Ok, so 2019 is already 1/3 over, and I have barely scratched the surface of this bountiful vintage of opened bottles. So much for staying current. Time just keeps ticking, so I decided to finally catch up, in an abridged fashion. It is better if the tree makes a sound rather than no one hearing it, right? Well, all the best bottles I drink are heard, seen, smelled and tasted by more than just me. Sharing is definitely caring when it comes to fine and rare wine, and it didn’t take me long to get in the right spirit, as I visited The Falcon on January 3rd, with a nice dinner accompanied by our even nicer wives.

The ’85 Ramonet was a killer bottle, singing on all cylinders. There is no better producer of white wine in the world between 1978 and 1992, this I can say with 100% certainty. The Batard had signature spearmint, corn with the stalks, orange marmalade, sun-dried yellows, and dry mesquites all competing fiercely in the glass. It was super complex and not declining at all. The Montrachet was oxidized, but the dueling Meo Richebourgs got us back in the swing of things. The ’95 was excellent but leaner and rustier, showing the tannins of the vintage without developing much secondary fruit. The ’88, the last vintage of Meo made by Henri Jayer, was a Rockstar. Its deep, royal purple fruit and classical Jayer spice was tough to beat. This was a magic wine. The ’53 Margaux can be profound, but it had a tough act to follow, and I have had better bottles.

It’s kind of tough to sum up nineteen wines in a few paragraphs, but here I go. The ‘85 HBB was serious and not friendly, complicated with yeasty and glue-y edges, salty, flinty and chalky, but complex. The Coche was buttery and rich, decadent and delicious, great at age ten, pure pleasure. The Roulot was smokier and leaner, and most liked the Coche better because it was much more obvious. The Roulot was elegant and long and ultimately tickled my fancy a touch more. The BBM was young and sweeter than expected. Rich and lush, it needed time but was also rather giving for a ’14.

The reds began with a simple ’76 La Miss, decent if I had it on its own but not in the category of the rest. The ’86 LLC was clearly better, but still deep, dark and tight. It was rocky and spiny like the vintage can often be. The ’88 Ducru was sadly corked. The Rousseaus were similar with their bright, citrusy, tangy, foresty and cedary personalities. The Chambertin was richer, deeper and better, with darker fruits and more vitamins, but the red strawberry side of the CSJ was very sexy. The ’11 DRC was elegant compared to the 2008 rockers, flirting with an effervescence. Someone hailed the last three as the ‘multiple orgasm flight.’ That tends to happen around me ; )

We were back to Bordeaux but in a much bigger way. The ’82 Cheval was outstanding, smooth and satiny with great red fruits and carob. Caramel and peanut joined the party, and while delicious, it was and still is not an all-time great Cheval, certainly not close to the 1990 which is a true legend. The ’83 Lafleur was Zin City like always, not their best effort. The ’89 Petrus got an ‘ALL-TIME GREAT,’ and a ‘nothing even close,’ both from me. The ’83 Riche that snuck in before our Rhones was a perfect ’83. A little brown sugar, a little lemon, a little cherry, a little cedar, a little forest and a little margarita with the salt. It was hungry like the wolf, I mean Falcon lol.

These Cornas wines were good, full of black fruits and leathery goodness with just the right kiss of citrus. The Verset was better in every way; richer, deeper, better sweetness and great vim. The Gentaz impressed me more than other recent bottles; this was smoother and blacker, a ‘rocky rock star’ per The Falcon. The Mouton was classic and classy but short of outstanding, and the Margaux was as good an ’83 as I have had. They can be very volatile, for the record.

Dinner was at Le Bernardin, hence the more white wines than usual. First off, let’s get the off bottles out of the way. The Blanchots was bretty, the ‘06 Coche corked, the ’07 was not perfect, the Lafon pre-moxed and the Dujac slightly corked. I don’t normally write up the nights where 1/3rd of the wines were off, but it does happen. The Salon was classic but lighter than the great 1996; the Roulot was fresh and lively, with a smooth and satiny personality but lacking depth. The Hedonist and Lord Byron Jr. liked the Valmur better, which was a good call, it had classic citrus and oyster shells. The ’08 Coche was rich and buttery with loads of acid, another rock n’ roll 2008. The Hedonist loved its ‘Ginsu-ness.’ The ’86 BBM was mature, and the ’89 BdM was good but not special.

The Ponsot was a bit beefy and earthy, while dark chocolaty and black, it was a bit herbal and twangy, ‘tomato soupy’ and ‘medicinal’ per others. It was also mechanical. The Lignier smoked the Ponsot; nothing new there. Its pure fruit was delicious by comparison, purple and black harmony, with great citricity and acidity. Everyone got an A for effort, but it wasn’t an A night for sure.

