“La Tache is an elegance and rigor. Beneath the frequent hardness of its tannins, passion is aflame, restrained by an implacable, courtly elegance.” I don’t know who said it, but it was in our booklet for an exceptional 37 vintage vertical of the one and only La Tache. Whoever said it, said it well! Shanghai was the setting, and while there would be some surprises, the best of the best flexed their muscles repeatedly throughout the weekend.

Our Shanghai team came up with the interesting idea of all the odd vintages on the first night, and then the even on the second. Ok, I was game. It was the first time I had ever done something like that, and I have been around the block. Sometimes you have to travel to the other end of the world to get a new perspective; that’s why I keep moving! We started with the already legendary 2015 vintage..

The 2015 had so much muscle up front. It was brimming with crushed rocks laced with rose petals rising from the glass. It was so rich and full-bodied with some goodie goodie woodsy edges. This was a monster of a wine with an endless finish, but a beautiful monster. The 2015 was decadent, with a hint of bouillon, but still very much primary. The Zen Master found it ‘a touch oaky,’ and it was, but it did get more integrated with air. Rock star wine! There was nice spice and delicacy on the 2013 with great red fruits. It was super fresh with lots of garden spice, great roses and lots of minerality. The 2013 was a bit more feminine on the palate and someone found it ‘a little green.’ I found the 2011 quite drinkable and delicate. It had nice spice, with more citrus and cedar flavors. One thought it ‘sub-par,’ but it is definitely the vintage to drink first while the penitent collector waits for the rest..

The second flight was full of young stunners, and I drank the 2007 first in the flight because I thought the other vintages might overwhelm it. The 2007 was beautifully delicious, keeping in line with many other enjoyable 2007s. This was such a sexy wine, giving me spice, cola kisses and red fruit caresses. Its palate was rich and full-bodied and bigger than I expected, with all that sexy fruit. However, it didn’t hold up as well as it began, the flip side issue with the 2007 vintage. The 2009 was boastful and rich. The wine was more approachable than I expected, but I didn’t complain one bit. It was full of black fruits with a rich, decadent palate. The wine was heavy but simultaneously fleet-footed with black cherry and black raspberry coming out in full force. Impressive! Many know the greatness that is 2005 DRC, and this bottle was no exception. It was the best by far. Yes, the wine was totally wound up in the glass, but it had the longest finish by a mile, and there was no doubt about its position at the top of the pyramid. It was full of rocks, diamonds, blackberries and smoke. This demonstrated how great the ’05 vintage is and showed tremendous definition and decades of potential.

We stumbled a bit in the next flight, but one guest quickly deemed the 2003 his ‘wine of the night.’ I found it a touch shy and musty on the nose, slightly corked. It was muted on the palate as well, a touch reserved for an ’03, although I still felt the ripeness and sweetness in my mouth. The 2001 seemed to be at a different level of maturity than it should, as it showed hints of autumn and brown sugar. It was smooth and buttery with a touch of cola. There might have been some heat damage making it more advanced than it should have been. This slippery flight was redeemed by a beautiful bottle of 1999. It was jammy and rich with great smoothness. Someone found it to have ‘superb finesse’ while I was caught up in its fleshiness on the palate. There was a bit of brown sugar as well, but in a natural way. It was so rich and so much sexier than the other wines in this flight. The 1999 always delivers!

The 1997 was fully mature and a tasty example of the often overripe and difficult vintage. The Zen Master found some ‘mint’ amongst its orange peel and yeast. King Richard thought it was ‘thin,’ but there was a nice leather flavor to its somewhat dry finish. There was sweet, raspberry oak on the 1995 with a touch of marzipan and a great citricity on the palate. It had excellent verve and vim with a long, spicy finish. While many have already given up on the ’95 vintage for Red Burgs, this LT rewarded those who waited. There were nice tannins and it was excellently delicious, really rusty in a very good way. The 1993 had a deep nose with the signature cedar and spice of the vintage. It was full of T ‘n A (tannins and acidity) in its nose. There was stylish cedar and a dry, zippy finish marked by good length.

The 1991 showed a touch more maturely than it should have. It had a milky, rich sweetness and creaminess, but it also showed a touch of molasses and brown sugar. I could still appreciate the wine’s greatness, and it was most certainly great. But the bottle could have been better. The 1989 showed some nice soy sauce notes and a bit of dirty, tasty tootsie pop. It was definitely gamy and dirty, and the sturdy finish showed lots of minerals and spicy spine. This vintage was surprisingly (to me) many guests’ favorite wine of the night. The 1987 was full of tangy citrus, rose and forest floor. It had a date-like quality along with exotic game and tutti-frutti flavors.

