Blog

2010 has been a vintage year so far, not only for the wine market, but also for my liver. I have been fortunate to taste an incredible amount of great wines in the first two months of 2010, although I have only reported on my January trip to Hong Kong. Well, little ol’ New York still has plenty to say”¦and drink.

There are over a dozen great events that I want to write up, so I kind of picked one out of a hat and was instantly taken back to two glorious, consecutive nights celebrating the Hedonist’s 55th birthday. The first night was at Cru; I wasn’t technically at the dinner party downstairs in the private room, but since I was dining upstairs, there was some positive wine synergy occurring once we knew we were both there.

The Hedonist beat us to the punch by sending us up a couple of glasses of 1955 Bouchard Pere et Fils Corton Charlemagne. It smelled like old Chardonnay for sure, but still came across fresh. Aussie Adam cooed, ‘beautiful nose.’ Its nose was warm and mature, emitting rays of yellow sunshine, rainwater and a hint of yellow prune. Cobwebs glistening in due rounded out is nose. Its palate was smooth and satiny, possessing yeasty flavors and a tender finish (93).

I actually met Adam in Seoul, where he became my official tour guide when I made my first visit back in August of 2007. It was quite the evening; basically the first night prevented a second night from even happening. I believe the phrase ‘no mas’ applied. So when Adam told me he was in NYC, I had to return the favor, although just with dinner. We settled on a 1996 Roulot Meursault Perrieres to start, which just popped out the glass. There was great minerality to its nose, along with citrus, wax, and kernel. Adam found its nose, ‘classic Meursault.’ There were great smoke flavors, and its minerality kept flexing on the palate, as if it were doing reps on my tongue. It was absolutely gorgeous; I could not stop drinking it. It was a sensational wine from a sensational vintage for white Burgundy. Adam summed it up, ‘voluptuous nose, beautiful palate, elegant and fresh’ (96).

What was this, a glass of 1955 Latour a Pomerol, out of double magnum, nonetheless. Yes, they do exist, although after this night, maybe they don’t anymore! The Hedonist had blessed us again. Sir Robert noted, ‘wet, stony, leafy, almost Graves,’ but its core of plummy fruit and chocolate could only be Pomerol. Of course, Sir Robert’s observations were spot on, as always, and it did have these leafy and stony undertones, in a good way. Its palate was masculine, but its finish was feminine. ‘Gorgeous’ kept coming up in my notes, and its soft, chalky and long finish never lost sight of its decadent plum and chocolate core. Did I say gorgeous (95D)?

We started feeling frisky, and we wanted to reciprocate, so I selected one of my favorite, all-time wines, the 1985 Meo Camuzet Richebourg. This is a wine that would be on my top 100 of all-time, and after not having it for at least three or four years, it was good to see it still showing incredibly. Of course, Henri Jayer had his hand in the ’85 Meo, and many feel that Henri was the greatest winemaker ever in Burgundy. Consider the ’85 Meo Riche ‘Exhibit A.’ It had a ‘wow’ nose, layers upon layers cascading up into my nose. I literally felt like I was swimming in it. Pick a fruit, any fruit, as they were all seemingly there – red, purple, black and blue danced together freely, transporting us to a shiny, happy place, a veritable Woodstock for wine. Adam hailed it as ‘intoxicating,’ and ‘miles ahead of in 1985.’ Hey, he said it, not me! But, he was right, not to take away from the Riche, in and of itself a great wine, but the 1985 Meo Richebourg is just one of those wines that is one step beyond the rest. Incredibly complex, there was this magnificent floral component, along with distinctive and sexy Asian spices, an ocean of fruit, and even some morning fog. Smelling it was like looking out on a horizon of wine, endless in its possibilities and promise. Adam noted, ‘sap and pine tar, menthol and spring forest.’ All I could then see were naked nymphs. Adam cooed, ‘the whole world stops for a great bottle of Burgundy; armies could march past me right now, and I would still be sitting here.’ Here, here. No, seriously, here, give me the rest of your ’85 Meo; it was actually a wine over which wars are started (98)!

Jay had one more ’55 up his sleeve, a 1955 Figeac, another one of my favorite things. There is not a more underrated, under-appreciated property in all of Bordeaux. In the face of all these ‘garage’ wines getting so much acclaim, Figeac remains a beacon for classic winemaking. I’ll keep the Figeac in the cellar, all those other wines can stay in the garage J. Figeac does need more time to age and blossom than most St. Emilions; perhaps that is where its secrets lie. This Figeac didn’t have that problem even though it was served out of magnum since its vintage was ’55. The nose was blacker than I expected out of magnum, possessing black fruits, olives, forest and mint. It was so rounded, and so good. Flavors of olive, cherry oil, musk and hints of nuts graced its palate. Jay also had a bottle of the same wine, which was redder in its fruit and riper in its personality, although a touch more linear as well. Qualitatively, they were consistent. In the end and after time in the glass, it actually out-showed the Latour a Pomerol (95+M).

