Monday Night Football

Posted on | December 18, 2009

I’m staying current for a hot second, as this past Monday night had me at Marea with some of the Angries for a most noteworthy evening, even though it was under the guise of a casual get together. Wine’s original Bad Boy aka the Returner aka the Warden aakkaa was holding court with some bubblies, and he had some great Champagne on tap as well. He was joined by another enforcer extraordinaire, the Hillbilly, and even Big Boy came out of the woodworks of fatherhood to share in the festivities.

I was only passing through, but it was tough to stay on schedule as great wine after great wine emerged. It started with a killer 1982 Cristal. The nose was honeyed and butterscotchy, showered in golden toast. There were lots of yellow aromas and buttery cream ones, and its caramel glaze (again, with a yellow hue) soothed my senses. The palate was fresh and smooth, right down the middle like a 95 mph fastball. There was nice zip and vim, and a long, grainy, spritely finish. It was just flat out delicious (96).

The 1989 Cristal Rose with which it was paired was a bit oxidative in the nose. There were aromas of faded strawberry and a hint of wet wool. The palate was very citrusy and metally without being metallic, something Todd picked up on as well, also calling it ‘salty.’ There were tangy red fruit flavors on its gamy palate; Big Boy called it ‘stewy,’ and it was clear that it was oxidized. I could have still drunk it and probably would have on another night, but with the punches rolling, we let it go (91A).

It was on to the DP’s, beginning with a 1964 Dom Perignon. Todd jumped on ‘oatmeal’ right away. I saw that but found it more stony in the nose at first. Bruce chipped in how ‘it needs a little time to get integrated,’ and how he hates popping and pouring old Champers right away. Big Boy admired its ‘mature’ qualities, and with a little time, exotic aromas of coconut, cream soda, vanilla wafer and milk candy emerged. It was very complex once the stone walls came down around it, just as the Returner had prophecized. Delicious flavors of vanilla and cream soda danced on its long and lush palate. It was both delicate yet sturdy, ie, it didn’t have a lot of fizz but there was just enough to make it outstanding. It was another delicious wine (95).

The 1973 Dom Perignon was ‘too cold,’ per the Warden, who was annoyed he let the temperature of this DP slip past his guard. There was more wafer here, along with light sweetness in a honey, lilac and white honeysuckle direction. It was also fresher than the ’64. This was a classic ’73. The palate was long and zippy, more linear with lots of minerals and much more race in the car. It lacked the fat, decadent fruit of the ’64, however, and the Hillbilly found it ‘thinner and getting crushed.’ I defended the ’73 a bit and its minerally definition, and he conceded he was a bit hard…for various reasons. Its finish kept getting stronger in the glass. Hints of rye crisp rounded out this excellent DP (94+).

It was Krug’s turn, beginning with the 1976 Krug. It was similar to the ’73 DP in its stony and minerally personality, but ‘heavier’ per Bruce and ‘a little dusty.’ It had the signature Krug vanilla cream on top of everything. Its palate was big and rich, heavy being a good way to put it. The ’76 was full, long and in charge with lots of straw and hay flavors. Its power really impressed (96).

The 1979 Krug, batting second in this flight, smelled a kiss mature, masked a bit and closed in its nose. The palate was ‘snappy’ per Todd, and Rob agreed. It was zippy and stony but noticeably simpler than the ’76, squarer on its dirty palate. It was a good dirty, of course. These were both ‘regular’ Krug bottling, not Collection (94).

It was on to a trio of super-heroic Burgundies, beginning with my 1966 DRC Richebourg, which had a great nose. It was ‘sexy and velevety,’ per the Hillbilly, but he might have been talking about something else lol. The nose was super sexy, so sweet and forward with loads of red fruits, baby powder, oatmeal and brown sugar. The palate also had lots of oatmeal and brown sugar, outlined in chalk. The finish was a bit dirty with some bitter citrus twists. This was a ‘take me now’ wine, a quality the Hillbilly likes in many ways. Its flavors were very autumnal and menthol started to take over; there was a lot going on in this mature and tasty Richebourg. It might have been a touch advanced, but not enough to make its way into the score (93).

Everyone got out of the way for the wines that followed. Big Boy was about to put on a production, beginning with a 1962 Rousseau Chambertin. It had a deep nose, brimming with haunted red fruits, forest and a hint of woodsy spice. Chunks of wet earth were also present in its oily nose. The palate was round and rich but satiny smooth like ’62, very elegant and with bits of browned biscuit flavors on its finish. There was also a hint of autumn to its palate, like the beginning of Fall on a late September morning. Some latent grit emerged with time in this classic (95).

The 1978 DRC Romanee Conti that followed put everything to bed. The nose screamed ‘WOW’- it was menthol city, built upon iron, rose and blood. Some garden came in, providing some nice recreational aromas for this budding metropolis. Layers upon layers of every shade of exotic fruit unfolded, and beef satay with hints of peanuts joined the party in its incredibly decadent nose. The palate was smooth and lush, dripping with oil and full of bloody mary flavors. It separated itself from the pack, although we could all see the sibling rivalry with the Richebourg. Big brother won. As I settled in on my score, I had to put this wine in that ‘best wines of my life category’ and one level up from outstanding. At the same time, I felt like this was a wine that was as good as it was ever going to be, and I didn’t see as much long-term potential as in other big-time vintages of RC. It was definitely plateau-ing, but it could possibly do so for another thirty years, to be fair. Big Boy agreed that while extraordinary, it will never be on that mega-level of the greatest RC’s of all time, citing ‘not in the top 10 of the 20th Century.’ So my point is while the ’78 RC is 97 points right now, I wouldn’t be surprised if this slipped to a 96 over the next decade or so (97).

After an unfortunately oxidized 1949 Pommery (DQ), we finished strongly with an excellent 1955 Pommery. Aromas of fresh straw and hints of glue and soap jumped out at first, and when I say sopa that is in a good way, like the soap you find in one of the best hotels when you really need a shower. There was orange marmalade as well, and its flavors were nice and clean, full of white fruits (93).

I am not sure what else was tapped into by these fine gentlemen later that evening, as I finally made my exit, the first one to do so. It was a great Monday, one that would make Hank sing, ‘All my rowdy friends are here on Monday night!!!’

FIN

JK

The Punisher

Posted on | December 7, 2009

I interrupt my natural progression through some of this Fall’s more noteworthy wine evenings in order to bring you notes from a night last week that was so extraordinary, it immediately went to the top of my pile, easily one of the ‘nights of the year,’ so to speak. And there were only three of us.

I have often joked in years past about the two Jef(f)s in Los Angeles who share a last name (despite different spellings), the ‘good’ Jef being one of my close friends. Well, the, um, let’s call him ‘other’ Jeff, was in town on his way back from two weeks in Bordeaux and reached out to get together with myself and another special guest a couple months ago, and the evening was finally upon us. This other Jeff was fresh off an evening in Baltimore with Mr. Parker himself, drinking 1961 La Chapelle from Bob’s cellar amongst other goodies. It is, in fact, on Mr. Parker’s website where you will often find the other Jeff posting away on a daily basis, to which his thousands of posts will attest. When you talk that much on web bulletin boards, you are bound to find some people disagreeing with you, but after this evening, I can safely say that both Jef(f)s in LA are now ‘good’ in my book.

We were joined by one of New York’s empirical collectors, one who used to have an Airplane in his nickname, but after this night, he will only be known as ‘The Punisher,’ because he just punished us with incredibly rare wine after another until we couldn’t drink no more. And there were still another eight or ten bottles in tow if necessary!

Acrobatic/exotic/unique chef Wylie Dufresene’s 12-course tasting menu (at WD-50) also filled us to the gills, but was absolutely critical in soaking up the awesome arsenal of insane wines to which we would be privy on this special night.

I was sitting at the bar for about twenty minutes, not knowing that Jeff and The Punisher were waiting patiently in a booth in the back. I finally called The Punisher, perplexed as to how both of them could be so late – was my calendar wrong? This was the right restaurant, no? I was not wrong in either regard. Bad hostess, bad bad bad bad girl! Thankfully, I hadn’t missed much. Jeff and The Punisher were casually sipping on a 1900 Pichon Baron and had not gotten any further. In advance, Jeff offered up a 1989 Rayas, and I a 1993 Mugnier Musigny, although I changed up to a 1978 Ponsot Clos de la Roche at the last second due to circumstance…and still had the Mugnier, of course, just in case. The Punisher had assured us in advance that he ‘should be able to find something,’ and knowing his cellar already, that was good enough for us.

Ok, time for some notes. The 1900 Pichon Baron had a deep nose, still with a wealth of fruit despite a healthy whiff of oak at first. Aromas of peanut and walnut were also there, and with some extended aeration and swirling action, the oak settled down into more of a benevolent cedar, along with some creepy caramel and sawdust. The palate was rich and luscious. The Punisher remarked how he liked the ‘nose more than the mouth,’ and Jeff agreed, finding it ‘a hair short and a bit taut,’ but make no doubt about it, this bottle was in fabulous condition, still fresh for age 109 despite no signs of reconditioning. It was a natural fresh; it doesn’t get any better than that for old wine. There was a little bit of locker room funk that emerged, but this ancient rarity was still a tasty treat and an impressive bottle (92).

We jumped into my 1978 Ponsot Clos de la Roche. It was actually graciously given to me to taste from a case by a potential seller, as some of the color was off in a few but not all of the bottles, per his ethical acknowledgement. The nose was at first minty, beefy and chocolaty, also ‘foresty’ per The Punisher. Hints of tea rounded out its nose. The palate was rich and round, tender yet long, and tasty in a sweet, brothy, bouillon way with a hint of citrus. Autumnal flavors of forest and damp earth were present, along with game, browned fruit, beef and chocolate. There was still nice tannin definition to its cedary finish, and the wine possessed a little bit of that good dirty. The Punisher grimaced. ‘It is moving in a stewed direction.’ The wine was a bit exotic and unfortunately a bit affected, still good but not a perfect bottle (94A).

Jeff’s 1989 Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape followed, and it needed to be woken up a bit. A first there was a lot of sweet cherry, but in a cough syrupy way, with enough menthol in its nose to clear any sinus on any occasion. The palate was rich, hearty, decadent and delicious. Jeff questioned ‘a touch of volatile acidity?’ The Punisher noted, ‘Riesling diesel.’ The wine had amazing power and acidity, not to mention its sweet concentration. Its cherry flavors were superb, and garrigue and white pepper balanced it out perfectly. One could pick at it and call it ‘too sweet,’ but it was pretty delicious to me, and a wine that will age a long time (95+).

It was at this point where The Punisher took over. He told us how he recently bought this old cellar where the Pichon Baron came from and had brought a few others from it to try to make sure the cellar was good. Enter 1918 Ducru Beaucaillou. The Punisher was having a case of ‘deja-vu,’ as he felt ‘like I just drank this wine.’ The Ducru was lighter than the Pichon Baron, also possessing more sour cherry in the nose. The palate was a bit yeasty at first, with some morning mouth flavors on its finish and fruit that I would call on the tired side, despite the condition of the bottle being fine and fresh per my note on the Baron. Flavors of citrus, wheat, sour cherry and dust were here, and the wine grew on me, as I was again impressed by the condition of the wine, even if it was, perhaps, past its prime. Jeff picked up on secondary ‘butterscotch’ aromas, which I saw in a dry way. There were cobwebs on its tangy finish (90).

The Punisher pulled out a 1925 Mouton Rothschild next as if it was another weapon to help him carry out wine justice. Jeff immediately noted, ‘pretty Asian spice,’ and The Punisher ‘strawberry.’ Jeff countered with ‘tobacco and truffles.’ The Punisher then finished the rally with ‘a touch of salty vinegar and metal on the end.’ I saw all that and then some. The nose was like cobwebs meeting biscuits, and it was divinely sweet in a restrained and refined way. I was really digging the nose on this ’25, which I believe is the first Bordeaux I have ever even had from this rarely seen vintage. Its front and mid-palates were great, although the finish did have some of that awkward metal. Light Asian tea flavors and ‘rhubarb’ per Jeff were upfront in the mouth, and while the wine was soft and bright, its citrus flavors were a touch too tart (?), I questioned, and Jeff chimed in on that ‘hint of metal.’ With a little more air, its citrus flavors became great, and the palate leaned on the sexy side in a ballerina way with light brothy qualities. Light beef and previous citrus flavors gave way to old cherry vanilla ones in the end, and overall, this was an excellent Mouton, perhaps never to be experienced again (93).

‘Let’s try some ’01 Lafite,’ The Punisher pronounced. Jeff had to stop himself. He was wondering, why are we going to try something so young now, until he realized it was the 1901 Lafite Rothschild. Like, duh :). The nose said ‘wow,’ roaring to reveal this decadent, toasted caramel like Smores without the chocolate, made with caramel instead, and a hand-made Guy Savoy caramel at that. Jeff kicked in ‘gingerbread,’ and that he ‘would have guessed Right Bank’ if the wine had been served blind. This, too, had a light, deft edge that the previous wines from this cellar showed and again was fresh and lively. The palate had nice citrus hints and ‘light brown sugar’ flavors. This wine was absolutely delicious, and I loved it, giving it three yums. Even at the end of the night, it was still delicious, still classy and incredibly distinguished. Move over, 1900 (96+).

The Punisher was just warming up. I swear I heard the click of a shotgun, and out came a 1904 Lafite Rothschild. The sibling rivalry was on. There was more citrus in the ’04, and more floral qualities to its sweetness, but we could all see it was a sibling to the ’01. The 1904 was much lighter in the mouth, however, and no ’01 for sure. It had wafer and water flavors along with sour cherry, dust and cobwebs in an old cupboard. It was still pleasant but its palate didn’t live up to its nose; it was a big drop off (88).

The vertical continued with a 1905 Lafite Rothschild, which had a deeper and darker nose than the previous two and was the first of the Lafites to show black fruits in its nose. There was also this hint of windshield wiper, but not in a negative way. Again the palate was on the lighter side. These weren’t hallmark vintages, of course, so that should not be a surprise for hundred year-old wines from years that are not from those ‘vintages of the century.’ The palate was also round, possessing waterfall flavors and again those dusty cobwebs, this time wrapped around old books (90).

There was one more Lafite to this impromptu flight, a 1907 Lafite Rothschild. I asked the sommelier for his thoughts, to which he replied that it had ‘the most grip and is a lot bloodier in its flavors.’ The Punisher playfully asked me if I was trying to get the sommelier to write my notes for me lol. The 1907 was the most classic in my book, possessing rich cassis and cedar in its nose. There were flavors of band-aids and strawberry soup on the palate, which was again lighter but more substantial than the 1905. It developed nice baked aromas as well (92).

It was Mouton’s turn again, beginning with the 1929 Mouton Rothschild, whose nose was intriguing and exciting. It was deep, long and smoky and clearly great claret. It had hickory, cassis and cedar aromas, all working well together. The palate was another wine that could best be described as delicious. Rich and sweet, it had both great fruit and great finish, with coffee flavors on its long backside. It was saucy with black cherry flavors and a hint of grill. The only negative was that it got a touch figgy in the glass after some time, pulling it down from outstanding back into the excellent zone, even though that initial impression was without a doubt outstanding (94).

The 1928 Mouton Rothschild made for an interesting comparison. I have always liked both these vintages for Mouton despite a lack of critical acclaim, and this evening reinforced my internal beliefs. Jeff resurfaced to find the ’28 ‘minty,’ although The Punisher was a bit concerned with some ‘cardboard’ at first. I saw what he was saying, but likened it more to an un-fresh bathroom edge, with hints of chlorine, although black fruits kept trying to fight their way through. Thankfully, the ’28 tasted far better than it smelled. The ’28 was rich and chocolaty, beefy and saucy. There were lots of Vitamin C flavors surrounding its dusty and zippy, rich fruit. The Punisher noted ‘mushroomy’ qualities and found ‘the nose better on ’29, but the mouth better on ’28.’ The Punisher also found that the ’29 softened in the glass, as well, and I agreed that while the two were close in quality now, as time continues, the 1928 will distance itself more as the better wine. Only in Bordeaux can a wine at age eighty still have time to outdistance another similar vintage! Jeff was in the ’29 camp, however, rating it one point higher ‘for elegance.’ The ’28 got better and better, and its nose became integrated and less awkward (96).

