplace, lit fire/match touch to the nose as well. The palate was great balanced and very pure with vitamin flavors, but it did seem to lack the acidity that most 1996s have, including the one that I already had. a close friend of mine felt it was not what it should be, but Wilf was convinced to the contrary, so a wine version of the OK Corral quickly developed. There were dark purple fruit flavors with great game nuances. I found the wine flirting with outstanding despite the lack of acidity I expected/previously experienced, but if it wasn’t Cros Parantoux then what could it be that was so good, nonetheless? a close friend of mine thought it might be villages that someone tampered with. If it was, it was damn good villages! The tannins and finish were long and fine, and the wine was smooth, supple and fresh, gaining in the glass (95?). I am giving it a ?. for the due respect that I have for a close friend of mine’s palate and the fact that it was after midnight already and everyone was a bit tipsy, to say the least. Wilf stood his ground in a friendly way. There was no doubting the 1996 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg, a great wine. There was a similar style to the Jayer with its fruit, but the wine was more wound. The nose was very vitaminy, citrusy, spiny and dusty; very bright with lots of brick andfireplace, too. The wine was very smooth, long, fine, sexy and stylish. The nose was more spiny than the palate, but the finish was still long and gritty (95). It was time to go home.

The next night a close friend of mine was holding court at Cru, with Allen, Andy and the Wasserman clan in attendance, as well as Miss Dom Perignon 2005, Nicole. I arrived a little late as I had a prior engagement that kept me an hour behind schedule, but thankfully I was able to catch up quickly and not miss anything. They kicked off dinner with a magnum of 1979 Krug Collection, a good way to start any meal. The fruit in the nose was bready with sweet and honeyed fruit. There was beautiful maturity, nice grit, light seltzer and pure sweat there as well. There was a touch of yeast to its forest, wood and geyser flavors, which were gorgeous. There was some lemon drop on the finish to this incredibly delicious and drinkable 1979, which probably will not get much better, and Andy concurred that right now. was the best time to drink this, while Paul thought maybe 4-5 years ago (95). The 1988 Roumier Musigny had a great nose, subtle yet incredibly sexy. There was leather, rubber, rose and vitamin all coy yet deep, soft yet intense, wound yet omnipresent. There was outstanding length to its alcohol and finish, which was enormous on its backend, practically spilling out of those jeans.. The acids were great, and there was a beautiful balance of its rose, earth and citrus flavors. a close friend of mine was smitten, calling it beautiful a great 1988, without the dry tannins of most 1988s it’s actually fat.. No disagreement with that assessment, doctor (96). Next up was a magnum of 1966 Grands Echezeaux, the very same vintage Wilf was cooing about the night before. Wilf happened to be sitting at the next table over, which is also always a very good thing. This 1966 had an incredible nose, fat and fleshy with rose, light Worcestershire, earth and sweet Asian barbecue aromas. There was a great pungency to the wine, a touch grilled with a good stink around its meaty core. The wine was delicious: sweet, long, powerful and lush in its tasty and rusty palate. a close friend of mine and I had a 6 star. debate as this wine flirted with that elite category for about thirty minutes but never quite got over that hump, but it was stellar out of magnum, which can make an enormous difference at age forty (96). The magnums of Conti continued with a 1970 Romanee Conti. The nose was a touch stewed, earthy with a bit of menthol and mint. The wine still had its edge to it, its swagger if you will, and there were tangy bing cherry aromas. The wine was very meaty with a rich and long palate, with great alcohol and acid still. There was a lot of power and a long finish along with great earth flavors. a close friend of mine called it great, but a little square and acidic.. There were tobasco flavors, and this wine leveled out. Drink now, at least out of magnum bottles might tell a different story, and not a better one most likely (94). Not another magnum of ! No, please, no, I thought as the 1971 Grands Echezeauxcame to the table. In case you cannot tell, that was me being facetious. There is never enough Conti on the table in my mind, no matter what the situation. The wine had the spiny quality of 1971 (that’s a good thing), and Russell observed the sweetness of 71, while Allen picked up on some sandalwood, cinnamon and clove.. Nicole was taken aback by the fact that so much was going on here. in this great wine’s nose. Allen loved its beautiful Asian spice in the nose. but was quick to question the palate, which had a singed quality, a burnt smokehouse edge to go with its citrus spine, brown sugar and caramel flavors. There was flesh on its nose and bones on its finish. Smoke, spice and spine summed it up quite well for this outstanding 1971, which Roy reminded me we had a great bottle of before as well, back in the Washington Park days (96). I was fortunate to get a swallow or two of the 1978 Grands Echezeaux that was at Wilf’s table, I believe. There was a lot of beef bouillon and menthol to this leathery wine, which was right there in quality with the 1971 we just had, although I did only have a couple small tastes (95+).

There was a 1978 Bertheau Bonnes Mares floating around that was yeasty and stinky, average and mature, decent but uninspiring given its company (86). There was also a 1978 Groffier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. that I wouldn’t even taste because the nose was too stinky (DQ/NR). I started to make the rounds and stopped by Joe and Raj’s table, where I was treated to a trio of outstanding wines, served one after another. It was time for a lightning round, a do it now or hear about it later situation for which I was remarkably still up. First was the 1985 La Turque, flirting with outstanding but really excellent, especially in the content of its older sibling, the 1985 La Mouline (94). The 1985 La Mouline thoroughly embarrassed the La Turque, possessing so much more character and minerality in this amazing bottle. I have to say that when it comes to the La La.s, La Mouline is by far my favorite (97). The 1982 Lafleur was no slouch, leading me to write the universally accepted Ooooo, baby.. This particular bottle was one of the more structured experiences I have had with this wine, still kinky with its signature style of semi-baked and pruny fruit (97+). You know, I actually forgot that I even had the 1990 Romanee Conti until looking at my notes again! Good grief, JK. This bottle was stellar; gritty, intense and spicy with lots of alcohol and white pepper (96+). Last but not least were two bottles of 1973 Dom Perignon Oenotheque, which is Dom Perignon’s version of an RD. or Collection. bottling, ie a late release directly from Dom. I had to buy something, although little did I know I already had, but we won’t get into that right now (Andy I think I need your help on this one)! I was in the mood for a refresher, and did those 1973s ever qualify and then some. It was one of the greatest Champagne experiences of my life. I don’t know if it was just that point in time and space where bottles undressthemselves right in front of your very own lips and show incredibly due to circumstance and the theory of relativity, wine-wise of course. This champagne was incredible, so delicious and incredibly balanced, racy, bready, nutty it had it all (98). I think I also got a swallow of 1961 Richebourg, which was certainly outstanding but I cannot rely on my memory 100% by this stage, and with no note I will let it go, but I do recall Wilf saying it was his wine of the night, which is the equivalent of getting Guilani to endorse you running for mayor in New York City. The night was not over, despite the fact that those 1973 DP’s were last in the official wine line-up. I was really ripped after the Champagnes, I must confess, so much so that I sat down on a chair that wasn’t there. Yes, I did, but it was a total set-up! That damn chair was there minutes prior. I must say that Cru has wonderful ceilings, though. After being helped up rather quickly, we decided to get some Aer, which is the name of one of New York’s new hotspots. I don’t remember leaving Cru, but I do remember dancing with a beautiful woman over at Aer, then getting aggravated at someone, and stumbling around Greenwich Village desperately seeking a taxi until I found one to mercifully take me home. When I woke up the next morning, I had this strange dream about the Burghound dancing his ass off at Aer, but it must have been a dream. It was all a dream

So I wake up at about 1:30pm the next day. Man, has it been a while since I woke up that late. I missed the tasting portion of La Paulee and gathered myself enough to go get a massage and get myself ready for one final round, the big one, La Paulee itself. We gathered ourselves and got to the W hotel in time for the cocktail hour. I actually passed on the Champagne and started drinking as much water as I possibly could, still trying to recover from the excess of the night before. I bumped into a few familiar faces, you know, guys like Robert Parker, Michael Skurnik, and so forth and so on. It was a who’s who of most of the passionate Burgundy lovers and collectors that I know, and everyone was ready to party. We were seated mess hall style, at long tables that must have had twenty people on each side. That was the only negative thing about the weekend, the fact that there was no control over the seating arrangements outside of what table you were at. The founding principle of my 12 Angry Men tasting group was to make sure that everyone who brings bottles to the table each month represents quality and no one skimps. When you have 300+ people there, it becomes a lot more difficult than managing twelve people, no matter how angry they may be. However, there were a close friend of mine, Rob and I, bringers of 1979 Romanee Conti in six-liter, 1959 Richebourg in magnum, and 1989 Richebourg in three-liter respectively, sitting across from complete strangers with 1990 Chevillon Nuits St. Georges or something of the sorts, and that’s not right in my book. Plus, we knew so many other people that were there who we didn’t even know were coming, we could have dome some collective damage. Don’t get me wrong, I had a great time and tasted an incredible amount of wine it was one of the greatest wine parties I have ever attended. The problem for me was that I was so busy trying to take notes, trying to catch up for the six wines that I was constantly behind the whole night (and I turned away most premier cru wines, mindyou), that I could not get up and mingle as much as I would have liked. It’s all for the sake of knowledge, of course. Daniel, next year, we decided we want the Conti-only table. Hopefully, we can make that happen. I would like to reiterate that I do think that Domaine de la Romanee Conti is the best producer on planet Earth.