Sauzet remains one of the most underappreciated top white Burgundies today. This magnum showed why with its fresh, sweet, yellow fruit and nice minerality. Exotic pear and a wintry cream completed its composite. The ’04 Leflaive took it up a notch; it was a great bottle. There was more intensity and zip to its structure, and more mineral flavors with a pinch of yellow sugar goodness. The Lamarche was a bit yeasty with dark fruits and bread aromas. Its duck-like edges were nice, but it was just a bit thin, more the vintage than the wine. The Ponsot was corked, and the Chave was super elegant for this wine, with lots of gritty goodness and excellent acidity. The La Chapelle was richer and also more elegant than usual for this wine, but it still had a touch of jam and black currant flavors. The ’96 LT had the screechy acid so signature for this vintage, with beautiful greeny goodness and leather and winter flavors. Baby had back. The Meo was beefy and rich with lots of Chinese action. Szechuan scallops strangely came to mind, as did beef blood. The Latour was deep, dark and young, rich yet shy shy shy. While elegant and long, it still isn’t ready. The Redigaffi might have been ready 20 years ago, but it felt like just another “highly” rated wine that didn’t age well.

The funny thing is that if you asked me if I tasted 2008 Rousseau Chambertin and 1996 Mouton twice this year already, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you until just now, let alone once. At least I rated them consistently lol. I remember lots of wines, but I don’t remember them all. That’s why I try to write everything down!

The ’89 Krug mag was classic; rich, tasty and full-bodied with lots of nuttiness. The Verget was a huge surprise in that it was much better than expected. It was super tasty, smooth yet certainly Grand Cru. There were lots of citrus flavors with some guava exoticness. The Leflaive was sweeter with more honey and candle wax. It was ‘ready’ and a bit ‘senior’ per some of our guests. This ’96 Mouton had a bit of an oaky edge (but not negatively), with great smoke and charcoal to its nose. Spice, black fruits and minerals made the Mouton a happy ending. The ’82 Palmer was more mature yet still rich but not a great ’82. It was still excellent but a wine stuck in the barn with its horse and hay.

The Richebourg showdown saw Leroy win with its sweet raspberry fruit and cedar/mint frames. It was rich, ripe and tasty with cola and bouillon edges, while the DRC had more tea, grass and garden edges. The Rousseau see my previous note and add ‘wow’ and ‘intense.’ This DRC LT, from the same case as the one the night prior, was a slightly better bottle with much more acid and cedar. It was zippy city along with some good greeny action. The Leroy won over the LT by an overall vote of 5 to 4.

It was off to HK next, and a spectacular vertical of Hubert Lignier with three generations of the Lignier family there: Hubert, Laurent and Sebastien. I think there were 15 wines, and I remember a standout 1991 amongst many others, but I lost my notes. That’s another thing that happens here and there : ( While the Domaine went through some transition issues after the tragic death of Hubert’s son Romain, there is no doubt that over the last decade, this great producer has reclaimed its status as one of Burgundy’s best thanks to the efforts of Laurent Lignier.

The Marquis de Laguiche was the clear winner of the white flight, although they were all served a bit cold. The Niellon was a bit ripe, which Laurent said was the vintage for whites, and the Boillot was easy. Montrachet proved to be the magic terroir again with rich yellow fruits full of sunshine, along with a regal finish. The pair of ’17 and ’07 Ligniers proved to be a good match, with both providing fleshy and easy to understand experiences. Laurent found a little 2010 and a little 2007 in his 2017, and The Good Doctor was loving the delicious and more mature 2007.

The DRC vs. Leroy smackdown lived up to its pre-game hype. The 2005 was a big wine with long acidity, and the discussion about when the 2005s will finally be ready ensued. Despite its outstanding status, the 2005 was no match for the 2001 Leroy. I have had about three to four different 2001 Leroys this year, and they were all rock stars. Madame certainly hit the Burgundy bullseye in 2001! This was a ‘wow’ wine in every sense of the word, so big, so deep, so heavy yet at the same time retaining that Grand Cru freshness, elegance and style. Mad Max found it ‘full-bodied and wonderful,’ while the Paradox noted it ‘a perfect Burgundy bottle.’ Dark fruits, forest floor, tree bark and brown sugar all danced erotically together.

The last flight was another thriller, four decades carefully curated by yours truly out of our Asia retail inventory. These were just gorgeous, old bottles hanging out in stock just begging to be consumed, so I obliged. Old bottles in great condition, ladies and gentlemen, pay more attention! The La Garde was a Graves, not earth shattering but fresh, round and tasty, with nice hay and citrus flavors. It was dusty and leaner for a ’47 but still very good. The 1950 Cheval was outstanding, ‘100 points’ per one guest. It had that classic, coconut kink from this era, with the chocolate and wheat to match. Red Christmas fruits and dates abounded in this fleshy, kinky and delicious red. The ’61 Lafite was a nice wine, but it has never lived up to the legendary ’61 vintage. It was lighter and pleasant, in great condition with excellent caramel flavors. Lastly, the 1934 Haut Brion was fantastic. I have never been a fan of this entire decade in Bordeaux, giving it plenty of chances over the last 25 years. This was probably my best experience ever for the entire decade! It was hailed as a ‘Dark Knight,’ and Laurent admired its concentration. Coffee and mocha were everywhere in this inky, rich ’34.

