Memorial Day Weekend in Los Angeles with Legendary Wines from Bouchard’s Cellar

Posted on | June 13, 2005

I actually headed out to L.A. the Sunday of the weekend after relaxing in the Hamptons for a couple days. My close friend Rob of the Angry Men happened to be out there for his birthday a couple days earlier; if I had known the trail of empty bottles that he and Rudy were going to leave beforehand, I might have changed my plans, and this article might have been twice as long. However, the R & R was much needed and despite missing some quality wine time with R & R, I cannot complain. From Sunday through Tuesday, there were more than enough great wines for the thirstiest of wine lovers.

It started off innocently enough Sunday night with a few new (and old) friends courtesy of my new wine and poker buddy, Yarom, aka the Colonel. We decided to give his tasting group, which meets practically every other week, an official name and settled on ‘The Colonel’s Nuts,’ a play both on the poker terminology (having the nuts mean you have a hand that cannot be beaten) and the eccentric, free nature of the people that came. It was a BYO event, and the resulting lineup was both diverse and high-quality. It was a full house, if you will.

We started with a gorgeous 1988 Domaine de Chevalier Blanc courtesy of Kirk. This was a real eye-opener for me. I have never been a huge fan of dry, white Bordeaux, but perhaps I have not been exposed to enough mature ones. The nose was rich, creamy and oily with that signature white Bordeaux nut and glue, accompanied by lightly-toasted bread and a drop of honey. There was nice richness to the palate and a hot, alcoholic finish, not overly alcoholic but there in a noticeably spicy way. The body was good, and the wine was damn tasty and one of the most enjoyable white Graves I have ever had. The flavors were quite homogenous with the aromas, and there were also yellow fruit flavors, actual fruit in my white Bordeaux, amazing (93)!

This was the third or fourth time that I have had the 1966 Vogue Bonnes Mares, and it again proved to be an amazing wine. There were tangy aromas full of vitamins and red fruits, mushroom and earth overtones along with a touch of tobasco. Rose, cherry and citrus joined this hell of a party, and Steve likened it to ‘an elegant and feisty woman.’ There was a little chicken bouillon to the wine as well (that feistiness, no doubt). The palate had rose and earth flavors, some good wood, and was balanced, long, fine and smooth. There was just a touch of grit left to its silky finish. It was a stunner (96). Thank you Caren!

It was time for some Bordeaux, and we began with a 1989 Chateau La Fleur de Gay, which was consistent with the bottle I had had earlier at Mike’s 12 Angry Man event as well as the 1989 Clinet I had had the week prior. There was plummy fruit with an earthy edge and traces of mocha and chocolate in the nose. Caren noted that the wine was ‘elegant and approachable, but you can still tell how young it is.’ The palate was very rich and chocolaty with good texture and fatness to the fruit. It also had a slight windex edge without being edgy. The palate had lots of grit, dust, even leather. The wine was still on the young side with solid t’n a and a touch of stalk (94). The 1982 Chateau Pichon Lalande was magically plummy with edges of benevolent green and stalk, light marijuana, chocolate and leather. The wine was very fresh, ‘brewed yesterday,’ Yarom joked. The palate was delicious, supple, smooth, rich, lush and long with lots of finesse. The wine was still sturdy despite its smooth and silky personality. ‘Rich, lush and smooth’ were repeated in my notes (96).

We segued into Italy with a 1985 Sassicaia courtesy of a very generous Steve. The nose was intense and full of seductive, chocolaty fruit. The nose was oily, rich and meaty, but this bottle was all about the chocolate. There were nice, bready undertones and great cassis liqueur to the fruit. Someone said the wine was ‘exploding,’ and it was in the mouth. The palate was big and bruising, long and dusty, with good earth and the Italian kink to it with lots of designer leather. This was one of the better bottles of 1985 Sassicaia that I have had (95+).

I wrote at this moment that I felt like I had had fifteen wines by now, the portions and number of courses were enormous! The 1983 Quintarelli Amarone Riserva had a fabulous nose with that whiff of Port-ish fruit. There was lots of alcohol on the palate, and Caren called it ‘raisiny, peppery, something Rhony in there.’ The palate was way behind the nose, however. It was dry and tart with more citrus and unexpressive fruit, although the ribeye brought the wine to life a little more on the palate (91).

The 1989 Trimbach Riesling ‘Clos Ste. Hune’ VT that I brought was actually dry and would have worked better before the meal. Oh well, who knew? Not us, apparently. After the mild nose of fine petrol and minerals, the wine was tough to pick up on the palate. It seemed slightly corked and muted as a result (90+?). Yarom pulled a cat out of his hat with a wine that none of us had ever had before, which was his goal. It was a 1921 Paul Dupuis Sante Croix du Mont, which is/was? a lesser region that makes Sauternes-styled wines. This particular bottle was made specifically for Joseph Willman of Connecticut, who indubitably poured it by the glass at his parties in the Roaring Twenties! This might have been the last bottle of this wine on earth! The nose was baked and honeyed like an old white Graves. Its flavors were excellent and very tasty; let’s just say that even though I was starting to fade, I did not return to the Amarone or Trimbach much after this wine. The 1921 was delicious (93+).

I must say having a risotto, polenta and pasta course, after the shrimp and before the veal and ribeye was a bit much and these weren’t tasting menu portions! I rolled out of there, Locanda Veneta, which is an excellent Italian restaurant in L.A., one of the better ones, in fact. A little Champagne on the rooftop of the Standard helped the medicine go down before I faded into tomorrow.