I don’t think I could have eaten another crumb or drank another drop. It was at this point that I had to say, ‘I think that cellar’s good.’ What a cellar, and what a night. Somehow, I think that if we didn’t throw in the towel, we could have stayed until every bottle in The Punisher’s wine bag was done.

I bowed down before the wine superhero before me, meagerly offering up my unopened 1993 Mugnier as a token of my gratitude. It quickly got sucked into his arsenal with the ease of a gun being put back into the holster of a marksman. As I stumbled out of WD-50 into the cold, rainy New York night, all I could hear was the crowd cheering, ‘Ed-die, Ed-die, Ed-die….’

FIN

JK

A Trio of Krugs

Posted on | December 5, 2009

On my last trip to Hong Kong, I was fortunate to sit down to a late dinner where only Krug was served, centered around a trio of 1996s, including the recently released Clos d’Ambonnay. New CEO Maggie Henriquez was in town, and we celebrated the then upcoming lots sourced directly from Krug’s cellars with some Krug, of course.

The 1996 Krug Clos du Mesnil was intense and deep like an abyss in its nose. Minerals, rocks, light citrus, wet earth and wheat aromas were present. There was still elegance in what could be called its sadistic nose, its power whipping my senses over and over again. The palate was lightning in a bottle; there was enough acidity for University chemistry courses. Someone remarked, ‘1996 is a 10/10 vintage for its acidity and alcohol.’ It would be tough to argue that this is not the Champagne of the vintage (98+).

The 1996 Krug Clos d’Ambonnay was more perfumed and sexier than the Clos du Mesnil. It was softer and more tender in its aromas, exuding hints of lime and ‘lemon soap.’ It was still quite deep and expansive. On the palate, it was elegant, and tender came to mind again. Its smooth and satiny style charmed me while its vim and spice picked my pocket. While classy and stylish, it was still powerful and possessed tremendous acidity. Decadent flavors of bread soaked in oil emerged. Tasting side by side with the 1996 Mesnil, they struck me as the perfect husband and wife, with the d’Ambonnay being all woman, and I say that with only the best connotations in mind (97).

The little ol’ ‘regular’ 1996 Krug wasn’t too shabby, either. It was clean, fresh and classic, quite zippy itself and noticeably special, even after the two monarchs that preceded. The palate was long, spicy, edgy and longgg. It will be fascinating to have these three together for the decades to come (96).

It was a youngie but a goodie night, as any night when Krug is served is. There is Champagne, and there is Krug…

FIN

JK

In Europe in Love

Posted on | November 30, 2009

I often title consignments we get directly from Europe ‘From Europe with Love,’ as I always love to get collections directly from there, and this November, I was in Europe on a couple of occasions and in love thanks to some fantastic wines and meals. Whenever in Europe, I am always in awe of the quality of food. From the everyday gas station quick mart to the greatest of restaurants, the food is far finer when it comes to Europe, and so are many of the wines. Thankfully, they sell more than they buy when it comes to the best of wines – wine is almost regarded more like an everyday beverage, adult cola if you will. However, there still remain many incredible wines nestled away in some extraordinary cellars, as well as on numerous wine lists across the continent.

One of my trips was on the way to Hong Kong and begun near Milan, on a quiet little Lake named Como. I was there for a conference, but it was a lunch on the day of my arrival that was most noteworthy, consumption-wise, at least. It was an international get-together including a few fellow Americans and some European trade members. Lunch was actually in Switzerland, a mere ten minute drive away, and we pillaged a local wine list to celebrate our arrival.

We started with a 2005 Didier Dageneau Pouilly Fume Silex, one of the world’s most collectible Sauvignon Blancs. Dageneau recently passed away tragically while piloting his own plane. Although I had never met him, those that knew him say that he was one of the most adventurous people they have each encountered. The Silex was quite wound, full of structure, tight and pungent with lots of wooden match and icy yellow fruit aromas, with hints of minerals and pee. Its fruit was quite rich for a Sauv Blanc. Kevin found it ‘very tight’ as well, and it was quite shut down although lush. Kelly observed ‘grapefruit’ in the nose. Someone on a later date told me not to drink his wines for 10-15 years, and this ’05 showed me why. The flavors that did show were pungent. There were nice hints of tea on its finish, and Gil was admiring its hidden acidity. It did linger in the belly (92+).

It was truffle season, so we complemented a great pasta and truffle course with a 2001 Clerico Barolo Ginestra. Ironically, I had just had this wine four days prior in New York. It both started my week in New York and my weekend in Europe. It was classic Piedmont with its nose of leather, tar and pine nuts. Gil observed, ‘tomato salsa.’ There was lots of intense structure and great black fruits along with a hint of black jam, anise and mint chocolate. Kelly found ‘a lot of oak.’ The palate was thick on its finish, and a lot of oak did linger on its backside. It hinted at flavors of leather, tar and anise. The finish was smackingly good in that Barolo way (94).

A pair of 2005 Burgundies set the stage for a celebrity death match. The 2005 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze was full of baby fat, although its fruit was still sexy with its red roses and raspberries. The wine had big lift in its nose but was so elegant at the same time. I think Kelly observed ‘Miracle Whip,’ to which Gil concurred, though he varied a bit, citing ‘more the blender ozone with the whip cream, totally with the metal.’ I found forest and crushed fruits. Kevin found it ‘very primary.’ The palate had hints of taut red fruits, forest and vitamins to go with leathery, stemmy flavors. There was definition and true grit here, but I found it almost too young to appreciate, and while still sexy, the wine that followed made it seem lighter and dare I say lesser (95+).

The 2005 DRC La Tache had a much deeper nose with blacker fruits, more crushed and with more tea. There were also hints of citrus and wooden match again. The palate was grand but closed at first. It was long and stylish, complicated but so young. ‘See you in twenty years,’ I wrote. As I said before, when I went back to the Rousseau, the La Tache stood out more. It was deep, dark, black, large and in charge. I think King Angry has a fantasy about that, the 2005 La Tache, that is. It got better with each sip, flexing just a bit more when I thought it possibly couldn’t. It is one of the great young wines I have tasted (98).

We ended with a blind wine that had a nice nose for something very old, but not for a wine from 1985. The 1985 Pousse d’Or Volnay Clos des 60 Ouvrees had lots of animal and sweet, kinky fruit, along with leather, game and some Syrah bacon. There were also hints of powdered sugar, ‘the leather of Barolo’ per Kelly, big-time garden and lots of alcohol and acidity. Gil found ‘hints of B vitamin 6 and 12 and sautéed liver.’ Despite all that going on in the nose, the wine was tired on the palate, a bit rusty and with lots of citrus flavors. It was clearly an affected bottle, advanced and a bit cooked (91A).

The weekend had its share of interesting encounters, like dinner with Luciano Sandrone, lunch with Piero Antinori, a drink with Charles Banks as well as seeing some familiar friends such as Eric Rousseau and Louis Michel Liger-Belair. I tasted a pair of 2007s from Rousseau, the Clos St. Jacques and Clos de Beze, and I was impressed with them both. I asked Eric to compare 2007 to other vintages, and after some hesitation, he finally said that it was a combination of 2002 and 2001 if anything. I also grilled Sandrone about Italian vintages and his opinion of them all relative to each other, thanks to some deft translation courtesy of Gil. Here’s the brief synopsis: first, I asked him about 1989 vs. 1990, perhaps the two greatest back-to-back vintages in Italian history. Interestingly enough, Sandrone felt that almost no one hit the bullseye for both vintages; those that made great 1989s had issues in 1990 and visa-versa. When asked of the other three vintages from the ‘80s, (’82, ’85 and ’88), Sandrone felt that 1988s are really good wines, but they will always be in the shadow of the ‘89s and ‘90s. 1985s are starting to dry up, but 1982 is the true classic vintage that will continue to age for years to come. He gave the edge to 2001 over 2004, and the sleeper vintage that everyone seems to have forgotten is 1999, which he clearly feels made some great wines despite the fact that no one seems to notice at the moment. I could have sworn I asked him about 1996 vs. 1997, with 1996 prevailing, but I am not completely sure of that last one!

Happy Birthday to Me

My second trip to Europe took me to a top secret location and an extraordinary cellar, one that I was working on for our January auction. The depth and quantity here is extraordinary, and the older wines are in particularly spectacular condition. I was in awe of it for most of the weekend, and I am very excited to be representing it. I was most in awe for the two dinners where we sampled wines from the cellar, the first evening which saw me celebrate my 38th birthday. I hear the combination of three and eight is very lucky, and I am looking forward to this coming year accordingly.

The wines were served blind, and mercifully we were not left guessing for too long. The first wine on this starry night was a Champagne, one that I thought was a Rose but ultimately was not. I did guess late ‘60s/early 70s, and it was a 1971 Lanson Red Label, their top of the line cuvee at the time. Lanson made some great Champagne in the ‘70s; this I already knew, and this bottle backed up that fact. There were aromas of sweet faded roses, dried strawberry and breath mints, along with hints of dark chocolate and earth. There was nice, light petillance in the mouth, and our host noted flavors of ‘creamy caramel brioche.’ There were more citrus flavors on its really good finish, and its acidity was long and stylish, blending well with the citrus. Its flavors were sweet with hints of oil and more earth. I was surprised to see that it wasn’t Rose, but we were convinced that there was definitely a higher concentration of Pinot Noir in the blend. Great strawberry jam flavors developed in this outstanding bubbly (95).

A pair of whites followed, and the color was noticeably different in the two. The first was much lighter and hence younger. It almost gave off a Sauvignon Blanc impression in the nose, but its palate was definitively Chardonnay. The nose was clean and fresh with a pungent core; it was taut and citrusy, wrapped around an obsidian-like minerality on a bed of honeysuckle fruit. The palate was very rich with lots of acidity and noticeably strong alcohol. Its honeysuckle qualities came on stronger and stronger and were joined by acacia. This 2002 Comtes Lafon Meursault Genevrieres had been open for an hour. It was another testament to the 2002 vintage, the most forgotten of the great vintages. Everyone talks about 1999 and 2005; even 2001 and 2006 get more recognition it seems, although I am talking reds, really, but even the whites seem to be less discussed in the context of greatness. This ’02 was loaded with Chardonnay fruit and flesh, and its minerals and acidity were superb. The only flaw was this spike of alcohol, but it didn’t detract from the wine for me (95).

The second white we got a clue – ‘same wine, different vintage. It was a 1992 Comtes Lafon Meursault Genevrieres, a nice pair with the ’02. The nose was sweet and buttery, full of tropical mango and kinky corn with a drop of heavy cream. The palate was rich, round and tangy with golden raisin and sunned fruit flavors. The acidity was still solid even though the wine was fatty and a bit over-ripe as ’92 whites are prone to be. This was still about as tasty a 1992 as I have had in a while, and while the sun is slowly setting on this vintage, there was still goodness in a gamy, semi-sweet way. Secondary flavors of banana peel (from the inside out) and tangerine joined the party. The ’92 kept growing on me, and it was a bottle that came directly from Lafon’s cellars on release, in fact (94).

It was onto some reds, and another pair. The first wine I pegged 1999 Burgundy right away – the decadent fruit and rich, saucy and sexy style gave it away. It was deep and inky and edgy with its fruit. This wine had tremendous energy; the tannins and alcohol had that boom boom pow. The wine was incredibly rich and powerful on the palate as well, and the acidity was of superhero status. Our host found it akin to ‘eating berries off the tree’ as it was so concentrated. There were deep black fruits in this wow wine, and I was shocked to see it was the 1999 Claude Dugat Gevrey Chambertin Lavaux St. Jacques, as it was better than the Griottes that I had had just a month prior. On cue, our host made a glowing comment about the quality of his cellar, of course. It did get a little drier in the glass as more skin aka tannins started to show (95+).

The second wine was another that I had had within the past month, but this time the US bottle showed much better. This bottle of 1999 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques was very sulfury. There was barn, animal, cedar and hay behind it, and our host also found it ‘gassy.’ Touches of garden rounded out the nose, but the gas dominated, for sure. The flavors were more on the candied red fruit side with a hint of rust, along with popcorn. The bottle was not exactly right, as the glorious other bottle I recently had would attest. Somehow, too much sulfur made its way into a batch of this wine, and here was one of them (93A).

The next wine was unfortunately corked, and it was a 1971 DRC Grands Echezeaux, in honor of my birth year. Rats (DQ).

The next wine was also from my birth year, a 1971 Gros Frere et Soeur Richebourg. Its creamy nose was full of barbecue aromas along with the horseradish and brown sugar that often accompany BBQ. It was rich and saucy, also displaying distinct green olive aromas. The palate was rich, saucy and hearty, although it had some skunked keg flavors on its finish, which was also likened to ‘old furniture.’ It was ‘not so clean with some chemical qualities, but also minerals and vitamins,’ our host commented. Kisses of tobasco, game and cherry rounded out the palate in this fleshy red, which was still excellent despite some unusual edges (93).

The next wine had a great nose, with this 7up sexiness to go with citrus and black cherry. It was rich and sexy, more hearty on the palate. The finish was big and gritty, displaying lots of minerals and flavors of olive and slate. It was very Burgundian in style, so I was surprised to see this be a 1971 Certan de May! It was a ‘wow’ wine for sure, and a pet wine of our host’s (95).

The next wine had a hint of oxidation, paint-like in its impression, although our host insisted we give it some time to allow that paint ‘to crack off.’ The palate was decadent, rich, oily and thick with hints of port and ‘layers.’ It was still rich and saucy and what I would consider an outstanding wine despite the nose, as it was cleaner on the palate, and air continued to benefit the wine, as flavors of chocolate and bread pudding developed. Our host smiled after the wine, and all of us, came around, admiring its ‘bakery’ aromas and how it was ‘packed with fruit and acidity.’ It was a 1945 Certan de May (96).

We ended our meal with a 1990 Jacques Selosse, one of the great producers in Champagne who still seems to be under the radar, perhaps due to his dizzying array of non-vintage bottlings. The nose was cream city, make that cream soda city, very Krug-like in its personality with rich vanilla aromas that were also almost beefy, or ‘coq au vin’ as someone commented. In the mouth, the Selosse was long and decadent yet fine and elegant. Our host noted, ‘rich with good acidity…fat’ (95).

We didn’t end our night, however. We went back to the cellar for a healthy midnight raid, beginning with a 1986 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. Healthy and forward aromas of corn, butter, stalk, cream and nut were all over the nose, developing into a hybrid of corn nuts and hazelnuts. There were rainwater flavors in this round and mature ’86, as well as lots of corn ones including candy. This was about as good as 1986 gets now, a vintage to drink up and enjoy (94).

The last wine on this extraordinary night was an also extraordinary 1961 Palmer. There were lots of cobwebs at first in this ancient wonder, but they blew off into black cherry dust, spice and ‘mushrooms.’ Flavors of chocolate shavings and earth were present in this round, tender, soft yet sturdy wine. It was dust city on its hearty finish, a classic claret all the way (96).

It was a definite happy birthday to me.