We also had a 2001 Hubert Lignier Morey St. Denis VV, which Laurent admired as ‘a beautiful vintage,’ and a 2006 Hubert Lignier Clos de la Roche, but I didn’t take notes or write scores down for those. It was a long night with lots of introductions and discussions by these great winemakers.

Clos de la Chapelle is is a relatively new name for an existing Domaine that has been producing esteemed wines for many, many years. Burgundy connoisseur and collector Mark O’Connell purchased the Louis Boillot estate in Volnay in 2010 and has subsequently added additional vineyard purchases to form one of the top boutique Domaines in the Côte de Beaune. We had orders for 25 cases of his Corton Charlemagne; too bad we only got five! It was an impressive span of four vintages, and his 2016s were super fresh, with the Corton Bressandes ruling the roost on this night.

Another relatively new name is that of Bizot, who is quickly becoming a cult phenomenon. Production is part of the story; only 1000-1500 cases are made for the entire Domaine any given vintage! This is about 8 to 10 wines, I believe. But Jean-Yves Bizot is a true “artist explorer” who beats to his own drum, creating a unique style that have many in adoration. He made clear, risky and highly engaging choices: low yield, short pruning, strictly limited treatments, both in the vineyards and the cellars, manual harvest, meticulous grape selection…this scrupulous work, combined with his outstanding intuition, has resulted in wines that aficionados have recognized as beautiful, hand-crafted jewels. It was a great night featuring these three great Domaines!

We had an auction, and we drank a lot of DRC. I don’t take notes at an auction, I can’t, I’m actually working.

The 1976 Roulot Charmes was an incredible wine, all the more incredible by having Jean-Marc Roulot in the room. It was a magnum in perfect condition, full of rich butter and honey aromas and flavors. Hints of autumn leaves and incredible musk oozed out of the glass. This was sweet, tasty and delicious, make that ‘Butterlicious’ lol. I could not stop drinking the wine; every other white wine seemed irrelevant. Etienne de Montille had the line of the night when he told Jean-Marc, “Your father made much better wine than you.” Jean-Marc and I burst out laughing lololol.

Like I said, the other whites were basically irrelevant, and I really need to finish this beast of an article, so let’s touch upon some of the reds. The 1978 Roumier Bonnes Mares was about as good as it gets. I would be fortunate to have another superlative example of this incredible wine about two weeks later in New York, then again one month later in New York at that ‘Power Lunch,’ and I can safely say ‘tasted thrice with consistent notes.’ Etienne cooed how this wine had ‘everything.’ This wine gave off so many pheromones with its rich, musky nose. It was smooth and almost buttery in its decadence, delicate yet delicious, pure catnip. The 1959 DRC Richebourg was not far behind. Its core was older, possessing more brown sugar, but there was still this candied red goodness, that sweetness from the warmer ’59 vintage. Animal sweat and donut glaze rounded out my notes for this ‘so good, all good’ wine. Perfect maturity. The Fourrier and Lignier stood out for me amongst the ‘younger’ reds; these are two class acts making classic and classy wines. But, of course, we needed a closer, and the 1990 DRC La Tache was up for the challenge. While bottle variation can be an issue for this wine, when it is on, there is nothing better. This bottle was turned fully on and then some. I almost got stampeded when I opened it, as glasses emerged from all angles for just one swallow. I think I did my best James Harden imitation and had to do a 360 around a pick by a column to gather my thoughts lol. The ’90 LT was a beast, thick and rich, a man amongst boys (and a couple of aforementioned elder men). Its dark fruits cascaded down my hatch like waterfalls, and its spice and decadence were almost unimaginable. When I think too hard about it, I start smacking my lips unconsciously. I want more.

Let’s forget the bubblies since this was a Rhone night. The ’89 Chave Blanc was a spectacular white that was saucy, voluptuous and creamy. This was a honeyed and exotic wine with tropical goodness and great weight. The ’90 Rayas had that signature kirsch nose, super impressive with its sweet core of red fruits and musk. It was so pure, so stylish and so Grenache. The Hommage was a bit dirty and earthy, very dark in contrast to the Rayas. This bottle was a bit beefy, and not as good as a bottle that I had two weeks later with one of the Perrins. The ’90 Celestins won the haed-to-head on this night, and while its fruit was leaner, its style was longer. It had great sauvage, white pepper and minerality, and I was surprised by its elegance.

