The auction was this past Saturday, and each auction seems to bring out the out. in me the preceding week as the momentum builds towards the auction. It was one of those weeks, where each night had parts one and two, and I over-indulged a bit, finally crashing on Saturday after the auction. a close friend of mine was in town, of course, the only person who can get me out four nights in a row. No drinks this week, I swear!

The week started off Tuesday night at LCB Brasserie (formerly La Cote Basque), where the Wine Workshop kicked off its spring schedule with a near complete vertical of J.F. Mugnier’s Musigny, whose first vintage was 1985. We did not have the 1992 or 1987, and the 1986 was actually Vieilles Vignes, a fact that made a big difference at the end of the night. We had scheduled the event to coincide with the Burghound’s trip to NYC as he passed through on his way to Burgundy. For those of you that don’t know, Allen Meadows (aka the Burghound) has become the country’s, if not the world’s, leading expert on Burgundy over the past few years. His knowledge of the wines, the Domaines, and the people behind them is incredible, and any serious Burgundy collector or drinker should make an effort to subscribe.

Allen started off with a wealth of information to set the stage for the wines of Freddie. Mugnier, who has become one of the most collectible and respected producers in Burgundy over the past decade. Most of this paragraph is paraphrased from Allen, fyi. The vineyard of Musigny is 10.7 hectares (approximately 27 acres) and has three climats.: Les Grands Musigny, Les Petits Musigny (which is 100% owned by Comte de Vogue), and a tiny parcel in La Combe d’Orveaux that is actually Musigny and 100% owned by Jacques Prieur. Mugnier’s village Chambolle comes from regular Combe d’Orveaux fruit. Comte de Vogue is the twenty-foot elephant of the region, owning two-thirds of all property that is officially Musigny. Allen reasoned that Comte de Vogue should make the best Musigny every year because they have the luxury of declassifying sub-standard barrels. Roumier, Jadot, Leroy and Faiveley, who all make one to three barrels every year, have to work with what they have or make nothing at all. Allen cited two recent examples: Faiveley only made a half-barrel (12 and ½ cases) of its 2002 Musigny Allen almost felt guilty sampling it, as one bottle is 00667 of the world’s production, akin to drinking 2000 bottles of a First Growth in one sitting! There are only 40,000 bottles of Musigny made every year on average. Also, Roumier wanted to use a custom-made, oversized barrel for his 2002 Musigny, one about 150% of the size of a standard barrel, but this custom barrel was flawed and lent way to much char in the 02, potentially ruining a great Roumier. He still bottled, however. Mugnier owns 1.3 hectares (2 and ¾ acres), and the average age of the vines on the property is 50 years old. Allen went on to call Musigny one of the top three pieces of dirt in Burgundy, along with La Tache and Romanee Conti. We’re talking high-class cotton, he jested. The history of Mugnier is a short one, at least related to wine. His father was a Parisian banker, but his grandfather and great-grandfather were in the liqueur business and did well for the family. Freddie was an oil engineer until 1984, when he got bit by the wine bug and took a crash course in oenology in Dijon for six months. Six months later, he was getting ready to make his first vintage of Musigny. His holdings include Chambolle village (half of his village wine is declassified 1er and grand crus), Les Fuees, Les Amoreuses, a tiny 0.4 hectares of Bonnes Mares and the aforementioned Musigny. Freddie has always been modest and whip-smart, according to Allen, and will confess to this day that he had no idea what he was doing early on. His earlier vintages tend to be more masculine, and as time went on and Freddie gained more experience and wisdom, his wines became more and more feminine and elegant, like a classy Musigny should be. Early on he experimented with Vielles Vignes. cuvees between 1985 and 1989, which was his last one. Roumier has influenced him to use some stems. Allen made one last point, as he saw drool forming in the corners of all of our lips, which was that Mugnier is not for everyone. I think it is brilliant, but it is a connoisseurs. wine. Wines are designed to come to you, but you have to come to this, where elegance and internal genius can be appreciated.. Mugnier once told him, We don’t need winemakers. Everything we need comes from the vineyards, and all I need to do is not screw it up.. Allen continued to put his own two cents in and say that this culture of celebrating the winemaker is like putting the cart before the horse. Allen is clearly a terroir-ist. and bleeds Burgundy red.

We started with a flight of four wines, 2001 back through 1998. Allen said that Mugnier was his personal favorite when it came to Musigny, and explained further that the problem with Roumier is that he doesn’t make enough! The 2001 Mugnier Musigny was young yet pure, with lots of alcohol in the nose but sweet, crystal-clear fruit to match. There was red and black cherry fruit, musky and kinky spice in the nose, and a close friend of mine was all over its transparency.. The wine did have beautiful clarity in the nose. On the palate, what I call the bitterness of youth. enveloped the wine with its wood, alcohol and mineral components. The fruit was not ready to be fully experienced, although it got saucier in the nose. It will certainly be a great wine, and probably climb the point ladder (93). A close friend of mine was complimenting the approachability and drinkability of the 2000 Mugnier Musigny when Allen shared that Freddie felt his 2000 was better than his 1999, although Allen was careful to make clear that he was unsure whether he agreed. The nose was seductive, noticeably lighter in weight but gorgeously perfumed and elegant. There was some delicate sweetness and a combination of red fruits and sweet spice, along with a touch of leather. The palate was rusty and taut but balanced and long. The wine was still young but much more approachable than the 2001. My friend Don, who has one of the greatest collections of Burgundy in the world, told me recently that when he is in the mood for something young, he usually opens a 2000 (in general, not specifically Mugnier) (92). The 1999 Mugnier Musigny was actually lost in translation in our warehouse, but with only thirty minutes until the event started, we called up Robert Bohr of Cru, seeking an emergency replacement. He had four bottles on hand thankfully, another reason why Cru is the best restaurant in New York City today! The bottle came just in time and was a little unsettled to some due to the quick trip, but the nose was still deep and intense, although one had to dig a little. There was a meaty core with some fig, animaland more pronounced leather wrapped around it, and earth wrapped around the leather. The fruit was more on the black and plummy side. The finish was huge with lots of t n a but shut down on the fruit side. The flavors were vitamin and cola, and while one could not discount the density and length of the wine, it would be a waste to open one for at least another five years (94+). The 1998 Mugnier Musigny has been a personal favorite of Allen’s since release, and a close friend of mine was also right there in his admiration. The nose was divine and had impeccable balance of fruit and spice. The fruit was warm and inviting and had great spice and stone accompanying it. The nose was wound up yet still inviting, in a stage of divine schizophrenia. The flavors were pure – cherry, soda, oat and earth, and the finish was very fine and long (95). Allen chipped in a few comments after flight one. The orchestrated fruit is the brilliance of Musigny with its kaleidoscopic expression and its layered personality, like an onion, as Shrek said. Each sip reveals something else, like each layer of that onionI hate vintage charts look at 1993 and 1998Mugnier uses 25% new oak.. I want to add my own observation about tasting and evaluating young Burgundy: a majority of wines have the potential to score higher, as tasting young Burgundy is more difficult than any other wine, and the great wines often need ten to fifteen years to start to show their fruit. Always keep that in mind. I gave the 1999 a + as I thought it was clear that it would go up in score and had the most potential in this flight, although the same could be said for the 2001.