We started with a magnum of 1985 Dom Perignon Rose, also courtesy of Rob as if the mag of 1959 Richebourg wasn’t enough! The 1985 was awesome as always, with great, ripe Rose action, very earthy and minerally as well. It was surprisingly drinkable compared to the mag we had in Vegas a couple months ago (95+). We started off with a bang, a close friend of mine’s six-liter of 1979 Romanee Conti. The wine had a stunning nose of sweet, musky, sexy fruit with great earth, stone and honeyed fruit. The palate was rich, lush, supple and soft with light grit. It was very pure with great smoke flavors, and more grit emerging as its lushness tempered in the glass. The acids came out of their initial hiding; at first I thought the wine was fully mature, but later thought that might not be the case. There was a touch of band-aid, tomato, earth and garden flavors. It was super-tasty out of six-liter and hanging on to its outstanding status for now, at least out of six-liter (95+). We had an early ambassador from the next table over, a magnum of 1976 H. Jayer Vsone Romanee, into which all the Cros Parantoux fruit went, I believe. Unfortunately, it was cooked (DQ). No wonder we saw it so soon! Next up was a 1985 Niellon Batard Montrachet, which was corked (DQ). Yikes! It was an auspicious beginning, but the 1993 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet quickly suppressed all fears that this plane was about to crash. The nose was very spiny, racy and full of minerals, pungent in its citrus and wild fruit qualities that also had this dry, smokehouse edge. The wine was a bit tangy but intense, a baby on wheels. Chet observed. On the palate, the wine was very smooth and satiny soft and still had great concentration, easily a candidate for another decade of beneficial cellaring. The wine was subtly long and fine; the acids really kicked in once inside the belly, and the pungency leveled out (93+). Next up was a 989 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachetoutof magnum, which Chet called a little soft, but I like it, he continued. The nose was very anise driven, with light peppermint and solid mineral aromas. The wine was lighter than I expected but had that signature Leflaive toast, nut, dried corn flavors, lemon and spice. There was good vibrancy to its finish with a touch of vodka-like flavors. The wine gained in the glass (92+). The 1992 Lafon Meursault Charmes had that buttery, sweet, Lafon style with pineapple, exotic spice, cinnamon, and fireplace in its aromatic and allspice nose. The palate was a little tight yet still upfront a la 1992 but very minerally and long on the finish. There was great acid and structure here and lots of dry butter and corn flavors (93+). The other Wilf, Wilfred of the boards, magically appeared with a 1999 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. Yum. One of the truly great white wines that Mother Earth has blessed us with year after year, this Coche was no different and was outstanding. The nose was flinty and intense precise with its fire, rain, water and ice impressions; it had all the elements is what I am trying to say, and yes, I know I am missing air and earth. There was mint and forest there (earth wrapped up within), and the wine was still an infant. The wine was long, fine, sexy and supreme in its tasty, Coche and only Coche kind of way (96). Even rarer than the Roulot Charmes that we had the other night is the Roulot Perrieres, and I got a taste of the 1999 Roulot Meursault Perrieres. There was exotic banana on the nose with minerals, toast, citrus and spice. The nose was a little waxy and kinky on the palate, wound in a pure Perrieres way. There were loads of minerals on the finish with its spicy alcohol and acid (94). There was a lot of excellence going around, and still eight whites to come! It was pretty amazing how all these wines found me, almost pre-destined to be tasted and experienced on this great night. Chet was a big help, I must confess. He did not let a drop go past him without a complete and thorough investigation. The 1993 Roumier Corton Charlemagne was smoky and tasty but still pure White Burgundy here. There was some meaty, earthy and sexy white fruit action, with white meat flavors to match. There were great mineral flavors as well, and the wine was certainly plateauing (92). The 1982 Drouhin Montracet Marquis de Laguiche was outstanding and one of the most memorable whites of the night. Thank you Bruce! What a nose on this baby exotic, creamy and waxy fruit spilled out of the glass with caramel, banana and honey aromas. There was butterscotch and vanilla ice cream as well, and the flavors were mature, on the bready side. The finish was rocky, and the wine was thick, tasty, buttery and mature. It still had a long way to go (96). The 1986 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet was a little musty and corky in the nose, still smooth but seemed younger than a typical 1986. There was some purity and good minerals, but I felt the wine was a touch masked (93?). The 1986 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet had a honeyed, buttery nose full of pineapple fruit, candle wax, butter and caramel, much more 1986-ish to me. There was great acid and balance in this spicy bottle with lovely mineral flavors (95). Hey, why not a bottle of 1992 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet to follow up the 1986? The 1992 was tropical, buttery, waxy and actually shy by 1992 standards. There was some band-aid and what I categorized as white, snow-capped mountain, and flavors of honey, banana and wax. The palate was long and white meaty, still full of acid (95+). We next grabbed a glass of 1974 Lafon Montrachet, a wine I would be surprised if I ever saw again. What a scarcity! The wine was still good with some thick, Kraft caramel aromas and a touch of old wood, mature earth and algae. The texture of the wine was pure with a touch of old garden and rotten flavors to it, although that is a bad way to put it; even though it is accurate, it sounds worse than it was is what I am saying. The wine was clean and clear, still with some freshness and nice earth (89). The 1993 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet was another wound 1993, pungent in a mineral and floor wax direction. There were mineral and acid flavors and not much more to this 1993 (92). I only got a swallow of the 2001 Marc Colin Montrachet, which many were talking about, and I saw its greatness, and while I was unable to assess the wine properly on paper, it still left an impression on me of being a 94/95 point wine (94+).