Tomorrow, the Monday of Memorial Day, brought me out to Pasadena, where I returned to the scene of some past crimes at Sea Harbor, one of Rudy’s favorite hangouts. The food is very Asian; so much so that we were the only ones speaking any English in the entire restaurant, it seemed. That was not an issue or concern, or ever is, for that matter. When course after course of fish dishes came out, however, I did start to get some food anxiety and hunger pains. They did get me a bowl of peanuts, though. Gee, thanks. Actually, I had loaded up as much as possible on the fried tofu, which was pretty tasty. I must have eaten more tofu on this night than the rest of my life combined! Well, eventually, some chicken and squab came out, so I managed to catch up. We were there with Uncle Matty, his beautiful girlfriend, the incomparable Paul Wasserman, Master of Wine Anthony Hanson, Master of Burgundy Allen Meadows, and the guest of honor for the weekend, Bernard Hervet, managing director of Bouchard Pere et Fils.

We started with a 1955 Louis Roederer Brut, which happened to be Bernard’s birth year. Rudy was very pleased with his sixth sense. The Roederer was very bready with great caramel and yeast integration as well as a lot of freshness still. The flavors were drier and more yeasty with traces of tree bark and minerals. Some dried orange peel and blossoms emerged on the finish. There was good dryness and tension to the palate, which was also very fresh. It held well in the glass and was marked by a kiss of citrus (93). As a side note and completely unrelated to the Roederer, Bernard made a noteworthy comment: ‘The use of new oak is like salt for cooking. Too much is no good.’ The 1975 Krug was an original (not Collection, i.e. late disgorged) bottling and served out of magnum. The nose was milder and less expressive, but it seemed more refined. There were some similar veins of bread and a lighter caramel glaze. The palate was amazingly fresh, razor fresh with lots of vibrant acidity. This bubbly still seemed very young. The main negative was the fact that there was not a lot of fruit on the palate; the flavors were all about the ice, seltzer and freshwater. Compared to the Roederer, the Krug was more vibrant and Champagne-like, but it did not show the decadent, wine-like flavors that great, mature Champagnes do. Perhaps it needs more time; the acidity was incredibly racy and full of vigor. Paul noted how there are ‘two types of Krug Vintage Champagne: either lean or mean, or rich and fat never in the middle.’ The 1975 certainly seemed to back up that theory. Bernard added, ‘The Roederer is a great wine; the Krug, a great Champagne. There is a touch of bitterness in the Krug, though, and the balance is disturbed, which is a problem of the vintage. It is a great success for the vintage.’ At this time, it was very good, or 91+, but after two hours in the glass it actually developed fruit and was deceptively shy at first (93).

We had a couple of whites, starting with a very rare Claude (the original) 1955 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Ruchottes.’ Allen noted some ‘ultra exotic orange,’ and it absolutely had a Mandarine Napoleon/Grand Marnier (but lower in alcohol) edge. There was some interior/freshly painted room characteristics and some yeast. The palate was austere and not that pleasant, rather dried out and very lean. Paul was quick to defend it, telling me to give it some time as old white Burgundies change in the glass more than any other wine. It did start to open up in the glass a little and a dab of butter made an appearance. There was still good acidity, but that orange and interior combo stayed dominant. It was a curiosity, no doubt, an S & M wine with an emphasis on the ‘M’ for those drinking it (82). The 1929 Bouchard Aînè Montrachet, however, was glorious. Now this Bouchard, the Bouchard Aînè, has no relation today to Bouchard Pere et Fils; it is a totally separate company and has been forever, actually. The Aînè brand started out of a dispute between father and son in the 19th century, and the Aine line was what the son started. There was a great nose full of butter, honey, light caramel, exotic spice, candle wax, light orange blossom and ‘blackberry liqueur,’ Paul pegged. He was 100% on the money, as usual. It actually ‘reeked’ of it, and he was right. Paul had that same experience with a 1928 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne that both he and Rudy said were the greatest white wine they ever had. And who knew it was so simple? Just add cassis. They call that a kir royale, guys. Ha ha. I also am pleased to note that the greatest white wine had by two of the better palates that I know today came from an Acker auction, of course. Just dial 877-ACKER-47 and mention 1928 Louis Latour for your free catalog today! Ok, enough with the jokes. This was some serious Montrachet. The wine was sweet, rich and heavy, dripping with its blackberry-laced fruit. There was what I call a touch of morning mouth on the finish that is a kind of bread-gone-wild flavor. Paul found the sweetness dragging it down a bit at first, but two hours later he was also the one to point out how divine the wine still was! It did gain this amazing creme brulee character. Bernard originally noted how the wine was ‘beautiful’ and that ‘the level of alcohol is not disturbing,’ meaning it was high in alcohol, of course, but still balanced. There were flavors of honey, wax, light slate, and as noted the nose got more and more exotic. Light green tea flavors emerged on its brisk, healthy finish (95).