The two flights of four Chaves was an event in its own right. Dapper Dave found both the 1991 and 1990 ‘explosive,’ and the ’91 had beautiful dark, violet fruits with light bacon and light pepper nuances. It oozed seduction. The ’90 was richer and deeper with more animal qualities. It was smokier with more bacon to it, and someone admired its ‘big BBQ.’ The ’79 had even more animal, trending up with age it seemed, and it was a little stinky with some barn action. Someone found it ‘buxom,’ and it was elegant, smooth and creamy, just a lighter vintage. The ’76 was even lighter, with less stuffing than the ’79, and more menthol. It was lean and minerally, still solid but not spectacular.

I have had much better bottles of ’78 La Chapelle, so instead I will talk about the outstanding ’76. There was an exotic cereal nose to it with wheat flavors and a round and fleshy personality. Its finish was long and regal, and this bottle outshined the ’78 on this night, which probably doesn’t happen that often.

The 1966 Guigal Cote-Rotie La Mouline, being the 99 point wine that it always was, gets a full tasting note accordingly here! This bottle took no prisoners and immediately asserted itself as the wine of the night. There was still great freshness here, with a touch of good stink at first, and a round and rich personality that showed amazing spice, flesh, and minerality. There were the usual and delicious bacon, violet and pepper flavors, but it was dominated by decadent Gyro meat. It was so aromatic, unfolding continuously, ending up snowcapped as well. Lord Byron Jr. admired its concentration, and others its leathery side (99).

The Chapoutier and Jaboulet were impressive, older Rhones. Jetski admired the clarity and transparency of the Chapoutier, which was served blind, and guessed to be Cote Rotie due to some similarities with the La Mouline. There was a lot of menthol in this aged Syrah, while the Les Cedres was pure deliciousness. It got ‘one of the WOTNs’ by one guest, and ‘flawless’ from another. This was a blue-blooded and berried wine, with sweet fruit and great mint. The Jamet was a last call, and a great one. This is the era of Jamet that makes collectors swoon. It had dark, deep and rich midnight-like fruit flavors, with supporting olive, leather and meat. It was gripping and oozy with long acidity. Bravo!

There were still four more events in January, all related to our spectacular Grande Fete de Bourgogne auction February 1st. I think we will save those for the next article, or make it a few! I hope you don’t mind the abridged notes this time, but the hole had gotten too big. Let’s see if I can catch up, and if I can ever start doing/writing my ‘three notes a day’ idea. I could have had 120 notes by now in 2019!!!

I hope you enjoyed ‘A Month in the Life,’ even if I fell a week short.

On one Spring Friday afternoon in New York City, eight serious oenophiles gathered in New York City for a significant lunch of 1971 and 1978 Red Burgundies. Actually, that’s right, there were seven. Big Boy had a tummy ache lol. It was a significant week of significant events, including Dapper Dave’s 40th Birthday celebration the night before which put Big Boy on a temporary shelf, even though I left two hours after him. It’s not easy being the Chief Drinking Officer, let me tell you ; )

Back to our event, which started on the wrong foot with a (DQ) bottle of 1971 Salon. The Mogul solved that problem very quickly with an outstanding bottle of 2011 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. It had that great Coche nose with a spritely kink and a delicate, playful spice. It was delicious, balanced, round and beautiful (95).

There were a couple of squirrely Domaine Leflaives next, starting with a yeasty 1996 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. There was a touch of tropical something that indicated this wine was not completely pure. The palate was much better, you could feel the breed in the bottle. It was long and kept improving, but I suppose one could argue it was a flawed bottle. I still felt I experienced all of its first class personality and material (96).

The 1990 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was definitely a more advanced bottle. While it had a rich and nutty nose and an oily mouthfeel, there was definitely a brown kink to its flavor. This I would call flawed without question (94A).

The rough seas continued with the first red of our official program, the 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares. The nose possessed lots of positive brown sugar aromas, although brown sugar can be a sign of an advanced quality. These were positive ones, encased by a lot of ceramic edges. Red fruits and tomatoes abounded along with dusty, forest floor action. The palate was round and a bit square, and while it had nice acidity, this bottle wasn’t as thrilling as it could/should be. It was tough to say this was an affected bottle, but it wasn’t a perfect one, either (92?).

From here on out, we rolled a lucky seven, as the next seven wines were all superlatively spectacular, or spectacularly superlative, which ever you think sounds better! The first was a fantastic bottle of 1978 Roumier Bonnes Mares, which was also WOTN at our 36 vintage vertical of Roumier Bonnes Mares at the end of January (yes, I know I haven’t written that one up yet). The ’78 was brimming with pure red fruit, almost oceanic with its kaleidoscope of red. There was great spice, great musk and great mushroom and truffle complexity. Nice kisses of forest and brown sugar (the non-advanced kind!) rounded out this amazing wine. There was super length to this special stuff, and it held as its finish continued to smack my lips again and again (98).