That’s it for the whites I think. We’ll find out shortly enough. I don’t even know where most of the above wines came from, but thank you whomever all of you are! The first red wine of the second half of our program was another magnum of 1976 Jayer, this time a 1976 Jayer Echezeaux. The nose was unique with its black vanilla fruits and more noticeable oak. The wine was on the smoky and earthy side but still had incredible balance between those two components. The palate was a little lean on the fruit but long on the power. The palate was earthy, tannic and gritty (92). Next up was a magnum of 1976 Dujac Echezeaux, straight from the cellars of Jeremy Seysses himself. The Dujac outclassed the Jayer with its sweet, pure, cherry fruit and its glorious musk, citrus and leather. The wine was smooth, rich, lush and pure (94). The 1972 Vogue Musigny V.V. was a touch horsy and rotten, a little too much earth and oak here. The wine was leathery and tannic with lots of expression by those tannins. There were rose, cherry and tomato flavors. This was not the best bottle that I have had of this wine (91). Ok, so that 2001 Marc Colin wasn’t the last white I had this night, as I could not say no to a glass of 1995 Lafon Montrachet, now could I? It was a nice palate-cleanser, I joked. The nose was toasty, minerally and nutty, pure and balanced with a rocky and minerally palate that was smooth, intense and full of butter and corn flavors (95). The 1985 H. Jayer Nuits St. Georges Aux Murgers was outstanding and the best bottle of Jayer so far. There was a touch of cat’s pee to the nose and its vitaminy, earthy, pungent fruit. There was red cherry fruit behind all that and rose flavors along with citrus, earth, spice and leather. The tannins were long and strong (95). The 1989 Dujac Clos de la Roche was a little disappointing, a rare occurrence when it comes to the wines of Dujac. It was a little earthy, gamy and oaky actually. The palate was beefy and heavy on the bouillon and earth. The structure was great but the flavors were a touch rotten (91+?). Somehow I got some 1971 Vogue Musigny V.V. out of magnum, which had a nutty, creamy nose full of tea bags, so much so that it was scary. Some tea bag jokes ensued, from which I will spare you. The palate was fleshy and tasty, with great balance and incredible purity and some of that mature, brown sugar action that I see often in older Burgundies. a close friend of mine felt the wine was unpure and too heavily chapitalized, but he was grumpy since the guy who bought the 1990 Chevillon kept helping himself to his six-liter (96). I finally got around to pouring my bottle, the 1989 Richebourg out of three-liter. The wine was rich and had a spicy, hot, minty nose. The wine was intense, and there was no missing its leather, alcohol, earth and oak aromas. The flavors were beefy, leathery and gritty (94). There was another magnum of Jayer, this time a 1978 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee Les Brulees.. There was great spice and minerals to its nose and a noticeable whiff of alcohol. The wine was beefy, spicy and intense with its gritty and leathery finish. A good wine to have with the 1989 they had a lot in common (94)! The 1959 Richebourg was next, out of magnum, and it had an incredible nose of vanilla ice cream, rose, nut, caramel, brown sugar and oat. The wine was super creamy, spicy and still lightly hot with its alcohol. The wine had an incredible finish, long like the work day and sturdy, earthy and leathery. There were soda, chocolate and brown sugar flavors as well. It was an official big boy. bottle (96). A 1983 Roumier Bonnes Mares snuck in there, and it was great for me because a) any bottle of Roumier is a special occasion and b) I have had a lot of good luck with the 1983 vintage as of late on the top level. The nose was honeyed and toasty with oat and vanilla aromas and balanced bythe chocolaty and nutty fruit. The palate was rich, fleshy and tasty with great balance and nutty flavors (93). The 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. had an incredible nose that was very youthful and full of mint, cherry and vitamin. The palate was alcoholic and the acid levels practically killed me after 25-30 other wines already. The wine was sturdy and spiny with earth, leather, gravel and toasty flavors. The wine was outstanding, but no 1990 in my book (95+). The 1993 Dugat-Py Charmes Chambertin was one of the least memorable wines of the night with a lot of oat, horse and animal in the nose and palate. This was disappointing (88). The 1996 Richebourg was a little perplexing as well, well-behaved for a 1996 and full of rosy, red fruits with a pinch of menthol in its nose. There was earth and nut as well, but this bottle was totally shy, and it seemed very subdued like the wine was taken hostage. I am not sure if it was the bottle, but I remember better impressions of this wine, and certainly the 1996 s, which are amazing wines. This wine should easily be excellent or outstanding, hence my score (93+?). The 1983 La Tache was delicious both aromatically and on the palate. There were rosy red fruits, light menthol, earth and bacon in its nose. The wine was meaty, and did I say rosy? It deserves to be said twice. The palate was fleshy, tasty and delicious with its iron and rose flavors and leathery finish (93). It is funny how, generally speaking, two wines can have the same score and one can be great while the other is a disappointment, and these last two were a perfect example.

It was at this point that I finally caught up and had actually had every wine before me. I could actually get up and around now. I talked to the Burghound later, who confessed he felt like he was being rude to people because he did not have time to talk and socialize since he was so busy trying to catch up on his notes as well! It was a pressure-filled night for those trying to keep notes. So I took my three-liter of Richebourg and started to make the rounds. It is not easy to pour those three-liters, I must say, especially when trying to take notes at the same time while walking in the aisles between tables of forty people! The show had to go on, and I was determined to get a few more swallows of some goodies that had to be around. The first thing I horse-traded for was the 1985 La Tache. I was glad to have this wine again, which I have always found profound despite the opposite opinion of some of my most trusted friends and advisors like a close friend of mine, Andy and the Burghound, who all have had separate but equal doubts regarding the 1985. Well, after 32 or 33 wines, the wine still showed outstandingly. The nose was great and intense, full of menthol, while the palate was long and strong with great acid. I kept writing long. and intense. over and over throughout my note. The palate was FDA approved with its mineral, iron and vitamin flavors, complemented by good citric tension. Sorry guys, I still love this wine (96). Someone had a three-liter of 1971 Grands Echezeaux, which was consistently outstanding as last night’s magnum. You know it is a good weekend when you have any 1971 wine out of magnum and three-liter on consecutive nights (96). There was also a three-liter of 1961 Ponsot Clos de la Roche (not sure if they made V.V. or not back then and forgot to check). The wine was a touch maderized and had an earthy and funky quality to it accordingly. The structure was pretty special, leading me to believe this should be a great wine, but unfortunatelythis bottle was affected (93+?). The 1964 Faiveley Latricieres Chambertin was delicious, pure and layered with light brown sugar and good earth flavors. It was outstanding wine (95). The wine of the night for me was Mark’s 1952 Romanee Conti. Thank God I got up and around just for a glass of this wine. It was killer, with unbelievable texture, layers and finesse, exquisitely balanced, dripping with fruit and kissed by oat and nut flavors. This was the first vintage of Romanee Conti since 1945, when they had to replant the vineyard, which made this wine all the more impressive (97). I then had a trio of Leroy wines after this tough act to follow, starting with a 1993 Leroy Nuits St. Georges Aux Boudots, which was excellent. It was very pure, which is sometimes an issue with Leroy, heavy and thick. There were leather and citrus flavors and great body and weight (93). Next was a head-to-head of 1993 versus 1990 Leroy Vosne Romanee Les Beauxmonts. The 1993 was outstanding, great all around, with beautiful structure and pure fruit (95+). The 1990 was no slouch either, but it seemed a lot more mature than its 1993 counterpart. The wine was a bit more fruit forward but showed none of the 1990 disease. to which Allen likes to refer regarding those 1990s that are starting to become stewed (94).

Unfortunately, I lost my last page of notes, so the last five or ten wines I had at La Paulee, I lost track. I think I had the 1971 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes out of bottle too, but I am not 100% sure. I know I sampled a very good 1959 P. Bouree Nuits St. Georges Les St. Georges. (90) which was on the earthy and oaty side with that touch of brown sugar, as well as a 1978 G. Lignier Clos de la Roche out of three-liter that was also very good with a little more spice and grit to the palate (92). I am almost positive that I had at least another half-dozen wines but I cannot recall them for the life of me, except that last swallow of 1979 Dujac Bonnes Mares, which certainly seemed outstanding, but I did not get too much of a taste to really judge. It was mature and complex and probably (95). Anyway, it was on to Cru for the afterparty.

We got there early, as we needed some fresh air, and some not so fresh air, and we proceeded to set up shop at a table. Things were off to a slow start, and Christoph Roumier was there early as well, so I tried to get the party started by ordering a couple bottles of the 1986 Roumier Musigny in his honor. These bottles of 1986 Roumier Musigny were truly incredible. At that moment in time and space, I don’t think I could have had a better bottle of wine. Even Roumier, a humble and soft-spoken gentleman, was in awe of its greatness; this is a wine he said that he had not had in ten years, and then he proceeded to call it magic, looking like a proud father whose son just graduated college with honors. It was magic, rusty like the great 1986s, but incredibly powerful, balanced, agile and flavorful. There was every flavor imaginable in there, its acidity was amazing, and it is one of the truly great wine experiences of my life (98). In all fairness, I am not sure the wine will ever get any better than it is right now, so perhaps in later years its score may decline, and a close friend of mine did NOT feel it was 5 star wine, which surprised me. Christoph and I begged to differ! After that, things started to get blurry. There were two six-liters of 1979 wines going around. I don’t really remember the Richebourg that well, but I do remember the 1979 Romanee St. Vivant, which was delicious and very close in quality to the Romanee Conti itself. It was ready, willing and able, drinkable to the nth degree, mature, fleshy, round and rich with flavors of rose, leather, truffle, brown sugar and a splash of Worcestershire (95). Even though I found the wine similar qualitatively to the RC, I think the RC will hold longer. There was a 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares V.V. opened by a close friend of mine, which I think I had but cannot remember again. He gave it 5 stars plus, calling it really muscular, big and dense, incredible stuffing. A serious contender, very balanced and deep, needs a long time. A Mike Tyson punch with a Keira Knightley kiss after.. Nice quote and thank you for the pinch hit, bro. I do remember the 1958 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva, which I later found out to be Roberto Conterno’s personal favorite. It was outstanding, classic Monfortino all the way with the leather, sandpaper, tar, and dried rose. Pure, balanced, stylish and long in its graceful finish, it was a Keira Knightley kiss with a Mike Tyson punch after (96+)! I think I like the other way around better, though. There were two more bottles of 1973 Dom Perignon Oenotheque, which was incredible again and consistent with the night prior (98).