Another Claude Ramonet wine was next, this time a red. The 1945 Claude Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet Rouge ‘Clos de la Boudriotte’ was a crowd pleaser. Allen had to overcome its initial ‘big time acetone,’ but once that blew off the nose was incredibly nutty, in a peanutty direction, flirting with Thai. Bernard noted that there are two styles of 1945s ‘elegants and monsters.’ This fell into the elegant camp. Paul picked up on some ‘tarragon,’ and there were some additional leafy aromas. The palate was very fresh, both elegant and leafy as well. There were supplemental tea, earth and autumnal flavors. Anthony called it ‘beautiful wine,’ and it was flat-out gorgeous, stylish, elegant, refined, ‘very pure,’ as Rudy noted. The wine was very dusty on the finish, and Allen picked up on some pepper; ‘always pepper in red Chassagne.’ I saw it, on the white side. Cola and vitamins emerged, and Paul got ‘gunpowder’ in this complex, beautiful wine. Someone noted how it ‘kept changing and changing’ (94). The 1971 H. Lamarche Vosne Romanee ‘La Grand Rue’ was a little musty at first. It was very bright behind that must with lots of 1971 rose, vitamin and menthol. It was long and strong in the nose, quite penetrating. The palate had the citrus tang and a mesquite-like intensity, gamy in that direction. It was a very good wine with bright rose and earth flavors as well (92+). The 1949 Mahler Besse Echezeaux elicited some raised eyebrows since Mahler Besse is best known for their Bordeaux. Allen quickly remarked how it ’smells like a Bordeaux house that made a Burgundy. It doesn’t smell like a ‘49 either.’ Bernard agreed that it was ‘not pure,’ and Rudy thought it was heavily chapitalized. Anthony was defending it a bit and then went on to say something very controversial. ‘Back then, Algerian wine was always in a lot of wines; otherwise, customers were like "what’s wrong?"’ I think he was serious. The wine was very nutty and Bordeaux-like with lots of cedar and Bordeaux-like tannins. No one was quite sure what it was, but there was no doubt it wasn’t 100% (or probably even 50%) 1949 Echezeaux (DQ). Next was a 1935 A. Barolet Hospices de Beaune, Savigny les Beaune, Cuvee Cyrot, F. Martenot. There were two buyers of the Barolet cellars; one was Martenot and the other was Henri de Villamont. Paul told us how in the ’70s Villamont bought a lot and doctored a lot of the wines, i.e., don’t buy the Villamont bottles. The nose on the ‘35 was very exotic with all types of spice and sweet, brown sugared fruit. There was cedar, jasmine, peanut butter and even Crisco. There were port-like flavors, but in a Burgundy way. Allen suspected a little eau-de-vie in the wine. There was a meaty edge and lots of sweet nuts on the palate, and a lot of alcohol for a ‘35. There were a lot of questions about the Martenot bottlings as well, it seemed (92?). These last two wines brought out an interesting debate between Paul and Allen. Paul feels strongly that Burgundy should allow up to 25% of every Bourgogne wine to have whatever blended into it to make it more appealing to a broader range of customers; in effect, make a vin de table. He reasoned that it would introduce more people to Burgundy and that all those introductions would eventually lead to more consumers. Allen warned that it would be a camel’s nose under the tent and that the blending would flow upwards; i.e., sooner or later someone would be blending illegally in their Bonnes Mares. Allen reasoned that that should be forbidden to protect the integrity of what is Burgundy. Paul countered that people who drink Burgundy regularly do not drink Bourgogne rouge, so there would be no harm, no foul. I can safely say that after hearing both sides of the story, this jury is hung.

Then a wine came that deserves its own papragraph. It ended up being the last wine of the night, and it was a 1949 Rousseau Chambertin, served out of magnum, and a Nicolas bottling as well. There was a toasted sulfur kink at first, almost a burnt rubber that was still benevolent. Behind it was an amazing concoction of pure and divine aromas. There were loads of signature vitamins, spice box, stems and a little wild sauvage a ‘good wild,’ Bernard was quick to clarify. There were heavenly red, rose fruits, and the flavors were rich and meaty, unbelievably rich and fleshy, so sturdy, so fine, so fresh. There were additional flavors of rose, vitamins, citrus, rock and minerals. Paul translated my burnt rubber into his ‘artichoke,’ which I saw, while Bernard found glorious ‘cinders,’ and Anthony saw it as ’sooty.’ These were all positive attributes, to be clear. Paul continued that it also translated into a caramel without the top half/sweet side of the caramel. When I told Rudy this was a (98) point JK wine, he joked that equated to a BH 95. Allen then playfully jumped on the bandwagon that that was the ‘difference between the buy and sell side.’ Laugh it up, fuzzballs. What movie was that from? Anyway, things were starting to get loose and interesting at the table. After the last two wines, Allen was keen on pointing out, ‘here the sweetness is natural.’ It was definitely a Walter Payton of a wine, I thought to myself. Bernard commented how he recognized Chambertin more than 1949; I saw the Rousseau first and foremost. Admittedly, I have never been able to be much of an appellation or vintage guesser. Even Matt jumped into things, removing himself from his girlfriend’s neck, to observe how ‘Rousseau pulls off the balance of muscle and finesse.’ Allen noted that ‘the conclusion in Chambertin is ‘there’s Rousseau and everyone else.’ The finish was long, sturdy and fine, balanced and strong; it was a gymnast of a wine. Allen found it ‘powerful’ with ‘a lot of alcohol and a little, a little…’ It was a rare occasion where a word eluded the usually eloquent Burghound. Paul jumped in with ‘bassy.’ The wine continued to round out and that initial burnt rubber had all but dissipated in a half hour. Now I know why my good friend Don is crazy about this wine. All it takes is one good bottle. Someone then joked how this wine was better in 18 liter, to which Allen replied with a great quotable: ‘That goes without saying; that’s why I didn’t say it.’ Paul came out of left field with another good quotable: ‘There is a huge difference between greatness and pleasure.’ As the conversation expanded, Bernard commented how ‘now we can make better wines in bad vintages, but we can also mess up the better vintages.’ Bernard stressed that at Bouchard Père et Fils, they wanted to make long-term wines like this. They seem to be well on their way, although even Bernard admitted that the ’70s and ’80s were a bit of a tough period for Bouchard. There was this huge debate about Rovani at the end, specifically how true Burgundy lovers paid little attention to Rovani unless they were looking for extracted wines high in alcohol, sugar or oak, and how that was far from what most Burgundy lovers sought. I’m just the messenger, but even I have scratched my head on more than one occasion while looking at his ratings, I will say that - Allen refrained from comment. Just look at the 2002 Romanèe Contis. Enough said. I will end my notes for this night with a version of Mad Libs that unfolded. I am not sure of the point of origin, but Allen started it off by saying, ‘Tools are tools’ and finished it with ‘but it’s the application that counts.’ Then it was Paula’s turn, ‘Tools are tools, but you can kill someone with them.’ Of course. Then I jumped in, ‘Tools are tools, but you have to know which one to use when.’ Paul then came back again with, ‘Tools are tools, but then there is the chisel.’ Finally, I think it was Allen who ended with ‘if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem is a nail.’ Since I was hammered, Allen hit it on the head. As I saw Rudy dozing off to my right, making his signature move, I realized my problem was how to get back to L.A. proper. Coffee, please. Incase you missed it, the 1949 Rousseau Chambertin got (98). Thank you very much for that, Rudy, as always.