A stand alone 1978 Dujac Clos St. Denis was another great bottle, although it was more feminine and elegant in style. It was more floral, with more purple to go with its red, very fresh for a ’78. There were some Chinese tea flavors to go with its earthy flavors on its finish. There was a touch of good dirty here (96).

A pair of ’71 Musignys began with a 1971 Drouhin Musigny. This was another great nose with orange fruits, mesquite, leather and spice. While tender, it was still rich. It may have been just turning the corner of its maturity plateau, but there was no doubting its tasty, delicious personality. Its acid came out more after some beef, and its rich, orange and autumn flavors weren’t going anywhere. This was an elegant Musigny that maintained its meaty goodness (96).

The 1971 Comte de Vogue Musigny VV had a similar profile to the Drouhin with a touch more flesh. It, too, was rich and meaty with orange hues, although it showed more rusty profiles. Diamondz thought it showed ‘a little more fruit,’ and I couldn’t disagree, but we all thought that it didn’t hold in the glass as well as the Drouhin (95).

The 1971 DRC La Tache had a special nose with that classic DRC/LT spice, mint, rose and oil. There were decadent cherries soaked in something great that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. This was rich and sexy, ‘smokin’ per one of our group. Delicious and great appeared in my notes on multiple occasions, and its long, deep palate abounded with spice, acid and pure sex appeal. ‘So LT,’ cooed Diamondz. Once again, the 1971 La Tache delivered the ultimate wine experience (99).

The 1971 DRC Richebourg was close behind. Everyone was loving it; we were all in love with just about everything at this point lol. The Riche was a bit more earthy, possessing more structure in its nose than the LT, although it also possessed the usual signature, mature DRC style as well. There was great intensity to this rusty red, which had a great melange of tomato, red and orange fruits (97).

There was one more wine to be had, a deep, dark 1978 DRC Richebourg. There was a citrus twist to its nose, along with some brown sugar goodness. This was a beefy, hearty and full-bodied wine, showing the more masculine side of the ’78 vintage compared to the ’71s. I do prefer 1971 in general, by just a smidge (96+).

The restaurant accidentally opened up Big Boy’s 1978 DRC La Tache, but Jetski insisted on saving it for Big Boy later. We did see him that evening, and it was about as good as that wine gets. By the time I had that wine, it was my fourth wine event of that day, so I didn’t take any notes, but I do remember me thinking (98+). There was also a 1982 DRC La Tache from the Time Capsule collection that stunned and gunned down many other wines in front of it (96). I will save the rest for later, maybe. A big thanks to the Capital Curator himself, aka Jetski, for organizing a proper New York City Power Lunch.

On a recent evening in New York City, dozens of collectors gathered to celebrate the 40th birthday of Dapper Dave. It was a who’s who of wine loving New Yorkers, all coming together to celebrate the one and only Dapper Dave’s 40th birthday. Vintage Tastings alumni in attendance included Big Boy, Jetski, Sir Robert, Big Mike, The Inspector, Diamonds, Tom Terrific and many more, even a Comte.

While the theme of the evening was 1979, there were a few other wines from other vintages that snuck in the party, beginning with a magnum of 1996 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos. Its nose was very smoky, a little fatter than I expected, toastier and richer with more oak showing out of magnum. Its palate was super citrusy, tangy and again woody. Honestly, I expected more from this theoretically phenomenal wine, which was a bit awkward out of magnum (94M).

The Delagrange-Bachelet was a bit funky and mature, with some tea qualities. It felt advanced and felt like 92 points even if it were perfect. The Lafon was an outstanding wine, smoky, rich and toasty. This was a buttery classic, smooth and creamy wine that was still very fresh. This bottle showed the greatness of the vintage for white Burgundy, and the greatness for older Comtes Lafon. Old Louis Latour CCs have always been pet wines for many Burgnuts, and this bottle showed why. It was tasty and sweet, with lots of corn, honey and stalk flavors. It was on the sweet side, and the Comte found it ‘good for cooking’ lol. The Perrieres in our first flight was also smoky and toasty, with some nice mint complications. The is was a very nice wine, tasty and with great balance, elegant and long.

We were pleasantly interrupted by a Jeroboam of 1999 Roulot Meursault Perrieres. The Roulot was lemony and zippy with great tang and rich and creamy flavors. There were kisses of hay and honey in this oh so tangy wine (95J).

Sir Robert brought another Jero, this one being an incredibly rare 1979 Marc Colin Montrachet. I ended up having at least four or five glasses of it; it kept getting better and better and better. What a great nose. Melted butter with that old, mature honeyed and musky sex appeal. There was also vanilla bean , more butter, more musk and some tasty caramel flavors. The Colin family is a historical one when it comes to Chassagne. I think many people overlooked this wine in the beginning, but after towards the end of the night, there was no doubt this was one of the wines of the night (97J).