That’s about all folks. Some of the other highlights included Big Boy napping in the corner, me almost knocking over Don with an affectionate hug, meeting Freddie Mugnier, and then me getting home at 5AM with a 7:30AM flight to go deal with a major collection for April’s auction. When I got home, I was so stupefied/drunk I couldn’t even focus enough to pack. I decided to sit down for five minutes and gather myself, and the next thing I know it was 10AM. Oops. Thankfully, I caught the 1:30PM flight and was able to deal with everything Monday after a four-hour dinner Sunday night for which I was not quite ready. That 18 hour day hurt on Monday, though: thirteen in the cellar (supposed to be spread out over two days) and five in the office. of my hotel room catching up at night. Ouchhhhh. Yes, I don’t just eat and drink all the time.

A few notes from the editor before I get into this week’s event.

1) The event covered last week took place in 2005, not 2004 as I wrote. Sometimes I forget what year it is, but I never forget a vintage
2) The Latour a Pomerol was not 1961, but rather 1955 like all the rest. There is something about typing the words Latour a Pomerol that subconsciously makes me type 1961. I wonder why that is
3) I sometimes get a little fan mail, and fan mail can be positive, but it is occasionally not. I care to share this anonymous letter with all of my readers regarding last week’s 1955 Bordeaux review:

Did you, by chance, actually read the email below before sending it out to a large mailing list? Frankly, I have absolutely no desire to read senseless fluff like this, or if I did, I would instead just keep a subscription to Vanity Fair. The mailing is in my opinion insulting it sounds as if it were written by Paris Hilton..

Wow, did you see that, Paris? We’re like separated at birth or something. Does anyone have access to her numbers or something? I need to compare some serious crib. notes. Or maybe I should start a wine column with Vanity Fair and I thought that was a respectable magazine, too. Who is that who runs it, Graydon Carter or something? Graydon, let’s talk.

So I wrote the guy back, because his response actually made me laugh. I told him:

We’ll take you off the list, but I am going to quote you in my next article very funny!.

So this guy wrote me back:

Thank you for taking me off the mailing list. I wasn’t sure if you were kidding or not in your message below, but if you do quote me, I’d appreciate getting a copy..

Now, that struck me as even funnier. In one breath he wants off the mailing list, and in the next breath he wants to see my next article because he might be in it! You humans are such strange and vain creatures.

Anyway, he made nice and apologized and sent me his best wishes, so it was a happy ending. I called up Vito and called it off, so no one got hurt. Back to Clive

Clive was his usual warm and fuzzy self, semi-recovering from a five hour lunch from which he came straight to our tasting. Clive has so much experience in the world of fine wine, he could probably have done this tasting with his eyes closed. At times, due to the five hour lunch, it seemed as if he was, indeed, doing this tasting with his eyes closed! Clive gave us a few tidbits about the 1990 vintage in Bordeaux, a refresher course regarding this legendary year. It was a relatively large crop; there were no frost or flowering issues. The summer was benign; autumn was dry and not too warm. It was hard not to make good wine, Clive reasoned. 1989 was much hotter, and many wines suffered from hydric stress in the Medoc and had unripe and astringent tannins as a result. According to Clive, the next satisfactory. vintage after 1990 was 2000. He then warned all of us: Don’t buy 2003!. He continued, Well, 2003 is good if you like Cali Cab, i.e., what I call rough trade. Stick to 2000 and 1990.. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Clive was touching upon some of the issues I raised earlier this month regarding the style of some of the newer releases, not only in Bordeaux, but all around the world. Anyway, let’s not go there again. On to the wines

We did the tasting in an order selected by Clive, and we started with a bang and some St. Emilions, beginning with the 1990 Beausejour Duffau. The wine had a deep nose full of sweet black fruits, carob, meat, alcohol and olive. Outside of the olive impression, which pointed towards St. Emilion, the wine gave more of a Left Bank impression. The nose got chunkier, more oily and chocolaty in the glass, while the palate was very rich and meaty. The finish was long and longer with a touch of heat. Some bouillon flavors emerged. Clive found the tannins a bit unresolved. and missed the richness and flair needs time.. He gave it a mere 16 frac12; points. Come on, Clive! I secretly wondered since it was an RP 100, maybe Clive suffered from a little vinous envy, as I found the wine to be outstanding (96). The next wine was Clive’s favorite in the flight, and mine as well, the overlooked and almost forgotten 1990 Troplong Mondot. The nose had a early morning bakery, freshly baked bread nose full of plum liqueur, nut, olive and cedar. It was very kinky in its plum aromas, and cassis quickly got into the party as well. Tons of alcohol, Ray moaned. It was a bit masculine for Ray, the Beaujolais aficionado that he is, and Clive quickly dismissed the notion that there was too much alcohol. The Troplong had more minerals to its nose, with a nice palate full of more minerals, game and those St. Emilion olive flavors. Mike noted a lot of cream. and called it one of those rare wines where he got more in the mouth than in the nose. The wine seemed a hair more powerful, ripe and fresh than the Beausejour and got a 17 frac12; from Clive, and from me (96+). The 1990 L.Angelus was very gamy with a little more stink to it, a touch of dirt and shit there at first. The wine was still meaty, heavy and thick, oily in its nose with those black fruits, a splash of wintergreen and those St. Emilion olives behind it. The nose opened up, and the wine got less stinky, and the palate was big, wide and long but a touch gamy and earthy. Clive said there was more sinew and muscle but not to my taste as much 17.. To me, it was excellent but a bit wild and woolly, not better than the Beausejour or even that close for that matter. Remember, my ratings system is exponential (94) . The 1990 Cheval Blanc was unfortunately corked. You could see the incredible texture of the wine behind that, but it was corked enough to disqualify. As Clive eloquently put it, this wine usually gives one a hard-on for a fortnight, but not tonight.. Well said, Clive, well said (DQ).

The Pomerols were next, and we started with the 1990 Clinet. This wine was an early favorite of mine in the mid-nineties when I was first getting into wine. There was still plummy and chocolaty fruit and a sweet, ripe yet stylish personality. The palate was meaty and alcoholic, hot at that moment with lots of slate flavors on its finish. It was not as ripe on the palate with more earth, olive and mineral flavors. Clive noted that the Clinet had a touch too much new oak and extraction for my taste, but I liked the energy of the wine though, and he gave it a 17 (94). The 1990 La Conseillante was pure olive on the nose with beautiful minerals and sexy, refined Pomerol fruit, although more on the mineral side. There was a touch of kink rounding out the nose and lots of olives on the palate, which was not as ripe as that bottle I had in Vegas a couple months back. The bottle held quite well and surpassed the Clinet in time. Clive called the Conseillante a bit of an underachiever given its location (next to Petrus) should be better one-dimensional.. He only gave it 15 frac12; points! Something was going on there between Clive and La Conseillante. I gave it (94+). The 1990 L’Evangile was a little dirty in the nose with lots of earth, bread, hay, plum and dark fruits behind it. The palate was round and rich, very firm and long in the finish. It was in a bit of a dumb spot right now it seemed and got simpler in the glass, or as Ray bluntly put it, it fell apart.. Clive told us how L’Evangile has improved tremendously over the past 15 years, and the location of its vineyards was next to La Conseillante, VCC and Petrus. Terroir does not lie, and this should be one of the best, although the 1990 was tough and a bit tannic.. Only 15 frac12; from Clive, although I gave it (93) . Next up was the 1990 Lafleur, a magnificent wine that somehow only got 17 frac12; points from Clive, which almost caused Ray to pick a fight. The Lafleur made me writeMmmmmmmm.. That superripe, kinky Lafleur style of prune, plum and black cherry fruit penetrated my nose with its sweet and liqueur-like way, accompanied by pure rock, citrus and rain. The palate was enormous with a huge finish. Ray advised, buy all you can.. Clive took the mic back and explained how Lafleur is on the other side of Petrus, the Western side, and how there are five different, gravelly soils. Clive was cooing, admiring the concentration of fruit and the rich, almost distilled style, which he called the essence of the property, which is why I was surprised to see him settle on 17 frac12;. This was a monumental wine (97+). A brief discussion about styles of wine ensued, and the word garage. came up, setting Clive into a slight fury. Garage is a load of nonsense, he angrily barked, since the best winemaking cannot overcome indifferent terroir.. Now that was the quote of the night, and I am sure all the big real estate guys in New York that I know would concur. Jim observed how the Pomerols were more restrained, tannic and backwards than the St. Emilions, and Clive concurred by saying, I think that is the case in general..

