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.

Summer in New York City is host to some of its greatest wine collectors’ birthdays. Three of them, well one technically from LA, celebrated together late June at Per Se. Wild Bill, the Curious Gourmet and Hollywood Jef were all turning 61, so they decided to celebrate with a great lineup of wines from 1961. But first, we had to have some Coche, of course.

A 2001 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres had a smoky nose with a buttery, rich spice and a diamond-like shine. It was definitely rich stuff, but it thinned a bit in the middle, and the Hedonist thought it was ‘aging more rapidly’ than it should. The wine had solid acidity, but it wasn’t an elite Coche. There was hearty fruit, but it lacked the expected and usual extra dimension (93?).

We quickly righted our course with the 2002 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres, which was a great example of Perrieres. It was in line with the ’02 Coche Corton Charlemagne I’d had the Saturday night prior. Is that snobby or factual lol. There was so much spice and minerality on the nose with the palate still super tight and fresh. It was laser-like and oh so good. There was fresh, endless acidity, making this an elegant and stylish wine that closed out with tremendous length and stoniness (96).

The 2005 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was super fat and much chunkier like some 2005s can be. At first, this lacked the definition of the 2002, but it had loads of brawn and weight. It was rich, sweet, and ‘unctuous’ per the Curious Gourmet. It got better and better, becoming slightly zippier in the glass, continuing to blossom. Jetski agreed, and in the end it was slightly better than the ’02 with all that emerging definition (96+).

We pivoted quickly into the red zone with a 1961 DRC Grands Echezeaux. This was a bit maderized with that tangy, tomato zing. The palate was gamy and I initially DQ’ed the wine, but it got better, in a dirty bouillon way (93).

Staying on theme, next up was a Wolfgang bottle of 1961 DRC Richebourg. This had a great nose that was young and fresh with tomato, citrus and rose—so much sweet rose. There was a pinch of Worcestershire, which gave it a gamy edge, and made it a bit brothy in a good way. This wine was all about richness but was slightly less pure than what was to follow (95).

The 1961 DRC La Tache had even more power on the nose, with more garden vibes and incredible freshness. There was citrus and a touch of good dirtiness. This was very fresh, pure, and the cleanest of the three with gorgeous elegance. To Hollywood Jef, this was the pinnacle of the ‘61s, ‘good, better, and best’ (96).

We moved on to Bordeaux with a 1961 Chateau Gruaud Larose, which had a classy nose. There was great cedar, nut and cassis with nice flesh and a bit of clay to the palate. This was a solid wine with great balance, length and grit to the finish. It was an outstanding start for this outstanding vintage in Bordeaux (95).

The 1961 Chateau Margaux had a nose full of caramel and carob. There was a nice, wheaty sweetness and the palate was smooth, soft, tender and easy. Jetski can be a tough grader in his eternal quest to drive down prices for his buying pleasure and gave it an 88. So JK Jr. of him lol. I was into the nice flavors and the nice nose of this nice, excellent wine (93).

The 1961 Chateau Figeac had sweet, red currant fruits and was smooth and balanced. It was a touch creamy, with a little curds ‘n whey thing going on. It lacked the depth of the previous two wines (92).

The 1961 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a very nice nose and was full of elegance. This was stuffed with carob and was smooth and classy. I have never been a huge lover of this vintage for Mouton, preferring the 1959 by far. Though it was very good, it was 93 points at best, and really only a 92 (92).

The Holy Man thought ‘you could put the 1961 Chateau Palmer in a DRC flight.’ This had a smooth nose, with nice richness and great concentration with some good stink. It was rich and saucy with lots of goodness and was deemed ‘delicious’ by Wild Bill (96).

The 1961 Chateau Trotanoy was so rich and concentrated with a coffee thickness to it. It was creamy, long and zippy with chocolate sex and caramel goodness, too. This was a spectacular bottle, and another tribute to the fabulousness also known as ’61 Pomerols. Wow wine (98).

The 1961 Chateau Ausone was a nice wine, full of rich gingerbread and red fruits, but it was no match for the Trotanoy. It was creamy but the palate was light, smooth and easy with a touch of wintergreen. It was just a little simpler than the rest and ended up in the Mouton category (92).

The 1961 Cheval Blanc was ripe and sweet with some of that motor oil richness. It had that rich, creamy coconutty quality that older Chevals often have and a touch of leather. It had some initial concentration, but it fell off. I have had better bottles (92).