It was Tuesday and time for the main event. A who’s who of West Coast wine collectors had been assembled by Dr. Conti to dine at Patina with Bernard Hervet and nineteen wines brought directly from the cellars of Bouchard Pere et Fils dating back to 1865. Paul Wasserman was our guide for the night and had put together one of the best wine dinner programs that I have ever seen, mixing history, trivia and humor into a most entertaining brochure. A lot of the factual information in this article I owe to Paul’s work.
The origins of Bouchard Pere et Fils began nine generations and 250 years ago, as the introduction quoted from Clive Coates told us. This was Michel, born in 1681 and deceased in 1755. Michel gave up selling clothes to sell wine, and the first transaction recorded was in 1731. At first, they dealt only in ‘finished’ wines, and not until after the Revolution and during the time of Michel’s grandson (1759-1860) were any parcels of land acquired. Seven hectares in Volnay were that first purchase.

There are still over 5,000 bottles from the 19th century in the cellars of Bouchard Père et Fils (I will just call it Bouchard from here on out but remember there is more than one Bouchard out there today and more than two over the course of history). Every year the domaine sets aside a large number of bottles for aging in their cellar; in 1999, as an example, they cellared a staggering 100,000 bottles! There are over six MILLION bottles in the cellar today, which is an amazing accomplishment. All the wines in their cellar are reconditioned every forty years, only with the same wine and never younger wine. I wish everyone that reconditioned their bottles over the years had followed that policy. The 1970s and 1980s found Bouchard in disarray and as a result in financial trouble. Matt Kramer once summed up the situation, ‘Bouchard is a continuing frustration: so many wines, so little ambition. No negociant owns more premier and grand cru vineyards than Bouchard Père, yet what emerges is mediocre.’ Enter Joseph Henriot in 1995.

Joseph Henriot came from Champagne. In 1963 at the age of 21, he was forced to take over the family business due to his father’s sudden death. During the 1980s, he took the helm of some of the world’s most prestigious luxury brands: Louis Vuitton, Givenchy and Veuve Clicquot. When Louis Vuitton merged with Moêt Hennessy, Henriot left to focus on Veuve Clicquot and then acquired Bouchard Père in 1995. Why? In a 2001 Harper’s interview, Henriot said the following, ‘I am an entrepreneur, not an executive. It is a family tradition, a sort of saga since the 16th century: we were always entrepreneurs from then on. I like to work in the real world and in luxury products. My definition of a luxury item is quality, rarity and creativity. Every vintage you have something to build and create. Champagne no longer fits that definition. It is an excellent, quality, commodity product, but you can buy it at the supermarket, or in petrol stations. So it had to be Burgundy. Bouchard Pere was dowered with the most fabulous domaine on the Cote d’Or: 84 hectares of Premier Cru and Grand Cru vineyards. Even with $1 billion you could not put together this land. The company, however, was at the limit: five more years and it would have been too far gone to have taken over. The people in the company were desperate because there was no finance. I said, "I will bring you what you need. Bouchard Père can be one of the points of reference in Burgundy."’ Given the recent performance of Bouchard over the last decade, it seems that Henriot is well on his way to doing just that. It should be noted that Bouchard is leaving the umbrella of Veuve Clicquot to form its own umbrella of Bouchard Père et Fils, William Fevre, and Henriot Champagne.

We started with a magnum of 1971 Henriot ‘Le Premier’ Vintage Champagne. It had a lovely nose, bready in the ‘just right’ way. There was light caramel and toast, a freshwater fish/raw oyster edge almost. The palate was light, smooth and easy. It was very pleasant and easy to drink and had light traces of dust on its finish (90).