We crossed the river to the Left Bank, starting with a pair of Graves, THE pair of Graves for any horizontal tasting. The 1990 La Mission Haut Brion had a lot of cedar and alcohol in its spicy and nutty nose, which was hot yet still very stylish and long, with lots of Cabernet cedar, a touch of plum, and smoky wood, as Mike noted. There was, of course, the obligatory gravel, which caused someone to admire that I love that a lot of things going on.. The palate seemed a bit soft by comparison to the nose, but it was very tasty with similar components of cedar, gravel and minerals. The wine did get more gravelly, causing Clive to observe how La Mission is always the most austere of the two, while Haut Brion is always rounder and richer.. Clive gave the La Miss 18 frac12;, while JK gave it (94+). The 1990 Haut Brion had a deep and brooding nose full of nut, chocolate and pure earth with great depth to the nose. The palate was long, pure and earthy, as well as being very roasted. This was a pure bred wine, no question, with a touch of thoroughbred, Seabiscuit action, and great length. Clive gushed that the HB was never a blockbuster and doesn’t have to try.. He continued, Frankly, this is where it’s at (referring to both the La Miss and the HB). Sorry, Christian Moueix. Real Bordeaux wine comes from Cabernet Sauvignon.. I was not going to get into that debate, being the Right Bank lover that I am. Then again, I am a Left Bank lover, too. I guess I am the type of guy who needs lots of lovers, but in the end, I might beg to differ. Clive gave tne HB 19, maybe 19 frac12; he thought, out of 20. I thought it was outstanding as well (96) . The 1990 Rausan Segla had a grapy nose, almost Pomerol-ish with that overripe, Lafleur kink. The nose was not as deep or massive but delicious nonetheless. The palate was also grapy, delicious as well, with an earthy, cedary finish. The wine was smooth and satiny, but it seemed closer to its plateau than any other wine sofar. The wine was a dead ringer for Lafleur, so much that I set Ray up later on and he fell hook, line and sinker, which is no easy task. I did switch my Lafleur and Rausan Segla glass when he wasn’t looking, and then I handed him the glass that was in Lafleur’s spot. for our tasting. Too bad it was the Rausan Segla! It was the perfect set up, I must admit, but only because the wines were so similar. The wine held well, and Clive gave it 17 1/2 , telling us how the owner hates garage wine.. (94) The 1990 Margaux seems to be a controversial wine wherever I go. Ray quickly tried to influence our table, calling it over-rated and simple, and how the 1983 destroys it and the 1986 is better.. This bottle was a little dirty in the nose at first with cedar, earth, cassis, plum, soy and lots of fine t n a breed. The wine was very smooth and fine on the palate, elegant with a touch of coffee flavors. The thing about Margaux is that it is not the wine to bring to a comparative tasting; its finesse and style are distinctively feminine and elegant and rarely stand out amongst others. Once you get it in a room by itself, however, you understand, you understand. The acids lingered tremendously in the bottle, and the wine was beautiful, prompting Clive to call it impressive but very young, and difficult to taste and define the underneath qualities of the wine, scoring it 18 frac12; /19 points (95+).

It was the saints. of the Left Bank’s turn, Estephe and Julien. Now that would be two good names for a pair of boys, wouldn’t it? The daughter could be Margaux, of course, and the next son Pauillac could be called Paul, now couldn’t he? Anyway, the 1990 Haut Marbuzet had a weird nose which actually made me pull back. There was some sweet cherry fruit, but a stinky edge as well that was bordering on artificial, a cleaner aroma of sorts. That artificial aroma merged into a distinct dried apple, which Ray verified for me. The wine was very smooth, soft and easy but a little different, further defined by the touch of celery root that developed in its nose. Clive gave it 16 frac12; points, noting that it doesn’t have the class of the next two or the previous four for that matter.. (90) The 1990 Montrose was never a wine that blew me away, a wine that I always felt was a trip to the farm. This bottle was no different with its horsy, stinky nose, earthy and dirty as it always has been. On the palate, the wine was great, with gorgeous texture and concentration, I will admit. It was oily, balanced and long, with lots of earth. The texture was amazingly concentrated, so much so that it could easily improve, but the animalistic edge to it was not a pleasant one. Clive really felt the Montrose this night, calling it much more to my taste than the Cos pure, harmonious, long and intense, and gave it 19/20 (94+). Speaking of 1990 Cos d’Estournel, this bottle had a classic nose full of cedar, cassis, pencil, minerals and a touch of dirt. The palate was classic and pure, full of coffee, cassis, pencil, earth and tobacco flavors. There was a lot of spicy heat to the finish. Clive called it spicy, creamy and rich but lacking finesse 17.. (94+) The first St. Julien was the 1990 Lagrange, which had a classic nose of cedar, earth and tobacco, with secondary animal and cassis. The wine was a touch roasted, with long and fine t n a in its nose. There weregood earth, tobacco and cedar flavors. Clive only gave it 16, but the wine was solid and more than very good, and it got better and held well (93) . The 1990 Leoville Poyferre was a bit horsy as well with its earth and green field aromas. The wine was taut with a hidden core of ripe, cassis fruit. The palate was very tasty, long and earthy with nice, ripe fruit. Clive was very impressed, scoring it 18/20 (93) . Next up was the 1990 Leoville Las Cases. Marzipan, Ray noted, and there was nice, chunky fruit, wound and classy with its earth, rubber tire, grape, nut, cassis and mineral aromas. The wine was beautiful, tasty, balanced and smooth with luscious vanilla flavors. Clive gave it a reluctant 18 frac12; , noting that it was very closed and Margaux-like (in that it was) difficult to get a bead on. Wines built to last will go into their shells, he justified, citing the fact that the wine was great, but that it doesn’t sing. right now (95) .

It was finally time for Pauillac, Big Pauly. as we used to call him in the joint. The 1990 Lynch Bages was another weird, chemical nose, a fact that struck me on the last two bottles of 1989 that I have had as well, both within the last two months. Hmmmm. Ray noted the acetone. as I mentioned rubbing alcohol, but it did blow off a bit with some extra aeration into the typical, beefy, cedary, meaty and tobacco driven nose. The wine got chunky and almost chocolaty, but the palate seemed atypically soft on the palate, which Clive called low acidity.. He gave it 17/20, and I gave it (92) . I need to graph our score comparisons or something. The 1990 Grand Puy Lacoste had a shy nose with a mineral and cedar edge, not with a lot of fruit but pure nonetheless. There was sweet cigar, stalk, tobacco and chocolate traces. The palate was very cedary and minerally, long and fine. I missed Clive’s notes here, sorry (93+). Two wines to go. Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale. The 1990 Pichon Baron was very forward with an in your face nose, ripe but reserved with some animal, earth and kink. There was a bit of cultish cassis and banana fruit. The palate was round, balanced, rich, spiny and long in this excellent, 17 frac12; CC wine (94) . We ended with the 1990 Lafite, the forgotten First Growth of the vintage (we’re not even going to count Mouton). The nose was mild, very shy besides touches of peanut, cedar, cassis, pencil and marijuana. There was ripeness and richness on the palate, length to the finish and great breed. Clive loved this wine, giving it 19 frac12; , saying that the wine was backwards without being closed or adolescent marvelous balance this is what First Growths are all about.. (95)

We did dinner with Clive afterwards, and it was an unregulated BYOB I always regulate, but my life has gotten busier and crazier this year, so I did not have time to coordinate this time, and I actually figured all who came knew enough to represent. Big mistake. I will never have another unregulated BYOB, which is the same spirit behind the 12 Angry Men. Anyway, we had some great wines like 1998 and 1996 Trimbach Clos Ste. Hune, 1970 Vega Sicilia Unico, and unfortunately a corked bottle of 1997 Harlan. I might write that up the next week or so, or it might end up in the land of the lost. files that includes almost all of 2004 and then some, events that I have written up but never typed out and published. I am too tired right now and have too much on my plate this weekend to continue, though.