We went back to Roulot with a 2007 Roulot Meursault Perrieres. I was a bit perplexed by this magnum, which was a bit tinny and served a bit too warm (92M?).

The Inspector had somehow gotten his hands on my 1979 Jadot Chevalier Montrachet Les Demoiselles, and I am pleased to say that it passed inspection. This was a rich and hearty white with great verve and edge. There were smoky, caramelly corn flavors in this outstanding white (95).

I’m not a huge fan of Pommard in general, and this Pousse d’Or didn’t do much to change that opinion. It was rich and taut ‘but still Pommard’ I wrote. The D’Angerville had lots of orange, autumnal action in its nose, and it was also fleshy, beautiful and excellent. This was in a perfectly mature spot. The M-G was big and rich but seemed so young in comparison to the previous two wines. There were lots of black fruits, but this bottle felt reconditioned and was very, very rocky and a bit square.

I was lucky enough to get a taste of a magnum of 1979 DRC La Tache. Arabian nights was the first thing that came to mind with its exotic spices. It was rich with nice autumn flavors, excellent earth and red fruits. It was towards the end of the magnum, so I didn’t feel like I got the full picture. That wasn’t an issue, because out came a Jeroboam of the same wine thanks to the one and only Big Boy. He immediately declared that his Jero crushed the magnum and was 105 points lol. The Jero definitely felt richer and had more of that classic minty spice. There was great vim and great balance to this spicy, dusty and heady Jero (97J).

There was a Jero of DRC Richebourg that followed courtesy of the Bassmaster, and it was another ‘wow’ Jero. Of course, Big Boy was constantly reminding everyone how superior his La Tache Jero was, which it was, but ever so slightly and not quite as far apart as Mr. Boy would have everyone believe. There was a touch more dirt in the Riche, but there was no doubting its greatness as well. It was quite consistent with the LT jero, actually, with a touch more tootsie pop. The leather, the oil, the citrus, the rose, all were there (96J).

We had a flurry of more wines, and everyone started to get up and mingle around, so my notes became quite brief, especially after some healthy servings from the Jeros. Wines tasted include:

The Arnoux was friendly and flavorful, showing lots of citrus and iron. The Chave was a bit on the dirty side, showing lots of animal and leather. The Conterno was ‘punchy’ per the Comte, and its usual combination of tar, leather and zip did not displease. The Bordeaux were all solid, with Lafleur leading the way. It had the most concentration and great plummy fruit. Its finish was in a different league. The Petrus was delicious but more elegant, an excellent showing for this forgotten vintage. The Giacosa, which was a white label/non-Riserva, really stole the show. It was so damn delicious, so open and expressive with lots of tangy and fleshy fruit, showing all the hues of red and brown. Great saddle leather and tobacco added just the right amount of spice. This wine was a real lip smacker. Don’t sleep on old Giacosa white labels!!!

Happy Birthday Dapper Dave, don’t worry, it’s all downhill from here ; )

Three months and no tasting notes, I know, but I assure you that there have been plenty of tastings, an absurd amount of great events come to think of it. January flew by, and so did February, but before February came to a close, I paid a visit to a special collection, one of which you might have heard, The Chalet Collection. I have said before and often that I have been treated to some great dinners by the owner of the Chalet Collection, and here are some of the wines I had this past year from him. I needed a kickstart to get going, nothing like a spectacular auction this weekend to get me in the writing mood again : )

On one occasion, actually every occasion with the Chalet Collector, we began with a great vintage Champagne; this time it was a 1964 Krug. This was rich and apply with a great swathe of oak at first, along with honey flavors and strong acid. This was so rich and ‘foamy in the mouth.’ It had great apple juice mousse on the loose and rich buttercream on its nose (96).

The 1955 Louis Roederer (not Cristal just Brut) had more rust and lanolin and was deemed ‘much older.’ There was big apple and rainwater elements with ‘nut’ and rich, waxy, sweet toffee flavors, but the apple juice still stayed on top. This was quite close to the Krug in quality and ultimately kept it close. The old ‘regular’ Roederers are one of vintage Champagne’s great secrets (95).

The wines were served blind, as our host enjoys the sport of tasting, and our first white had a toasty, smoky Leflaive-like nose. It had yellow corn and citrus aromas, and if it wasn’t Leflaive, then it was definitely Coche. I tasted the toasted kernels and thought it was so elegant but still intense with super length. Then I learned it had been double decanted 8 hours ago! Like wow. Soon thereafter I would debate with Mr. Chalet the amount of air time on some older reds, but I had no objections here. This was a perfect, super bottle with rich, creamy, white ice flavors. It tasted like diamonds look on the perfect neck, and I was stunned to find out this was a 2001 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. Why, because it didn’t have the botrytis that ’01 usually has. Strong showing (97).