The 1985 had a killer nose; it was so aromatic and rich but ideally mature. There was sexy and saucy sous bois to it, along with a creamy deliciousness and nice autumn notes. Laura gave it a 99, admiring how its sweetness really came out in the glass. This was a great bottle of 1985, what I consider to be the first, mature great vintage of Red Burgundy to drink currently. It had everything you could want for this vintage. The 1983 was full of tasty brown sugar and autumn. It had good earthiness, but it dried out over time. At this point, my best note was, ‘JK is drunk’ :). The 1981 was light, earthy and a bit dirty.

We took a poll from the group and the wine of the night was the 2005 with five votes, followed closely by the 1989 (four votes), and then the 1999 and the mature and beautiful 1985 (three votes each). My preference leaned towards the 2005, 1999 and 2015 on this occasion for Top Three, but it was a great showing overall for the odd vintages of La Tache!

The next night we went to the “even” vintages, which seemed a little harder in general at first. I wondered if the wines were served and decanted the same way due to the change in location, and it was confirmed that they were. Then someone brought up the fact that the first night was a “fruit day” on the calendar and more ideal for drinking wine. Hmmmmmmm. It’s tough to follow a calendar when to drink your wine when you like to enjoy it every day lol, but let’s just say that this was the first time in my life that I noticed that possibility.

The 2014 started us on a strong note, with great cedar and lots of black fruit firmly on the dark and flirting with wild side. It felt quite young on the palate with lots of acid. It had nice garden notes and even a pinch of mustard. This felt like it would be a nice drinking vintage at some point within the next ten years. It had solid length but felt a touch dry. The wine became more open and giving with its fruits, and its aromatics soared, giving its score a bump. The 2012 had great raw material as it kept reminding me of the ’05 with its heavy tannins and long-lasting flavors in the mouth. It wasn’t necessarily a wine for tonight, but I saw all of its potential. A touch of rubber tire immediately jumped out of the glass like the start of a drag race. The wine was a bit shut down and dry with tight fruits. It was certainly on the adolescent side, but I got past that, navigating through the leather and cedar in this vintage that was still deep in hibernation. Zen was all about the ‘density’ while I was into the citrus and zip. As we moved on to the 2010, we were still stuck in suspended animation and another unyielding, tight young wine that was not giving it up. It had a milky kiss with some Worcestershire edges. There was lots of liqueur, citrus and a touch of tobacco. It had the biggest finish yet, but it was still quite mellow in its overall expression. This was a classic 2010, wound and not ready, and Zen thought it was ‘still shy,’ though King Richard acknowledged it was a ‘terrific wine.’ The consensus seemed to be that it was still just shut down. You can see how I was a bit perplexed how hard the first flight showed on this night compared to the “odd” vintages. However, things would open up more as we continued.

We had to move on and move on we did to the 2008, which is very highly thought of relative to the vintage, similar to the ’14. There was something fully open about this glass that got me excited. It was showing all of its red fruits led by raspberry and strawberry amid some great structure. Like the previous flight, it was still tight with lots of acid, but there was great cedar and leather, and tasting its fruit got me excited. The 2006 was another open example of La Tache, with a touch of natural gas, mint and purple fruits. It was dense and dark but had a fair amount of richness though it finished dryly. The flavors seemed a touch askew, on the gamy side of things, with more oak emerging that made it a bit square. The 2004 showed a little green and cedary, of course. It was open and autumnal though with citrus and some brothy fruit on the palate. The wine was more open than the rest, but it was clear that it will mature much faster than the rest. I equivocated a lot on my score here as it danced with 93 points and flirted with 94. I like flirty (94).

The 2002 had a great, savory nose, with a touch of BBQ and a bit of garden goodness. It had that great spice and was what you truly expect from La Tache with all of its superb balance. Its concentration and soupy goodness were admirable. I am a huge fan of this vintage for Red Burgundy in general. Though the 2000 had a milky nose, it had freshness and was ready to go. There was some forest and cedar with open expression in the nose. There were nice rocky flavors with touches of roses, tomato and strawberry before a very dry finish. Zen found it ‘so expressive,’ and I wholeheartedly agreed. 2000s are in a sweet spot and easy to enjoy right now. The 1998 had more fruit than I usually expect from the vintage with nice zip. It was as zingy as could be in its nose, in fact. The wine’s fruit leapt forward next with some gamy and jammy notes. It had a touch of smokiness on top of its raspberry jam aromas. The palate was shy and dry, not like the nose at all, with anise flavors and more game. It was zippy and fresh but, in the end, I found it became a bit jammy.