Next week’s article should be the Paulee. You’ll want to read that one.

We kicked off our Spring tasting schedule in style with a spectacular 1955 Bordeaux dinner at Le Bernadin, one of New York’s finest restaurants. I am ashamed to admit it, but it is actually the first time that I have ever eaten at Le Bernadin due to the fact that the cuisine is mainly seafood, which is not really one of my favorite things. I mean, I am starting to eat more fish here and there due to the amount of set/tasting menus that I seem to encounter, but I would rarely, ok never, order seafood on my own outside of an occasional tuna/salmon tartare or cooked shrimp (after this night, that is) something or other. I have actually enjoyed a couple of real fish dishes within the past year, including an incredible Dover Sole dish at Michael Mina’s in San Fran, and I think some John Dory dish I had recently. However, I think that fish is, well, fishy, and I generally do not enjoy it. While we are on the topic of my quirky eating habits, celery and cooked spinach makes me gag, and I am not big on the texture of mushrooms, although I love the flavors and adore truffles of course, and NO clams, oysters, scallops etc. I guess you could say I am a meat and potatoes man who drinks a little better than my brethren in this esteemed category. Anyway, after this evening at Le Bernadin, it is safe to say that I will be there more often, as the meal was incredible, including the shrimp, lobster and yes, Eric Ripert can make some magic with meat as well. It is no wonder that Le Bernadin was atop the Zagat Ratings this year along with Bouley as best food in New York City, although they should add Shea Gallante and Cru to that short list of exquisiteness next year. Those are a few of my favorite things.

Ok back to the Bordeaux and the 1955 vintage in particular. We had a great lineup of wines, including a very rare flight or two of Pomerols, and the 1955s should be mentioned in the same breath as 1961, 1949, 1948 and 1947 when it comes to Right Bank legendary vintages. For some reason, the 1955 vintage has been below the radar relative to those other great years, but make no mistakes about it, 1955 is a great Right Bank vintage. There are some good lefties. as well, some sumptuous southpaws that you will read about shortly, but it is definitely a right.eous vintage, a la 1998 as a recent comparison of a vintage where the Right Bank wines excelled more than the Lefts in general, of course. We started with a 1955 Ducru Beaucaillou, which had a beautiful nose at first with some ripe cherry fruit, musk, olive, earth and vanilla ice cream aromas. There were nice earth and cedar flavors, on the drier and earthier side. Jim and Wendy were both feeling the mocha and coffee. side of the wine’s personality, but Ray was quick to dismiss it, saying the nose gave me high hopes but the palate dashed them.. There were pleasant olive flavors and good acids still, and as the wine changed in the glass, a lot of caramel and raisin aromas came out. The wine did head south fairly quickly and became angular and even a touch sour, but for the first 20 minutes I actually preferred it to the Lafite, which proved to be a better wine. This bottle of Ducru was clinging to being very good and definitely a wine to be consumed within the first thirty minutes of being opened (90). The 1955 Lafite Rothschild also had surprisingly ripe fruit in its nose, but more in the black cherry direction. There was also an herbal edge, not a negative one, along with nice earth, although it was more dirt than earth if you can imagine the difference. The palate was dirty, earthy and gamy with some wild action and leather flavors. The finish was noticeably longer than that of the Ducru in this very good and ashy Lafite (92). The last wine in this first flight was a 1955 Latour, which had a very dirty nose. Mike felt it was a touch maderized, and there was a general sense of disappointment with this bottle at our table. The nose still had a lot of black fruits, a touch of sap, some carob, nut and that stinky, dirty edge. The palate was chalky, fine and long but should have been better. There were olives, some rust and more acidity here than the others so far. Wendy noted a lot of alcohol, and the wine clearly had the best raw materials so far, but it did not seem like it was all that it could be, at least as this bottle was concerned (93+?).

We stepped it up a notch in flight number two, beginning with an outstanding 1955 Mouton Rothschild. The wine had a great nose with the sexy, peanutty, minty Mouton spice signature, if you will. The nose was also meaty, perfumed and aromatic with a gorgeous side of Kalamta olives in that ripe, fleshy, purple, olive way. There was also coffee and tobacco in its complex nose, and the palate was round, earthy and medium-bodied. The finish was nice, the acids and alcohol excellent, and the flavors were mainly cedar (95+). The 1955 Haut Brion was full of bacon Cote Rotie, as Rob observed, and Ray found it had hickory bones.. There was an earthy and chocolaty edge as well with a coffee/espresso milkshake side a la the 1928, but there were more twinges of stalk and herb here. The palate was very gravelly and earthy; Mike noted that it ended drying. and that the wine was powdery. in its personality. Wendy was all over the beef jerky, and it did have that Worcestershire splash, and Jim called it smoked meats, and it was very smoked. The wine was over the top smoky and gravelly, Rob found it on steroids, and someone noted loads of tobacco, and I found some lit cigar. Mike was still complaining about its dryness, finding it too dry, and I saw how this wine could rub some people the wrong way. I have had better bottles of this wine, and it wasn.t an off. bottle, but it was very gravelly and earthy (94+). Unfortunately, the 1955 La Mission Haut Brion was corked (DQ).

We crossed the river for the next flight, beginning with the only St. Emilion of the night, the 1955 Cheval Blanc. The wine was incredibly kinky and exotic in the nose; Wendy immediately noted Pina Colada, and Ray found it more coconuts and cream, splitting a hair into two. It definitely had this amazing suntan lotion quality, and Rob was admiring how pure. and laser-like. the wine was. Wendy noted some licorice, and Ray was being his usual self, calling it more anise.. There was no doubting its exotic aromas that were bordering on tropical in a candle wax and Mounds (chocolate and coconut) way. Rob noted big banana .94 Colgin-ish, and while I saw what he was saying, the Cheval had more earth, barn and bread than the usual 1994 Colgin, although perhaps in forty years that Colgin will be the same! The flavors were chocolaty, bready, earthy and slaty, and Mike noted marzipan. and took my Mounds and Almond Joyed me back. Rob got slightly critical and was a little disappointed with its roundness and mouthfeel. and also found it dessert wine-like, a la Chambers Tokay.. The wine was kinky, exotic and outstanding (95). We segued into Pomerol with a 1955 Gazin. There was a lot of coffee, hay and rubber, according to Mike. For the first few minutes, there were a lot of impressions going around, but the wine fell off a cliff rather quickly. There was some plummy fruit, splashes of olive and a nice finish with a touch of citrusy flavors that Mike categorized as lemon sours.. It got a little mintier, but Rob and Ray thought it fell apart too soon. Like the Ducru, it was still a very good wine (and barely holding on to its status there), but again another wine that needed to be drunk relatively quickly once opened (90). The 1955 Trotanoy had a great nose, so young, ripe, rich, saucy and sexy. It was decadently plummy and chocolaty, port-like. Wendy observed, and there were beautiful supporting earth aromas as well. The mouthfeel was incredible rich and great withhuge length and texture on the palate. It was a bully amongst its peers so far with a great body, Jim concurred. The palate was the thickest, youngest and heaviest so far. There were loads of minerals and iron on the finish. Rob noted its deeper. level and Jim also got some chewable vitamin C. in this monumental Trotanoy (96+). The 1961 Latour a Pomerol was a controversial bottle, very cloudy in its color but not bad in the nose with its meaty personality and aromas of raisin, plum, chocolate and meat. Ray found some chlorine, which was there, and the palate was minerally, chalky and earthy. Wendy was all over its sesame and white mushroom, while Ray was feeling iron.. The wine was chocolaty and rasiny, but it was obviously an affected and not perfect bottle, as this wine normally scores 98 points on a bad day, and this day was a 94+?, hence my (DQ). Ahhh, the 1955 Petrus. The nose was a bit shy but still full of the Pomerol plum, earth and mineral as well as the breed of Petrus. Mike noted the inky trail. that the wine left, and the fruit was incredibly sweet, subtle yet gorgeous. The palate had much more strength and was sturdy with great mineral, earth, chalk and slate flavors, all balanced by its plummy and chocolaty fruit. The finish on the Petrus is better, Mike observed, but Rob countered that everything on the Lafleur is better than the Petrus, as he was ahead of the curve (as always), just like he is when it comes to the streets of New York. The Petrus was still extraordinary with the breed of a king and more flavors than Baskin Robbins (97). The 1955 Lafleur was stunning, six star wine, as a close friend of mine would say. The concentration of fruit was amazing, buttery. as Mike noted, along with toffee, plum and raisin aromas. The wine was super thick in the nose with that kinky Lafleur spice in the center of its grapy, cherry, chocolaty, pruny and thick fruit. There was gingerbread without the ginger, ash and bloody meat as well. The concentration, power, mass and weight were unbelievable, and the plum, raisin, prune and butter flavors were more than great. It was one of those wines that you never ever forget (99).