The next flight was again four wines, from 1997 through 1994. The 1997 Mugnier Musigny was wild and open with meaty and gamy edges. There was a touch of sulfur, animal, and almost milky aromas, with wet stones and minerals to match. The palate was rich and alcoholic, a touch unbalanced with the alcohol, and much denser fruit-wise than any wine in the first flight. Despite its intensity and heavy finish, there was still balance and long, dry tannins (93). I should note that Doug, a reknowned Burgundy aficionado from New York, did not care for it. The 1996 Mugnier Musigny had a shy nose, but was regal at the same time. There were hints of peppermint, dark chocolate, leather, slate and musk. The palate was exquisitely balanced, long and pure-bred. The palate was also shy with its citric tension. The wine showed its beautiful body, but a close friend of mine made the point that the 1997 was better for a 97 than the 1996 was for a wine from 96 (93+). The 1995 Mugnier Musigny, a vintage which more people seem to be giving up on than democracy in Iraq, showed a touch of funk in the nose, again pepperminty a la the 1996, also flirting with cinnamon and eucalyptus. The nose was rusty and leathery in general its layers were certainly of brick origin. The palate was very dry and long with great vitamins, earth, brick and unsweetened sun-dried cherry flavors. Although Freddie claims he blew it. with this vintage and the fact that Allen felt the 1995 is one-dimensional, I found some merit in the wine, and if some fruit ever develops (which does seem unlikely), it could increase in score. I could see why some would find it overly dry (a flaw of the vintage in general it seems) and lacking layers of fruit, but I found it to be very good right now, not turned off by its overly dry personality (something it shares with the 1988 vintage, which I often find myself liking more than others as well) (92). A touch of pungent, leathery fruit marked the 1994 Mugnier Musigny, whose nose was also musky, taut and citric with sprinkles of vitamins, but light overall. The wine was simple on the palate and did not have a lot there it was ok, average at best. Rob remarked that it doesn’t have the Musigny going on.. Stay away from 1994 Burgundies is the JK recommendation, as I have yet to have one I really enjoyed, come to think of it (85). Allen shared some wisdom, of course, noting that this would probably be the least successful flight of the night, since he does not like the 1994 or 1995 that much and has never been as enthused with the 1996 as he has wanted to be. He told us that 1994 was actually shaping up to be the vintage of the century until September arrived, when it started to rain and never stopped. As a result, the phenolic ripeness never occurred. There are 1 in 100 wines that you will actually enjoy. It is my least favorite vintage of the decade.. I knew I hadn’t had a good one! 1995, he continued, was problematic as a lot of people picked too soon due to the hot weather, and there was also rot. The wines were explosive from cask but eighteen months later shut down and have never reopened. The late pickers in 1995 were much more successful, he continued, and the triage (sorting) table was much more important. There was that if it’s really hot, it must be great. stigma with the vintage early on amongst critics, he went on, which sent him off on this tangent about schools of wine criticism. He categorized critics as either adjectivists, which he personally rejects, or structuralists, whom he considers himself, who are more concerned with how the wine is going to age. The balance between acid, tannins and density is what is most important flavors will come later, the same point that a close friend of mine made in Vegas two weeks prior. Great minds think alike! Allen also made the clear distinction that extraction is not a synonym with density. Count me in the middle somewhere, but on that structuralist side if it was an election (I’m saying, I like my adjectives, too!) I do agree with Allen in that there is not enough concern with how wines are going to develop. 99 point ratings are flying all over the place for wines with unproven track records. Wines made in more restrained and elegant styles are under-rated because they don’t hit critics over the head with their extracted ways, more so in Burgundy than any other region. The world’s greatest wines are ones that last thirty years or more and develop, which doesn’t mean a wine can’t be great for its first five or ten years. However, too many people are looking at wine in the here and now. They need to drink more old wine! Back to our regular programmingthe only problem with 1996 was that the crop was superabundant. It was one of the cleanest crops ever, with big, fat berries and high liquid-to-solid ratios. As a result, it was hard to make a dense 1996, but the detail of the wines is incredible. 1997 was a very hot vintage as well, a la 1947 and 1959. There is a big debate over the phenolic ripeness of the vintage, as in whether or not it was achieved since it was too hot, and some wines do have a greenness to them as a result. Allen gave us an example of why hot vintages are not always great: The vine is a living organism, and it will not risk its own life for the sake of its babies (grapes). If overly stressed, the vine will shut down.. He then rattled off every major, great vintage of the 20th century that was not a hot vintage: 1993, 1969, 1961, 1952, 1949, 1945, 1937, 1929, 1921 and I might have missed a few.

The third flight was here, and three wines were there for our evaluation: 1993, 1991 and 1990, a nice trio to evaluate together for any great producer in Burgundy. My note for the 1993 Mugnier Musigny started, Oh baby, as its nose was super-intense, with power and finesse, as well as meat, black fruits, vitamins, minerals, t n a, leather, earth, saddle, musk, spice and animal fur. The palate was great long and chock full of vitamins, taut and wound by comparison to its expressive nose, with a touch of citric tension. The intensity in the nose doesn’t wane and someone called it precise.. (95+) The 1991 Mugnier Musigny had a pure nose with great t n a. It was very penetrating and long with great Asian spice to it. The palate, however, was very tight and unyielding too wound for me at the moment. There was some secondary rose/floral spice that developed in the nose. The palate was long, but very dry, so much so that I am not sure the fruit will ever get there (91). The bottle of 1990 Mugnier Musigny we had was very controversial, and certainly not consistent with the one we had in Vegas a couple weeks prior. a close friend of mine and Rob found it stewed, although others called it delicious.. The nose was shy and removed, with anise, milk, leather and alcohol, and the palate was long and clumsy. Based on the bottle I had two weeks ago, I had to disqualify it (DQ). Time for some Burghound analysis: both Allen and Freddie feel that the 1993 is the best he ever made. 1993 is for Burgundy lovers, while 1990 is for wine lovers.. Why? 1993 is all about terroir, and the wines have a transparency that exists that you cannot find in those from 1990. 1991 is almost a combination of 1993 and 1990, Allen continued, calling the best 1991s better than the best 1990s, because Mother Nature didn’t let one overcrop in 1991. 1991’s biggest problem was that many wines are too austere, something we saw in the Mugnier. Allen also commented, Style is not content, and content is not style, although I can’t recall the context of the comment about content. Say that five times quickly.