And then there was the night after, a quiet get-together of just me and my host after a hard day’s work in the cellar, with three more extraordinary wines selected, beginning with an incredible bottle of 1955 Roederer. Acquired from the cellar of a Belgian castle, this bottle, despite some wear and tear on the outside, had an amazing color and fill. Thankfully, there are 12 more in our January auction! The bottle was amazingly fresh, its bubbles popping in the glass upon first pour. Aromas of honey, tea, dried fig, straw, orange blossoms and ‘green apples’ were everywhere in its complex nose. The palate was delicious, long and with great effervescence, impossible to stop sipping. A hint of meat/game/animal developed in the nose, and our sommelier eagerly added, ‘pink grapefruit.’ My host wisely commented, ‘what you have in the nose, you get on the taste, and that is a sign of a great wine.’ I just couldn’t stop drinking it, and caramel started to take over its palate in time. It was clearly outstanding and flirting with that next level, best wines of my life category, but I left it on the border (96+).

The next bottle was one we took a chance on, a low-fill 1961 Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape. ‘It’s aliiiiiive,’ I smiled. It was another low fill Burgundy/Rhone that proved to be outstanding, another feather in Mr. Jaeger’s cap regarding his theory of lower fill bottles from these regions. ‘Cooked strawberry marmalade,’ my host admired, and he didn’t mean that the wine was cooked, it was just the aroma he found. It was a ‘wow’ wine, so sweet and sexy with amazing spice. Plum, boysenberry and cassis were all there, wrapped in a decadent musk. Additional flavors of bamboo shoot, new leather and a hint of truffles were there; it was another wine I could not stop drinking. ‘Burgundy-like, except for the alcohol,’ my host keenly observed. There was great tension; this was a wine that would make aspiring rappers want to ‘smack that.’ Candle wax emerged after extended time. It was another wine right on the border of the greatest of all-time, but it didn’t last as long in the glass, perhaps a combination of its age as well as its fill catching up to it a little (96).

The third wine of the night was a rare 1967 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Asili Riserva Speciale. Tar and leather were the first things I noticed in the nose, but also lavender and ‘white flowers’ balancing it out. It was a desert storm of a nose, with additional hints of black rose, fig, tobacco, spice and spine, along with huge alcohol and acidity, plus a little coconut skin. The palate was full-bodied with loads of tar and charcoal but this awkward edge on its finish at first. The fruit was sweet, but the finish ‘not that long.’ There was good spice, excellent flex and definition still. It was a perplexing wine, as one sip would be great, and the next awkward, but one of the best lamb dishes that I have ever had kept it on the greater side, and flavors of chocolate-covered cigar developed. It held well in the glass, gaining in time and ultimately proving to be close to outstanding (94+).

There was one more wine on this night, a 1997 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva, generously given as a gift by the restaurant. How come they don’t do that in New York :). It first came across rich, lush and hearty with a long, leathery personality that alternated between stroking me and slapping me between its fruit and finish. The palate was quite gamy and figgy, though. It ‘reminds me of a garage St. Emilion, slightly overripe,’ my host noted, adding, ‘but I like it.’ Its backhand was wicked, but its forehand was fruity and figgy and honestly tough to drink compared to the three classics also on the table. It did hold in the glass and hinted at more potential, but like many 1997s, they might not last as long as people think (93+).

Memorable meals in memorable places with memorable people are just enough to make me fall in love, especially in Europe, where the food and wine can be as good as it gets.

EMP

Posted on | November 26, 2009

One of the best meals I have had this Fall was at Eleven Madison Park, or ‘EMP’ as the kool kids like to say. Chef Daniel Humm, known and respected by a couple of my most significant European collector friends, showed us why he is top of his game with a custom tasting menu fit for a king. It just so happened that we had a king at our table, King Angry, that is, but after the spectacular meal that followed, even King Angry had a smile on his face. Special thanks goes to Carl for organizing such a wonderful meal.

We started with a pair of Krug mags, beginning with a 1990 Krug. This was as great a bottle of this that I have ever had. Its nose was perfect, a great mix of vanilla and citrus with hints of nut. The palate had a great center, a linearity from start to finish that made my spine arch. Long, citrusy and zippy, this outstanding and bready bubbly was focused and in charge. I could have drunk it all night long and been quite happy (96M).

The just released 1985 Krug Collection was more pungent, very wheaty and grassy. Minnesota Slim found it ‘yeasty.’ Just disgorged last year, the 1985 was tighter than a nun’s knees, coming across too young and too recently disgorged, to be frank. The flavors were also grassy, and its finish long, fine and grainy. Chalky and limestony, the Collection had lots of potential, but was just too young and too ‘RD’ for me at the moment. It was tough to drink next to the 1990 (93+M).

There was only one blind flight for the night, and it was reserved for the whites. The flight was single blind, as we knew what the wines were, but not in what order they were served. Leflaive and Niellon Batards and Chevaliers were our subjects, and 1996 was the vintage.

The first white smelled like 1996 and popped like fresh kernels, which made me think Leflaive. The King called it ‘obvious.’ It was smoky and toasty with lots of forest, cream and yellow fruits. The nose was thick, long and sexy, but the palate was softer than I thought it would be. It was round with yellow and waterfall flavors, also with nice dust and spice on its finish. JP noted, ‘a little bit of bubblegum’ in this 1996 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. I should add that we did not know the name of the wine until all of them were tasted and discussed (94).

The second white was cleaner, more floral in style. There were aromas of fireplace and brick, a veritable white Christmas of a nose. The nose was regal, long and full of spice. If the first was Leflaive, this was definitely Niellon. The palate was rich and lush, sexy with its white fruits and tender with a delicate wintry edge. The floral qualities were divine and delicious in this 1996 Niellon Batard Montrachet (95+).

The third wine had the same style as the first with its kernel, toast, musk, waterfall and smoke. JP was loving ‘the clean, razor-cut acidity.’ There were lots of kernel and toast flavors on its round and lush palate, but again there was this tender side. There was still excellent pop and definitely more acidity and length than its sibling. Although a touch was missing up front in the mouth, its big acidity more than made up for it. Since the next wine was corked, and this was the 1996 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet, this was a day of Batard over Chevalier, ‘rare’ in Ray’s book (95).

As indicated, the 1996 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet was unfortunately corked (DQ).

The next course was foie gras, and the obligatory Sauternes came out, a 1988 Climens. I didn’t taste it. I know that it is a great pairing, but I do not like having a sweet wine in the middle of my dry wines, as it can affect the next few wines and diminish one’s tasting abilities.

The 1995 Krug Clos du Mesnil that followed was an excellent palate cleanser. Champagne is the only wine that is great before, during and after a meal. It fits in everywhere you put it, and this Krug was no exception. Aromas of cream, butter, vanilla, musk and yeast graced its nose, all supported by wood, almost a bamboo. The palate was dry, lean and long. The finish was exceptional, but this was very lean and dry. Perhaps 1995s will blossom, but that is typical of the vintage, one that I feel is very good but not great (94).

It was time for some reds, some Rousseaus to be exact, beginning with the 1985 Rousseau Chambertin. When asked to share my notes, I began with ‘milky, foresty, yeasty.’ Young Chris remarked how he didn’t like the Rousseau, to which I replied something far too undistinguished to write again here. The Rousseau was also beefy and saucy, and Worcestershire and tree bark came out. It was a bit dirty in a mushroomy way. The palate was round and rich, soft yet lush, tender but long. Two sips resulted in two sneezes, which is always a sign of outstanding in my book :). The third sip showed me its tender side, but the acidity remained constant. JP also noted the ‘mushroom,’ and it got redder over time (95).

The 1991 Rousseau Chambertin was all about its oak at first, that and some burnt popcorn. Vitamins and sour cherry slowly but surely fought through, and the wine found itself eventually. The palate was rich, lush and long, balancing out to reveal great definition and length. Its flavors of cedar, tree bark, forest and leather all had me licking the roof of my mouth. Once the oak blew off, the wine was fantastic, but in the end, after the last sips were said and drunk, the 1985s were one step ahead (94+).

The 1991 Leroy Chambertin that followed was deeper and much darker with its noticeably blacker fruits. There was oil in dem der hills for sure. This was a midnight wine, and JP admired its ‘spice.’ The King chipped in with ‘velvety, silky and smoother.’ The palate was also rich and lush showing that 1991 goodness, and its finish was grapy and grainy (94).

The 1985 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze backed up the 1985 is greater than 1991 theory. There was much more perfume to the Beze. Tender and lush was again the theme, and lavender took over its perfume while spice emerged. The palate was delicious with super fruit and great roundness. Pinches of vitamins rounded out this beauty (95).

We continued the ’85 vs. ’91 battle with a pair of Contis. The 1985 DRC Grands Echezeaux had a spectacular nose that sung all the great qualities of 1985 in that unique DRC way. Aromas of rust, menthol, red fruits (rusty ones again) and iron were present in its tense, zippy, pungent and deep nose. The palate was rich, long and saucy, still young with taut fruits and lingering acidity. It was a tightrope walker of a wine, balancing its fruit and finish components deftly in delicious fashion. Many hailed it as wine of the night (95+).

JP remarked how the 1991 DRC Grands Echezeaux ‘needs time.’ It was blacker in its fruit, also possessing aromas of menthol, forest and bread soaked in something. The palate was thick, big and young, again with lots of black fruits and very good in a beef bouillon way. There were hints of garden here as well, but midnight struck and its fruit was nowhere to be found, as the wine shut down in the glass rather than open more (93).

A trio of 1985 Guigal La La’s were last, plus a bonus wine. Practice agreed with theory for this flight, at least in my book. I was not loving the 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Turque. There were aromas of lavender, bacon, menthol and gyro meat. Its palate had olive and dark fruit flavors but was also a touch oaky, and the wine was simpler than I wanted it to be (93).

The 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Landonne was beefier, bigger and thicker than the La Turque. There was more stone, wheat, chocolate and sprinkles on top. The palate was long and thick with excellent acidity. It was more classic Cote Rotie and smacked around the La Turque (95).

The 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline was the best of the bunch – what else is new? It was the sexiest of the three, with aromas of bacon, leather, grilled meat and gyro juice. Meaty and fragrant, it had that whiff of Viognier along with complex black fruit, leather and lavender flavors. It was great and WOTN for me, although JP stuck to his ’85 DRC gun (97).

There was also a 1990 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline, but I was kind of spent. It was quite peppery and also outstanding, pretty and precious (95).

It was the night before auction and time to check out, not a creature who came would stir in their house.

FIN

JK

Latour at Latour

Posted on | November 19, 2009

There is a restaurant named Latour tucked away an hour outside of New York City in New Jersey, within the confines of a very special place, Crystal Springs Golf Resort. It is a great place for a weekend getaway of golfing or skiing (depending on the season), spa-ing, eating, drinking or even just relaxing in the hotel room with a loved one…playing backgammon, of course :). I was there for the eating and drinking part, as the restaurant was hosting a very special vertical of Chateau Latour back to 1955, guided by none other than Frederic Engerer, president of Chateau Latour.

By the way, the wine list at Restaurant Latour is one of the country’s finest, and the prices are fantastic. The night prior, I had a bottle of 1982 Vieux Chateau Certan off the list for $195. The half-bottle of 1999 Lafite had just sold out earlier in the week. It was $95 on the list! I think you get the picture. The VCC was classic with its aromas of deep plum, olive and chocolate. It was very elegant, round and supple. It showed the tender side of 1982 and felt like it was entering its plateau. Traces of garden rounded out its finish (93).

Back to the main event…our evening of Latour started with the 2004 Latour, which had a sweet, sexy nose, ripe with its cassis and carob and framed by nut, pencil and cedar. Its fruit dominated at this young stage, and hints of lilac, lavender and jasmine were present. In the mouth, the wine was round, supple and soft, very shut down at the moment, especially when compared to the nose. It was not giving a lot, and G-man found that it had ‘too much pencil and was missing some legs.’ Engerer commented how ‘Cabernet doesn’t need heat, it needs light’ (92).

All wines were opened and double decanted about three hours before the event, which gave all the wines a very polished quality. I couldn’t help but wonder if a score or two might have been different were they not so aerated, as some wines may have given a more vigorous impression. Regardless, everything showed beautifully. They were also scanned by the restaurant’s patented machine, which detects any level of corkiness or oxidized qualities in any wine.

We sat down to a pair of 2006 and 2005. Engerer told us that this evening ‘is about pairs.’ The 2006 Latour was more classic, still possessing excellent fruit but also more minerals and earth. It was still purple passion with its deep, youthful cassis in the nose, but it also had more tobacco and structural components. The palate had excellent acidity and lots of earth and cedar flavors. It was long and lingered, and even though its fruit was a bit shy, it was still tasty and showy. Its perfume filled up the room. Engerer commented how the 2006 did not have ‘the breed of 2005…but long and deep’ (94+).

The 2005 Latour was very wound, showing lots of cinnamon, leather and earth. It was dark and brooding, with hints of whitewall tire. The brooding continued on its big, rich palate. Sandy and earthy, there was also a nice hint of bitters here. It was really deep and impressive in its size, even though it was a bit shy. The acidity was long, but the 2005 was definitely more secondary than primary. G-man admired ‘a lot of raw materials, and well-integrated compared to 2006,’ even though the 2006 was more inviting (96).

The next pair was ’03 and ’02. ‘Wow, what sauvage’ came from G. The ’03 was very forward in that ripe 2003 style, roasted as well, again with that hint of rubber tire. It continued to gain in stature in the glass, possessing more structure than the typical 2003 Latour with noticeable alcohol and acidity. Toasty caramel emerged. The palate was rich, ripe, big and delicious. This was a ‘show me the money’ wine, hedonistic and sexy with lots of slate on its finish. ‘Very showy,’ someone remarked. Engerer said, ‘the ’03 comes to you, but you have to go to the ’02.’ I couldn’t help but love this ripe and rich 2003 (96).

Engerer commented, ‘I love the line in the ’02. It’s like a black star.’ I also loved its pointed nose; it was on the t ‘n a side with lots of cedar, carob, caramel and musk. Its sweetness was all caramel. The palate was linear and focused, zippy in the middle but lighter on its backside. The 2002 Latour was really good and much better than I thought it would be, gaining in the glass (94).

Engerer shared how he and Parker always debate these two vintages, and that Frederic always stands up for the 2002. The 2003 had Parker excited early, but for Frederic it was too easy and lacked the balance he yearns, and for him, the ’02 has that balance. I saw both sides of this debate!

The 2001 Latour was fragrant and perfumed, showing more violets than any previous wine. There was a sweet fragrance about it, leaving a nectar-like impression with this lavender honey quality. The palate was round, with nice pop to its long finish. Black fruits and dusty flavors rounded out this excellent ’01 (94).

The 2000 Latour had a wow nose. It was deep and dark, chocolaty and cedary, possessing lots of edge and qualities of carob and Egyptian cotton. The palate was thick, especially on its finish. Its backside was long and gritty for its glazed palate, and Engerer admired that the 2000 was ‘the best since 1982 in terms of balance, but today a little closed.’ He conceded, ‘I would probably want to drink the 2001 tonight’ (97).

1996 versus 1995 has always been an interesting head-to-head. The 1996 Latour had a fabulous nose with lots of nuts, windex, cedar, toast and cocoa. It was long and cedary, tight and minerally in its aromatics. The palate was long, dusty, lingering and tasty, possessing the most acidity of any Latour so far. It was ‘a whole different breed, on par with the 1961,’ someone commented. After some time in the glass, it became beefy and jammy; this was serious stuff (97).

The 1995 Latour was classic in the nose, similar to the 1996 with its minerals, dust and windex. This was closer than I thought it would be, and the finish of the ’95 stood up to the ’96. The 1995 had excellent thickness and body, showing a little more than the 1996 although overall possessing a little less (95).

We took a trip back in time with a flight of four older wines, beginning with the 1971 Latour. The ’71 was very bready with a pinch of pungency to the nose. It was also nutty and had nice fruit aromas of cassis and blueberry. The palate was rich and lush, a touch gamy and deliciously grapy, delivering a great drink of mature claret (94).