The 1961 Petrus was the best wine of the flight, but not the best ’61 Petrus I’d ever tried. It was recorked by Wine Guard in 1991. It had garden freshness and a watered-down chocolatey nose. This was classic Petrus with its rich denseness but not the super wine it should be, on the level of the Trot, etc. I guess that’s what happens when some random person recorks, who the heck is Wine Guard anyway (95).

We interrupted our ’61 programming with a bottle from ‘59. The 1959 Petrus was toffee city and dripping in richness. This was an original cork and damn delicious accordingly. There were great wheat and caramel flavors. This was a rich, decadent wine, and it mellowed into sweet honey (96).

There was a grand finale waiting in the wings, beginning with a 1961 Chateau Latour that also had wheaty fruit and nice creaminess. There was a bit of nutty, honeyed goodness, but it was softer than usual. It still had nice weight, but it felt a bit oaky. More butter emerged, and it was soupy, zippy, and brothy, more like some chunky soup. While still outstanding, again it was a wine where I have had numerous better bottles (95).

Next up was a truly spectacular 1961 La Mission Haut Brion, my WOTN. It was rich, decadent and creamy with loads of gravel and a thick, chocolatey, honeyed finish. There was loads of zip and zoom to its out of this world palate. Now this was a perfect bottle (99).

The 1961 Chateau Haut Brion was similar to the La Miss in its aroma profile, but it was not as complicated. The wine was a little dry with some wheat and light caramel and buttery tones (95).

We closed with a sweetie, and 1967 Chateau d’Yquem which had a long finish to send us off. It was full of dry caramel and candlewax flavors (96).

Thanks to the Hedonist, all of us got a free gynecology lesson with dessert. I think guys are supposed to get those when they turn 61 lol. There were lots of questions and laughs, and I’m not sure if our group of merry men left with more questions than answers. We might need a second lesson for 62s for 62s next summer!

In Vino Veritas,
JK

2019 has seen more historical verticals grace my palate than any other year ever. It has been a spectacular series, and I might as well start with the first one, thirty-six vintages of Roumier Bonnes Mares, the grandest event of our Grande Fete de Bourgogne in late January. Per Se was the setting, and Roumier would proceed to show us its translation of ‘The Right Stuff.’

The first flight saw us start with 2015 and tiptoe our way back to 2011:

The 2015 was so much tighter than most 2015s early on, a real iron fist. It was so primary at first yet screamed potential. Dr. Doom admired its ‘Chambolle flavors’ and Say It Ain’t Joe loved its ‘sexy spiciness.’ By the time I went back to it another two or three times, it started to talk to me. There was no doubting its palate, and it was clearly the greatest wine in the flight. The 2014 was milder all the way around. There was nice perfume on the black and purple side and even a little beetroot. While there was a lot of playful minerality, the ’14 was even more closed than the ’15 and didn’t quite emerge. The 2013 was the first vintage to show a pinch of openness in its nose. There were brighter red fruits here along with great spice and more forest action. Joe found it ‘a touch green,’ but I liked its little ladybug action. The 2012 was another ‘tough’ wine, but it showed ample rust and spice. Did I mention how Roumier, probably more than ANY other Burgundy producer on Earth, needs time to develop? Fifteen to twenty years sounds about right. We would soon find out. The 2011 hinted at a bright future, as it was more open than anything else so far. 2011 is a nice vintage to drink younger for red Burgs. This was a little gamey with nice zip and a fresh, cedary finish.

We moved on to the next flight of five…

The 2010 was full of bright red cherry aromas, intertwined with lots of minerality and a deep intensity. It was so long on the finish; this was classic ’10 with its tightness and brightness. There were great strawberry elements along with citrus. It had such great pitch. ‘Spectacular with food, truffles in the glass,’ added Kass. The 2009 was a bit perplexing. It was gamey but not cooked; it had that cedary, zippy finish. It was clearly more chunky than the 2010. I wrote, ‘needs more time?’ Someone observed, ‘violet, lavender and mothball.’ There was something bacterial happening with this bottle? Up until the 2008, I had been very disciplined. ‘Starting to abandon my spit glass,’ I wrote. If one drank everything at a 35 vintage vertical, it would be two bottles total, which I can do, but try not to : ) Again some strawberry goodness came out first. The mid-palate was softer, perhaps in a shy phase. The ’08 was round, dusty and lighter than expected, and someone commented, ‘the fruit’s not there.’ ‘Just truck it in,’ Novocaine gushed about the 2007, meaning he would take lots shipped to his home! The 2007 was very delicious and drinkable, despite a bit of vim and buzz still to its backside. I continue to make googly eyes with 2007 red Burgundy; it is tough to argue with the pure pleasure most deliver right now. The Roumier had more vim than most 2007s but was still luscious and silky. The 2006 was more on the tight/acid side, not showing a lot of fruit but the ‘most beguiling’ per Kass. There was good body and an intense finish, but it seemed a bit less dimensional. Kass continued, ‘I keep wanting to stick my nose in it.’ He thought there was some buried treasure there!