Joe had arrived, last as he prefers, so we were ready to sit and experience over a century of wines from Bouchard. Bernard spoke briefly at the beginning, saying how this was the first time he would ever have four wines from the 19th century together in the same sitting. There is a first time for everything! A lot of the other wines being poured were also first-timers for him, so he was very excited. Paul joked with Bernard that he was expecting some ‘bean counter’ but was impressed with Bernard’s obvious passion and knowledge for wine. We began with a flight of whites, commencing with the 1969 Puligny Montrachet ‘Les Folatieres,’ a negociant (purchased grapes) wine. In 1969, Richard Nixon officially became president, Charles De Gaulle stepped down, Woodstock and the Charles Manson murders happened and the anti-Vietnam War protests reached a peak. A lot was happening. As far as wine goes, 1969 as a vintage had ‘firm, well constituted wines with vibrant, conserving acidity,’ according to Michael Broadbent, who gave the vintage four stars. The wine had aromas of candle wax, light butter, light caramel and very dry yeast. There was also a light pinch of anise and alcohol. The palate was soft and smooth, balanced and mature with wax and yeast flavors, some lingering acidity but probably past its prime. Rudy found it ‘mature and pleasant, quite dense yet showing greenness and an acidic finish ‘3 stars.’ For me, it was an (89).

Next up was the 1963 Corton Charlemagne. The Corton Charlemagne is a domaine wine, and the parcel of land was purchased in 1909. 1963 saw JFK assassinated. Broadbent found 1963 to be ‘much netter for whites than reds, but not popular with the trade or consumer,’ calling it a two star vintage. Anthony observed how the ‘63 was ’still fresh,’ and Bernard agreed with Broadbent, but a little more enthusiastically, about how 1963 was a ‘very special year for whites, but not reds.’ There were a lot of oohs and aahs as there was great spine to the nose with lots of anise and acidity. Bernard also told us how their parcel of Corton Charlemagne has a completely Eastern exposure, so they have to harvest the vineyard late almost every year. There wee a lot of interior aromas in a good, pungent way. The palate was very stony and full of minerals, smooth with flavors of dried, yellow fruits and dust. The wine held well and stayed pungent. Rudy found it ‘fresh and quite pretty, minerally driven and complex - 4 stars’ (92). The wine of this flight was the 1955 Corton Charlemagne, served out of magnum. 1955 saw Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat on the bus, Charlie Parker die and Disneyland open here in America. Broadbent characterized 1955 as having ‘good wines, nicely balanced. A deservedly popular vintage - four stars.’ Again, the CC showed a pungent and steely side with lots of wax and anise. Bernard cooed how this would age another fifty years. There was more vigor and alcohol, indeed, with more butter. The wine was very waxy with a lot of vigor on the palate, pronounced alcohol that was still balanced, and a heavy finish which had lots of white fruit and spice flavors. There were long, lingering acids and nutty, caramel flavors with traces of banana starting to develop. The wine was much richer on the palate and very expansive as the spice and alcohol sang a duet on everyone’s palate. Rudy found this wine ‘ripe, sweet and flamboyant, complex and deep - perfect - 6 stars!’ (96+)

The next flight was also one of whites, beginning with the 1947 Meursault ‘Perrieres,’ another negociant wine. 1947 was the year that the cell phone was invented by AT&T, as was the AK-47 and the Polaroid instant camera. The sound barrier was broken, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered, and the Hollywood Ten refused to cooperate with the Hou Committee on Un-American activities. 1947 saw ‘rich, rounded, good wines. Early maturing and mainly drunk young - four stars.’ The Meursault Perrieres had a nose of seductive caramel that leapt from the glass with a benevolent shot of Pedro Ximinez Sherry. There were also nice aromas of yeast, bread, minerals and honey. The nose was very penetrating and sexy despite a few questioning the hints of maderization. There was some morning mouth on the palate, however, with the accompanying oat and morning cereal flavors. The palate was smooth and yeasty - full of fiber and very oily, but not as exciting as the nose, yet still very good. Rudy found the ‘classic, salty quality of Meursault. Almost a dry Yquem - a touch maderized - 4 stars.’ He also wondered if this was the best possible bottle of this wine (91). The 1939 Montrachet had a divine nose. It was a domaine wine from a parcel purchased in 1838. There are no available tasting notes on the vintage, curiously enough. FDR was president and the outbreak of WWII commenced. The Nazis established the first Jewish ghetto in Poland. The jet engine and radar were invented, Gone with the Wind was screened, and my father Michael was born. The ‘39 Montrachet was very exotic aromatically and incredibly perfumed and complex. There were buckets of yellow fruits and an exotic spice that I cannot even describe, very floral and almost ‘trippy’ it was so wild. There were also traces of nut, honey and oat. The palate was round, long and oily, very expansive yet smooth. ‘1939 was a weak vintage, too,’Bernard chipped in, filling the void left earlier with no vintage notes. ‘This is an example of terroir over vintage.’ The nose became fabulously nutty and honeyed, but the palate was a few steps behind it and lessened in the glass with time. For those first twenty to thirty minutes, though, it was outstanding. Rudy was in love, finding the 1939 ‘classy and elegant yet powerful and deep. Clean, round and super-intense - 6 stars’ (95-)’. The last white of the night was an 1864 Montrachet. Danguy et Aubertin published in 1892 about the vintage as having ‘no frost, no hail, severe drought, big harvest.’ The Burghound added that ‘1864 and 1865 are two of the greatest vintages of the 19th century.’ He then paused and laughed, saying ‘it’s tough to say that and not seem snobby.’ In 1864, Abraham Lincoln was president, and here we were sipping on a wine made in that very same year. This was very, very special. The Red Cross was also established at the first Geneva Convention, and Jesse James joined William Quantrill’s raiders. It was a testament to Bouchard Père et Fils and the vision the family had to keep wines in reserve in the cellar. Everyone was going nuts over the wine, and deservedly so. It was amazing - make that [word deleted]. Words seemed like a disservice, and Joe agreed that ‘it defies explanation,’ which was a little more eloquent, I must admit. Ok, here it goes, anyway. The wine had aromas of phenomenal, holy earth, orange blossoms, gorgeous wood and pure natural gas in the most positive of ways. ‘The nose is priceless,’ Paul purred, ‘it actually is priceless.’ Rudy found it had the texture of a red wine, and it absolutely did. There was still amazing length, great nut and toast flavors, a little yeast and a dry Yquem-like edge to the palate. There was great definition on the finish and the wine stayed rich, oily and long. Allen observed how ‘the 1864 is like a postcard from Antarctica.’ Rudy found it ‘deep and layered, robust and intense, rich and long, almost red-wine like on the palate - 6 stars.’ I’ll never forget this wine (98).