The 1962 Latour was beefy and brothy with a little wet cardboard in there. Hints of tobasco and pungent fruit marked its tangy aromas. The palate was fleshy and still zippy with great, pure flavors of plum and grape. Wholesome, round, tasty and lush, the 1962 was the second excellent bottle from this vintage that I have had in the past month, provoking some future curiosity (94).

The 1964 Latour had a nutty yet dirty nose, with lots of earth and a hint of cotton candy. It also had the cedar of ’64. The palate was round with lots of coffee, earth, cedar and tobacco flavors. It was pleasant, round and balanced, but a little cardboard-y on its finish (92).

The 1970 Latour was the last of this flight of four, and it proved to be the winner for me, by a nose, so to speak. The nose had this initial bread pudding quality to it, built off toast, raisin, game and black fruit aromas. Its flavors were the youngest, and there was great definition to this long and vimful Latour. A chalky and leathery intensity and hints of citrus separated this Latour from the rest. Some food made the power in this vintage stand out from the prior three (94+).

There were three more pairs on this evening, beginning with the modern-day heavyweight matchup of 1990 vs. 1982 Latour. The 1990 Latour was fresh and clean with nut, plum and spice aromas. It was rich, lush and seductive both in the nose and on the palate. Its cashmere tannins just melted in my mouth. Engerer found it ‘very extreme for Latour.’ It was so creamy and tasty, very forward and hedonistic with still enough stuffing for any turkey. It would be the first of three times for this wine in the coming month, and all three showed in the same decadently delicious way (96).

The 1982 Latour quickly rose to the top of the charts and took wine of the night honors. It was much more wound than the 1990, also with more minerals in its long, classic nose. Dust, cedar and more minerals kept surging out of the nose. The palate had so much length and strength, noticeably more so than any other wine on this starry night. While the 1990 was sexy, the 1982 was serious, and a wine that still stood out even four hours after being opened and decanted. Engerer commented how the ’82 was ‘sure of itself and surfed across your palate.’ He went on to comment how ‘all Latours gently age’ (98).

It was now time for the classic heavyweight matchup of 1961 vs. 1959. The 1961 Latour was a bottle released from Latour in 2003, and hence reconditioned. The nose was fabulous, with power, fruit and finesse all rolled into one. There were cassis and plum fruit aromas in this youthful Latour. Engerer found it ‘tighter than 1982, a bizarre accident of nature, with frost coming after flowering.’ The palate was gritty and long with lots of cedar flavors. G noted ‘coconut milk,’ while I did slate and cement on its finish. G did admit that there was ‘an element missing,’ and while there was outstanding definition to the finish, the fruit didn’t show the natural mature qualities I wanted. It got a little dirtier in the glass (95).

The 1959 Latour had so much more fruit, deep fruit, along with game and nut, and both G and I immediately preferred the ’59 to the ’61. There was more maturity, more open fruit, and a soft, lush, easy and pure personality. Its sheer deliciousness was tough to not like, and this bottle of 1959 definitely KO’d the 1961. Of course, at this age, it all comes down to the bottles. Hints of fig, game, truffle and chocolate sex appeal rounded out this impressive and original bottle of 1959 (97).

There were two more wines to go, although after the previous two pairs, almost anything would seem anti-climactic at this point, but the ’55 was up for the challenge. The 1955 Latour had a creamy, sexy nose with aromas of nut, A1 without the steak sauce, caramel, game, spice, citrus and leather from an S & M suit. It was rich, round and tasty, another sexy 1955. Caramel flavors and a hint of teabag were flat-out delicious. Engerer agreed, noting, ‘like ’62, a lot of energy’ (95).

There was a blind wine served at the end, a solid 1950 Latour. I didn’t have much left in me, but it was chalky, rich and with an excellent finish. It was a Latour, after all (93).

It was a special night at a special place, and a pleasure to have Frederic on hand to guide us through over fifty years of the greatest Latours.

FIN

JK

Let’s Play Two

Posted on | November 18, 2009

Early October was a month of small get-togethers, a lot of one-on-one ball, so to speak. Despite a healthy wine market and a Dow that continues to flirt with 10,000, large celebrations have become a bit rarer, as conscious remains king in 2009. When dining a duo, usually two is the magic number as far as a bottle count goes, although three proved to be the right stuff for the first of four fine evenings over the course of a week or two. Does that add up?

There once was a man named Hans. He had a very big cellar. Hans was in town on his yearly pilgrimage to the US and we decided to get together for dinner, at a place called Veritas. They have been doing some good promotions of late and keeping people coming back for more.

We started with a bottle of 1990 Raveneau Chablis Valmur. 1990 was a great vintage for Chablis, and what better place to be than on top of the ladder with Raveneau. It didn’t disappoint with its nose of svelte yellow fruits, rain on rocks, minerals, wax and anise. It was lean yet still in fighting shape, fragrant with a hint of pungency. The palate was delicious, clean and fresh, showing mature roundess but still possessing solid acidity, tasty in that kinky Raveneau way. Rocks, anise and limy fruit balanced their way down the hatch in slippery yet agile fashion (95).

A rare bird followed, and I am not talking about the food. We grabbed the last bottle of 1955 Domaine de Chevalier Blanc off the list. Old white Bordeaux can be spectacular, even the dry ones, although this wine was extremely oaky at first. It took a lot of coaxing to get it to come into its own, but once it did, it was quite the wine. Its oak blew off into the classic straw, dry honey, glue and cement. The wine stll came across youthfully, amazingly fresh for a white 55 or so years old, and its palate kept pace with its nose. There was nice density in the mouth, still roundness and richness but in a graceful way, with flavors of straw, glue, dried yellow fruits and kisses of oak still married together after all these years. It was an excellent wine and a real treat, but make sure to remember that old white wines need aeration too (93).

The third wine on this enjoyable evening was a rare 1950 Ausone. It was a reconditioned bottle, but a job well done, and a bottle we enjoyed to the last drop. The nose was deeper accordingly, a bit fresher than one would normally expect for a wine this age, with a wave of purple fruit emerging first. After a swirl or two, more classic and mature wintry red aromas came, along with earth, stone barn and gravel. Light Christmas spice danced around gingerly, perhaps gingerbreadly. In the mouth, the wine showed both its sides – the original and reconditioned. It was a bit deeper and hinted at youth with its spectrum of fruit, but it still had classic aged St. Emilion flavors, especially the red fruits, earth, game, animal and tobacco. It was tough not to love it (95).

A day later I found myself drinking 1982 Mouton at Tse Yang. No, I was not by myself. It was a gorgeous bottle in beautiful condition and one of the more open bottles of this that I have had. I have always been impressed by the power of the 1982 Mouton, one of the few wines reticent to give into the hallmark elegance of the 1982 vintage. This bottle was starting to give in, perhaps softening up in its old age so to speak. The nose was everything claret should be – regal, refined, elegant and classy. It oozed out black fruit, dry cassis, pencil, earth and a hint of carob. This was open, sexy and singing. The palate was rich and round. There was strength in its silent finish, one that caressed and petted rather than smacked and attacked. It was long and round, almost frightfully delicious in its approachability. There is a lot of bottle variation amongst 1982s, so it is tough to make a consensus about this vintage, or any for that matter, based on the snapshot of one bottle, but this one sure made me think that the top 1982s could be starting to plateau, which for a great vintage in Bordeaux, could last decades, of course (97).

My friend and I snagged the last bottle of 1999 Dugat Griottes Chambertin off the list. Curiosity killed the wine lover. Dugat’s modern and oakier style is a bit controversial amongst the Burgundy intelligentsia, but this bottle delivered a positive experience. It was certainly beefy; concentration was king here, and there was a bit of an animalistic edge to this brute of a wine. ‘I am Tarzan,’ came to mind lol. Deep purple and black fruits seeped out, all served in a tangy vitamin wrap. The wine was rich and lush in the mouth but lacked the definition to support its ocean of fruit. Could its structure be latent? Yes, possibly, as many 1999s have so much fruit that their structures can be lost at this early age, but the finish seemed almost too soft despite its upfront complexities and unique style (93).

A few days later it was off to Long Island for a couple of bottles with another friend of the court, and we started off in familiar territory, with a 1996 Salon. If there is a better young Champagne in the world today, please let me know. I have written this bubbly up on numerous occasions, and it was lightning in a bottle again. Minerals and diamonds abounded as the Salon wrapped my palate in mink and then cut right thru it with its razor-sharp acidity and long, sexy finish (97).

The 1999 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques that followed was also extraordinary. Its fabulous nose was so good, possessing great aromatics. Sweet and pungent cherry red fruit, vitamins, musk, delicate cedar and perfume all came together in an overall meaty impression. The palate was rich and flavorful with tastes of spice, tea and sandbox. There was real depth here in this mouthful of a wine. While long and stylish, the Rousseau retained its elegance. Absolutely delicious (95).

The final night of this Fantastic Four saw me with another distinguished European gentleman, a Cabernet lover by confession, so we drank some Burgundy. A 1979 Dujac Clos de la Roche was a little woolly at first, needing some extra aeration to dry off its sweat and reveal a wonderful range of aromatics. Tobasco was first to jump out for me, along with old, pungent strawberry and dried leaves. There was also earth, leather and a pinch of Worcestershire along for the ride. The palate was mature, more purple in its profile, tasty with hints of saddle sweat and old book. It still zipped on its finish, and lots of citrus came out accordingly. It was another solid ’79 red, a vintage almost forgotten for Pinot (94).

We exercised some judgment with a half-bottle of 1989 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes as our second bottle. Mugnier only made a V.V. bottling two or three times, definitely in 1986 and 1989, I can’t remember if there was another. The ’86 has blown me away before, and I could have sworn the 1989 has also, but this half was a bit funky. It was milky and yeasty, pleasant yet simple, not what I had hoped for. It had a bit of a sour edge to it, and it didn’t pack the punch that ’89 can and should. It was still a pleasant wine, but I wanted more (88H).

Things heated up in the second half of October with a special Latour vertical, King Angry holding court, some auction debauchery and a lunch in Lake Como. Stay tuned – that flight to Hong Kong should have me catching up soon!

FIN

JK

Kickoff Classic

Posted on | September 25, 2009

The Tuesday after Labor Day saw the Fall season commence in fine fashion with an extraordinary BYO spectacular at Bouley. Many of New York’s brightest wine stars were in attendance, and by the end of the night, it seemed that more than a few were a little rusty from the summer solstice and not in as good drinking shape as usual lol.

The evening started fast and furiously, as the Hillbilly needed to get his drink on and started popping DP’s. The 1955 Dom Perignon was alive although maybe a hint mature, as in more mature than a perfect bottle would be. It was still excellent, still coming across with some freshness and a hint of cement around a classic core of sweet caramel and vanilla cream. The palate was rich and round with similar flavors of sweet caramel, vanilla and cement. Bad Boy Bruce hit the nail on the head when he said that this was a DP that ‘would benefit from food’ (94).

A 1973 Dom Perignon was delicious and classic with its granulated sugar, white fruit and mineral aromas and flavors. It was very fresh and racy, in a perfect spot. For some reason, a few of the ‘Dom-inators’ were a bit under-impressed by the ’73, but I thought it was outstanding (95).

Mr. Happy was already up and about, sharing some of his magnum of 1982 Billecart Salmon Blanc de Blancs. It was still tight with great and dominant vitamin aromas, quite fresh as well. It was excellent, long and stylish with yellow, tangy fruit flavors (94M).

Justin slid me a glass of 1983 Krug Clos du Mesnil, which was yeasty and bready, but leaner than most Krug Mesnils. It had a wafery dry quality, and despite good definition, it was lacking in its fruit (92).

JJ had a bottle of 1969 Dom Perignon Rose, the second bottle of this batch that I have had in the past three months, maybe four. It had a sweet, candied nose with great musk and earth aromas, and strawberry and rose stood out as well. Its flavors were very earthy with a hint of barn, and its bubbles were starting to mellow, but this still was an excellent DP despite its down and dirty personality (94).

The first wave of bubblies was over, and it was time to settle in with some whites. Doug E. (I guess we have to call him Fresh now) brought a 1993 Roumier Corton Charlemagne. It had a nice nose with real balance between its sweet, tender fruit and its chalk, dust and minerals. The wine sparkled in its nose, and while the palate was a bit light in the front and middle, it had nice yeast flavors to its finish. Smooth, easy and in the right spot, this was a sensual and impressive white from a producer known for his more than impressive reds (93).

The Don was in the house, and I actually got him to show up on time! The Inspector awarded me a badge of honor when he arrived to see The Don there before him lol. He had a few goodies with him, of course, the first of which was a magnum of 1986 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet. The nose was waxy and pungent, very stony with aromas of fireplace, rainwater and minerals. Its flavors were toasty with exotic hints of guava and honeysuckle (94M).

The 1985 Louis Latour Montrachet was a pleasant surprise, with an inviting, warm and toasty nose. Despite Latour getting taken for granted by many collectors, this was a special wine, and it had great aromas of corn, cereal, oats and puffed rice. In the mouth, the wine was tasty, nice, round and easy with light grit (93).

Bruce slid over to my table with a gorgeous bottle of 1962 Dom Perignon. He was cooing over it, and rightfully so. He got it from one of our auctions . The bottle was just f’in delicious. Forgive my French, but it was French, after all. Grainy, toasty, rich and creamy, this was a classic. Hay and honey dripped out of the glass and coated the palate. This was an extraordinary bottle (96).

I finally got to take a taste of my wine, a magnum of 1981 DRC Montrachet, from Wolfgang Grunewald’s cellar. Awooooooooooooo! I was told that 1981 was actually a very well received white Burgundy vintage upon release, soon to get lost in the shuffle of 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. I was dying to try this wine, from a vintage that I don’t think I have ever sampled. The nose was incredibly exotic with super coffee aromas including the bean and the stalk, bordering on espresso liqueur. The palate was rich, tasty and delicious; this was another real surprise. Andy remarked that it was old Chard for sure, and I don’t think he is a fan of old Chard. There were definite cobwebs, but most were loving this mature DRC Monty (94M).

A 1982 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne was a bit stinky and horsy with lots of animal and vegetable aromas. It was round in the mouth, but aggressive in its coffee and vegetable flavors (90).

There were two more white wines on this already extraordinary evening, a 1999 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres courtesy of Sweet Lou. Mr. Fresh hailed it as the best white of the night. It was extraordinarily clean and fresh, popping out of the glass as Coches tend to do. The nose was certainly amazing with aromas of wintry white fruits, minerals, sweet corn and kernel. The flavors were similarly delicious, but the palate didn’t quite pop for me like the nose, although I didn’t have much of it to play with (93+).

The last white was a 1992 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche. It was definitely ’92 in its personality, but a bit better in that Montrachet way. There was that round, waterfall quality, turning the corner like 1992s are. Tasty and pleasing, there was still solid, hidden acidity in this descending white (93).

After a brief debate, our table decided to do the red Bordeaux before the red Burgundies. I kicked things off with a half bottle of 1962 Latour a Pomerol. I think I picked this up at one of our auctions for less than $200, and it turned out to be one of the best buys I have ever made. The nose was classic Pomerol, with Versailles garden and hints of cocoa shaving to go with its reticent plum core. The palate was round, tender and soft, just beautiful and delicious out of half. Andy felt it was just hitting its plateau of maturity, and The Duke remarked wisely, ‘it’s tough to beat that’ (96H).

The next Bordeaux was a 1929 Latour courtesy of Jeff. It had a wow nose and impressed the heck out of everyone. Hints of hinderbush, I wrote. Yeah, that’s a new one lol. There were also great aromas of tobasco, musk, cassis and toll house. The palate was full of cedar, cobwebs and sweet cherry fruit. Duke hailed it as ‘wine of the night’ so far, and the Inspector called it ‘the best bottle of this that I have ever had.’ Wait a second, was that a compliment for a Bordeaux wine from the Inspector??? Sacre bleu! Chalk outlined the palate gracefully in this regal and still ruling claret (95).