Andrew’s favorite was the 1996; he knows how to play the odds, I mean evens, lol. It had a little strawberry on the nose with some atypical blueberry as well. There were lots of classic mint and menthol aromas that come with age alongside deep, black fruits. The palate was rich, concentrated and black. The acid of the vintage took charge, and the palate was strong in general with mushroom and truffle oil aromas coming out with air. The 1994 was ‘very green’ per the Zen Master. It was full of stems and a touch of mildew. The palate was round and tangy but left me feeling meh. The primary flavors were of maple and lemon, with not much more fruit. It wasn’t bad per se, it just wasn’t great. The group found the 1992 to be a ‘pleasant surprise,’ and it was a perfect bottle from a less than perfect vintage. It smelled really good, full of Christmas cheer with red fruits and pudding. The palate was dry with a pleasant citrusy freshness, though it wasn’t that fleshy. The acidity was still holding well.

The 1990 was deep, dark and saucy. It was rich city with concentrated beef satay and a touch of erotic pheromones. It was the longest and the richest wine of the day with great orange, beef and oil flavors. It lingered well beyond anything else. Some unwanted chocolate tootsie pop crept in at the end, which was the only thing keeping it from 99-point air. The 1988 had that same tootsie pop thing going on with creamy edges. It was a bit like dirty coffee. It had a big finish, but it was a touch too dry. There were similar pheromones that were more sweaty and dank, and also citrus and tootsie pop ones that were more dominant than the kiss in the 1990. The 1986 was another autumnal, sweaty and hard wine. There was lots of acid and dry citrus on the palate. Its palate reminded me of the Sahara, with a small water canteen lol.

The 1984 was truly classic with its menthol and citrus aromas. It was mature but had great tang and cedar. I really liked its spicy citrus flavors. This was a great surprise! I have had some pristine experiences with the 1982 in the past year, but this was not one of them. This bottle was more mature with soy sauce and chocolate. I still enjoyed its beef noodle soup notes. The 1980 was unfortunately more Port than red wine, but the 1978 more than made up for it. This was a great bottle of ’78, make that spectacular. There were great herbs and spices to its nose, along with leather, citrus, tomato, menthol and Worcestershire. All the mature flavors showed up for this iconic vintage of LT. It was clearly the wine of the night, and the evening ended on the high note that it should have.

Merry Christmas, and may your holidays include a bottle of La Tache!

On one fine weekend in a rare place somewhere between 25 and 75% finished, some of New York’s finest collectors gathered to celebrate the birthday of Jetski. While Jetski is not quite the veteran as other Vintage Tastings alumni such as Big Boy and The Mogul, he is definitely moving at the fastest speed at any collector I know, seemingly at every great wine event in New York City. It was only appropriate that his birthday celebration was the greatest wine weekend of the year.

We kicked things off with a rich, sweet and deep magnum of 1971 Krug Collection. The wine was open for business with delicious nutty flavors of caramel and white soda. It was outstanding stuff, definitely on its plateau, and a great way to kick off the weekend festivities (96M)..

The 1976 Krug was a touch ‘bitter’ per Lord Byron Jr. It was definitely acidic and dry with a long finish. While zippy, it was seriously lacking fruit. At this age, it could always be the bottle rather than the wine (93).

The 1982 Ramonet Batard Montrachet Magnum was wrapped in corn stalk and wheat in a good, grainy way. It was quite creamy and long, but LBJ found it ‘not perfect.’ He is in the Jetski camp of tough grading lol. The gang also added ‘gunpowder, bentonite and honey.’ Big Boy found it ’flat,’ but I thought it got better, but it never crossed the border to be outstanding. It got a little oakier in the glass, and a bit of Cheerios crept in (94M).

The 1992 Leflaive Batard Montrachet was a perfect bottle. It was in that ’92 sweet spot, literally. Fully mature while still fresh, with that extra kick of sugar, this outstanding bottle of ’92 Leflaive was in a perfect moment of maturity with so much honey and florality. It was ‘sensational’ honeysuckle city. It lifted in the glass and kept getting better (97).

A bit of a rarity, the 1962 Bouchard Corton Charlemange Magnum had a darker color but delivered an outstanding experience. It had rich caramel and waxy butterscotch aromas to it, and Jetski was digging it. This got more woodsy with time, and Big Boy loved its ‘salinity.’ It gained a coconutty edge, and we were all fans. At first I was in the 94 camp, but this rare magnum edged into outstanding territory in the end (95M).