There were two flights left, and two wines in each flight, but I will review them all in a final paragraph. The 1989 Mugnier Musigny had a forward, gamy, plummy and minty nose, but its mintiness was more Crest and manufactured than natural with its thick and heavy accents. The nose was a bit wild and crazy with lots of forest floor. The palate was pretty with a light sturdiness, leathery and on the drier side with its mid-to-light finish. It is holding on to being very good and most likely will decline sooner rather than later (90). The 1988 Mugnier Musigny had a milky nose with red fruits, eucalyptus, leather and a touch of rust. The palate was rich with lots of vitamins, citrus and t n a. It was brawny and sturdy but just short of three-dimensional call it two and a half. The palate was rusty and long. a close friend of mine liked it a lot as well (92). The 1986 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes was extraordinary, especially given the context of the vintage, and it was a perfect example of a wine needing time to be fully and properly evaluated. The nose was amazing and the nose of the night for sure, as it was both youthful and mature heaven scent, if you will. There were intense aromas of rose, vitamin and mineral. The wine was hot, hot, hot as in sexy and not alcohol! The palate was meaty and rich with loads of iron and iodine, leather, earth and spice. The wine was incredibly youthful still with long acids and cinnamon. according to Bob. Allen called it high-toned with clove. and none of the harshness. of the 1986 vintage.. He also explained that Freddie himself confided that he lucked out when he made this wine, as he was still learning the ropes (96). The 1985 Mugnier Musigny was corked. Bummer (DQ). Allen shared that the 1986 was the most interesting aromatically and shows that even in an average vintage that the best terroirs and producers can transcend the vintage.. In sum, he said that despite the evolution of the winemaking style, you can still comment on the fact that it is Musigny. The wines don’t shout, they’re not showy and they are refined.. It was a most enjoyable and educational evening but it wasn’t over. Allen, a close friend of mine, Andy, Rob, Doug and I headed over to Atelier, which is the restaurant in the Ritz Carlton on Central Park South, a restaurant that has a great list of Burgundy and other wines as well. No notes were taken, but wines were consumed, and some pretty special ones at that, so what follows are reflections of the rest of that night. It is tough to remember anything besides the glorious, last bottle there of 1952 Richebourg that we had, which was spectacular. It had everything one could want fabulously complex aromas of saucy, sexy and meaty fruit laced with menthol and minerals. The wine was still incredibly fresh, layered in the nose like one of Allen’s onions. The texture on the palate was incredible: thick, meaty and layered as well. It was a rose garden of a wine the rose garden at Versailles, that is. Incredible, incredible wine (98). We actually started with a 1990 Dujac Clos St. Denis, which was close to outstanding but a little musty and wound. It needed more time, both in the glass and in the bottle. It was very minerally and rocky, but still class in the glass, of course, since it was from one of the top six producers in Burgundy (, Rousseau, Roumier, Vogue, and Jayer are the others, fyi) (94+). We also had a corked 1999 Roumier Musigny (it was also the last bottle) (DQ), and a pair of 1980 ‘s: La Tache Richebourg. We had the La Tache first, which was still fresh, alive and kicking with lots of power and alcohol and a mentholated palate. It was intense and excellent, bordering on outstanding but lacking the depth of fruit I require to give it that badge of honor (94). The Richebourg should have been had first, and while it was still very good, it did not stand up to the power of the La Tache (91). Time for bed.

The next night was dinner at Nobu, courtesy of Big Boy, who treated all of us (including a close friend of mine and Patman) to dinner and Champagne Champagne as in 1961 Krug, 1969 1975 Dom Perignon, and 1985 Krug. All the Champagnes were original bottlings, and unfortunately the mag of 1969 was shot (DQ). The 1975 DP was a little tired as well, perhaps past its prime or just an affected bottle (86). The 1961 Krug was gorgeous, pure, refined and still fresh (94). The same could be said for the 1985, except you had to add the fact that the 85 was massive by comparison, with incredible power and intensity (96+). I look forward to having it another hundred or so times over the next couple of decades. I should also note that Krug Collection (late-released) bottles of 1961 would probably score higher than original releases. The after-party on this night was at Cru, where I tried to get the blind game in motion and put one of my fellow enthusiasts on the spot, since he has been guessing too many wines correctly when we taste blind together. So I plucked a magnum of 1983 Rousseau Chambertin off the list, it was served blind, and what did a close friend of mine guess? Yup, the 1983 Rousseau Chambertin. Ok, I give up. The wine, by the way, was gorgeous, beautifully mature, distinctively Rousseau, gentle and soft, caressing and smooth. It was as if someone poured rose petals into the glass while one was walking barefoot on Holy Land. Who says 1983s can’t be great? The magnum helped, I’m sure, but it was an excellent wine, although at its peak and not layered to be a fifty year wine, I think. Hopefully, I am wrong (93). Andy ended up stumping a close friend of mine by serving him Premier Cru wine. Now why didn’t I think of that? The 1993 Comte Armand Pommard Clos des Epeneaux was big and clumsy, lacking a center although packing a wallop of a finish, laced with too much oak for my taste (86). Andy also pulled out a 1949 Remoissenet Richebourgstrong>, I think, which was mature and tasty in that I.ve been chapitalized kind of way, as in maybe I’m Richebourg and maybe I’m 1949 but damned if you will ever know (90). That was it for this night. Tomorrow was the beginning of Doug and Michael’s two-day Romanee St. Vivant extravaganza, but you’ll have to wait until next week to read all about that one.

I found myself in Las Vegas again the second official weekend in January for a weekend planned months in advance. The weekend started out as a close friend of mine's 12 Angry Men. tasting but also blossomed into a perestroika of sorts, when the following night became big Dave's Burgwhore event, a tasting group from Los Angeles that I have covered in issues past of Vintage Tastings, a group of which a close friend of mine is also a member. Since the event was on the road, both groups got about half their members to attend, making for a nice number of twelve guests the first night and fourteen the next. Playing the role of the Sharks this weekend were 12 Angry Manners: big boy. RR, JJ, Peter, guest Patman, who gobbled up various substances the entire weekend as if they were those dots in that video game, myself of course, and a close friend of mine. Playing the role of the Jets were the Burgwhores and the real. Jef Levy, big Dave, Kvetch. aka Matt, another JJ (Johnny J), guest Rock n Roll Steve, and guest Dee from Utah, joined on the second night by Tom and Tony of the Burgwhores as well. a close friend of mine, as always, had the most complex role, being a member of both the Sharks and the Jets, playing both lead roles in a love story of tragic Shakespearean proportions. It is very difficult to love oneself as well as a close friend of mine is capable when it comes to fine wines.