King Angry must have heard the word ‘regal,’ as he interrupted the royal procession of the ’29 Latour with some 1964 Krug. The Duke gave it an official, ‘That’s gooooood.’ It was delicious with decadent vanilla and cream soda flavors. Pure and balanced, its long finish went on and on (95).

We were back to Bordeaux with a 1947 Clinet. It had a nice nose, also with that hint of fresh garden a la the ’62 L a P. There were also hints of olive. The palate was a bit soupy and dirty, but it was still long and really good (94).

Andy graced us with a 1959 La Mission Haut Brion, a bottle that was reconditioned in 2002. It was fresh accordingly, but still had mature nuances in its aromas and flavors as well. Gravel jumped out at first, along with pleasant t ‘n a. The palate was full of cassis and gravel. It was round, lush and delicious, about as good a mix of old and new that one could hope for in a reconditioned wine. The finish was round and grainy. It was a delicious reconditioned bottle, although I would still take an original bottling any day (95).

JJ had unwittingly brought a 1989 La Mission Haut Brion, not knowing this would be the third time that I had the wine this month. I mean, what nerve, sheesh . Its deep purple fruit jumped out amongst all the older wines. There was also cotton, earth, gravel and coconut in this unbridled and youthful claret. It was, too, delicious; this wine’s ocean of fruit always stuns me, although given its mature company, it came across a bit boyish on this night (95+).

It was time for another Champagne intermezzo, and the 1971 Dom Perignon was another great Dom. It had a perfect nose, similar to the bottle I had just had with the Hedonist Jay. It was all about the vanilla and granulated sugar in the nose. The palate was rich, lemony, zippy and great (96).

A couple of more Champagnes rapidly followed. The 1975 Dom Perignon was more yeasty and full-bodied, a bit rougher around the edges. It was chalky and grainy, but still excellent (93).

Peter snuck me over some 1999 Philipponat Clos des Goisses Rose, a very rare bird. The color was the lightest color I have ever seen in a Rose. It was vitamin city, more tender in its vibrant fruit than I would expect for something so young, but it still came across o so fresh (94).

Three Champagnes were just enough to cleanse the palate for a healthy procession of red Burgundy. The first was a 1978 Drouhin Vosne Romanee Beauxmonts. The nose was like citrus meets beef bouillon lite. Hints of forest complemented tangy flavors in this smooth and balanced Pinot. Traces of Worcestershire rounded out the flavors on its finish (93).

Justin, who ultimately won ‘most outstanding drunk’ for the evening, had another ace up his sleeve, a 1966 DRC Romanee Conti. He had forgotten about me as he was besieged with screaming fans once the RC started flowing, but thankfully the Inspector shared his glass with me. It was everything it should have been and then some, classic all the way. There was great spice, rose and menthol to this man amongst boys. The Inspector and I finally agreed on a score for a wine; I guess we need to share the same glass more often (96).

A 1966 Clair-Dau Chambertin Clos de Beze was up for the challenge of following the RC. It was a killer bottle, possessing superb lift in its long nose. A weed-like complexity complemented its citrus, red and watermelon trifecta, and a hint of game and pinch of bitters gave it just enough tension to make any drinker take notice. This was a great wine. I am not sure who to thank, because by this time The Don and two Dougs had become a three-headed hydra supplying great bottle after great bottle, so thanks y’all (95).

The 1949 Gouges Nuits St. Georges Les St. Georges Doug E. hailed as red wine of the night so far. What the Don hailed as ‘band-aids’ I found more to be like earthy, dirty shorts. The wine was very complex and all over the place, extremely nutty at first with lots of toasty kernel and citrusy fruit. The earth of NSG continued to dominate, and its flavors stayed dirty and earthy, with a bit of leather coming in (93).

I think between Ray, Bruce and Todd there must have been 47 vintages of Dom at their table, and it was time for the 1976 Dom Perignon. It was another beauty, all it should be and delicious. And at wine #28, the notes are starting to shorten (94).

But not before an incredibly grand finale. The Duke had been laying low with a stocked box chock full of hotness, and he finally took center stage on this star-studded night with a pair of 1971 Musignys. The first was a 1971 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. The nose was perfect at first sniff, with great fruit that was clean but gamy, rich yet sensual, red but hints of brown and purple, and meat that was both raw and grilled. Despite autumnal flavors and hints, the wine was still young and full of vitamins, rose and how now brown edges, brown like sugar and Worcestershire. The brown edges were a bit too brown for the brothers Doug, but I found the Vogue to be delicious and full of citrus smack, an all that and then some wine. ‘I need a whole bottle to figure this one out,’ The Duke playfully joked as he went for a refill. This was a wine where you wanted the whole bottle for yourself, for sure (96).

And the next one was even better. A glorious bottle of 1971 Roumier Musigny rained down on every other wine’s parade and quickly took my personal wine of the night crown. It got the universally accepted ‘so f’in good wowowowowow.’ Yes, it was about that time. The dust, the earth, the wind, the fire – this wine had all the elements of greatness. The citrus and rose balance was perfect, and the pitch and tension made me smack my lips. It had all the ’71 sex appeal with its great flesh and acidity. The Roumier wasn’t a wine, it was a meal (98).

There were a few more reds that I had some quick sips of, notably a 1958 B.V. Private Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, a 1971 and 1975 Trotanoy. I couldn’t really get much out of any of these three wines at this point, but then one last wine stood out for me at the end of the night, a 1983 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline. Roasted, earthy, long, fine and sensual, the La Mouline was still full-bodied and really great. When I thought I was starting to lose my palate, it found it for me. It jumped out at the end of the night (95+).

The next night was the auction, and the momentum from this event carried over to the sale, which ended up being 100% sold. It looks like it’s gonna be a good season!

FIN

JK

Dinner with Jay and Anne

Posted on | September 22, 2009

As we turn the page to Fall, I wanted to sneak in a quick, special evening I recently had in late August. I know, Rob, I never got to the Krug vertical amongst a dozen other special summer soirees. Catching up seems to be something perpetual in my world.

Summer evenings in the Hamptons are always special, even if I am a Fire Island guy at heart. Recently, I spent a most memorable evening in the Hamptons, arriving from Fire Island in fact, welcomed into the home of Jay and Anne for a fantastic dinner where the number of wines ultimately outnumbered the number of guests. Good thing I only had to drive upstairs at the end of this night. I found out the hard way that there is a reason many call Jay ‘the Hedonist.’

There were some other noteworthy guests staying at their place for the weekend, but since they didn’t join us for dinner, they will have to live without infamy. I was joined by Alexander the Great, and one other couple joined us, dear friends of Jay, Roger Waters and his wife. Yes, that Roger Waters. Having met Roger on a couple of other brief occasions, I knew this was going to be a fun night. Roger always enjoys a good joke or three, and he won’t hesitate to make you pull his finger lol.

Roger was running late, and Jay and I started to become dizzy and confused without a bottle open between us. He quickly remedied that situation with a 1990 Dom Perignon. The 1990 DP had a toasty nose, just right in that regard. There was great balance with its granulated sugar sex appeal, and bread joined the aroma party with a rye twist. Alexander admired its ‘floral’ qualities, and Jay its ‘freshness.’ This was about as good a bottle of 1990 Dom that I have had, and there have certainly been lesser ones, a fact echoed by Jay. Hints of apple were on the palate, and it got cracker crispy in the glass. It s acidity was outstanding, and so was the bubbly (95).

Inspired by the 1990, Jay dug deep into the cellar early on, pulling out a pristine bottle of 1971 Dom Perignon from his cellar. The bottle lived up to its appearance, as it was practically perfect. Jay pegged, ‘apple cider and armagnac.’ I wrote, ‘so complex, what a wonderful nose.’ There were warm, mature notes in its aromas and flavors despite its youthful character, and I could see the consistency of the style of Dom Perignon travel back in time from the ’90 to the ’71, which was impressive. The apple, the bread and the crackers were joined by a dash of sea salt. Its flavors were meaty and full of vanilla oil, musk and citrus jam. Despite its creaminess and more secondary nature, it was still almost as fresh as the 1990! What a bottle (97).

We sat down to dinner and were greeted by a pair of whites, the first being a 2004 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. ‘Smells like Leflaive,’ Jay confirmed. Aromas of sweet musk and citrus jumped out of the glass like an adolescent in gymnastics class. It did a forward roll into hints of tangerine, cold butter and rainwater. The palate was fresh and round, long and satiny, giving off more butter than anything else. While sexy juice and possessing a bit of pubescent tension, it didn’t quite have the crispness I wanted out of it just yet. It still needs time to come into its own (94).

The next wine was truly extraordinary, sick as sick can be, love at first sip. The 1996 Lafon Montrachet was so good I think I heard trumpets canoning in the background as I raised the glass to my mouth after nearly inhaling it. It had that 1996 spark, its vibrant acidity screaming and whispering at the same time. This was a white wine on which buildings could be built. It was most fascinating to watch this wine develop in the glass, as it went through multiple personalities. After about fifteen or twenty minutes, it started to become brothy and tea-like, hinting at tutti-frutti, and I was afraid that perhaps the wine was suffering from a little premature oxidation. A refill kicked the wine back into kill mode, and it regained its taut, smacking personality, full of unsweetened lemon ice flavors. Rich, thick, slaty, long and dry, the Montrachet had a lot going on despite a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde conflicted personality. It definitely found itself, and its long, lip-smacking finish made everyone warm and fuzzy (96+).

A pair of Vogue Musignys were next, beginning with a 1991 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. Roger noted a ‘strong hint of urine.’ He then looked down at the ground and said, ‘Oh, shit!’ Just kidding :). There was also a core of very sweet raspberry fruit along with forest aromas. Jay noted ‘a litte VA.’ Its sappy core had hints of mint, and its gamy palate hinted at fig and leather. Jay admired its evolution in the glass, citing ‘a little barnyard, a lot of forest, but the funk blew off and it is now elegant in a Burgundy way.’ The acid was still sturdy, and this 1991 was still solid, getting a little coconutty in the end (94).

Roger was warming up, and he found the 1998 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes ‘faintly Cuban.’ Jay added ‘a hint of Montecristo.’ The boys were jamming. I couldn’t pin the exact cigar but did get the cigar thing in this taut and leathery nose. There was definite tension here, and a hint of rubber tire that wanted to burn. Roger honed in on the leather, finding it more like ‘sweaty bridles.’ There were much more vitamins present in the 1998. The Vogue also had this back of a ruler thing going on, and hints of earth and cereal were present in this sturdy, long and thick red. It was an impressive 1998, a vintage that is still taut and developing, and one that might provide a lot more long-term pleasure than many think (94+).

Roger is a true claret lover, British to the core, but these Burgundies definitely made their mark on him, and he appreciated them to the last drop. Nonetheless, he was beginning to playfully grumble about having some real wine, so the boys all went down to the cellar to dig around and find him some claret before he trashed Jay’s dressing room. Jay pulled out an ’82 Haut Brion and a 1989 La Mission, and we tried to make a decision. When Roger told us while he has had the 1961 La Mission about two dozen times but has never had an ’89, the decision made itself.

The 1989 La Mission Haut Brion was a whole new world. Alexander the Great purred, ‘now this is leather.’ Its deep, dark fruit had lots of slate and gravel supporting it, and that classic toasted kernel of this particular wine was alive and popping. A pinch of salt was there, but the rocks and fruit dominated the nose. The palate was so rich and concentrated, and coffee flavors emerged after a little cheese. It was almost too much wine, the wine itself that is. Satin took over its palate after time in the glass, and its finish stayed long and special. Jay quipped to Roger, ‘we are making you look right.’ To be fair, it was a handicap match, as the ’89 La Miss is an all-time great Bordeaux, although a separate, recent head-to-head matchup with an ’89 Haut Brion after being uncorked two days prior had the La Miss a noticeable second (97).

We closed with a couple more Champagnes, beginning with the 1990 Dom Perignon Rose. To be honest, this is a Champagne that shouldn’t be touched for another decade. It was bone dry, long and with excellent acidity but everything about it was about the dryness, even its red fruits. Strawberry tried to creep in, but it was so dry. Alexander found it ‘talc-y’ (95+).

The 1990 Krug was the closer, and I think we were all just about closed for the evening, anyway. The Krug had the classic toast, bread, musk and vanilla cream in the nose. It was furry in a mink kind of way, and the vanilla morphed into a liqueur-like ecstasy. Flavors of butterscotch and white chocolate abounded in this long and still so young bubbly. There is Champagne, and then there is Krug (96).

And then there is hangover.

FIN

JK

Authentic Venetian Prosecco

Posted on | August 7, 2009

A recent advertisement for a Prosecco offer issued by Averys of Bristol and The Daily Telegraph caught my eye. It ran in the Weekend section of this venerable British newspaper on 1 August, 2009. The Daily Telegraph is a reputable newspaper. Averys of Bristol is part of Laithwaites which own Direct Wines and the Sunday Times Wine Club amongst others.

Let’s take a closer look.

The title ‘Authentic Venetian Prosecco’ is clearly designed to persuade a consumer that prosecco is a traditional and historical beverage intimately connected with ‘La Serenissima’ (produced in Venice) and that only ‘authentic prosecco’ has the right to be considered as such. The bottle contained in the offer is one such example.

However, there is no such thing as ‘Authentic Venetian prosecco’. The descriptive ‘Venetian’ only refers to the city of Venice (not the Veneto nor Friuli Venezia Giulia) and no wine has ever been made in Venice for the simple reason there are no vineyards. Much of the wine consumed during Venice’s early history was made in the south of Italy (Puglia) and the modern drink known as ‘Prosecco’ was only created in its current form in the early part of the 20th century following the invention of the system for producing the secondary fermentation in sealed stainless steel vats which results in the wines effervescence. It is then bottled directly. This was an Italian invention (1895 Federico Martinotti) albeit patented by a Frenchman (Charmat). The first bottle of wine produced with ‘Prosecco’ on the label was only in 1924 manufactured using the Charmat method. The wine appears to have no quality labelling attached to it - IGT or DOC.

Prosecco is the name of a grape not an area, which is why it had (until this year) escaped protection under Italian/European law in its use/misuse unlike, for example, Champagne. Prosecco is grown all over the world and apart from its heartland in Italy of Conegliano-Valdobbiadene it is grown throughout the Veneto, FVG and Piemonte.

Having established the phoney credentials of this wine, as described by the Daily Telegraph’s/Averys copy writers it perhaps comes as no surprise that they should continue to be compounded.

‘Unlike most sparkling wines, the authentic prosecco Frizzante ‘Di Paolo’, from the hills north of Venice…’ This is interesting because we are now told that the wine is not ‘authentic Venetian’ but in fact comes from the ‘hills north of Venice’. However, this appears to be written to persuade people that these are other qualities which also justify its status as ‘authentic’. ‘Unlike other sparkling wines it has only gentle effervescence and moderate alcohol…’. The suggestion here is that these are characteristics unique to ‘Di Paolo’. Firstly, all Prosecco is moderate in alcohol. Second, the ‘gentle effervescence’ (in other words ‘frizzante’) whilst widespread in Italy generally denotes a wine which is inferior in quality, and cheaper, to ’spumante’. Wines which are ‘frizzante’ in style may have less alcohol in them and less pressure in the bottle from the gas in the wine. Good quality ‘Prosecco’ is invariably ’spumante’.