And that was it for the whites. We had some Clos St. Jacques action next, starting with a rich and sweet 2009 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques. This was full of honey and sweet and ripe, showing the characteristic of the 2009 vintage in Burgundy very clearly. There was still tension to it despite its succulence. It was clearly a great Rousseau with rich, decadent, saucy red and purple fruit flavors (96+).

The 1996 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques was a little gassy and with a bit of a medicinal taste, like Robitussin. Was it me? No, this wine was medicinal city. There was nice concentration but…eh. I couldn’t drink it to be honest, was this just an off bottle/batch? It doesn’t correlate with other Rousseau ’96 experiences I have had (89?).

The 1986 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques had that classic ‘86 rusty, acid-y bite of the vintage. There were great red cherry flavors that smacked and flirted with me as the wine flirted with outstanding status. It almost made it (94).

We had an intruder in this Rousseau flight, but that was quite alright. Someone just came out and said that the 1971 Clair Dau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques (Tastevin bottling) was a ‘nice 93 point wine,’ and he was right lol. It sounds like something Big Boy would say, my most likely candidate to whom to attribute this magnificent quote. It was beefy, a touch of barn-y and possessed rich and saucy brown sugar flavors (93).

The 1985 Dujac Clos St. Denis was soooooo good. It was full of perfect game in its nose, not too mature, not too wild, just that kiss of crisp autumn wild game, everything in the right place. It had a sexy apricot kink to its brambly purple fruit. That ‘85 goodness shined throughout the glass, a fleshy and playful delicacy. There was a stalky goodness to the Dujac greatness (96).

A great match for the Dujac was the 1985 Ponsot Clos St. Denis Vieilles Vignes. This was a deeper, darker and delicious wine, much more brooding and concentrated. Someone called it a ‘grand vin.’ It was rich, decadent and saucy, and very popular at the table. I have to admit, it won me over, too. Its richness reeked Swiss bank accounts, and its darkness excited me. Not sure there has been a Ponsot like 1985 ever since, unfortunately (97).

As good as the Ponsot was, the 1985 Dujac Clos de la Roche took back the crown of Morey St. Denis where it rightfully belongs. This was better than each of the previous two wines. Is Clos de la Roche always better than Clos St. Denis? It was kaleidoscopic and almost psychedelic with its sweet fruits. Its spice cabinet was full, and the wine stimulated my senses while it played with my palate. I would do whatever it wanted lol. It had perfect balance and was in a perfect place, and so were we (98).

It was Bordeaux’s turn to tango, although that was a tough flight to follow. Enter 1961 Chateau Latour. This was a banging bottle of this wine, clearly 99 points I immediately pronounced. Big Boy thought it was at least 98+ territory, lol. This was a deep, dark and chocolaty claret. Its cassis oozed on out to the dance floor otherwise known as my palate. It was crazy good, and this Burgundy crowd was back in love with Bordeaux (99).

The 1959 Chateau Latour was next. It was more chocolaty and sweeter, also with more minty notes. It drank more like a bottle of ‘74 Heitz or Mouton than the usual Latour profile. It was a great wine but not the winner tonight. Big Boy thought it ‘flattened out’ a little. He would soon follow lol (97).

The 1952 Chateau Latour was a beautiful and classy wine. While ’52 was initially known as a hard, tannic vintage, it has been a nice spot for the last decade or two. Therein lies the greatness of Bordeaux. While Latour is known as a brooding, deep wine, this vintage showed us the elegant, softer side of this revered Chateau. Its fruit was fleshy with kisses of signature walnut (95).

The food was finished, or at least the dinner portion of it, and it was officially becoming party time. Jetski had disappeared for a bit, but he was forgiven as he re-emerged with a special bottle. It was the bottle of all bottles, and the 1971 DRC La Tache quickly put Burgundy back at the center of the conversation. This bottle was the real deal in every sense of the phrase. Spicy, saucy and sexy, it smelled and tasted like wine heaven. The red fruits, roses, menthol, tomato, spices…everything was right there and then some. I have been adoring this wine for over two decades, and I am pleased to report that everything is still as it was. It just doesn’t get any better (99).