The 2005 was another top vintage initially erring on the side of being shut down, although some nice fruit and flesh did emerge from its nose. The palate slowly obliged as well, but this needed time. There was a wealth of raw fruit on the palate, not defined so much, but there, almost burying the finish. This was a shy guy, ‘still too young’ as someone observed aptly. The 2004 did not have ‘the same purity’ per one, and it was definitely greenish in the bamboo, cedary and/or ladybug way. The Professor joked, ‘beetlejuice,’ but Wine Daddy found it ‘delicious.’ I liked it as well; I am not a 2004 hater like many out there. I find the wines enjoyable to drink in general. Hamburger found ‘wetness’ and Say It Ain’t Joe ‘Pu-er tea.’ The 2003 had sweet, fleshy, tea leaf aromas with a creamy, honeyed, flamboyant personality, but it was simple. Wine Mommy noted ‘persimmon.’ Oh, 2002, how do I love thee? The forgotten great vintage of the last twenty years once again reminded me why it should get more attention. ‘Serious’ and ‘so intense’ started my notes. There was great balance and considerable length in this ‘great wine.’ ‘So fragrant,’ cooed one. M&M noted, ‘coiled, more Pinot fruit.’ The 2001 was a little disappointing and a little dirty. There was this tootsie pop thing happening, and I didn’t think the bottle was pure. Earthy and furry, it was an affected bottle, perhaps some brett?

The 2000 was a gamy wine that seemed to be on a faster evolutionary track than some of the other vintages. It was fleshy and round with lots of caramel flavors. It also could have been a slightly advanced bottle, but it didn’t seem cooked. The 1999 was badly corked, while the 1998 was a very dry, earthy and leathery wine. It was zippy and long, but not showing much fruit. The 1997 was in a great spot. This was a delicious and creamy Roumier that still had vigor on the backside. Was this the first vintage that was ready to drink? Kass noted ‘red fruits’ in this refreshing and balanced red. The 1996 was shut down, for sure. It was full of acid still. Shy and reserved, one could still appreciate its raw material. A bit of peacock’s tail came out much later.

The flights were getting shorter, but the wines were getting longer. The 1995 had fresh red fruits on the wow side while Dr. Feelgood noted ‘licorice.’ Many feel that Roumier made the wines of the vintage and that his 1995s are epic wines. This bottle didn’t quite get there, but it was still outstanding. The 1994 was rich and nutty with earthy and foresty flavors. It was on the dry side but solid, especially given the vintage. The 1993 had all that good rust, iron and earth, that dirt under the nails action. The ’93 was strapped in leather from head to Tokyo, and its backside was especially pronounced. There were lots of oat flavors with chocolate kisses. It was an intense wine, not quite ready but still appreciated. The 1991 was my favorite of the flight, with the most stuffing. It was really good with edges of coffee and vanilla ice cream without that dessert-like sweetness. Mint and cherry brought it altogether on the palate. Yum.

The 1990 had great citricity for a ’90, with round, rich and fleshy fruit to balance it out. It was a delicious ’90, fleshing out further with citrus and red fruits. ‘All the elements of a great wine are in place with no fighting,’ some unidentifiable, wise man remembered. The 1989 was badly corked (DQ), but the 1988 was spectacular. The ’88 was a deep, dark, foresty fantasy with outstanding bread, cigar and smokehouse aromas. This was a creamy red with rock star vim and vigor. ‘So good,’ appeared in my notes. ‘Power, structure, fruit and austerity,’ came from the crowd. This was clearly the best wine so far. The 1987 was no match for the ’88, showing a rainforesty, funky, mushroomy side. It was round and twangy, dirty and a touch figgy, ready to fade off into the sunset.