The quote from a wine critic used in the advertisement “Deliciously fruity, crisp, off-dry and light… one of the world’s most voguish wines” actually comes from an article the critic wrote on his website about the true heart of prosecco which is the area of Conegliano-Valdobbiadene, now an area designated DOCG under Italian wine legislation and which the Italian Agriculture minister recently described as the “historical areas of wine production”. It has little to do with the wine advertised in the offer.

From August 1, the use of the word Prosecco on a label is more controlled. ‘di Paolo’ may no longer be able to label this type of wine ‘Prosecco’ should he decide to make it next year. So much for its ‘authenticity’.

Since there are no examples of this wine being sold anywhere else in the UK there is no way of knowing if the price is a genuine reduction or not. It is simply listed on the Daily Telegraph website at the higher value.

The artwork of the advertisement also struck me after a while. Why not show the whole bottle and cut off the photograph at the neck? Well, there is one possible explanation. Perhaps it does not carry the kind of foil over a stopper some might expect from a Prosecco - wines which are ‘frizzante’ often don’t. Some people will undoubtedly be disappointed if this is true. The position of the glass over the bottle is no simple idle montage. Good quality Prosecco has a special bottle shape. This photograph thus seeks to disguise the shape of their own wine bottle.

Prosecco comes in a variety of styles - brut, extra dry and so forth. Nothing in this advertisement declares the wine’s style - an important factor.

Judge for yourself the merit of this offer.

For all one knows the wine may be quite excellent… but it seems doubtful. Only the offer price seems to be of importance: the cost of this wine is mentioned no less than 5 times.

Bad Boy 2

Posted on | August 6, 2009

It was one month later, so wine’s original Bad Boy Bruce decided to have another get together at his home in New Jersey. It was a smaller get-together than his previous party, but still on hand from last month’s birthday bash were King Angry, the Hillbilly and Alexander the Great. I don’t think the Hillbilly ever left, actually. Bad Boy’s musical world touched us on this night, as we were also joined by Maynard Keenan, lead singer of Tool, a passionate wine lover and maker of fine wine as well. I had dined with him before a couple of years ago, and we had enjoyed an incredible wine dinner at Cru, but I somehow lost those notes and was never able to share that night. He was in town for a concert, and his presence was just enough to spark a fantastic evening centered around 1979 Champagnes, Soldera and Monfortino. The King and the Hillbilly, in a twist of half-inspiration and half-destiny, answered the musical bell and assumed the role they were born to play: the wine world’s version of Tupac and Biggie lol.

We started with a magnum of 1979 Louis Roederer. While good, the Roederer was simpler than I would have hoped and a significant drop off in quality from the Roederer bottles of the ‘60s, ‘50s and older, which all have legendary potential in them. I am not sure when this quality curve changed, perhaps coinciding with an increase in production of Cristal. The Roederer was clean and fresh with light aromas of yellow and toast. The palate was a little pungent, with flavors of urine and minerals (89M).

A magnum of 1979 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill had decadent vanilla aromas. It was ‘peachy and slaty’ per Todd, aka the Hillbilly, and also had great white musk and light toast aromas, more like bread soaked in oil. The palate was still young, very young, with nice bread, toast and white chocolate flavors. There was a bit of dirty earth on the finish, holding it back a bit (94+M).

A 1979 Veuve Clicquot La Grande Dame was gorgeous and lived up to its name. The Great one was admiring its soft, caressing nature. It was very floral with crushed, crystallized fruit aromas, sprinkled in sugar. A touch of hay added complexity. The palate was very clean. It was also long and fresh and possessed great effervescence, an effervescence that was more about its bubbles than its acidity. The Hillbilly said, ‘JK 94,’ and he was right. What can I say, the guy worships me (94).

We did a fascinating comparison of three bottles of 1979 Krug, all with different disgorgement dates. ‘Real geeky wine stuff,’ Bruce gleefully admitted. The first was believed to be the original release, some time in the mid-80s. Alexander found it ‘very creamy,’ and Todd ‘more golden.’ It was big and bold, full of that Krug vanilla cream, but it was really more egg cream this time. While big, rich and bold, the ’79 was also a touch aggressive. Bruce thought it had ‘more yeast, balance and development.’ It stayed eggy but in a good way. The second bottle was disgorged in 1990, and showed more youthfully accordingly. Alexander noted, ‘white cherry,’ but there was also a slight must to this bottle. On the palate, it also had the egg, more wood and vanilla cream pie. Big, rich and bubbly, while there was more muscle here, there was also more BO, as in cork issues. The third bottle of 1979 Krug was disgorged in 1988. Again eggy, the third bottle finally had everyone jumping on my egg bandwagon. Todd called it ‘hard-boiled and sulfury.’ This bottle was the best balanced, and while lighter, it was tastier, too. The Hillbilly found it ‘less robust,’ but then again, he’s a big guy and needs those 99-point Shirazes, Priorats and Chateauneufs to wake up his senses lol. He didn’t think it would go well with Possum Stew, always a big factor in his ratings scale. Speaking of which, while all three bottles were different, and one was affected, I found them all to be qualitatively equal and (95).

It was at this point that Bruce started grumbling about the female sommelier he hired to serve at the party. The Hillbilly was all over him, saying ‘you can’t get a girl to come over even when you pay her, and she doesn’t even have to have sex with you.’ It was quite a funny moment, and no one enjoyed it more than the Hillbilly, who hooted and hollered for approximately the next five minutes. We gave him some oxygen to settle him down.

But it was really the 1979 Krug Collection from magnum that got Todd’s attention. The Collection had a great, toasty nose with unreal vanilla cream aromas. The HB noted, ‘more linear and saline…a tighter package.’ It absolutely was, and racy enough for any major speedway. It had a rocket-like finish that took off, leaving a trail of dust, minerals and spice. This was the first Champagne I insisted on seconds (96+M).

A 1979 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Rose had a nice nose, very floral in a thick way. There was red rose and strawberry fruit, mint and chocolate. The nose was outstanding and really seduced me, but the palate was milder and more elegant, simple with its sweet and earthy personality. The King agreed about the nose, but found it ‘too sweet like cotton candy.’ Alexander the Great also found it ‘sugary like lemonade’ (92).

We had our first wine of the night, and it was from Arizona, our friend Maynard’s estate Cabernet, of which he makes about 90 cases in total. The 2007 Caduceus Cabernet Sauvignon Nagual del Judith was an inky baby. It had a young, sappy and seepy nose, quite juicy in that New World way. There were nice minerals dancing around a core of superripe cassis, make that hardcore; this is Tool we are talking about! The palate was rich, saucy and juicy, with nice flesh to its finish, very good definition and traces of earth, melons and coffee grinds. The winery was named after the staff of Hermes; of course, King Angry insisted that his staff was bigger lol. This was a well-made wine by someone who takes his wine very seriously, and I look forward to trying more wines from him in the future (93).

There were three more ‘79s to go, though, and they were three of Champagne’s finest. The 1979 Louis Roederer Cristal was distinctively Cris. It was very bready, with fine, sweet vanilla wafer, smoke, orange rind and crème brulee aromas in the nose. The palate was rich and heady with a sweet, oily core and an aggressive ‘burnt’ edge in the mouth. Very full-bodied, this ’79 was quite wild on the palate, sporting earth and weed flavors, but they were balanced by pleasing caramel, sweet margarine and yellow corn ones. Bruce hailed it as ‘great and staggering.’ There was a hint of celery, veggie goodness here. At first, the Cristal was all over the place, almost too complex, or as Todd put it, ‘a little furry.’ It really rounded out with some time in the glass, its sweetness reined itself in, and it got oily, kinky and sexy, three of my favorite things when they are enjoyed simultaneously (95+).

While I enjoyed the 1979 Salon more than the Cristal at first, by the time I had finished evaluating the both of them, the Cristal had snuck ahead. The Salon was clean and racy like light speed in the nose. It was so focused with its aromas of white fruits, ice and granulated sugar. It had the perfect sweetness, and it was a ‘laser cannon’ per the Hillbilly. The sweetness carried its perfection over to its rich palate through a rainbow of lemon and lime flavors. Its finish was long, and it had great balance. It was elegant but still big, starting to plateau and mellow, and it continued to mellow more in the glass while the Cris took off. The King added ‘vanilla cream soda’ (95).

Last and certainly not least was the 1979 Krug Clos du Mesnil. The last two bottles that I have had of this were horribly corked; thankfully, history would not repeat itself, and this bottle lived up to its historic reputation. This was the first vintage for what is now considered by many to be greatest Champagne made year in and year out, the Romanee Conti of the Champagne world. The Mesnil had a big, scintillating nose full of cinnamon, antique wood and vanilla bean. It was so big that it came across almost beefy. Deep and regal, it required our complete attention. The palate was rich, heavy and hearty, with its cinnamon and wood qualities carrying over to the palate. It was absolutely delicious, like drinking feathers and still having the meat along with it. With air and food, the wood melted away into a butter bomb. The Mesnil became saucy and decadent, rich and full of vanilla. ‘Vanilla cream soda,’ the King added. Wait a second, you said that for the Salon? ‘Make that celery soda,’ he laughed. This was finally the bottle of this legendary wine that I have been looking for; it didn’t disappoint (98).

It was time for some wine, and we began with a couple of Contis before heading over to Italy. Ray’s mystery wine had a gamy nose full of wintry red fruits and a kiss of menthol, along with rose, garden, citrus and tree bark. The palate was rich and intense with lots of red citrus fruits. There was great spice, tree flavors and a leathery finish that supported cedar and mahogany flavors. It was a delicious 1983 DRC Echezeaux. I have said it before, that many 1983 Burgs can be surprisingly good, especially for DRC’s (94).

The Ech was paired with a 1985 DRC Grands Echezeaux. Alexander the Great noticed ‘beet cottage’ right away in its big, beefy nose. There were lots of brown aromas, but not as in mature. Some vitamins and rose crept out behind the beef. The palate was oily and concentrated, almost too much so, again beefy. Its finish was lip-smacking but bruising, and the GE was a bit broad-shouldered at the moment. Although I thought the ’85 to be the better wine as far as its raw materials and long-term aging potential, I preferred the ’83 Ech on this night, as did Maynard and Ray (95+).

It was on to the Italians and the Solderas, Tuscany’s true First Growth. By the way, all Solderas are Casse Basse, which is the name of the estate, I believe. There has long been confusion about whether a Soldera is Casse Basse or not, but they all are! The 1997 Soldera Brunello Riserva had a sweet cherry core but was really all about the dust. There was also a cigar dipped in chocolate aroma in this deep, dark wine. The palate was rich and concentrated with great smoked Brunello flavors of beef, earth and leather. I was pleasantly surprised by this 1997, which seems to have floundered in the secondary market recently. Why, I am not sure (95).

The 1995 Soldera Brunello Riserva was more leathery with lots of peanuty goodness to its nose. One could tell the 1995 and 1997 were related, as the Soldera style translates in any vintage. The palate was rich and thick, full of tobacco, black fruit and tar flavors, also marked by a little egg. Its finish was much drier than the 1997’s, and it exerted itself firmly on the back end (94+).

The 1993 Soldera Brunello Riserva followed suit admirably for a vintage that isn’t considered to be a great one. Besides the usual suspects, aromas of glue and oat made their presence known. The 1993 was still rich in fruit although lighter than the previous two vintages, and flavors of leather and sour cherry candy were there in this fairly concentrated wine (93).

The 1990 Soldera Brunello Riserva had more garden and bell pepper at first, blacker fruits and a very nutty profile. It was by far the deepest and most expansive nose. The palate was thicker than anything else either, almost over the top with its motor oil concentration. Burnt coffee grinds simmered in the background. This was the essence of Brunello, and when I say essence I mean where something is taken and then reduced and concentrated. The 1990 was so concentrated that everyone lost complete focus, but that usually happens around wine #19 lol. While the 1990 stood out, the entire flight was consistently amazing and a reminder as to the greatness being achieved here (95+).

Unfortunately, a 1985 Soldera Brunello Riserva was corked (DQ).

There was one last dance, a flight of Monfortinos beginning with the 1958 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva. The nose was fabulous, and everything one could want in an old Barolo. There were mature aromas of sweet tea fruit, earth, tobacco, tar, minerals, leather, citrus, oil, smoked meats and truffles. The palate was quite concentrated as well, thick bordering on syrupy. The strength of the acidity was mind-boggling; this was a powerful wine and at age 41 showing no signs of slowing down (96).

The 1961 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was more classic in style, a cleaner, more elegant and feminine style of this wine. This was a beauty, making the 1958 a beast. There was also more reserve and depth in the ’61. Reserve, breed and class all came to mind. The palate was delicious with its mix of tobacco, citrus, autumn and bouillon flavors. Again, there was impressive acidity here, and great smack to its finish, which was full of citrus and earth (97).

The 1964 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva had aromas of sweet cherry, seemingly more mature than its older siblings, but it still possessed a tight core of leather, citrus, old book, tobacco leaf, varnish and sweet cigar aromas. It was round and rich with excellent acidity, nice leather and citrus flavors, and a gritty finish. Again, the acidity really impressed (94).

The last of the four horsemen here was the 1971 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva. The 1971 was more anisy, and bready in a biscotti way. The palate had lots of black fruits, and this came across as the youngest by far, more so than the actual age difference. The acidity again was superb, and its flavors were thick but more tangy, and also more primary at this stage (95).

There was one last wine on the program, a 1976 Dom Perignon. This was a fantastic bottle of Dom, complete with that granulated sugar goodness, rich and delicious. It was long, focused and youthful. Awesome summed it up (95).

I am hoping this turns into a monthly occurrence!

FIN

JK

Hong Kong Diaries 2009, Ode to Musigny

Posted on | August 6, 2009

My second night in Hong Kong was devoted to Musigny, thanks to an anonymous and most generous benefactor. Yes, Burgundy is alive and well in Hong Kong, and I couldn’t think of a better terroir to prove that point. We started with a Champagne and a white before getting into the main event, the Champagne being a 1982 Salon. The Salon had a yeasty nose that was big, rich and bready. It was very fragrant, tangy yet complex. The palate was oily and meaty, almost beefy, big and citrusy with outstanding acidity. Tangy, zippy and gamy, the ’82 was rich and tasty with vanilla cream flavors. At the end of the night, the Salon was still strong, losing its bubbles but becoming decadently delicious and still great (95).

The 2004 Raveneau Chablis Montee de Tonnerre was very open, with a minty and anise-y centerpoint, while Kris observed ‘white lychee and pear.’ Round, minty and delicious, the palate had a nice, feminine side to its acidity. Someone noted ‘sweet and sour apple,’ and another its ‘fresh, good structure.’ Premier Cru Chablis’ are great values – oops, put that cat back in the bag (93).

On to the Moose…we started with a flight of ‘young’ wines, its starting point being a pair of 1993s. A 1993 Drouhin Musigny was one of the best bottles of this I have had. I looked up two prior bottles and found that I rated them each 92 points, but this one was significantly better. Yeast was the first thing I noticed, but it quickly blew off into the classic underbrush of 1993. Black fruits, a great nut glaze and excellent sun-baked earth rounded out the nose. Richard admired ‘that ’93 tautness,’ and it was really driven by its mineral and earth qualities. It opened wonderfully and became more exotic with a stir-fried sweetness and actual fruit, holding its acidity for the entire evening. It all comes down to the bottle (94+).

The 1993 Jadot Musigny had more hay in the nose and a bit of stinky barn and green pepper. There were also band-aids there, and good ‘catbox.’ The Jadot had a lot of power, noticeably so after the Drouhin. Some baked bread came out as well as gamy, black flavors and a lot of t ‘n a. Hendra also observed ‘more power,’ and Kris liked its ‘fleshy side of Musigny.’ It had a long, earthy finish, and the tannins and acid of the vintage showed their stuff there, coming out even more in the belly. There was more wood here, integrated yet big, as well as more animal (93).