A few of us gathered together one night early on Thursday: RR, Patman, a close friend of mine and myself. RR and Patman were at the Blackjack tables before I could even get my bags into my room, and after I was able to catch up on the minimum work necessary for me to do and have a good conscious, let's call it three hours, I went downstairs to join them. Now I hate Blackjack, especially after losing $300 in ten minutes the weekend prior when I somehow ended up in the Venetian at 1AM with no poker tables in sight. Yes, I am a poker guy, and as far as my cards are concerned, there is only one game: Texas Hold Em. I quickly convinced RR and Patman to join me at the Poker tables as we waited for a close friend of mine's arrival at around 8PM, right before our reservation at Julian Serrano's Picasso, the very same restaurant that Gil had taken me one week prior to the day. We had the white truffle menu and started off with a couple of bottles of Champagne, of course, which is a close friend of mine's favorite beverage with white Truffles, and I cannot say he is wrong. First up was a 1964 Pol Roger Extra Dry, which a close friend of mine called the classic Pol Roger style lean and muscular, to which Patman quipped, kinda like Rob. Rob replied with a big smile and a gentle rub of his stomach. The nose was on the mature side, possibly past its prime by a couple of years with its nose of sherry, cream soda, lanolin, baked honey, bread and musk. The palate also had the cream soda thing happening, with additional flavors of white chocolate and a lightly slaty and gritty finish. I must admit, the white truffle and egg dish really made the Champagne start to sing, fattened it up and brought out more vanilla, toast and firmness to the finish. It actually brought my score up a couple of points, which food rarely does perhaps the food awakened some of my dormant senses from all the travel and cigarette smoke in the poker room, cigarette smoke to which I was oblivious since I ended up $700. a close friend of mine summed up the Pol Roger as beautiful and still lots of life & another razor sharp 64...(93) Next up was a 1973 Dom Perignon Oenotheque. (i.e., DP's version of a recently disgorged and released bottle of Champagne directly from their cellars). a close friend of mine again quickly set the game in motion, calling it a Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne of a DP. The nose was toasty and chocolaty with lots of earth, a touch of weeds that faded in and out, honey and toast. The bubbly was very fresh with a long, sturdy, fine finish. The acids were amazingly fresh and long. There was a touch of weediness to its flavors at first, but Patman saw more crème brulee... The flavors developed into bread, fresh soda and even a touch of coffee. This weedy flavor bothered me at first, but the food again expanded the wine in the glass as layers of burnt honey and fresh nectarines, (RR) emerged. Pat called it Yquem-like...(95) I had brought a 1983 Rayas for fun, and it had a fabulous nose at first in that way that only Rayas can: classic, with great, ripe, sweet strawberry-rhubarb fruit and great tension between that and the earth, rust, iron and stone aromas. It had that extra edge of Chateauneuf/Provencal spice as well. There was lots of alcohol on the palate in a sadistic, good way. Its flavors were very rusty and earthy with kirsch fruit flavors. Wild herbs came in, prompting Rob to note its medicinal. side. The wine did not hold in the glass for more than 30-45 minutes, however, and started to disintegrate from the inside out. In retrospective, we probably should NOT have decanted this wine, but for that first half-hour it was flirting with an outstanding score, it ended up being excellent flirting with a very good score (93). I had also brought out a 1984 Henschke Hill of Grace, which was incredibly disappointing. The nose was way too American oaky bordering on gross, and the wine tasted sickly and gross, oaky and weedy & yick. I hope that 1984 is a bad vintage in Australia, and that when I do the vertical of HOG in April that we have a much better showingof Henschke's older HOGs. I had to give it the dreaded (NR) score, i.e., Not Recommended. We hit the poker tables again, this time at the Bellagio (we were at the Palms before), and we stepped up to the no limit/high rollers section, where we saw Celine Dion's husband playing the night away at another table. Now there is a guy whose table I want to be at, I thought. Visions of tens of thousands of cash danced in my head as I thought about how I could get over to that table, especially since I was playing well again and up another few hundred when it all came crashing down on one hand where I rode three aces to the grave and lost it all to someone who was obviously a member of the Chinese mafia. It was there that I learned lesson #1 of my weekend in Vegas: play sober.

The next day was busy, busy, busy for me in my hotel room (work-related don.t have such dirty thoughts!), and I did not have time to play as I was still recovering in the fact that I was now down $1000 after being up close to $1500. The night quickly descended upon us, and it was time for an Angry Men celebration at Mix, Alain Ducasse's newest restaurant/nightclub (that's right slash nightclub) atop The Hotel at Mandalay Bay. Apparently they put $20 million into the joint, and it showed. The view was spectacular, looking out over Vegas like a lite-brite set for grown-ups. Just a reminder as to how us Angry Men work: each month, one of the members hosts an event at a restaurant or in their home and treats all the guests to dinner. The host also sets the theme and sets the table with three bottles minimum, and then each of the guests are required to bring a bottle as well. One last little detail: the host has veto rights on any bottles that guests want to bring. OK, back to our story. a close friend of mine set the stage with a magnum of the great 1990 Dom Perignon Rose. What a baby/monster/rock star of a Champagne,. my notes started. This bubbly was super-intense, so young. Matt noted, or was he looking at those two girls in the corner? The magnum factor really makes a difference in Champagne as well as wine, and I HIGHLY recommend magnums for collecting and aging in the cellar. The DP Rose was incredibly fresh and wound up like a 100 mph fastball, and the finish was even faster (clocked at an impressive 180 mph by my radar gun of a tongue), and its never-ending acids begged for more cellaring. Sorry, Charlie not this night. This will be an all-time great Champagne, especially out of magnum. It was racy, spiny and fresh on the palate (96).

The first flight was a flight of 1993 Musignys, starting with the 1993 Comte de Vogue Musigny, Vieilles Vignes. The nose was great, wound and intense with rose, vitamin and wood aromas, but not wood like too oaky just to be clear, more like a wood/tannin aroma. There was beautiful, saucy, cherry fruit that poked its head out from behind, still in reserve, and a firm presence of t n a in the nose. On the palate were flavors of vitamins, perfume and leather, all beautiful yet shy, with a touch of animal as well. The nose widened out in a saucy direction, and the finish also expanded. a close friend of mine also noted its woody nature, especially after being compared to the Mugnier later in the flight (95). The 1993 Mugnier Musigny had a more expressive nose, where the freshness of the alcohol jumped out, still integrated underneath the fruit, however. There was a spicy edge to the nose with its crushed red fruits, vitamins and leather, combined with a pinch more game/wild animal fur action. The palate was thicker, with more meat on its bones it seemed than the Vogue, and good grip, earth and leather flavors to the finish. a close friend of mine found the Mugnier the most pure, like a laser beam...(95) The 1993 Roumier Musigny stood out to me by comparison, as the pitch in its nose was much higher than the previous two. There was something brighter and more expressive unfound in the Vogue or Mugnier. There was a lot going on in the nose, a veritable symphony of Burgundian bliss. First off, there was an animal, leather, wood and vitamin quadrafecta (damn I shoulda bet that before dinner!), accompanied by musky fruit aromas of rose, cherry and redcurrants a veritable bright, red fruit salad. It was then that a friend of mine blessed us with his wisest statement of the weekend, Young Burgundy is all about the balance and texture forget about flavors...There was a youthful, interior/varnish quality here as well (a positive), and the finish destroyed, make that defeated in battle as a close friend of mine corrected me, the finish of the first two Mooses. There was massive length and power here, and the nose got more and more complex and had an amazing, exotic quality marked by its stems, which were singing in full chorus. It is the only wine here tonight that uses 100% stems,. a close friend of mine advised (97+).