The next flight had a double corked dip with the 1986 and 1982, two vintages I had been really interested to try. Roumier made great ‘86s, probably the wines of the vintage. And I have had some killer ’82 Burgs this past year, which you don’t see that often. Oh, well. Let’s talk about the 1985. This was a dusty, citrusy and spiny Burgundy, and Special K admired its ‘gorgeous nose.’ Its citrus qualities set the tone for its palate, which was ‘singular’ per Dr. Feelgood and ‘sweet like a prison roommate,’ according to another distinguished guest. Whoa, buddy. Easy! I am assuming it was a joke and not based on personal experience, but you never know lol. The 1981 was a pleasant surprise with its pleasant fruit and veggie kisses. There was still nice acid and some funk in the trunk.

It was a grand finale, even though the 1980 was slightly corked. It had a clean finish, but its palate was a bit covered up. There was some nice freshness and touches of cola still traceable. The 1979 was fantastic. This is another secretly good vintage for Red Burgundies, IMO. This was a rich and meaty Roumier, showing off battle conquests of animal, beef and blood. The perfect amount of autumn was here in this lipsmackingly great red. The 1978 was the WOTN, for sure. There was no doubt in my mind. It was love at first sip. Iron, meat, minerality, sweetness, citrus, forest, strawberry…I could go on. It was a great ending to a great vertical. It was so great I forgot to write or score the 1976. Sorry, pal.

We took votes at the end for everyone’s WOTN, and the 1978 eked out the 1990 by 6 votes to 5 ½. The 2002 had four votes and the 1993 had three. 2005, 1995, 1991 and 1985 had some votes as well.

Why, thank you, Mr. Chalet, may I have another?

There is no question that Roumier is one of the greatest Domaines in Burgundy and hence the world. Just be patient!

In Vino Veritas,
JK

I have to say, I am a bit overwhelmed this summer with all these bottles opening themselves up all around me. Actually, I last left everyone in late January, I know. Here is my semi-annual, self-imposed pilgrimage to catch up on some of the year’s most amazing evenings. I feel a lucky streak coming, as far as getting some wine notes done, but it could not possibly be as lucky as the drinking streak I have been on the past six months!

I arrived a bit ‘en retard’ one Sunday afternoon East of New York City in a far away place called the Hamptons. I actually stayed almost a month straight there, and it was a great time, but not so great for my inventory value lol. BJ was our gracious host, and we all know everyone loves BJ’s. The caviar was out by the time I arrived, and we knocked off that first tin pretty quickly.

A magnum of 2005 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos was already open, standing in the middle of the ice bucket like a white Burgundy centerpiece of the highest magnitude. The Jackal was already circling the ice bucket ready to pounce on his prey. The Raveneau was a classic Clos with its oyster shell and sea breeze aromas along with a flash of citrusy sweetness. It has a big nose that was broad-shouldered, and its palate was long and a bit smoother than the nose led me to believe. It was still young, even younger out of magnum, and just showing a touch of nutty goodness on its finish (95+M).

There were a lot more bottles in the ice bucket, which was more like a mini Stanley Cup, and a 2009 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos seemed like a logical next place to go. There were even more oyster shells to go with more slate and mineral expressions. This was better with richer fruit, perhaps aided by the bottle size versus the magnum, and/or by the forward 2009 vintage. I also wrote it had better flavors, showing more yellow hues (96).

The 2011 D’Auvenay Meursault Narvaux was very popular early on, and it was easy to see why. This was a big contrast to the Raveneau, showing huge smoke and toast in the best of ways. It was richer in the nose, much more forward and ready to party. I kept writing toasty again, along with big and chewy. As precocious as the Narvaux was, it softened in the glass sooner and fell short of outstanding status accordingly (94).

It was a wonderful group of white wine appetizers, but there was still the main course: a trio of Coche-Dury. Somehow, the 2009 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne emerged first, and it was a bit reticent and unyielding at first. A touch of glue marred its nose, and it was more brooding than I remembered or expected. Slowly over time, it started to show more roundness, more richness, and touches of nuttiness. Leather flavors emerged on its thick finish, and after an hour or so, the classic Coche kink was finally there, and the glue was gone. It was a bit of a sleeping beast, or perhaps there was something mildly chemical occurring (96).

The 2008 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres that followed stole the show. It was immediately classic, with much more smokehouse, minerals, and yellow mesquite goodness. It was long and silky, with this lemon, Italian ice flavor profile. Its finish sparkled like diamonds stuck in ice, with the yellow sun shining various hues of flavor upon it. Miss Congeniality, indeed (97).