A big controversy about winemaking in the 19th century commenced when Wilf started asking about residual sugar. Bernard said he felt that the sweetness was natural due to the high alcohol levels of the vintage. Allen said that producers at this time were trying to make sweeter wines with residual sugar, and then Anthony Hanson said he never heard such a thing and reasoned that people did not even know what they were doing back then, and that Pasteur was just getting started!

A flight of red wine glasses broke up the critical fracas, and we all started to focus on the 1979 Nuits St. Georges ‘Perrieres,’ a negociant bottling. ‘On the whole, reasonable quality - three stars,’ said Broadbent of 1979, which also saw the US and China establish diplomatic relations, Khomeini return to Iran and the ensuing hostage crisis. The USSR also invaded Afghanistan. The nose of the ‘79 seemed very youthful (after the 1864 I suppose it was!) There were lots of rock and mineral aromas to go with its violet, brick and earth qualities. There were signs of structure and interior more than fruit overall, and the palate was beefy, dusty and dry with not a lot of sweetness to its fruit. Rudy similarly found it ’spicy and earthy, good but simple - 3 stars’ (88). The 1976 Corton (Rouge) was served out of magnum. In 1976, Apple Computer Company was formed, but more importantly, Rudy was born! Broadbent noted, ‘the wines had almost everything in abundance: color, fruit, alcohol, extract. But there was one drawback: too much tannin - three/four? stars.’ Anthony found this magnum to be ‘remarkable’ and ‘the best 1976 I have ever had. They are usually dried out, browned, with no fruit.’ Joe agreed that it was ‘atypical for 1976.’ I have had some better luck than Anthony with ’76s, but I understood his point. There was a noticeable touch of sulfur, but deep, dark black fruits behind it. There was the vitamin, the mineral, the animal and the vegetable (stalk) - it was a balanced diet all in one. There was great structure and an amazing finish with lots of brick surrounding this fountain of youth. It was very sturdy and rugged in a Mel Gibson/Road Warrior way. Rudy found it ‘meaty yet perfumy. Rich and warm, the 1976 tannins were present but the wine rich enough to handle them- 4 stars’ (94). The 1961 Volnay ‘Caillerets’ was also served out of magnum. The 1961 was a domaine wine; in fact, it was the first parcel of land purchased by the Bouchard family in 1775. 1961 saw the first man in space, the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall begin, and Bob Dylan played his first gig. Weight Watchers was also founded. Broadbent said of 1961, ‘Although I gave the vintage four stars, having surveyed my notes, I think it warrants downgrading - three stars.’ 1961 has always been a controversial vintage, but there are many outstanding wines, including this one. Everyone was oohing and aahing, and Allen and I were talking about how we have a lot of good ones recently despite Mr. Broadbent’s bahumbugging. It’s another new word created by yours truly, along with [word deleted]. Someone petition Websters for me. The nose was abfabulous (new word #3, I’m on a roll) and intensely pungent in that good, spark me kind of way. Wilf called it ‘very special,’ and there was great verve to the nose with lots of black, smoky fruits, earth, leather and even cedar. The tension aromatically was extraordinary. The palate was silky smooth with great brick flavors and spice, citric tension, earth and spine. An incredible mesquite quality emerged along with candied plums. Rudy found it ‘floral and perfumy, intense and almost powerful. Deep and long but lacking finesse - 5+ stars.’ Apparently, it wasn’t lacking too much finesse (96)!

The 1959 Corton (Rouge) had the hot, ripe style of 1959, a style that Rudy tends to dislike. Broadbent, on the other hand, loves 1959s. ‘A giant of a vintage and for me, the end of an era. Wonderful wine and, if good to begin with, affording continuing pleasure - five stars.’ 1959 saw Fidel Castro take power in Cuba, the Beatles form and the Barbie doll made her debut. The Corton had that ‘59 fresh, brown sugared fruit thing happening with additional aromas of bandaids, earth and oat. The palate was much drier than expected, decent but not that exciting despite good acids. Rudy found it ‘meaty and ripe, typical 1959 but fresher - 4 stars’ (90-). The 1949 Beaune du Chateau was a blend from up to ten, domaine owned, premier cru vineyards in Beaune, but NO L’Enfant Jesus, Marconnets, Teurons or Clos de la Mousse go in. It is a complete representation of Beaune other than those. The 1949 vintage has always been one of the rarest and most desirable of the 20th century. Broadbent said, ‘One of the most beautiful and my favorite of all burgundy vintages. Elegant, well-balanced wines, the best epitome of Burgundy - five stars.’ In 1949, the People’s Republic of China and NATO were both formed. The 1949 Beaune du Chateau had a great nose with some ‘59 edges of oat and brown sugar, but with an extra layer of molasses and ginger snaps. There was also great vibrancy and freshness. Possessing lots of earth, dust, leather, farm and oat flavors, great oat flavors, the 1949 kept getting better and better in the glass. Rudy found it ’sweet, rich, deep, lush and elegant - 5+ stars.’ Allen called it ‘the best, older Beaune I’ve had in ages’ (95).