The second flight featured three wines from 1985, starting with an outstanding 1985 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. It had a warm, sweet, fat nose with edges of animal, vitamin, stewed cherry, musk and a light sprinkle of brown sugar. The tannins and alcohol were fabulously silky, as well as long and penetrating. The nose was as good as its gets at close to age twenty. The palate was great as well, with taut fruit and flavors of game, animal and leather. The finish was long with great earth on it, and a close friend of mine admired the fact that it was so perfumed and balanced... He went on to call Rousseau the Musigny of Gevrey the only one to make perfumed, elegant and stylish Gevrey... (95) The next wine was a 1985 Bouchard Mazis Chambertin, Hospices de Beaune, Cuvee Madame Collignon. It was supposed to be Leroy, but big Dave didn't read the fine print on the label. The Bouchard was a disappointment. a close friend of mine noted that it was almost New World, it's so extracted... There was a touch of must to the nose but that almost New World. intensity behind that. The nose was heavy and more on the leather, olive and wood side. There was a touch of plum to the fruit in its fat, wide nose, along with vitamins and soy. The wine was brawny on the palate but without spine, as a close friend of mine agreed. It got woodier and woodier with time bordering on sickly, and after a little time it was tolerable at best despite a few deliciouses at the table (85). The third wine of the flight was the 1985 Chezeaux Griotte Chambertin. The nose was kinky, milky and gamy with nice fruit. There was some citric tension and more wild game and spice. The nose was a touch sugary but not overboard. The palate was on the drier side and very large, barely reined in. Some complained of over-extraction. and claimed it was a Parker wine, but I liked it nonetheless and found it to be excellent. a close friend of mine gave it a low 88 points and called it unbalanced but I did not mind its heat, alcohol and spice and found it tasty (93).

On to the 1978s. First up was a 1978 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. The nose was similar to the 1985 as the signature style of Rousseau shined through, but there was more brown sugar and mature sweetness to the fruit, along with the vitamins, game and leather, of course. The nose was musky, meaty, edgy and almost soupy with some bouillon character. However, the palate was extremely acidic and way out of balance in that regard, with lots of citric flavors. Will it ever balance out? I doubt it, as the fruit seemed too mature for the acid levels (90+?). The regular 1978 Rousseau Chambertin was far from regular. The nose was seductive and sweet, silky and gamy with pretty, beautiful, soft and caressing tendencies. There was some brown to the fruit, not negatively, and great earth, hay and musk to go with it. The palate was outstanding, balanced and stony with great citrus flavors. The wine was very tasty, a lip-smacking experience, although Matt found it all stewed tomatoes and acid, the same recipe that got him through junior year of college, I joked a close friend of mine agreed with me and its greatness, however (95). I was perplexed by the bottle of 1978 Henri Jayer Echezeaux we had, finding it lacking the extra depths and greatness that this vintage of Jayer usually delivers. I feel very strongly that the 1978 Jayers are some of the greatest Burgundies ever made, and this did not come close, so I DQ'd it (DQ).

Two jeroboams (three liters for Burgundy) were the grand finale courtesy of Rob and a close friend of mine, and since they were both 1971 wines, I can safely use the word grand... First up was the 1971 La Tache, one of my all-time favorite wines. The nose was incredibly young out of three-liter, so much so that I might have guessed 1990 or 1993 if served blind! It was wound without the t n a part of being wound. The fruit was dark, deep and dank with aromas of vitamins, leather, iron, earth, Asian spice and menthol. The palate was full of peppermint, rose, minerals and slate. The wine was so smooth and polished, with incredible amounts in reserve, most likely that three-liter factor. Looking forward and comparing it to the Romanee-Conti, a close friend of mine observed not as much finish, but so much more fruit right now... The spice on the palate was awesome, and the wine got more and more exotic and pronounced. The 1971 La Tache was incredible again, delivering as always (98). The 1971 Romanee Conti had as incredible a texture as I have ever experienced in a wine this old a close friend of mine noted its seductive tea and beet root qualities. The layers of spice, vanilla, forest and mint were mind-boggling, and the concentration and texture seemed infinitely long, with rich acids lingering like call girls at casinos. a close friend of mine felt the La Tache was more mature, but the RC was the better wine... It was indeed younger, and I saw the potential here for more long-term greatness, but for this night I preferred the La Tache. There was no doubt that the finish, length and acid were superior in the RC, but the flavors of the La Tache were so divine comparatively at this stage (97+).

Oh yeah, there is one tasting note from the after-party at Tabu: 12 bottles of 1989 Krug tasted with consistent notes.

Saturday was the Burgwhores. night, featuring a tremendous assortment of 1990s. Unfortunately, my notes have been misplaced, so I will try to put together a paragraph of observations based on my memories of the evening. We dined at Boa in Caesar.s, whose food was fabulous, by the way. First up was an encore performance of the first Angry Man flight, Musignys from Vogue, Mugnier and Roumier, this time 1990s, of course. There has been much speculation about the 1990 Vogue Musigny and how inconsistent it has been out of bottle and how many less-than-outstanding batches of it are around, but this bottle of it was the best that I have ever had (and a close friend of mine concurred) and showed that this can, indeed, be an outstanding wine. There was a wealth of fruit and length, and it was outstanding. The Mugnier was pure and excellent bordering on outstanding, and the Roumier, although a touch more modern in style than the other two, was also outstanding with a size and weight unmatched by the previous two. The Vogue stole this flight, however. All the wines were served blind, fyi, and the rest of the flights were served Noah's Ark style, two by two. I can.t remember everything, but there were a lot of Leroys for starters. The 1990 Leroy of the night was the Chambertin, which was ironically forgotten to have been served at the dinner (yet opened at the club afterwards) and was the only Leroy that I would call outstanding, although many of the wines bordered on being outstanding as well. The Leroys were typically flirting with modernity and more wood, yet still reined it in just enough to allow one to taste and appreciate the Burgundy in them. Perhaps with time, these giant wines, which can come across a bit brutish, will ascend the point scale and expand even more. All of the Leroy wines were indubitably excellent, and if the fruit can keep up with the tannins and length, they will outlive many of their classmates from this vintage, and other vintages as well, I presume. The RSV and Clos de la Roche stood out a little more than the Latricieres Chambertin. There might have been one or two more. There were four 1990's: Grands Echezeaux, Romanee St. Vivant, Richebourg and La Tache. The first two were solid wines and representative of the Conti style and on the very good/excellent border, the Richebourg a step up of course, and the La Tache was incredible so young, tight and long with just hints and flashes of its greatness, and endless layers of complexity. It had the best length of the night by far and was right there for wine of the night. There was also a fleshy, gamy and chewy Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux that had sweeter and more expressive fruit than most wines this evening, and as a result it also flirted with an outstanding score; a pretty Dujac Charmes Chambertin that was classic Dujac all the way although lacking the depth of the other three Dujac Grand Crus (in general the other three were not served that night); a disappointing Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (bad bottle as good ones of this are spectacular); and many people's wine of the night, the great, always outstanding and divine, 1990 Rousseau Chambertin. Sorry I lost my notes, but hopefully you will at least get a snapshot of the night. I almost forgot we had two surprises at the end, a head-to-head showing of 1982 vs 1986 Mouton. This night, the 1986 won,not by a knockout, but by a unanimous decision. The 1982 was very closed and could have been a bottle that is lesser than others, but when the bell sounds, you have to jusge what's in the ring.