The 1955 Fonseca was actually semi-mature. There were chocolate, marzipan, alcohol, nut and caramel aromas and flavors, with lots of alcohol in the belly and a honeyed palate (92).

I was going to write up the 1990 Mega tasting we did with Clive Coates as well in this week’s email, but a little thing called La Paulee happened, and I had two nights in a row where I got home at 5am, and I am in Florida right now to boot, so stay tuned to the same wine channel next week. We are always on here at Acker.

It just so happened that my official tasting group, the 12 Angry Men, had their February and March events within two weeks of each other based on the schedules of each month’s hosts, Peter I saw nothing in Vegas. J. and Eric Make em clap to this don’t call me for logistics. B., otherwise known as Eric the Red Wine Bandit from previous Vintage Tastings lore. We.ll start with Peter, who hosted his event in a private townhouse in New York City, where former chef to JFK, a wonderful woman named Anne-Marie, created an outstanding menu to complement an equally outstanding lineup of wines orchestrated by Peter.

I was running a little late due to a meeting downtown, so I quickly caught up on the two aperitif wines, a 1989 Lafon Meursault and 1985 Leroy Meursault Genevrieres. The Lafon showed very well, fully mature but still very tasty. Due to the fact that I only got a swallow, I can.t say much more except for the fact that it had already been open an hour, which is not the recommended procedure for a 16 year-old village wine (90+)! The Leroy was a touch over. mature, ie, showing more age than it should have, and was way too bready (DQ).

The sit-down portion of our evening began with a flight of three more Lafons, starting with a 1992 Lafon Meursault Clos de la Barre. Ray remarked that it was a typical 1992. right away, muscling in on the opinions of the group as he is prone and known to do. He tends to be right though, so he can do that. I found the nose to be buttery and toasty, although I had a glass issue that I politely categorized as floral.. The wine was definitely at its peak; I cannot imagine the wine getting any better than it showed at age thirteen on this February night in 2005. Mike was ahead of the curve and noted a banana flavor. on the Perrieres; I noticed it on the Clos de la Barre as well. The wine was bready, tasty and mature (92). The 1992 Lafon Meursault Perrieres had a more intense nose, much deeper and more minerally than its Clos de la Barre brother, with that banana. that Mike picked up on, as well as butter, corn and vanilla. The nose was classic, for Lafon, 1992 and Perrieres as well, although it did not have the power or length on the palate that I thought it would based on the nose. Ray made his pumped up Kistler. analogy that he made regarding the 1990 Lafon Montrachet at the Top 100 weekend. Now you know what not to get Ray for Christmas. Gorky found it racy, and it was in a very elegant and stylish way (93). The wine of the flight for me, and many others, was the afterthought: the 1982 Lafon Meursault Desiree. There were lots of oohs and aahs for its mature, buttery nose that was also full of freshly peeled corn, alcohol, minerals, caramel and bread. It was almost younger than its 1992 counterparts with its great dust and minerals on its finish. Surprise, surprise (94).

The next flight started auspiciously with a cooked 1989 Remoissenet Montrachet (DQ). The next wine rocked the house, however, and it proceeded to sell out a few more shows after its performance on this night! The 2000 Montrachet was extraordinary. The breed of Montrachet, the style of the vintage and the quality of all came through in this bottle. Unlike the 2002 that I had a couple weeks prior, there was no Caliesque impression to its nose, and even Ray was fully erect, a rare sight when it comes to wine. There were piercing aromas of minerals and stones to its racy nose, a nose full of zip, zing and zoom. There were great, taut flavors with toast, minerals, white fruits, citrus and earth. Ray was gushing about the clarity and purity of fruit. while Gorky was admiring its integration and how it is drinking so well, a fact that he interestingly called scary.. Ray had to put something down, so he called the twice the wine of the Sauzet. which followed (97). Well if the was twice the wine of the 2002 Sauzet Montrachet, that would make it about 47 or 48 points, right? Exponential-ism is a good concept, no? Anyway, the Sauzet was flirting with outstanding nonetheless. There was a load of alcohol in its nose, which was also very citrusy, spiny and pine-y. It had an intense nose full of flint and smoke, a veritable Terminator of sorts. The palate was much more drinkable than I thought it would be, very 2000-ish with its clarity and precision. The wine was long and fine, but it seemed like an early bloomer, still outstanding but missing the stuffing that the nose had. Someone noted crayon. (95).

It was time for some red wine, and the first on the menu was a magnum of 1978 Chave Hermitage, courtesy of Jim and the one Angry Woman, Wendy. The nose was the best impression a 1978 Chave had ever given me with its smoky, earthy, lightly rusty and gamy qualities. There was soy, sweet Asian spice and mint, as Wendy observed. There was also alcohol and a touch of roasted earth. The palate was chalky, and some were grumbling that Mike’s advice of extra aeration hurt the wine. It was earthy and chalky, with some plummy fruit there, same as it ever was to me, still excellent but not outstanding. With time in the glass, the wine got more earthy and herbal with a garden impression. Time was not on its side as far as staying in the glass despite the magnum factor (93). Next up was the 1990 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle.. Wendy was all over the chocolate chip cookie dough. aspect, which I saw. The nose was incredibly complex full of deep, meaty, figgy fruit. There were raisins, molasses, menthol and roasted earth as well. The nose was far ahead of the palate, which was tight, rusty and earthy with black fruits. The wine was certainly outstanding, but the fruit on the palate was not in a great spot. The structure was amazing, however, with a huge, long and well-bred finish full of earth, dust and spice (95+).

The next flight was comprised of four Chateauneufs, and they were all very special in each of their own right. The 1989 Beaucastel had a great nose, wild, gamy and meaty with Provencal spice, plummy fruit and leather, earth and cassis as well. It was complex and delicious with lots of flavors of game, Provencal herbs and tangy black cherry fruit. It was very tasty (95). The 1990 H. Bonneau Reserve des Celestins. that followed was spectacular. There were loads of t n a in this enormously well-bred beauty of a beast. The fig, Provencal herb and meat qualities were nothing short of awesome. The wine was incredibly enormous, well-endowed yet super smooth. It was the best bottle of this wine that I have ever had, and it was an Acker auction bottle, of course. It was a wine that needed three hours of air (and got two anyway) , and it was actually drinkable in that hair-raising on the back of your neck kind of way (98). The 1995 Rayas has always been a pet wine of mine, a sweet child in the context of the great Rayases of the 20th century and potentially the last great one ever made. The nose was fabulous with great garrigue, smoke, spice and gorgeous kirsch fruit. There were lots of Ray Ass. jokes going around, and I quickly gathered myself to find stones, leather and more spice; in fact, there was a perfect balance of stones and spice and everything nice. There was great fruit and leather to the palate as well (97). The last Chateauneuf of this incredible flight was the 1998 Beaucastel Hommage a Jacques Perrin.. Its sweet, beefy nose was incredibly rich, full of sweet, beefy fruit, both syrupy and decadent. The wine was rich, creamy, lush, pure and surprisingly smooth on the palate, with fine and gritty tannins (98).