The 1937 Richebourg was very controversial. The Richebourg was a negociant wine, and 1937 was ‘a great vintage at its best rarely equaled - five stars,’ according to Broadbent. The Golden Gate was opened in 1937, the Hindenburg burst into flames, Hormel launched Spam, and Becky Wasserman was born. Allen said that it was ‘a lovely wine but not a great wine - missing something, that last 10%, and we all know that last 10% is all the greatness.’ He found it very atypical Richebourg, lacking the typical muscle and fat. The wine was pretty and complex, though, with lots of vitamin flavors and a silky smooth personality. Oops, back to the nose first. There were aromas of allspice, plum, bing cherry, vitamin, smoke and musk; it was very, very complex, but I saw what Allen was saying on the palate. It did not have the power, but it did have the catnip tastiness and sexiness. It was delicious, smooth, lush and a great wine that still lacked greatness, if that makes sense to you. Even Allen said, ‘I still love it,’ but Wilf was a little disappointed. It did get a little celeric in the glass, NOT one of my favorite things. Joe wondered if it was chapitalized, and Allen said he thought so. Rudy found it ‘atypical of Richebourg, yet elegant and seductive- 5 stars’ (94).

Dave joked that there was a problem with this flight - there was no grand cru! It proved to be not much of a problem. The 1929 Pommard ‘Rugiens’ came from a vintage that saw both the Academy Awards launched and the stock market crash America into the Great Depression. In 1920, Camille Rodier said about the vintage that it was ‘excellent. Very similar to 1928. Wines with body, lots of finesse, fat, lacking a little acidity.’ It was another fabulous nose, this one more rugged but very meaty with lots of vitamins, vanilla, light oak, cream and almost sasparilla. The palate was more two-dimensional but still good, containing a lot of spice. The finish expanded like a fantail, adding a third dimension. Rudy found it ’sweet with a powerful attack, a touch rough, though - still 5 stars’ (93). It was 19th century time again, with an 1889 Beaune ‘Greves, Vigne L’Enfant Jesus.’ The Greves parcel is a domaine one, purchased in 1791. In 1926, Nicolas, Minseigneur le Vin called 1889 of ‘good quality, small yield due to the outbreak of the vine disease (phylloxera).’ In 1889, the Eiffel Tower was inaugurated and Raffael Esposito, a baker from Naples, Italy, created the modern pizza. The 1889 got a ‘wow’ from me. The nose was so sweet and seductive that it made me horny in the absence of female company, which is a tough task to do unless…well, never mind. The nose was super sweet and caramelized. Eric thought it was off, but most disagreed. It had great acid and length and fabulous brown, bouillon flavors. There was a toffee taffy edge to its texture and length, and it was very tasty in that 116 year-old way, very tasty. Rudy found a comparison to the 1966 DRCs and found it ’smoky and truffled. Sweet, balanced and quite deep. I like the punch in the middle and the power - 5+/6 stars (95). The 1865 Volnay ‘Santenots’ was a negociant wine. Camille Rodier wrote in 1930, ‘1865 was an exceptional year and recognized by all the great gourmets as among the best of the century. The rare bottles that exist in a few, privileged cellars still show such a perfect balance, a bouquet and quality so incomparable, that whomever has tasted an 1865 can say, using the words of Gaston Roupnel, that he will cherish for the rest of his life "the intense memory of the sensation of the revelation of that dark and pure wine from which came the smell of spring."’ A lot happened in 1865 as well: Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, the Civil War ended, slavery was abolished, John Deere received a patent for ploughs, and Wagner’s ‘Tristan und Isolde’ was performed for the first time. Paul and Rudy went crazy over this wine, but I must confess that I did not feel it as much. Maybe it was me. I thought there was a touch of mustiness, but Allen did not think so. The wine was very wound with lots of vitamins, band aids and citric tension. The flavors were a touch bitter and over-earthy, but it did gain in the glass, and its vigor given its age was extraordinary. Rudy called it ‘elegant, perfumed, perfectly balanced. Spherical in the mouth - hits on all cylinders - 6 stars’ (92).