We headed over to Pure, one of the hottest new clubs in Vegas, where we partied in the VIP section (thanks to Rob) all night long & literally. Tasting notes from that session are strictly off the record.

It was a very spontaneous and special selection of Champagnes sampled this Saturday and Sunday. I hope you enjoy this catalog and these three special collections as much as I have over the years!

My first major event of 2005 was in Las Vegas two weekends ago at Picasso, where wine consultant extraordinaire Gil Lempert-Schwartz assembled an esteemed panel of fifteen wine judges to participate in the European Grand Jury’s three city event, the other cities being Venice and Paris, I believe. Besides Gil and myself, some of the other judges included Larry Stone, Ursula Hermanski, Andrew padbury, Kevin Vogt, Archie McLaren and other distinguished wine professionals whose names elude me as I write this. There were ten producers and thirty wines to be tasted blind from three different vintages: 1985, 1990 and 2001. Each vintage was knowingly tasted separately, and most of the wines were Bordeaux, Chateau Montelena and Sassicaia being the international diplomats. The tasting was conducted under the auspices of a legal entity, in this case a top jurist, who ensured that the order of the wines, as well as identity was not divulged until after the tasting was completed. Results were tabulated and sent to Europe immediately for analysis and final tabulation by the Grand Jury Europeen,. Gil explained, a tabulation which will be released soon to the public. For now, the results from Vegas will have to do. Gil had warmed a few of us up with a wine dinner at Picasso the night before, a dinner that ran a little late, so when we had to be back at Picasso the next day at 11AM, there were a few groggy looks around the table. Once the tasting started, however, everyone got down to business, and the room became deafly silent. At the end of the tasting, everyone turned in their scores (a 100-point rating system was used), and the average scores were compiled. Three hours were allotted for the event, and the earliest that anyone finished was about an hour and forty-five minutes, with it taking me two hours exactly to evaluate, approximately four minutes per wine. I can safely say after the fact that it was a tough crowd when it came to the ratings, and a fascinating exercise as well to see the group’s s average scores versus my own. I look forward to getting the results from the two other cities and updating all of you when I do.

First up was the flight of 1985s. All wines were served in the same order, although people were supposed to begin their flights with different wines. I was supposed to start on wine #8, but that fact eluded me in the introduction, so I tasted in traditional 1-10 order each flight. The first wine had a lighter nose, still with some character of cedar, olives and light alcohol. It definitely gave a Left Bank impression with its pinch to the nose. There was a grape grappa edge trying to push out that was still somehow suppressed. The palate was fairly straightforward and had a touch of heat from the alcohol and mild cedar flavors. There was not a lot of definition beyond that. Although the nose got better, the palate got worse and lost definition. I found the wine to be average it was the Sociando Mallet (84/88.4). My score is followed by the group score, fyi, and remember that none of the wines were revealed to the tasters until after the three flights were tasted by all. I was very surprised that the group scored this wine that highly, to be honest, especially given the average scores of other wines to come! The second wine was much more open and fleshy in the nose, but in a very pungent and animalistic way. It had a meaty edge, a meat with a funky marinade that needed to be cooked quickly (pungent). The animal edge flirted with the root vegetable side but did not eat it, so to speak. The aromas were leathery and dark, and a splash of cement emerged. The palate was rich and fleshy with good plum, olive and earth flavors, with nice texture. There was just a hint of pown to the overall palate, but I liked its unique character and funky personality. In fact, it was my wine of the flight, and it was La Conseillante (93+/84.7). Again, I was stunned to find such a large discrepancy here. To me, this was clearly the most open, ripe and expressive wine of the flight. It had character and was loud where others were shy and quiet. I guess that’s what happens when you ping a New Yorker to a civilized wine tasting. PS I used the half-point here to account for my usual plus + ,. as I felt since average scores were being taken the plus + factor could not be accounted for without the half-point. The third wine from the 1985 vintage had some old wood in the nose and pinches of nut, cedar, mahogany, black fruits and cassis. There was a touch of forest to its nose with its woody and leafy edges. The old wood merged into a little caramel and got better and more complex in the nose. The palate was again simple and straightforward, mild yet classically Left Bank. Flavors of cedar, dust and earth were decent, but the wine left an unexciting impression overall, and its nose hinted at much more than the palate delivered it was Mouton Rothschild (89/90.2). Next up was a wine that was very wound in the nose with more alcohol and anise, although it was subtle and refined as well. The nose left a delicate and fine impression overall. There was a tingle. quality to its spiny nature as some fruit tried to escape, but the palate put the wine right back into the jails of its tannic and alcoholic systems. Although neither its t. nor a. was overtly dominating, those were its standout characteristics on its palate. The balanced and refined qualities were very good despite that fact for this bottle of Latour (90/90.3). The fifth wine had a similar edge to the fourth initially with its alcohol and anise, but there was much more vigor and character here, led by cedar, smoke and slate. The palate was spicier with better definition and length, nice balance and a sneakily long finish. There was good t n a on the palate with cedar, mineral and slate flavors, and nice length. It was an excellent wine and classically Left Bank, Haut pion to be specific (93/89.4). The sixth wine struck me as a cross between #2 and #5 (La Conseillante and Haut pion), with its plummy and stony fruit. There was a ripe sweetness to its plums, with vanilla, anise, and stone supplements, andnice pungency. The wine was actually ripe on the palate but maintained its stony side. There were flavors of earth, unsweetened cocoa powder, cedar and plums, skins and all. There was a shred missing in the middle, but I though that might change in the future for the Ausone (90+/86.5). The lucky seventh wine was a big left turn and seemed Caliesque right off the bat. There was sweet, chunky fruit of sun-dried cassis, caramel, leather and sprinkles of earth, chocolate and stone. The nose was meaty and full of cherry sherry. It seemed a little oxidized, but I still liked it and found while it was perhaps a bottle whose maturity had been accelerated, I could still appreciate and enjoy the wine. Others wrote it off immediately. I enjoyed its reductive. edge and the big t n a on the palate, its cream soda flavors and very dry finish, and so did others in that minority. It was Chateau Montelena (92?/82.5). We were back to Bordeaux with the eighth wine, which had a milder nose and a touch of out-of-place oak. The wine was a little mildewy, to be frank. There were cedar, nut and olives behind that, and the flavors were very nutty, the most so far that day, with a light glaze but not much. The nose and palate was best summed up as eh. for this potentially off bottle of Lafite (83?/88.7). The next wine had a dirty nose with an earthy, soil-like quality. There was plump fruit behind that on the plum and cassis side, but only if you could get behind it, which I could see a lot of people not doing. There was good lingering alcohol, but the palate was a bit offensive in its dirtiness, but the wine still had great structure. It was one of the better overall wines in the flight, I thought, and its finish was most superior, but the flavors in this particular bottle were disturbing, especially since it was another disappointing bottle of 1985 Sassicaia (91+?/83.7). I swear that there are more disappointing bottles of this wine out there than there are good ones. Three questionmarks in a row? Since this was Vegas, I was hoping I might win something for that, but no luck there. The last wine from 1985 had cedar, oak, vanilla, olive, mineral and some steak in its nose, which was impure in its wood qualities. The flavors of old oak were simple and lacking character, uninspiring but decent in an average way. It was Chateau Margaux (84/89.6). Yikes! I was glad to be done with the 1985s, which overall were very disappointing and not in a friendly stage that many of the seconds, thirds and fourths have been. Only Haut Bion, La Conseillante, and the Montelena, despite being slightly oxidized, had that extra level of excellence, although Sassicaia sometimes does but not this time. On to the 90’s