The blind game began with one flight and finished with another. The first flight started with a wine that no one on the planet could guess blind, a 1934 Delphine Cote Rotie. It was the best 70 year-old Rhone I have ever had, delicious, old and smooth (93). The following wine was even greater, but a noticeable left turn to the Delphine. It showed incredibly Rhone-ish-ly this night despite the fact that it was a 1971 Penfolds Grange and got very chocolaty in the glass (96+). The 1985 Rayas was awesome. My note read, Man, I love Rayas.. That about sums it up, aside from the fact that I saw the 1985 as an older brother to the 1995 (97). The second flight started with a spectacular 1983 La Mouline. Perhaps the greatest La Mouline of the last quarter century, the 1983 was rusty, earthy, roasted and rich. There was chocolate, cherry, velvet and more rust. It was awesome (98). The 1989 La Turque was so juicy in that chocolate thunder kind of way. I really felt this wine on this night (96). The 1990 La Turque I did not feel as much; maybe it was the bottle. It was very wound up, tight and lacking weight. There was power to its finish at first, but it flashed quickly. It reminds me of myself, Ray chipped in, a little dirty and very sexy muscular, he continued. Maybe that’s why I didn.t like it as much! (93+) The 1991 La Turque was similar to the 1990, but better. How’s that for a tasting note? (94) After some potential ideas were thrown around, the night ended mercifully, especially since it knocked me out for about four or five days. Of course, despite my illness, I still worked an average of ten hours a day, just at home this week.

Eric the Red invited us all up to his home in Connecticut where we were all at his mercy in a blind tasting. After sticking his toe in the water, Eric decide that all the wines would come from him and that everyone could just bring him a bottle from their cellar as their contribution to the event, which worked out quite well, as Eric put together a tremendous evening out of his tremendous cellar.

Eric isn.t much of a white wine guy, but after we each had about three glasses of 1990 Dom Perignon, we were all pleasantly surprised to see three whites on the agenda. The first white had old and mature white Burgundy aromas and flavors, possibly Leflaive, I mused. There was nut, corn, butter and a lot of earth and yeast. There was also a touch of almond marzipan. The wine was still firm in its alcohol, which was well intertwined with its earth components. The center of the wine was a hair short, but the wine was still very good and bordering on excellent as its texture was very oily. Ray kept insisting how the nose was better than the palate in this surprising 1973 Bouchard Puligny Montrachet Folatieres. (92). The next white had a deep, alcoholic nose that indicated an over-the-top, young white Burg that was wound up like a Swiss grandfather clock from the German part of Switzerland, of course, as we all know that Germans are a bit intense. There was popcorn kernel there and minerals galore. as Gorky pegged. When the word galore comes up, there is only one word that comes to my mind, but I digress. The palate was incredibly precise, and it made me guess 1996 Leflaive Chevalier, but it was the 1996 Leflaive Batard Montrachet. Where is a close friend of mine when you need him? This was a very rare occurrence, that being a razor sharp guess by me when served blind. The acids, minerals and earth were great on the palate, and the wine was stunning (97). The final white of the evening was more flowery but still very wound and intense a la wine #2. Ray guessed 1995 Leflaive Batard, and I could not disagree with his reasoning as there was definitely signature Leflaive. There was earth, yeast and bread dough on its smooth yet gritty palate. It was the 1996 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet, which was strange as it did not seem like it was from 1996 or similar in that regard to the Batard. It was still outstanding (95).

The next flight was comprised of four reds, and they were all the same producer, which we did not know at first. The first wine had a great nose that was deep and meaty with traces of caramel, carob, earth, tobacco, iron and rust. It got metallic quickly, but there was still hickory and gravel, prompting Jim to wonder if it was a Graves, but Ray was all over Spain and old Rioja.. The wine held on the palate well and was sturdy and leathery with flavors of tobacco and chocolate. It was a good showing for the 1947 Lopez de Heredia Vina Bosconia Gran Reserva, better than I remember in Los Angeles last year (92). The next Heredia was the 1964, which got beef bouillon. from Jim, sour milk. from Ray and oysters. from Gorky. Jim felt the clam wine. factor, and Ray jumped on with low-tide marsh, that Gorky felt was more saltwater.. Mike came out of the woodworks with wood shavings.. It was a smooth, satiny wine, and a very good one despite all the controversial adjectives being thrown around (91). The 1968 had a super-duper fruit and nut combo in the nose, and we were feeling the older to younger trend. There were raisinet flavors, almost strawberry dipped in chocolate which I think Jim picked up on first. It was sexy, velvety, leathery, meaty and chocolaty. The palate was very meaty and great, both mature and youthful (94). The 1974 was next, I think, but somehow I missed taking a note. Sorry.

Our third flight started with an Italian kind of wine in the nose. Ray only got tobacco, but I felt the Italian thing more. I did write that it could be Bordeaux. The wine was very leathery and earthy in the nose with lots of tar and alcohol, which was barely reined in on the palate. There was a lot of acid and potpourri, someone noted. The wine was a 1926 Musigny, with no mention of producer, but the problem was that the label also said it was from Bordeaux! I can safely say that this will probably be the only Musigny that I ever have from Bordeaux. Most were convinced that it was old Barolo, and that the wine was still quality, but it wasn.t what it wasn.t, so it had to be disqualified (DQ). Did I mention that Eric was not big on logistics? The next wine made us quickly forget the last wine, as it had a great nose full of chocolate, rose and red, velvety fruits. Gorky came out with a low blow, calling it Dr. Barolet Algerian wine, and someone else said Camille Giroud 1940s, while I settled on La Miss/Haut Brion. due to its gravelly nature. Jim noted its blood and iron. qualities, and there was also nut, minerals and alcohol. The palate was ripe and saucy with a touch of liqueur, definitely mature, and rich and fleshy with hickory smoke flavors. It was a 1928 Haut Bailly (94) , a small vindication of sorts for me. The next wine was real wine. according to RR, aka Big Boy. There was citrus on its finish and a warm, meaty, lush nose that was nutty and full of tobacco, probably La Mission, I wrote. The wine was meaty, fleshy, earthy and leathery with sweet tobacco and hazelnut coffee, someone noted. The wine was more open and lush than the Haut Bailly, and Gorky also noted the citrus peel. in this 1928 Leoville Las Cases (92). The third wine made someone say that this is definitely not a horizontal, although it was! The wine was super chocolaty with minerals, alcohol and long acids. Wendy and Mike were both all over its tapenade. qualities, while Gorky was in a sage. stage, and Jim was feeling lavender.. There was leather to its thick and chewy palate, and Ray started thinking Hermitage and said make sure you quote me.. The wine had band-aids. someone said, and I also noted coffee flavors, and an old Cali Cab camp started to form when it was revealed to be a 1928 Haut Brion (95). Got that, Ray? Unfortunately, the 1928 Latour was maderized (DQ).

We ended with some young bucks, starting with a 1989 Haut Brion. I wonder how many times I am going to have this wine, I thought, and settled on 100 times as a goal. I have already had it at least a dozen times if not more, and it continues to be one of the all-time greats for a young wine, that is. Mike noted lots of spearmint, and it was minty but also long, smooth and earthy, full of leather and alcohol. The wine was amazing: great, long, spicy and intense (98). The 1989 Clinet was no slouch either, possessing an incredible nose that was so pure and chocolaty, earthy and a touch gassy in a positive way. The wine was smooth and lush, great. with lots of charcoal, leather and chocolate flavors and an incredible A to Z balance. Minerals, bacon and length rounded out this kinky and distinctive Pomerol, whose unique flavors held it back actually (95+). The next wine had more spearmint and a meaty, grilled pork edge. Real creamy, Mike gushed. The wine had a chalky, lush texture, lush fruit and good weight despite its feminine style. It was a 1990 Margaux (95+). The last red wine was a curveball from Eric, a 1995 Joseph Phelps Insignia. The wine held its own, although it gave an Aussie impression to some while Ray was on a Tertre Roteboeuf kick. Harlan?. I wrote. The wine was milky, satiny and long, garage-ish but Cali Cab I was righteously convinced. Big boy came up with the big guess of Insignia. and noted its banana and dill, although Mike said it was too sexy for Cali, but I am not sure what he meant. There were meaty, blue fruits to this outstanding wine that I honestly thought was Harlan (95).

The night wasn.t over as Eric served a 1995 Tirecul Cuvee Madame (which was outstanding) and a couple other dessert wines including some Port from the 19th century, I think. I was too busy admiring the guy who couldn.t speak any English, but somehow knew how to hand roll cigars, work away in his cellar. Man, that was a good cigar