The next wine the French Paradox initially thought was Clos Ste. Hune with its minerals galore, but I considered the possibility of white Bordeaux with all its very waxy guava flavors. The wine came from old vines, not late picked and not touched by phylloxera. Hmmmm. Clues, clues, clues, ok we gave up! It was a 2002 Didier Dagueneau Asteroide. This was super exotic and the richest Sauvignon Blanc I’d ever had with insane acidity (95).

We then got into old Burgundy, at least I knew that much. The first red had plum on the nose and coffee in the mouth but maintained its freshness. There was wet forest, ‘leather,’ and pine needles with rich stalky flavors and great minerals. The finish was intense and I learned it had been opened at 5PM, and we came to it four hours later! The Paradox found ‘menthol,’ and I saw some cedar with a touch of bell pepper. This was a 1971 DRC La Tache! The bottle was still outstanding, but I could not help but think it would have been the usual two points higher if not opened so long ago. To each their own, I still finished every drop (96)!

We then got into another bottle that had withstood the four hour double decant, this time an even rarer 1952 DRC La Tache. This had more brown sugar with rich, decadent, spiny mahogany spice. Mr. Chalet found ‘sous bois and forest floor like old DRC.’ I’m not sure if that was a clue or an affirmation, but he definitely said it lol. This was oily and a little warmer on its finish than the ’71, with a kinder acidity profile, and lots of cola and root beer flavors. There were ‘faded flower and rose’ qualities per the Paradox. Ultimately, I preferred the ’52 ever so slightly, and I think this could have been a 99 point experience without the excessive air. It is a legendary vintage for DRC for the few that know. Still, 97 points is not so bad, and I finished every drop of this one, too (97).

The next wine was Bordeaux for sure, Left bank, I thought, but I was surprised to learn it was, in fact, 1953 Petrus (I guessed La Miss!). This had dark cassis, deep ocean and was super sexy. The French Paradox was transforming into his alternate identity, aka the Dirty Frenchman, as he said it reminded him of the ‘red light district at 3AM.’ Will take your word on that one buddy lol. Alexander the Great chimed in and thought it was even ‘dirtier.’ Not sure if that was the wine or the district. Check please. Personally, I found it delicious, with so much sexy Pomerol chocolate and even a touch of tootsie pop. Old Petrus never gets old (96).

I was convinced the next and last wine was an old white Bordeaux, and Mr. Chalet commented that it was full of ‘rainwater.’ I was convinced I tasted a certain Sauvignon Blanc richness. In fact, it was 1971 Raveneau Chablis Butteaux. Doh! This was rich and round with not much on the mineral front, but it was a very delicious bottle. It towed the line being fat but still tasted lean in the glass, and it showed lots of cream on the nose. It was an impressive wine, and a rare look into super old Raveneau (94).

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

The next night we had together was at a 3-star Michelin place that shall remain anonymous. The meal was amazing; however, there was not enough food! I was starving like half the meal, only amplified by the eleven bottles amongst the four of us. That is what I call being ready for dinner, but the dinner not being ready for us!

The first wine we had was a delicious bottle of 1971 Lanson Red Label. This had an old, apply, sweet, tangy, cola, sugared goodness to it. Is that too many adjectives? The Paradox noted ‘dry, refreshing acidity,’ and I loved its vivacious, zippy palate. ‘Layers and toast’ came from Mr. Chalet, and I agreed, also finding crème brulee flavors on its finish. Maybe it was a touch too sweet if anything was wrong, but it delivered (94).

The next wine we plucked off the list, a 2014 Keller Rielsing G-Max. Mr. Chalet had never had one, so I had to pop his G-Max cherry! Ok, that probably came out wrong lol, let’s get into the wine…the G-Max was so sweet in the nose, more so than usual, but it still possessed an amazing fruit medley. ‘Passionfruit,’ noted Mr. Chalet. It was round, lush and sweet with all the orange, peach, apricot, mango and ‘mochi fruit.’ The wine was super smooth and satiny but the acidity was buried alive by its fruit. This was a rich, decadent and round G-Max, perhaps a vintage that will give more pleasure sooner, although every bottle of G-Max gives pleasure. There’s another joke to be made in there somewhere (95).

‘Rainwater’ came from Mr. Chalet, and that should have been a clue already, given how many bottles of this producer I have had with him, and the fact that he probably says this every time for one. I got wet corn first thing on a sunny morning after a rainy night. Who grew up in Iowa, are you with me? There were delicious, nutty flavors with a kiss of banana, what could it be? A 1993 Raveneau Chablis Valmur purchased on release! I drank it like water, although it still had a touch of minerality. Someone noted, ‘some similarities in elegance and finesse between the two whites.’ There was signature citrus and oyster to this ‘more refined’ Raveneau (95).

