Blog

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 Grands Echezeaux had a spectacular nose that sung all the great qualities of 1985 in that unique 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 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 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.