We finished this incredible evening on an extremely high note, even if I rated a couple wines higher. It is not often that I get to have a wine that is 100 years old, and to have it when it is exactly 100 years old is even rarer. The centennial anniversary of the 1919 Jaboulet Hermitage was a magical experience. It had me running to Instagram to tell the world about it the next day lol. Its color was almost orange, certainly amber, and it had us expecting very little. After a minute in the glass, there was no doubting the greatness of this wine. It still had its signature Hermitage bacon and was full of garrigue. This fleshy, lip-smacking Hermitage showed why Hermitage is one of the great terroirs of the world. It was a real thrill. There is nothing more exciting than a great bottle of really old wine (98).

And that was night one. There was a bit of a barbecue/pool party the next day, and a bunch of wines were served and casually enjoyed as the kids frolicked around the property, which was now between 35 and 85% finished lol. But the afternoon was all about the meat, and Big Boy was holding court. I am a big fan of grilling, but I am just a casual griller. I like to use the grill, but I haven’t gotten serious about it. Too many kids and too many auctions. I have to confirm what you might have heard him saying about himself, that Big Boy is possibly the greatest griller of meat in the world. Like holy shit great. He loves grilling so much that he bought a meat company lol. It’s called Fleisher’s by the way, and per Big Boy, it’s the greatest meat in the world as well. I can’t disagree with him after that afternoon, and now you know.

The afternoon led into the evening, and before we knew it, our second official birthday celebration had begun.

We began with a fresh and perfect magnum of 1976 Dom Perignon. It was zippy and still so young, just starting to show some mature flavors. It was clean with a touch of vanilla soda to it (95M).

A 1992 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos popped out and had a sweet rainwater nose with lots of citrusy fruit and sweet corn kisses. Its palate was long, round and tender. It was in that perfect, mature spot with nice sunny hues and a touch of pineapple goodness. Banana crept in, and I was loving the exoticness of this Clos (96).

There was a 1969 Krug to send us off to the dinner table, and it was full of sweet, yellow cream with a splash of caramel. It was buttery and toasty. While full-bodied and brawny in that signature Krug way, it wasn’t quite outstanding (94).

We sat down to a powerful pair of mature White Burgundy at its finest. The 1986 Leflaive Batard Montrachet had that honeyed, buttery nose and oozed sexy with its mesquite kisses. Its palate was round and flavorful with lots of cedar hints and a rich and creamy finish. This was a great bottle of mature Chardonnay (96).

Big Boy hailed the 1986 Ramonet Montrachet as ‘absurd,’ as in great, and The Inspector thought it was ‘on fire.’ There was so much complexity with its mint, matchstick, corn, and caramel…wow. The Inspector continued that it was the ‘best white he’d had in a while.’ The potential score of the wine came up for discussion, and Jetski, in his usual fashion, thought it was ‘a little rich and ripe for 99 points, that would be a heavy hammer.’ I was only at 98 points already, of course, and we were on to the next lot (98).

An odd bottle of 1971 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses snuck in. It had an orange edge to its oily, black cherry fruit. It was rich and savory with a touch of tomato and a thick finish. There were nice, round straw and purple flavors (95).

Next up was a ‘solid’ 1971 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. It was rich and round, but the palate was softer and easier than expected. It was still outstanding but not spectacular. There were nice forest and spice flavors and a touch of red tootsie pop. The acidity was solid, and so was the wine (96).

The 1971 Rousseau Chambertin didn’t measure up to the previous bottle of Beze, and the group collectively groaned. The Inspector questioned whether it was flawed or just ‘medicinal.’ In the end, he decided flawed. It was round and soft but not much more (92A).

There was supposed to be an entire flight of Vogue Musigny, including ’61, ’62, ’64, ’66 and ’71, but only the 1966 Comte de Vogue Musigny Vielles Vignes survived. Yikes. At least this bottle delivered some delicious dark yet still fresh fruit. It was nutty with nice spice, earth and wheat flavors as well. It was deep and heavy in a good way (94).

The magnum of 1985 DRC Richebourg had an intriguingly complex nose. It was exceptionally deep but tight out of magnum compared to a normal 750ml. It was rich and saucy on the palate with oily dark fruit and leather flavors. This was a rather full-bodied ’85, indubitably due to the magnum format (96M).

Big Boy hailed the 1978 DRC Richebourg as ‘exceptional,’ and it was hard to argue. There was insane acidity and menthol aromas in its nose. It was so aromatic, bursting with red fruits living in eucalyptus city. There were great tea elements on the minty finish of this superb wine (98).

The 1978 DRC La Tache was served thanks to Diamonds. It was a little cold, but it was still great. This beautiful La Tache slowly unfurled in the glass. Its signature menthol crept out to complement its zippy freshness. It might have been a point higher if it wasn’t served so cold (97).