It was La Romanèe time, and we had the 1906 and 1865 ready, willing and able. Allen again joked around in that ‘I sound like I’m joking but am really serious’ Burghound way that ‘given the press that 1911, 1915 and 1919 get, 1906 is right there.’ The La Romanèe parcel comes from the Domaine du Chateau de Vosne Romanee, the domaine’s estate wine and centerpiece of property that actually overlooks the Monopole of Romanèe Conti. Camille Rodier noted that 1906 was ‘a great year. Fruity, robust, edgy wines of great aging potential.’ Teddy Roosevelt was president. Einstein introduced the Theory of Relativity. William Kellogg invented cornflakes. Rolls Royce was formed. An 8.25 earthquake rocked San Francisco to its bare soul. The 1906 had another fabulous nose - fabulous seems to be the word of the day! There was sexy, cherry fruit, and Allen called it ‘unbelievable’ and Eric ‘the wine of the night.’ Wilf was already busy with his 1865, but the 1906 had the honey, nut, vanilla - all in balance, refined and elegant yet still with some oomph, there it is, if you will. The wine was deep and expansive on the nose and smooth and delicious on the palate with chocolaty flavors. It was very user friendly on the palate in that ‘milk shake bringing all the boys to the yard’ kind of way. Wilf, however, did not think it was so great, calling it ‘3 stars/high ’80s.’ Allen found the palate less unbelievable than the aromatics and called it ‘a wine that asks you to make peace with its austerity.’ Rudy found it ‘gamy, deep and lush. Rich but not powerful - still 6 stars.’ I found it excellent with outstanding aromatics but short of outstanding overall (93). The 1865 La Romanèe had an mmm, mmm good nose with traces of 1949 with its divine ripeness. There was vanilla, plum, and big-time cassis; great balance and structure to match. There was nice texture and wood flavors, and Rudy said ‘there’s not a single flaw - as good as wine can get.’ There was amazing balance to the palate and great breed; long, o so fine and flat out beautiful. The fact that is was so good at age 140 was amazing; however, I couldn’t help but wonder if it had passed my own personal ‘as good as it gets’ zone due to the resulting lack of vigor that, to me, gives wine an extra kick to that ‘winegasm’ level as I like to call it. I asked myself the question, ‘is there a point when too mature, even when a wine is not in decline, makes the overall impression less?’ Obviously, Rudy does not have the same problem. He continued that ‘it is the same as the Volnay with power, more intense and robust - 6 stars.’ Something tells me that if he had a seventh star, he would have used it (96).

There was a bonus bottle, a 1945 Musigny. Ok, I can live with that, I thought. Joe joked, ‘for those of us that like young wine, this is not bad.’ Allen and Paul jumped in with the ‘too young’ jokes, but actually it was amazingly young. They really weren’t kidding. The fruit was vibrant and a bowl of cherries with great stems, good stink and fine earth. The palate was gamy and earthy with weedy, animal-like flavors. There were some coffee flavors, and atypical rough and rugged edges for a Musigny. Rudy felt the ‘45 had the ‘classic Chambolle elegance and seduction with a touch of roughness and game. This is from Vogue but more like Roumier on the palate - 5 stars’ (94+).

We ended with a divine 1937 Yquem…or at least most of us ended. The 1937 was va va voom great, as always, with candle wax, toasted almonds and marzipan cream. It was liquid caramel; leathery and long, it was flat-out awesome (98). It was time for the afterparty, and Carl, Andy, Wilf and Eric were up for the ride out to Pasadena and a trip to Rudy’s cellar.

Now this was a tough crowd to please, a group that has had everything, been there, done that, so on and so forth. However, Rudy has a cellar that makes it very easy to please the most discerning and experienced palates, especially when you start with a 1962 DRC La Tache. The wine was awesome. As good as many of the Bouchard wines were, this wine made my spine shiver. There were incredible tannins and flavors of game, earth, light tar, rose and amazing real estate, ie, earth. It was the real deal. I only wish that it was not after midnight already and that I had the energy to take more detailed notes (98). A 1959 DRC Romanèe Conti was next, and it was riper with the brown sugar and oat characteristics of the vintage. There was still great earth and definition and a long, fine finish with lots of grit and length. The wine was incredibly stylish and the finish was amazing, as only DRC RC can deliver, but the fruit was this wine’s Achilles heel, but the wine was still outstanding and wearing brand new boots covering up that heel. The 1962 was on another level, though, so it was a bit of a letdown accordingly, but I have to stress that it was still an outstanding wine in its own right (95). It was time for a 1945 Romanèe Conti again, as Wilf and Eric were putting on the pressure based on my stellar, life-changing experience a couple weeks prior in Vegas. The 1945 was amazing again, with lots of sweet, sticky fruit full of red roses and kissed by brown tea, so musky and earthy it felt like being buried alive just drinking it. The leather and earth made every taste bud on my tongue tickle, and the flavors and length were amazing. I think the bottle in Vegas might have been a hair better, a photo finish of a comparison, and circumstance always plays a part in these examples. So tonight, it was not a 99+ point wine for me and had to settle for a mere (99). What was this, a 1945 Lafleur? Remind me not to let these guys in my warehouse. It would be a wino’s version of a ‘Guys Gone Wild!’ Wow. Wow wow wow. The nose was incredibly thick and bordering on syrupy with mega, MEGA, amazing aromas of chocolate, plum, almond, nut and raisinet. The palate was extraordinary, thick and long with great plum and cassis fruit. It was chocolate sex and lip-smacking, mouth-of-your-roof-licking, hot damn good, make that great. It was a wine on steroids yet unbelievably pure and 1945. Wilf was all over ‘the incredible length’ and how ‘it sails on your palate. Truly great,’ and he is a tough guy to please. He also added that ‘winemakers don’t make wines with so much VA (volatile acidity) anymore.’ I thought I saw a tear in the corner of his eye, yuk yuk. The 1945 Lafleur was an incredible, ridiculous, out-of-this-world experience (99). There was one more wine to be had, a 1985 DRC Romanèe Conti. Ok, if I have to…there was lots of menthol, earth and leather, and the wine was outstanding but maybe a step or two behind the all-time great RC’s. Time will tell (95+).
What was one of those new words of the day? That’s right, unfuckingbelievable.

Eternal thanks to Dr. Rudy Conti for his endless generosity.

John Kapon

Comments