At first, Richard and I were admiring the 1990 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes and how it was one of the better bottles of this that we had both had. Hendra remarked how it was ‘always this way,’ but this bottle was not stewed or woodsy as others can be. It was zippy with Worcestershire aromas, a bit of celery salt and excellent t ‘n a. It had the best finish of the flight, and its acidity was noteworthy. It squared up a bit in the glass, however, and got more cedary, and the second impression was less than the first. Richard agreed. Its structure was still excellent, but this wine might continue to be a perplexing one for a while (93+).

The second flight began with a rare 1989 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes. It had a minty nose, very forward with its wild fruits, olives and forest aromas. The palate was rich and its acidity long, with that gamy ’89, rich, ripe style. Tasty and balanced, there were significant earth and iron flavors to go with some autumnal and forest floor ones. Kris said it ‘sparkled,’ and it was fresh on its feet, dancing in the mouth. It didn’t get any better in the glass, but it was on a couple of people’s ‘top three’ wines for the night (94).

The next wine was one of my two wines of the night, a 1988 Roumier Musigny. Richard noted ‘a little more substance and linearity.’ Its nose was deep personified, or winified, I suppose. There was great perfume and breed to its sexy and unraveling nose. There was cedar, forest and a pinch of menthol. Its flavors were also deep, just singing, rippling with minerals and acidity on its thick finish. There was actually fruit here for this ’88, which is not often the case in this tannic vintage, and there was enough fruit to stand up to the tannins. Red fruits emerged, and its woodsy complexity was just right, creeping in with time (96).

The 1985 Drouhin Musigny was again a better bottle than the last time I had this wine just three months ago. What’s up with Drouhin showing better in Hong Kong? Maybe it likes the humidity here. It was the most open of this flight, in ’85 fashion, sweet and gamy and full of Pinot fruit. Caramel kisses and damp earth rounded out its nutty nose. Paul agreed this was a better bottle than the one he had recently as well; in fact, I think it was the same bottle we shared in New York, or same batch. This bottle was in a perfect spot and still ascending (95).

We then took it way back in time with an outstanding 1952 Bichot Musigny. At first, it was a bit gassy in the nose, with a touch of toilet in there, but it opened quickly into wheat, grass and herbs. The palate was delicious and way ahead of the nose with its nutty, oily texture. It was also rich and chocolaty, possibly a bit adulterated but so good, who cares? There was this vanilla ice cream deliciousness, and one said he heard rumors that Bichot bought their Musigny from Vogue during this period. It kept flirting so much with outstanding, I finally gave it to it (95).

A 1952 Remoissenet Musigny had green fruit in a fresh way and a nutty nose. The palate was more milky with some red fruit there, and a sweet flash in a tree bark, cedar and herbal direction. It was simpler but still good (90).

Unfortunately, the last wine in this flight was an oxidized 1952 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes (DQ).

The next pair more than made up for it, beginning with a 1949 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny. It was many people’s wine of the night. Richard crowned it ‘amazing’ right away, and its nose was indubitably great, pungent and with aromas of olives, citrus, rich black and red fruits, cola and cream soda. The palate seemed rich for ’49 but was still elegant on its finish. There were great flavors of sweet plum and purple. There was more posture and style versus the ’47 that would follow, and it got more mentholated in the glass (96).

The 1947 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny was ‘porty’ to one and ‘very sweet’ to another. It was definitely keeping with the hot style of 1947 with its sweetness, as 1947 was one of the hottest years ever on record in the 20th century in Burgundy, I believe. The nose was again great, full of sweet cream and touches of earth and citrus. The palate was lush and earthy, still zippy, concentrated with sweet purple flavors and great spice. It was so sweet that it seemed almost chapitalized, a bit negociant in personality. I am not sure if these were negociant bottles or not. While the ’49 was more demure and distinguished, one couldn’t help but like the ’47 and its skinny dipping personality (94).

It was a grand finale to a monumental evening of Musigny. The Roumier and ’49 Liger-Belair were on the top of most people’s lists, but the Bichot definitely got a lot of consideration, too. There were a few honorable mentions for the Mugnier and ’85 Drouhin as well.

It is good to see Burgundy alive and well in Hong Kong. Thursday night would be our first BYO dinner in HK, and I would have 35 notes before all was said and through, including many Burgundies, although Bordeaux did dominate the landscape provided by the 60 guests. About nine of the wines took me two hours to enjoy, and then the rest in a blitz at the end. Stay tuned!
FIN
JK

Bordeaux Horizontals

Posted on | June 1, 2009

Recently and on separate occasions, I had the good fortune of experiencing two of Bordeaux’s most heralded vintages in the past twenty-five years, 1986 and 2005. First, let’s talk about 1986. One recollected how originally 1986 was in the shadow of 1985; the wines were hard, and Broadbent gave ’86 four stars after ‘85’s five. 1986 Bordeaux have proven to be long-distance runners, although detractors will say that they will always be too hard and never come around, that there isn’t enough fruit to integrate with the tannins. Let’s see what the wines had to say.

The ‘warm-up’ was a 1986 Meyney. The Meyney had a nice nose, with aromas of green bean, carob, hay and a little benevolent animal. Its profile was dark and nutty overall. The palate was round, also nutty and also with carob flavors, possessing nice spice and still flashy on its finish – I did notice some heat. There were a touch of bitters to its flavors, along with earth and slate on its finish. I liked it overall, even though it fell a step out of balance with time. It was soft and tender, tasty stuff that everyone was loving. Someone remarked it was ‘spiny, with a touch of wood and a surprising amount of legs.’ It was a good show for this good value (90).

A flight of two Pomerols was next, beginning with the 1986 Lafleur. The Lafleur had a kinky and sexy nose, that tutti-frutti side of Lafleur that comes out more in certain vintages. Aromas of sweet grape, game, musk, white chocolate and a hint of caraway were all present. The palate was big and thick with rocky and black fruit flavors, unraveling with slow and squeezing tannins. A hint of motor oil and prune rounded out this delicious boa constrictor of a wine, and there was enough acidity to match (95).

The 1986 Trotanoy was not a match for the Lafleur. It was gamy like the Lafleur, but more figgy. Aromas of carob, caramel and wild boar were followed by round, figgy flavors and a soft and smooth palate. There was nice slate and spice around its edges, and still a touch of heat like a fire that is starting to dwindle. It was pleasant and pleasing, and Julieanne liked the Trot ‘better now’ (91).

The second flight led off with the 1986 Talbot. There were lots of green beans and olives in the nose, which was a bit waxy and spiny, though also clean. Some tickling crushed red fruits rounded out the nose, which also had a little bathwater edge to it. The palate was much more classic; it had sweet, tasty and nutty fruit and a spicy palate that had mineral, earth and game flavors. Sweet cassis, nut and caramel flavors were also there. It was thick in the mouth but balanced, classic and delicious despite a bit of awkwardness to its aromatics (93).

The Talbot was followed by its sibling, the 1986 Gruaud Larose, which also had a bit of that bathwater to it at first. Someone hailed the nose ‘more voluptuous.’ The nose became perfumed and also developed aromas of cola, cherry and wool, and it left a clean and spiny impression. The palate had the minerals, earth, game, carob and cassis. It was smokier and bigger than the Talbot but still distinguished, stylish and long (94).

The 1986 Leoville Las Cases had a big nose and was blacker and inkier. Its purple fruit was decadent and its musk great, and it also had a sexy vanilla quality to it. The palate was rich, long and thick with a nice finish that had lots of unfolding tannins. The palate was refined, and Julieanne called it ‘a nice package.’ It was (95).

It was at this point that I wrote how the ‘86s were so polished and soft and that this was a vintage that seemed to be finally coming into its own.

The ‘odd bull’ of the Left Bank was next, which was called odd due to its high concentration of Merlot. The 1986 Pichon Lalande had aromas of green bean, cleaner, roasted hazelnuts, roasted walnuts and pencil shavings. Its nose was meaty and musky, while its palate was pretty, soft, round, sensual, tender…just beautiful. There were classic flavors, and its elegance and style could not be denied. In the end, this was one of the group’s favorite wines (95).

The 1986 Cos d’Estournel had much more peanut brittle in the nose, along with coffee, spice, candle wax and beef. The palate was nutty and quite gamy for a Left Banker, with a pinch of sugar dropped in. It was toasty up front, but waxy on its finish. Lots of minerals and cigar lingered, and it was hailed as ‘rich and dense’ (94).

It was on to the final flight of three, beginning with the 1986 Margaux, which was extremely spiny and the most wound wine of the night. There were lots of spice, minerals, leather, iron and gyro beef aromas. The palate was again more polished than I expected, especially given the nose. Flavors of carob, spice, dust, earth, leather and waterfall were all present on the palate, but there was a hole in the middle of this wine, or at least this bottle, that held it back (94).

The last Left Bank wine was its most renowned, the 1986 Mouton Rothschild. Its nose was deep and dark, a touch stinky and gamey with a strong whiff of wood and cedar. The palate was also deep, dark and black with oceans of cassis, cedar and minerals. Its finish was by far the longest of the night. This was the only bottle that had a bit of that theoretical 1986 squareness, the only one that still said, ‘give me more time,’ but there was no doubting its raw materials (96+).

The last wine of this fascinating retrospective was the 1986 Cheval Blanc. The Cheval had its classic wintergreen aroma, along with red fruits and green olives. There were great flavors of cranberry, strawberry, interior leather and curds n’ whey. It was tender and pretty, more open than the previous two wines, adding wintergreen and game flavors (93).

So what to make of this tasting? Those that have 1986s in their cellar might want to get to know them again, although at least an hour or two of airtime probably makes a difference. Regardless, there was a lot more polish and tender qualities to this vintage now than I expected, certainly more than the last time I did a retrospective of 1986s about seven or eight years ago. That doesn’t mean that they won’t continue to age; it is important not to confuse power with ageability, and that is something that the Bordelais have been understanding for centuries. I just think that the ‘86s are starting to come into their own, and that its ‘hard’ reputation might not be as accurate as before.

2005 Bordeaux

I guess the other retrospective that I recently did wasn’t really a retrospective, and more like an initial perspective. This was my first tasting of 2005 out of bottle, and while this heralded, potential all-time great vintage of Bordeaux needs no introduction, I wanted to reintroduce myself to these wines after their release.

We began with a disappointing 2005 Pichon Lalande. Its nose was lightly roasted and nutty with aromas of coffee. While elegant, the dryness of its tannins and acidity jumped out. There were lighter, nutty flavors of black tea present, but it did not have the depth I have come to expect for this reliable Chateau (91).

The 2005 Montrose had a bigger nose with much more fruit. It was concentrated and rich with big, buttery flavors, coffee again and some toast while Alexander The Great noted ‘bitters.’ Despite its bigness, it maintained elegance and had softness. Although its tannins were long, they were fine (94).

The 2005 Ducru Beaucaillou was also big, more cedar city in the nose. There was big-time ‘vanilla bean,’ as someone noted. Tasty and nutty, it had mocha, vanilla and milkshake flavors. It continued to gain in the glass and get bigger (95+).

Someone noted ‘mushroom’ in the 2005 Palmer. I did pick up on forest floor, but it was shier and more elegant in the nose. Alexander picked up on a little ‘blue cheese,’ but it was not pungent. It was perfumed and sexy, getting a little grapier as it opened. The palate was great, full of oil, leather, coffee and smoke flavors. There was exquisite balance to this superb wine. It really got my attention (97).

The 2005 Cos d’Estournel quickly brought sexy back with its classic aromas of cedar, nut and caramel. While more elegant than expected, there were great flavors of cedar and what I call fireplace action. This was classic every which way, and it got two ‘fantastics’ from the crowd (96).

The 2005 Leoville Las Cases was tight and a touch anise-y. Stony and cedary, its nose was much more reticent than the other ‘05s. The palate was also very stony, but its length and breed were outstanding. While a bit muted, and much more reserved already, the Las Cases was still serious stuff. Every case should come with a sign, ‘wake me when it’s over’ (95).

We transitioned to the First Growths with a 2005 La Mission Haut Brion, arguably a First Growth in its own right. The La Mission was so exotic compared to the rest. There was great fruit here, and wild aromas like coconut and blueberry standing side by side with classics like charcoal, black currants and truffles. The flavors were also kinky and gamy with exotic marzipan, and its finish popped with more noticeable acidity than anything prior. It was a wild and crazy wine whose outstanding quality could not be denied, but I couldn’t help but wonder if all this exoticness would come back to haunt it later in life (96).

The 2005 Mouton Rothschild was the first of our First Growths, and we had them all ready. Tar, smoke and a little marijuana green crept out of its nose. The flavors were mocha, and the wine was softer and easier. Someone called it simplistic, and while that might have been a bit harsh, it definitely under-impressed compared to some of the wines already sampled (94).

The 2005 Latour had the nose of the night. There was fantastic and undeniable breed here. ‘Nutty nutty, long long and dry dry’ were my first notes. It had enough length to last through double overtime, and the marriage between its signature cedar and walnut aromas and flavors said, ‘happily ever after’ (97+).

The 2005 Lafite Rothschild was a bit unusual at first, emitting this mentholated rub in the locker room vibe, which someone else likened to ‘barnyard.’ It did get more cedary and classic with time, but needed more coaxing. There was a soft and subtle minerality here that provided a beautiful backbone to the wine, like good posture. Its elegant style was overshadowed by the Latour in the beginning, but it, too, had undeniable breed and over time gained on the Latour, closing the gap. Its elegance and breed were ultimately remarkable (96).

The 2005 Haut Brion was full of cigar smoke in the nose to go along with the usual suspects of tobacco, earth and black fruits. There was a tender quality to this powerful wine, which exerted its influence in a quiet and easy way. It was an Obamawine lol. Flavors of earth, tobacco and charcoal were more classically rendered than its sibling La Miss, and definitive bacon emerged in the nose, so much so that I wrote it in caps with an exclamation mark to boot like some hungry dog – BACON! The Haut Brion lived up to its lofty status (97).

We closed with the 2005 Margaux, which was classic all the way. Cedar, cassis, earth and minerals abounded in its long, smoky and elegant nose. The palate was long, decadent and smoky. The Margaux ended up the evening in stylish fashion, as it is prone to do (96).

So what about 2005? There is no doubting the quality of the vintage. It will be one of the all-time greats. The concentration of fruit is already legendary, and there are enough tannins and acidity to keep up for decades. Despite the concentration levels, the best wines have retained the hallmark elegance that makes claret lovers croon. What about the prices? Well, there is no doubt that they were expensive, the most expensive en primeur vintage that anyone has ever seen, or perhaps ever will. There has not been that initial secondary market bounce that most vintages have when bottles finally hit the marketplace, as consumers have said that they are already expensive enough, and the recent yet lessening economic uncertainty didn’t help. They are still selling, and their greatness cannot be denied. We’ll leave the rest up to the market.

FIN

JK

Hong Kong Diaries 2009

Posted on | June 1, 2009

As we prepare for our second auction of the year in Hong Kong in 2009, I thought it was a good time to look back on a couple of most noteworthy events related to the great city of Hong Kong. The first event was a Champagne dinner before the auction, featuring a stellar selection of bubblies courtesy of the cellar of Robert Rosania. Rob was offering a slice of the world’s greatest Champagne collection in our last Hong Kong auction, and we wanted to make sure that the local clients who had already let us know that they were Champagne lovers had an opportunity to see what aged Champagne is all about. Rob’s cellar was up for the task, as usual, even when halfway around the world.

A six-pack of 1996 Krug was the aperitif, and when that’s the aperitif, you know it’s going to be a good night. I didn’t take a note for that, as I was too busy meeting and greeting. The first official flight was one of Dom, beginning with a 1971 Dom Perignon. Aromas of cracked wheat and honey jumped out of its seductive nose. The palate was rich, long, dusty and spiny with great fizz. It was fresh, zippy and long, with excellent acidity. This was a superb bottle, absolutely delicious, brimming with white cola and honey flavors (96).

A magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon was next. The ’75 was more herbal, but herbal in a good way. There were also more minerals here, with hints of granulated sugar and toast, along with some rye crisp. It was very fresh as well, more spiky in its acidity and drier in its personality. It was still excellent (93M).

A magnum of 1985 Dom Perignon Rose was an infant by comparison. There were aromas of strawberry and some Pinot garden goodness. It was fresh and tangy, with a bit of hay flavors, like a roll in the barn. Very fresh and very young, I look forward to when it finally finds its way (95M).

The second flight went back in time even further. A 1961 Pol Roger was still fresh, with a core of sweet and mature aromas. Honey, beer and caramel were dominant. The ’61 was rich, fleshy and round with caramel and honey flavors to match its aromas. There was more integration here than any of the Doms; the extra ten years had done the Pol Roger well. Its acidity was still special, and lots of vitamin flavors lingered on its finish (94).

A 1962 Philipponnat Blanc de Blancs had a great cereal-like nose, like Frosted Flakes meets Corn Pops. This was not a Clos des Goisses bottle, just to be clear. There was exotic perfume and spice, almost jasmine, and its cereal qualities moved in an oatmeal direction. The palate was nice and yeasty with sugar cane flavors and a long finish (94).

A magnum of 1964 Moet was probably the least exciting Champagne of the night, but still very good. Old Moets can be spectacular, particularly pre-Dom Perignon, during the first twenty years of the 20th century and even older, or so I am told. I have only had as far back as 1900. The ’64 was a magnum that had been redisgorged, not necessarily for the better. It was pungent and grassy both in the nose and mouth. Gamy and zippy, it was good but overshadowed on this special evening (92M).

The last wine of this flight was a 1952 Louis Roederer - not Cristal. I always feel like I need to clarify that, remind everyone that Roederer makes Cristal, and also that the regular ‘Roederer’ bottlings are some of Champagne’s finest from the 1960s on back. The ’52 was long-legged, Mommy long legs. The nose was mature and warm, and the palate was rich with a meaty texture and a hint of bubbles left. More wine-like with delicious tea flavors, this bottle was on the mature side but still delicious (95).

A Cristal followed, the 1969 Roederer Cristal. It, too, had pungency to it, more in a gamy way. The nose was a little oaky, as well as bready. The palate was rich, meaty and lush with vanilla wafer flavors, but the oak stayed on the palate and throughout the finish. It did grow on me and get more honeyed, but having had extraordinary bottles of ’69 Cris before, I can say that this wasn’t the best bottle. It wasn’t off, just a lesser batch, so to speak (93).

The 1979 Roederer Cristal was a classic. The nose oozed greatness. Clean and pure, it was full of butter, scotch, butterscotch (yes all three!) and grain aromas, with a pinch of flower in a gourmet soap way. The palate was fresh and zippy, still young and mineral-driven (95+).

A 1949 Pommery was served on its own, and deservedly so. It had gorgeous and sexy vanilla ice cream aromas. Its palate was sexy and smooth, round and delicious. This was great Champagne, special and honeyed (95).

Krug, meet Salon. The 1973 Krug was from an original bottling, and had that signature Krug vanilla cream sex appeal. Quite tasty, it was full of Wasa rye crisp wafer flavors. This was breed Champagnified and Krug all the way. So good and so tasty, the Krug was round and rich with vanilla wafer flavors as well (95).

The 1976 Salon was out of magnum, which probably gave it an edge. It was much tighter and more minerally with a pinch of white fruits and flowers fighting to be recognized. The palate was longer than the Krug, better, and racy beyond belief. Usually it is Krug that bullies everything else around, but the hallmark Salon acidity was still as sharp as a razor, and this magnum had enough freshness and zip to go for many more decades (96+M).

The 1969 Krug Collection was so fresh, another grassy and pungent one. It was still a baby, endless in its acidity, as fresh as fresh can be, as Krug Collections are prone to be. It had perfect balance to its spice and length, and was a testament to the cellars at Krug (96).

The 1979 Krug Collection was out of magnum, and showed more bread and toast in the nose. It was long, zippy and great as well. There were flavors of citrus tang, bread soaked in egg yolk and more lemon. Despite being a decade younger, there were almost more mature nuances to the ’79. Of course, its finish was long (95+M).

We closed with the 1990 Krug Clos du Mesnil. If there was a fitting closer, it would be Clos du Mesnil, the vineyard equivalent in Champagne to Romanee Conti. The 1990 was so good, so young, like nails on a chalkboard in its pitch. A hint of oak needed some time to integrate, and the 1990 needs time in general to integrate. Its acidity reminded me of Wolverine, ready to destroy anything in its way. It had lots of flavors of earth, minerals and what I would call tombstone, as this Champagne laid to rest everything else (97).

It was a spectacular evening of Champagne, a testament to how well it ages, and a testament once again to Rob’s cellar. I can’t wait for ‘the greatest Champagne dinner of all-time.’ We’ll keep you tuned in for that one.

The other chapter of my Hong Kong diary actually took place in New York. One of our biggest clients in Hong Kong was passing through New York ten days after the auction, so we decided to give him an official New York City wine welcome. We were joined by the Angry Men’s first family, gentleman Jim and Little Miss Angry, as well as Alexander the Great, a welcome addition to any dining experience.

We warmed up with a 1990 Dom Perignon, which was one of the better bottles of this that I have had recently. It was rich, nutty and beefy, a bit of a bruiser, but long and full of structure (95).

A 1990 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche was full of aromas of honey, honeycomb and honeysuckle in its creamy nose. There was a hint of floral that Wendy likened to ‘grandma’s lilac perfume.’ Our friend noted ‘chinese herbs.’ It was more ready than I would have thought, buttery and full of ‘petrol flavors,’ as Wendy noted, and she also agreed that it was ‘definitely ready.’ Another guest at the restaurant to whom we gave a taste noted that it was ‘almost like a dessert wine’ due to its sweetness of fruit. There were nice yeast flavors on its sunsetting finish (94).

The 1989 Haut Brion Blanc was a spectacular white. Its nose was pungent, full of glue, straw, cat’s pee and a pinch of twisted honeycomb. That Graves minerality reeked out of the glass. The palate was coy at first yet rich, very regal with tons of breed and acidity. This was the best young white Bordeaux that I had ever had. It retained its character throughout the evening and even became more complex, with more of its floral side coming out, along with jasmine tea, marzipan and coconut. It got more and more delicious as it opened with air (96+).

We traveled to Burgundy with a 1993 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. The nose was milky, stemmy and earthy, and Jim noted ‘the scent of a woman.’ It was perfumed, in the lavender direction. Its flavors were on the ’93 side, full of leather, tree bark and earth. Its fruit was both black and purple in its personality, and its acidity really came out with time. It flexed and grew stronger, and a little mint came out. I vascillated between 94 and 95 points, and settled on (94+) as it just wasn’t giving me as much as I wanted just yet, at least from this bottle.

Next in line was a 1964 DRC Richebourg, which happened to be the birthyear of our honored guest, so I guess it was fate! The Richebourg was open and hearty, rich and long in the nose. It had the garden, the mint and the menthol of old DRC. Wendy found it ‘meaty and smoky.’ The palate was rich and lengthy, hearty a la ’64. There was nice grit and meat, and Jim noted ‘iron,’ which I saw with a little more air. Gamy, mesquite flavors lingered on its rusty finish, and its acidity asserted itself more in the nose. Alexander liked it more on the nose than the palate, but I enjoyed it overall (94).

We closed with a 1955 Mouton Rothschild, one of my favorite Moutons of the 20th century. Alexander noted ‘liquid lavender,’ and Wendy ‘red licorice.’ Its core of cassis was undeniable despite traces of wild grass around its edges. Wendy then continued her red fruit feelings with ‘raspberry.’ Our guest felt that it needed more time to open and that its aromas were secondary rather than primary for a wine of such an age, and perhaps we were a little eager to experience this wondrous wine. The palate was rich and big, long and still young, with great cobweb and old bark nuances (95).

It was another special evening, and even though it was in New York, I could thank Hong Kong for it. In less than three weeks, we will be back in Hong Kong and with three special events already planned, I am sure I will have more to share soon.

FIN

JK

Mayday

Posted on | May 12, 2009

On the first of May, Big Boy and I got together with Jacksonville’s number one collector for a late dinner in New York City. Then again, he is the only guy I know in Jacksonville . It was four of us, as he had a friend with him, so we only had about a dozen bottles with us. She didn’t drink that much, so we ultimately opened only nine.

Unfortunately, there were three oxidized bottles, just one of those nights. A ’66 Cristal, ’59 Vogue Bonnes Mares, and ’66 La Mouline were all (DQ). There were no tears shed, though, as it happens, and those that drink enough old wine know that the only thing to do is move on and remember how much the good ones make up for the occasional bad ones. The color on the Cristal was a bit dark, so we suspected that might have issues, and it did. The Vogue was about as good a fill as one could hope for at that age, and although the color was a bit light, there was still a good ruby core. The craziest thing was that the La Mouline came from a batch of six bottles, two of which we had already had that were both extraordinary, 99-point wines. Even wines from the same case or batch can be completely different! If these kind of experiences make you lose sleep or want to sue people, I suggest you stick to drinking wines ten years and younger. Wine is supposed to be fun, right?

Fortunately, the six wines we did consume were some extraordinary ones. We all contributed to the cause, of course. It began with a magnum of 1985 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne. The first thing I noted was that it was younger than I like my C de C’s. It probably needs another decade to get that creamy, open, butterscotchy kink. The nose was a little grassy at first and a touch barny, but it also had nice waterfall aromas to it. A touch of alley blew off into more corn and yellow smells. The palate had no issues, with its core of sweet corn oil and its excellent structure and acidity. Its finish was prickly, gritty and grainy. The nose started to lean in that butterscotchy direction with some air, as Justin noted, as he did ‘almonds’ (93M).

A pair of Rousseaus was a fascinating comparison. The 1971 Rousseau Chambertin had a wow nose that just jumped out of the glass. There was so much fruit and spice; it was reeking great Burgundy with its unreal aromatics. Earth, Worcestershire, almost hoisin, spice and leather were all there. The palate was rich and saucy, a bit fat by ’71 standards, but the acidity of the vintage tied it all together. Traces of nut, cola and black cherry rounded out the palate. Unlike the Beze that followed, the Chambertin was at its best right out the gate, but it softened a bit over time, bringing its score down to only, yes only (95). Other bottles might sing a slightly different song, as is always the case with older wines.

The 1971 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze was much more reserved than the Chambertin at first. It did come right out of the cellar, so it was a bit colder. Justin immediately observed, ‘slightly more intensity.’ It took me a little longer to get to see that, but he was right. Its reserved quality translated into elegance in 47 languages. The nose was minty and foresty, showing more red cherry as well as more citric tension. It had more woodsy elements, a la Keebler and all the Elves. Rob likened that to ‘the back straight at Talledega.’ That did blow off in time, and it was only slight, and not really a negative in the first place. Slowly and surely, the Beze thickened like a boa constrictor having lunch. The palate was so precise, as if it was walking on a tightrope. Big Boy called it ‘like glass – clean, pure and elegant.’ The acidity was superb, and this was indubitably a classic. While the Cham was hotter and chunkier, the Beze kept distancing itself as the night went on, and its finish was endless (97+).

A 1971 Chateau Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape was next, and it, too, was outstanding. It was Rayas all the way and absolutely gorgeous on the nose. It was full of that Grenache strawberry, and Rob noted ‘menthol’ and also seconded my strawberry. It was a great bottle, and it tasted great too lol. Rich, hearty and with excellent acidity, this was a Rhone that could rival Rousseau. The flavors were more strawberry dipped in chocolate, and Justin noted ‘tea leaves.’ It danced in the mouth with its rich and luscious flavors, and its finish had excellent mineral notes (96).

A bottle of 1947 Pierre Ponnelle Musigny was next. I know that their wines were made by Georges Roumier for a few years in the 40s and/or 50s, so we might have been blessed by his hand here. I’ll check with the Inspector. The nose was deep with dark, black fruits and traces of cola, nut, earth and a pinch of rubber tire. It was thick and soupy. The palate was rich and also full of black fruits. There was still acid here, but no tannins, and the cola also carried over to the palate, along with some cola nut. It was tasty and sweet, with more brown sugar and oat flavors of a hot vintage, and of a negociant style. It reminded me of a lot of some ‘59s (93).

The final wine on this special evening was a 1964 DRC Richebourg. It was relatively mild-mannered in the nose for a ’64, possessing so much elegance at first. Usually, ’64 Burgs are taking their tops off right away, which is why I like the vintage . The DRC had lots of pitch, hitting a high note aromatically, possessing lots of mint, rosemary, menthol, game and edge. The palate showed more typical power and was classic all around with its flavors of menthol and rose oil. Slightly browned and perfectly grilled, the Richebourg was chunky and long with excellent acidity, and it kept gaining and unfolding in the glass. ‘Wow, that’s rich,’ summed up Big Boy (95+).

It was an evening that made us all feel richer, although I felt poorer in more ways than one in the morning.

FIN

JK

keep looking »

Recent Posts

• Monday Night Football
• The Punisher
• A Trio of Krugs
• In Europe in Love
• EMP

Archives

Select Month December 2009  (3) November 2009  (4) September 2009  (2) August 2009  (3) June 2009  (2) May 2009  (6) April 2009  (3) March 2009  (2) February 2009  (2) January 2009  (4) November 2008  (2) October 2008  (4) September 2008  (1) August 2008  (1) July 2008  (3) June 2008  (1) May 2008  (2) April 2008  (4) March 2008  (2) February 2008  (2) January 2008  (2) December 2007  (2) November 2007  (5) October 2007  (1) September 2007  (2) August 2007  (1) July 2007  (1) June 2007  (2) May 2007  (1) April 2007  (2) March 2007  (2) February 2007  (4) January 2007  (3) December 2006  (2) November 2006  (2) October 2006  (2) September 2006  (1) August 2006  (2) July 2006  (4) June 2006  (5) May 2006  (1) April 2006  (4) March 2006  (6) February 2006  (5) January 2006  (8) December 2005  (9) November 2005  (16) October 2005  (10) September 2005  (11) August 2005  (14) July 2005  (13) June 2005  (9) May 2005  (6) April 2005  (1) March 2005  (4) February 2005  (1) January 2005  (1)

A wine-maker's diary

• Personal blog of a Champagne producer

Blogroll

• Carolyn Tillie’s Ultimate Grape Vine Blog
• David Caffaro’s wine-makers diary
• Enotheque
• Jean-Luc Thunevin’s blog in French
• Le Blog de Hervé Bizeul
• Lenndeavours
• Lisson - Journal d’une vigneronne - journal of a winemaker
• Michael Stajer
• Pinot Blogger
• Prof. Bainbridge on Wine
• Tom Wark’s Daily Wine Blog
• Two women find a place in the world of wine
• Wine & Vine BC
• Wine Blog Watch
• World’s of wine

Other stories...

• Vinography: a wine blog

Categories

• 1955
• Berthomeau
• Bizeul..opinions and the state of mind
• Clos des Fèes day by day
• Fabian Cobb
• Food Activities
• General
• Hanging with Messrs Parker and Squires
• Hervè Bizeul
• Information, news, rumours
• Kapon's travels
• Lloyd in Africa
• Michel Bettane
• My own dictionary of quotations
• Occasional guest
• On the road again..
• People in Wine
• Personal
• Ramblings and Rants
• Red Wine
• Reviews
• Stuart's view of the wine world
• Tastings
• Terroir
• Vintage
• Wine News
• Wine stories by Hugh Stanley