It was time for some Bordeaux, and a good bottle of 1961 Petrus complied. It was chocolaty, chunky and ‘smoky.’ It was beautifully round and pretty with great aromatics, and its chocolaty flavors kept getting richer in the glass. While an outstanding bottle, it didn’t hit the highest notes this wine can reach (96).

The 1959 Petrus was quite stony and not as good as the ’61. It was all about the chocolate, Petrus plums and more stone. A recent bottle performed better; at this age, it all comes down to the bottle (94).

Jetski called an audible, and we went back to Burgundy and a particularly special duo, beginning with the 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares. This was one of the standouts at our 35 vintage retrospective in early 2019, second only to the 1978 in my opinion. This bottle didn’t disappoint, either. It was smoky, velvety, smooth and satiny. It had the backside of the vintage and the impeccable style of Roumier, just entering that plateau of drinkability (97).

A rarity of rarities was next, the 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares Vieilles Vignes. It was similar to the “regular” except it was deeper and more concentrated. Someone bickered about that ‘1988 dryness,’ but I was completely smitten. I was lost in the depths of this wine’s soul. So deep and so concentrated kept appearing in my notes. This was an epic, WOW wine (99).

We closed out the evening with another audible, a spectacular trio of La Mission that I greatly enjoyed, even though I proved incapable of note-taking at this point. Let’s just recap the three La Misses as hits, and the fact that La Mission might arguably be the most consistent, great Chateau of the 20th Century. Jetski pulled out another 1971 La Tache, see previous night’s note lol. It was another epic bottle and a definite ‘Happy Birthday to me’ moment, and the rest of us for that matter.

Happy Birthday and thank you Jetski. You have set a high bar, but I know you will be up for attempting to surpass it!

In Vino Veritas,
JK

Summer was full of birthday celebrations, and one of its finest and funnest was Lulu’s. (Yes, I know I made up a word). Now usually, these wine-fueled birthday celebrations can be a bit of a boys’ club, but Lulu happens to be the wife of the Mogul, and the Mogul is a gentleman, and he celebrates his wife’s birthday to the utmost. And if you’re the Mogul, and there is a celebration, there has to be a boatload – literally – of fine and rare wine. Lulu loves a good celebration herself, as she is from Brazil, and I like to roll deep with Brazilians as much as possible. They know how to celebrate life to the fullest!

The first day started on “The Boat.” I am pretty sure I write about “The Boat” every summer, or every Fall when I finally catch up. If you like to drink wine, and you like to visit the Hamptons, you need to be on “The Boat.” Of course, you would have to be invited by the Mogul, and thankfully I was. The first day we motored out East into the Atlantic ocean, had some lunch and took a dip in the refreshing water. I didn’t take many notes, but I did jot down some scores. Here’s a brief recap:

I am going to use some executive privilege here and move on, because it was a busy two days. After the boat, we all went our separate ways and ended up at Tom Terrific’s place for a spectacular dinner. It was one of the best dinners I can remember. The food, the company and, of course, the wine. Every bottle was just spectacular. It was one of those nights where the wine heavens opened up, and there was Tom at the head of the big table in the sky lol.

We began with a rare bird, I mean bottle, it being the 1991 Chave Blanc. This was an outstanding bottle of white, on the mineral-driven side of what this wine can be. It was full-bodied and focused, just starting to come around. I like the kinky side of this wine, too, where there is enough fruit to fill a Whole Foods, but this wasn’t that. It was bordering on mean, in a good, spank me kind of way (96).

Next up was a rock star bottle of 1996 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. When they are on, they are definitely on. It was full of rich, buttered popcorn and a light, tertiary caramel note. It was so tasty and in that perfect spot, the one where the plateau is just beginning (97).

The 1978 Dujac Clos St. Denis was spectacular and immediately in the 98-point territory. It was rich, creamy and more than outstanding. JB noted ‘mint and eucalyptus,’ and I noted everything I would want in a mature Burgundy. The kaleidoscope of fruit flavors – that’s black, red and purple – cascaded so easily down my hatch. Light, teasing complexities of exotic nuts, mushrooms and forest foreplay got me even more excited. What a wine (98).

I can never get enough 1978 DRC La Tache and this bottle was no exception. It got oohs, aahs and wows from the crowd. This was full of garden, menthol and rose with some benevolent tea-like qualities about it. It had laser-like focus and great length. As good as it was, there was something ethereal about the Dujac that put it just a nose, or a palate, ahead (97+).