The 2001 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was unfortunately slightly corked. It sucks when those 4k bottles are genetically defective : ( One could still appreciate its full mouthfeel, its rich, smoky flavor, and its slaty, sturdy finish. It definitely was in that 96/97 category, let’s call it (96+A).

There was one more white, a 2007 D’Auvenay Auxey Duresses. This was in a great spot, with the vintage singing and the house style shining through, overcoming the ‘lesser’ terroir. It was again super smoky, round and tasty with a nice kiss of citrus. This was a drinkable, delicious wine (93).

Even though it was a brilliantly sunny afternoon on a gorgeous summer day in the Hamptons, it was time for some red. And what a red we began with, a 1990 Dujac Clos St. Denis. Dujac killed it in 1990 for sure, what a fabulous nose. There was so much red cherry fruit, blending in with the alluring forest and this edge of the wilderness. Its finish was thick like bouncing asses in rap videos; someone confirmed my ‘cherry,’ but it was too early to be popped. There was this grassy kiss of fresh Hamptons lawn, but it wasn’t the fresh Hamptons lawn lol. ‘So good,’ I wrote, there were great perfume and a sweet, maple tree-hugging goodness (98).

The air was getting rare, as out crept a 1991 Rousseau Chambertin next. I could get used to this Hamptons thing lol. This was another thoroughbred, a photo finish with the Dujac. It was a bit more regal, with more forest and animal edges and not quite the sweetness of the Dujac, but it had so much depth to its fruit. Its palate was rich, round and dusty, super deep and complex, lingering seemingly forever after it went down the hatch. It might have been the elusive 99 points BJ, but I couldn’t get it in writing (98+).

A powerful duo of Red Burgs were next, beginning with a pretty spectacular 2000 Leroy Clos de la Roche. Its nose was super fragrant; it had this combination of rose garden and gravel that reeked of French aristocracy. Its palate was so deep, rich and expressive, freakishly good. There was a vimful, slaty edge to its backside. Dare I say this was the best 2000 Red Burg I ever had? Yup (97).

The 2002 Leroy Clos de la Roche that followed had a deeper, darker nose. It wasn’t as expressive and personable as the 2000, but it was clearly more serious. Wine Daddy agreed, finding it ‘darker and brooding.’ It had the full kaleidoscope of colors in its flavor profile: red, purple and black. Ok, I guess it was missing the blue, but that was pretty appropriate since it made everyone giddy (97+).

It was on to the Rhone and a 1989 Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape Hommage a Jacques Perrin. This was a rich and decadent wine, with great aromatics even though it was a sharp left turn. It had the garrigue thing going for it, and great sweetness and animal as well. The classic CduPs are ok by me (96).

A 1988 Guigal Cote Rotie La Landonne had a spicy and spiny nose along with light bacon aromas. It was zippy and long but seemed less dimensional than all of the other star-studded reds that preceded. I moved on (94).

The 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline gave me a good reason to move on as it was an incredible bottle. If the La Landonne had light bacon, this was “Super Bacon,” warding off evil vegans and their healthy agenda lol. It rippled with iron and minerals in its long and extended finish. There were lots of violet hues and gyro meat flavors. There was no doubting that this wine was special; my notes started to become less so (97+).

There was a cellar raid and a fabulous flurry of incredible wines at the end:

The next thing I know, everyone was naked. Just kidding. A 2007 DRC Monty was corked, ugh! The ’11 quickly subbed in, but the Ramonet won the battle of Montrachet, and while the DRC was classic and delicious, still young with lots of butter, the Ramonet had that extra minerality and minty complexity that makes it extra special. There was more definition on its finish. The La Romanee, the first vintage made by Comte Louis Michel Liger-Belair, was a beautiful transition back to red. Perfumed, elegant and sensual, its playful red fruits tickled the back of my neck and my mouth. I have never had a bad bottle of Liger-Belair, it is literally incredible. The 1999 Jayer was corked! Fuck! Only a 10k bottle, no big deal. We drowned our sorrows with another Jayer, and this one didn’t disappoint. It was so damn delicious, that Jayer hedonism at its finest. All I wrote was delicious, 98/99 points. It definitely got the drunken +1 lol. I can barely remember the 1991 La Tache, but I do remember it was fucking great lol.

Check, please. It was time to call it a day. I think I was asleep before 8pm but cannot confirm nor deny that fact. Many thanks to our gracious host BJ and what is hopefully an annual tradition. Happy Summer everyone, drink ‘em if you got ‘em!

In Vino Veritas,
JK