There were two more whites, the first being so smoky and so toasty that it was a veritable tub of buttery popped corn. Mr. Chalet agreed, admiring its ‘rich nose.’ The palate was very citrusy by contrast, with lots of character, minerals and hot stones. The palate was spectacular at first, although it lost a step with some time in the glass. That was ok, it was a 1996 D’Auvenay Meursault Narvaux with a touch of a lower fill (like 4cm). So good and so delicious appeared in my notes, and while I gave it a gushing 96 points upon first kiss, I settled for 95 points and a cab ride home lol (95).

The next wine Mr. Chalet was just fucking with me, but it was damn good, I will confess. No one could figure it out. It had a smooth nose, with much more perfume. There was white spice and a delicate, floral tanginess. There was a tropical twist to its fruit, so tropical I wrote again. The Paradox noted, ‘candy on the nose,’ and its smooth, icy flavors reminded me of sorbet. This was a Loire white, a 2014 Guiberteau Saumur Blanc Clos des Carmes or something like that. It was a Chenin Blanc Monopole from Breze I was told. All my Somms out there put your hands up (94).

The French Paradox picked up on ‘pickle’ right away in our first red, while Mr. Chalet noted ‘green herbs and dill.’ There was a deep nose to this young wine, and the Paradox came back with some ‘fresh pepper.’ This was clearly a young, intense Burgundy, very shy and tight. There was an herbal style and ‘green pepper’ to this 2013 Bizot Echezeaux. Only 1047 bottles were made. I should note that I had a 2016 a couple days prior that was absolutely smoking, I think 2013 is not representative of this Domaine’s budding superstar status (92).

The second red was also a 2013 Red Burgundy, but in a different weight class. There was much more rich, decadent fruit in this better wine. There was a great mélange of fruits: red, purple and blue. Of course, it was from the modern master of Echezeaux, the Comte, but not even his own Domaine wine. It was a 2013 C. Marey Hospice de Beaune Echezeaux Cuvee Jean-Luc Bissey. Type that twenty times. I am still waiting for Louis-Michel to make a bad wine – ain’t gonna happen. I should know I have had at least a couple hundred bottles of his delicious juice (95)!

For fuck’s sake, 2014, 2013, 2013…what the hell was going on? Had Mr. Chalet come down with a fever, what was up with all these very young wines?!! The next wine calmed me down and had me saying ‘mmmmmm.’ One or two more m’s possible. Aromas of band-aid and gravel gave way to a smoky nose with rose and citrus. And lots more gravel. There was a bit of bamboo and forest to its tasty and balanced palate. This was fresh and pure, drinkable and smooth. ‘Delicious’ and ‘fantastic’ came from the crowd, and the Somm even jumped in with ‘incredible.’ I wish he jumped in with a basket of bread ; ) Delicate and floral, there was ‘carob’ and ‘bacon fat’ in this special bottle of 1953 DRC La Tache! And it was from a 6cm bottle. Like whoa….it’s all about the color for those old Burgundies, all about the color (96).

The next bottle was an equally rare, old Burgundy, a 1952 Rousseau Chambertin. This is the third time I had a bottle of this batch thanks to the Chalet Collection, the second of which we had with Cyrielle Rousseau in Burgundy on one rainy afternoon. The first bottle, however, was the most memorable: epic, legendary, insert your own superlative here. This bottle was still outstanding, but it did not achieve the heights of that first time. It’s all about the bottle for those old Burgundies, all about the bottle. There was similar sweetness to the LT, but the Rousseau was more autumnal. It was smooth and nice with good brown sugar and earth flavors. ‘Tasty’ came from the crowd, and I concurred (95).

Mr. Chalet noted ‘light mint’ in the next red, followed by ‘tobacco and soil.’ There was a maturity to this wine, and its flavors were full of coffee with a touch of egg cream. This was a perfect bottle of 1967 Vega Sicilia Unico. It was salty in a great way with lots of cocoa butter on its finish. Yum (96+).

There was one more bottle ordered off the list, because I’m a ‘just one more bottle’ kind of guy. ‘Rosemary, super dark, balanced and elegant’ came from the crowd. This was a great red for cheese, full of black raspberry flavors. It was a 2002 Henschke Hill of Grace. It was an Aussie wine to make one say ‘oy oy oy’ (95).

There was another night with Mr. Chalet, but it’s past my bedtime. I’ll save that one for the archives. The Chalet Collection is one built on a true love for wine by a gentleman who loves sharing and caring for it. I hope you have a better glimpse into his heart and soul, which are as big as they come. Let’s recreate some Chalet magic after this weekend, I am happy to participate again and again, buyers please note!

In Vino Veritas,
JK