In contrast, the 1978 DRC Romanée St. Vivant was a touch simpler and a bit earthy by comparison. In any other context, it might have been more appreciated. It was a Jetski ‘94 points,’ and for once I agreed with his stingy, incredibly low scores (94).

Somehow, a 2001 Hubert Lignier Clos de la Roche showed up. I love the wine, and it was still flirting with me with its youthful and vimful personality. I just don’t love it served in between my 70s and 60s DRC lol. It was big and beefy, almost chunky and still a touch too young, especially after the two incredible ‘78s that preceded it. Deep purple resonated in its chorus (95).

I misspoke earlier, as the 1966 DRC La Tache didn’t deliver a perfect experience. This vintage is very up and down for me for LT. This one was full of deep, dark, chocolaty tootsie pop flavors, a bit funky and old. Tom cracked his staff three times on the floor, and the wine was gone (92A).

One of the year’s most anticipated events was finally here. Roberto Conterno was coming to New York City, the first time in two years due to his new Nervi project in Gattinara (great wines by the way). And we had 38 vintages of Monfortino, Barolo’s greatest wine, on tap and ready to go at Legacy Records. There are few people in the wine world as intensely passionate and amicably knowledgeable as Roberto Conterno. He is precise and confident in his expertise, as he should be. He is one of the wine world’s greatest winemakers.

I actually almost missed the event. I had just come back from Hong Kong, and I had to fly again to New York two or three days later, I can’t remember exactly. I do remember that I had to take a nap, but I neglected to turn on my alarm after setting it and collapsing late in the afternoon. Next think I know, it was 730pm; thank God I woke up! Sir Robert and Hamburger had been texting me like crazy. I was on the way!

I had arrived after the first flight and tried to catch up quickly. Vintage Tastings alums BJ, Diamonds, Wild Bill and Jetski were holding it down in the meantime. Everyone was given a Sensory glass to taste with. This is another one of Roberto’s pet projects; creating the perfect wine glass, and I have to say that he did it. The Sensory wine glass truly enhances the wine drinking experience. I did a study with Roberto at his winery in Piedmont the previous summer tasting his glass versus others. His glass delivered more aromas, more flavors and a better experience than all the rest. This is yet another testament to his passion and genius.

The 2006 was so rich and sweet and amazing in the glass. The 2005got blown off by BJ, who called it ‘a waste of time.’ I missed comments on the 2004, but I got all excited about the 2002, a truly unexpected ‘wow’ wine. It was great and gritty and such a champion of the vintage, which was a quite difficult one in Europe in general. The 2001 drank a bit dry, but it was still outstanding. The 2000 had all the richness I wanted, with lots of dark cherry and charcoal flavors. Surprisingly, it was better than the ’01! BJ ranked the flight ’02, ’04, ’00 finding the ’02 ‘ready to drink,’ and someone else seconded his ’02 emotion. We were all already in Nebbiolo sync.

The next flight had us again hitting many high notes. The 1999 was so tight; it was a brute and a beast of a wine. Deep, rich, dry and long, BJ still thought it would be ‘one of the wines’ for Monfortino eventually. There were a lot of raw materials here, but it wasn’t as showy as some of the other vintages. It was a bit shut down but still oh so there. The 1998 was also rich and showing a touch of earthiness. There was a great smack to its sweetness and tar flavors. This was another wow Monfortino, so tasty. BJ was quickly becoming my muse for the evening, calling it ‘acid driven.’ The 1997 was ‘reduced with a lot of fruit’ per Diamonds. It was more reserved than I expected yet riper on the palate with round fruits and roasted tannins. It seemed like it was ready to go and be drunk up in general. Diamonds found it ‘awesome.’ The 1996 was ‘benchmark Monfortino.’ This was classic and wound, with a finish that went as far as sound and light could travel. What a wine! Pittsy found the 1995 ‘resiny,’ and I found it a touch musky and fleshy. Roberto advised us that seven to ten-thousand bottles of Monfortino are made every year. The 1993 had more licorice and anise to it. It opened up into a rich, Burgundian wine. Pittsy found it ‘like a 1990,’ continuing the Burgundy thought process.