One pass-through on the noses led me to write about 1990, Clearly the superior vintage to 1985.. The first wine had a jump up. in intensity and character right off the bat, with a much more intense peed to its tannins and alcohol. The nose was deep and intense with a hint of sear,. I put. There were great cedar, cassis and plum aromas, which I found to be A+. with pure and clean fruit. It got riper in the glass and pointed in that Caliesque direction, and I was sure it was the same wine as the seventh wine in the last flight, which it was. The palate was meaty and minerally with a long, dry finish for this Chateau Montelena (93/90.9). The second wine had a pinch of wintergreen and more noticeable red fruits mixed in with the black, and a splash of ice cream soda, earth and tobacco. A big worchestshire sauce edge came in that carried over to the palate, with its A1 edge to its steak flavors and lots of cedar and minerals behind it. There was nice, fat, black fruit on the palate for the Sociando Mallet (93/91.2), which showed much better than its 1985 counterpart. The third wine was another excellent one, with a more pungent and gamy nose that reminded me of the second wine in the first flight, which it was. The wine was very fleshy and animalistic, although there was an extra edge of cinnamon complete with roll to go with its funky, forward and fleshy fruit. There was a pinch of olive, too. There was great peed here and rich and meaty fruit on the palate, which took a little more coaxing to hit its stride, but it did and was an incredibly tasty La Conseillante (94/87.2). I thought when the score was revealed later. It was not a Pomerol crowd, for sure. Fortunately, I do not have that problem. The fourth wine was my wine of the flight, and my note started off with the universally accepted Mmmmmm.. The nose was deep and inviting, with great cassis, cedar, mineral and smoke aromas, and great nuts too. There’s a bad joke to be made there, but I digress. The palate was consistent with the nose and had a long, fine finish. This wine was clearly a thoroughped, and the finish exploded in one’s mouth after it went down the hatch, lingering. It was Haut pion (95/90.7), which was quickly asserting itself as wine of the day. 90.7? Come on guys! Tough crowd, tough crowd. The following wine had a sweet, meaty nose that was rich and seductive, full of fatty fruits with plum, mocha, game and nuts. There were olives on the palate and a flash of heat to the finish, which was fine and medium-long. It was a fastball of an Ausone (93+/88.3). Our sixth wine in the 1990 flight was pungent in a different direction, in the green, dirty earth and housecleaner way (sounds delicious, no?) It was intense, but eight out of ten people would find it unpleasant. I saw the peed, but I wasn.t sure I still respected it. The aromas carried over to the palate. The body was pretty, but man was that face rough on this Mouton (88/89.1). Next up was a wine with a classy nose, less opulent but long with a good center of anise, alcohol, plum and minerals. The nose flirted with a cinnamonesque spice, which manifested itself into pure nutmeg on the palate, with a medium body, nice texture and a pleasant minerality to its finish. It wasn.t incredibly complex, but it was still a very good 1990 Sassicaia (90/91.6). Three wines to go, and the first of this last trio was a wine with an exotic edge of citrus fruits merging onto the plum and cassis highway here, with nice, subtle minerals and alcohol. The nuts and cedar started to flex on the palate, which was all cedar and nuts, two-dimensional but very good, but not a heavyweight. It was Chateau Margaux (91/90.8). Time to sell or palate fatigue? The next wine was another shy nose, fine and pure but coy. There were light edges of cedar, leather, mineral, chocolate, tannins, alcohol and smoke. The finsh was very long and dry and continued to sneak up on my palate. There were pure and refined flavors thatwere consistent with the nose in this excellent bottle of 1990 Latour (93/91.6). The final wine of the flight was corked, although one could find traces of cinnamon, cedar, minerals and smoke behind it, but the wine was unpure. The corked quality masked the palate, and normally I would DQ this wine, but since we were obligated to score the wine, I gave this bottle of Lafite (86/89.6). That average made me scratch my head again.