We had a couple of hiccups in the next flight, but none with the rockstar 1990. BJ called it a ‘monster’ in the most complimentary fashion. It was oily, rich and dark with tremendous structure. Someone called it a ‘Moby Dick of a wine.’ This brooding beast was a classic with great balance, zip, tar and leather. Sadly, the 1988 was oxidized and got the Italian boot from our night accordingly. I never see the 1987 vintage for Monfortino, which was nice and pleasant. It was a touch figgy with some citrus and beef flavors. It was tasty and ‘drinking now.’ The 1985 was a bit shy despite being more pheromonal. It had lots of desert action, avoiding the gamy qualities of some of the lesser vintages. Someone commented that it ‘should be as good as the ’90,’ but felt it wasn’t. I liked it. The 1982 was sadly corked. Roberto Conterno noted that the 1979 was ‘difficult to find because it was so approachable, so everyone drank it.’ There was an incredible, nutty nose here. It was just starting to show its maturity, and it was pretty delicious even though its palate was on the more elegant side. It was citrusy and ‘soulful’ per Pittsy, and BJ noted ‘bouillon.’

Roberto shared with us how his family purchased the vineyards in Francia in 1974, and that the 1978 was the first vintage of Monfortino with Francia fruit in it. The 1978 had incredible density and richness. Diamonds joked that it ‘had some potential,’ a testament to its age-ability and youthful vigor. It had that great ’78 body and decadence. Its finish lifted the wine up, up and away. Roberto noted that he could always recognize the 1974 vintage due to its acidity. He added that ‘the acidity was now OK, but 20 years ago, it was impossible to drink.’ It was definitely very tangy and redolent with its citrus. This was a great ’74 with a tangy finish. The legendary 1971 was next and it didn’t disappoint. I thought the ’96, ’90, and ‘71 were siblings, all with amazing length and acid. The ‘71 was rich, leathery and long. BJ thought it was ‘super resolved,’ and Roberto thought it was ‘perfect, so why wait?’ It was very easy to drink despite still being so young, and ‘brilliant’ came from the crowd. The 1970 was DQ’d, meaning it was either corked or oxidized, but I didn’t write which one. The 1969 was quite pleasant with a little fresh, farm-iness and hay thing happening. There was a citrusy tang and something a little cocaine-ish to its palate. It was bright with lots of acidity and freshness. Maybe it was a touch lighter, but BJ and I liked the ‘lift’ the acidity gave it. The 1968 also had some farm action, but more on the horse side of things. There was great structure and tannins, and I thought it was right on the money for drinking as well. The sweet spot for Monfortino really bgins at age 40! Everyone was ooh-ing and aah-ing about the ’68 and ‘young again,’ ‘dead on’ and ‘gets better’ all came from the crowd.

Roberto shared with us that he ‘would always pick the 1967’ because it was always so delicious and drinkable. That must be why I never see it lol. The 1967 was so rich with loads of brown sugar. It seemed a little advanced and a touch cooked, but it had such great power and acidity. This is certainly the best kept secret in aged Monfortino! The 1964 was no slouch. It was more elegant and dry, on the citrusy side. It was outstanding stuff. Roberto began to discuss what separated his Monfortino from others, pointing out that it was a selection of fruit, fermentation at higher temperatures, and it had more years of aging before release. The 1961 is a known great vintage, and it was clearly in line with the other greats of ’96, ’90, and ’71 so far. It was terrifically rich and beefy, a real wow wine. It doesn’t get much better for Italian wine. I also thought the 1958 was brilliant with a smooth, great taste, loads of spice and an elegant finish. It had some celery soda goodness. The color on the 1955 was a little tea-like and cloudy but it had rich flesh. It was a bit faded with orange-y notes and lighter than the spectacular bottle I drank with BJ last year. It still wasn’t bad, but it was definitely affected. The 1952 was cheesy, elegant, nutty and rich, and I was liking it. BJ, Pittsy and Jetski all agreed. The 1949 was off and we moved quickly to the 1947, which was ‘a little deeper’ with a bit of veggie to it. Roberto thought that the ’47 was the ‘wine for him.’ Even though it had the color of tea, it wasn’t cloudy at all. It was nutty, fresh and pure, and still great thirty minutes later. We would soon find out that this is about as great as old Barolo can be.

I liked the 1945 which was round but not young. It was expressive and clean with an orange rind quality that made it drink a bit like a Sercial Madeira. ‘Butter’ came from the crowd. The 1943 was a little more oxidized but eventually became beautiful. The 1941 was Fino city in the unpleasant sherry way, and the 1937 and 1934 suffered similar problems. Barolos at this age are highly risky, and we were learning first hand. There was a similar oxidized sherry quality to the 1929, but it was more like a fino in an appropriately great and aged way. There was great sweetness and acidity here that supported this oxidized expression of Nebbiolo.

It was a most memorable evening with the always memorable Roberto Conterno. His Barolo Monfortino is without question one of the greatest wines in the world.