The weekend continued Friday night at Mix, Alain Ducasse’s restaurant/nightclub atop of The Hotel at Mandalay Bay. Yes, it is half nightclub, which Ducasse-ophiles probably have a tough time envisioning. Welcome to Vegas. It was a BYOB magnum affair put together by Gil, and it was a nice lineup of wines to cap off the day. First up was a 2000 Weinbach Gewurztraminer Cuvee Laurence. The nose was exotic, – classic Gewurz and very pure and lacking the aggressive, woodsy edge that can plague many a Gewurz. There was lychee and pineapple with pinches of petrol and citrus. The palate was lush and incredibly sweet, too much so for a non VT wine, and there was also a chalky awkwardness to go with light minerals and slate on the finish. The nose was much better than the palate. I respected it but just did not like it that much (88). The 1996 D.Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs had a great nose full of those 1996 screechy acids, with lots of minerals and rose petals as well. There were also stones, wound cherry fruit, alcohol and a touch of pick, smoke and firewood. The alcohol and acids were the dominant characteristics in the nose, though make no mistake about it. The palate was pretty, still wound with nice flavors of stones and minerals. The acid kicked in on the length, and its vitaminy and rosy fruit flavors emerged, and what acids, indeed (91). Next up was my 1995 E. Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, which was a big wine with lots of meat and alcohol in the nose. There was a touch of sulfur and gas at first, but with some extra swirling, the wine rounded out well. The wine was very intense, with a balance between modern and classic winemaking styles. There were aromas of crushed black and purple fruits, vitamins, minerals, iodine, iron, rose, game and Asian spice. The nose was big, intense and spicy. The palate was very rusty and earthy by comparison, very shy on the fruit but not on the structure and balance. There were long acids and plum and smoke flavors (94). We had a domestic Pinot next, a custom wine bottled for Archie McLaren’s birthday personally by Jim Clendenen. It was a 1990 vintage, and I believe it was from La Bauge au Dessus fruit, but for now we will call it the 1990 Au Bon Climat Pinot Noir Archie’s Cuvee.. The nose was great with more vanilla, cream and oak spice along with sexy black cherry fruit. There was lots of spice and soda, and the wine almost crosses the oak line but not quite. The palate was rich and spicy with lots of expressive tannins and good grip, but the fruit started to show pown flavors. The wine got more gamy and was definitely flirting with necrophiliac territory and was just holding on (90). The 1998 Ornellaia was a modern left turn with rich vanilla, cream and black fruits, and a touch of yeast and natural gas. There was a distinctive cardboard edge, which is usually a negative, but strangely enough in this case it was a positive, so I adjusted my descriptor to be Christmas day cardboard. There were nice dusty flavors (desert action) to its meaty palate with black fruits, leather and earth. However, this was definitely a wine that was more winemaking than terroir. Blair picked up on sesame.. (93+) We took a trip up to Bordeaux next, starting with the 1985 Haut Bailly. It had a nice nose of cedar, light cassis, nut, meat and carob with an earthy and semi-spicy palate (or was that that damn peppercorn bison actually, it was). The palate was a touch musty, and the Graves factor really came out on the palate. There was tobacco on the finish, but the wine was still short of being very good (88). The 1982 Clos Fourtet also had a nice nose with some meaty, St. Emilion Cab Franc, violety fruit with nice spice and dust, alcohol, earth and plain yogurt. The palate was rich and full of olive flavors, medium rich, with a mid-palate that is lacking a little but still OK. The wine was nice and has definitely entered the fully mature zone (90). The last wine of the weekend for us was a gorgeous magnum of 1974 Mondavi Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon. It was a bottle from a case acquired by Sid Cross directly from Robert Mondavi, so we knew the provenance was great! The wine was very fresh with great spice and alcohol up front, along with cedar, pungent fruit, anise, mineral and lots of heat. The palate was meaty but a lot softer than the nose would lead one to believe but still plush, round and smooth with a dusty finish. The Mondavi was a wine that was right Thurr.. (93)

Fellow Wine Lover,

I wanted to start 2005 off with a bang, so here is my seventeen page opus covering the Top 100+ Wines of the Century event last October. I hope you enjoy reading the notes and that it offers everyone the opportunity to experience the event somewhat themselves.

Writeup of 2006 Event

Writeup of 2005 Event

Writeup of 2004 Event

Acker, Merrall & Condit Presents:

The Top 100/All Star Weekend

An extraordinary Weekend – October 20 to October 22, 2006 in New York City

TOP 100 WINES OF THE CENTURY III

OCTOBER 20-22ND, 2006

The top wines, tasted with meals at three of New York’s finest restaurants:

Per Se, Daniel and Cru

Reservations will be taken on a first-come, first-served basis and are strictly limited

$17,500 per person

Year III is finally upon us, and we have assembled another once-in-a-lifetime assortment of the 20th Century’s finest and rarest wines for a culinary celebration unmatched anywhere in the world. The first two years each sold out so do not hesitate to make your reservation; we will be limited to 35 pours maximum, served from either two bottles or a magnum. Due to popular demand we have limited the actual number of wines a bit this year’s actual total will be somewhere around 85 wines, but the ‘Top 100’ concept remains the same, and we have tried to outdo last year’s selections accordingly! Shared pours are available for an extra $500 per person per meal. Reservations will be accepted on a first come, first served basis and only confirmed upon payment. There will be no refunds for this event unless the event is sold out, and we are able to find a replacement. Wines subject to change, and changes, if any, will be minor.

FRIDAY NIGHT, OCTOBER 20TH
PER SE

6:30 Champagne reception, 7pm Sit Down
1976 Salon out of magnums
1996, 1995, 1992, 1990 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne
1993, 1990, 1985 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg
1969, 1966, 1964, 1962 Rousseau Chambertin
1949, 1947, 1945 Calon Segur all out of magnum
1929 Haut Brion, La Mission Haut Brion, Latour, Mouton Rothschild
1971, 1969, 1966 La Mouline
1969, 1967, 1966, 1963 Penfolds Grange
1921 Huet Vouvray

SATURDAY NIGHT, OCTOBER 21ST
DANIEL

6:30 Champagne reception, 7pm Sit Down
1947 Pommery out of Jeroboam
1985, 1982, 1978, 1970 Montrachet
1993 Drouhin, Mugnier, Roumier and Vogue Musignys
1949 Clos des Lambrays, La Tache (magnum), Rousseau Chambertin (magnum), Vogue Musigny (magnum)
1928 Latour, Montrose, Mouton Rothschild, Palmer
1959, 1955, 1953, 1952 La Mission all out of magnum
1994, 1970, 1968 Vega Sicilia Unico
1998, 1995, 1990 Chave Cuvee Cathelin
1945 Graham’s out of magnum

SUNDAY LUNCH, OCTOBER 22ND
CRU

12 Noon Champagne reception, 12:30pm Sit Down
1959 Dom Perignon ‘Oenoetheque’
1996, 1990, 1989, 1985 Raveneau ‘Les Clos’
1999, 1996, 1993, 1990 La Tache
1959, 1955, 1953, 1952 Romanee Conti
1949, 1948, 1947 Vieux Chateau Certan
1921 Cheval Blanc, L’Eglise Clinet, Lafleur, Petrus all out of magnum
1966, 1964, 1959, 1952 Jaboulet ‘La Chapelle’
1958, 1952, 1947, 1945 G. Conterno ‘Monfortino Riserva’
1959 d’Yquem

$17,500 per person

All the best in 2005 – time to get live!