That was much more than I expected on this wintry evening. The next night was actually the main event, and Hollywood Jef had even flown in to help with the celebration. He was armed with a few bottles of Montrachet, so we surrendered quickly, beginning with a 1989 Montrachet. The ’89 had a warm, inviting nose of corn, light sweetness, butter and hints of orange and citrus spice. Its palate was round and smooth with light flavors of butter and minerals, lighter than one would expect from an ’89 Montrachet. It was a good vintage to start the vertical with accordingly. Those that know this wine know that ’89 was a bit of a disappointment for relative to its usual quality. Don’t get me wrong, it was still an excellent wine. A hint of that tropical kink developed, and while the wine was soft and polished, its acidity crept out more. It was almost latent, getting bigger in the glass but also a touch square. Lora, a former food editor and avid taster, found it, ‘elegant and perfect’ (93).

The 1991 Montrachet that followed had more exotic sweetness and lots of caramel. The Hedonist hailed it, ‘a different beast.’ Its color was much deeper, on a faster maturity track. Its nose was musky, and Lora found it ‘luscious.’ It was earthier and heartier than the ’89, quite rich in its personality, which also had more veggie flavors, in a good way, further flirting with bouillon. While a little wild and rugged, the 1991 was an excellent, mature Monty, qualitatively equal although stylistically different to the ’89 (93).

The 1979 Montrachet made us quickly forget about the previous two wines. It was a staggering example of great white Burgundy. The nose was so musky and nutty but deep, very deep, super sexy juice. There were exotic fruits abounding in the nose, hinting at guava without the sweetness, along with orange and other tropical impressions. Icicles also came to mind in its piercing and riveting nose. The palate was incredibly rich with insane depth. There were decadent coffee flavors and perfect sweetness; the marriage of musk and caramel was made in heaven, and the lobster risotto that followed took it up a notch. Amazing wine (98).

It was a tough act for the 1993 Montrachet to follow. Ron called out ‘bubblegum,’ while the Hedonist observed ‘odd fruit, more pear than Chardonnay, really.’ It was total pear, and after the comment, that’s all I could smell. It had a hint of liqueur, and while smooth and solid, it was no match for the ’79. I really like 1993 whites, although this one was less than I hoped it would be (92).

It was onto the reds, and some more ‘55s. The 1955 Haut Brion was all gravel, smoke and charcoal in its nose. It also had lots of band-aids, showing its back-sided qualities instead of its fruit. Laura observed, ‘smoky cinder box.’ The HB still had fruit in the mouth and enough cassis to build a bridge to its back side. Soft and fleshy, it was an outstanding HB (95).
It was paired, of course, with the 1955 La Mission Haut Brion. ‘Both are very good and as expected,’ the Hedonist asserted. The La Miss was deeper with more purple to its fruit, along with more spice and less gravel, also smoky but in a white direction. Jef found it ‘a little austere’ at first, and it was shy on the palate. Its treasures were more hidden in a brooding way, and it was clear that it had a longer life ahead of it than the HB. With that being said, it wasn’t in as giving a mood as other bottles I have had (95+).

The next flight was a celebrity death match ”“ 1982 Lafleur vs. 1990 La Tache, a wine equivalent of King Kong vs. Godzilla. For those of you that forget or may not know, a celebrity death match is where you taste two totally random wines from different regions against each other; in fact, I have a whole article coming up dedicated just to the concept. But I digress”¦

The 1982 Lafleur was a great bottle, kinky from the get-go. Of course, the Hedonist hailed it as ‘one of the greatest Bordeaux ever,’ as ’82 Lafleur has long been hailed as one of the most hedonistic wines ever made. Its nose was chocolaty and smoky, brimming with blue fruits. The palate was rich with a small spike of alcoholic power, along with benevolent flavors of stems and stalks. While tighter than I remember the wine being, which bodes well for the future, it still had that gamy, sweet fruit, that mature Lafleur mega-fruit rainbow spectrum. Its acidity and alcohol stood out from the crowd, and Jef noted, ‘licorice and lavender.’ This wine was poised and still ready for a long run (97).

The 1990 La Tache had a deeper and more expansive nose, very Sequoia-esque with its forest, garden, mushrooms and stalk. This was a great bottle of 1990, and it was ‘singing’ to Lora. The wood elements were noticeable but not offensive, and while the Lafleur was admittedly more enjoyable, the La Tache was the better wine, but the room was split down the middle, with three votes on each side. The texture, weight and length of the La Tache, though, was undeniable to me (98).

We brought things full circle with a 1997 Montrachet. The first thing that I thought was that this was the second-best Montrachet of the night, and it was. There was force in its nose, which was rippling with minerals, and plenty of citrus to back that thing up. This was a powerful Montrachet, and while there was a hint of botrytis, it was deliciously there, and the 1997 was long and racy without the race track. It stood up to the two incredible reds served beforehand (95).

There were six of us, and nine wines were down the hatch already, but somehow, there were actually three more wines served on this starry night. My notes were not so starry by this point, as I was definitely drinking to the last drop all night long with this lineup. A 1959 Latour was chalky, smoky and slaty, polished but not perfect, and a bit disappointing (93A). A 1955 Latour made up for it with its sweet fruit and what I called ‘A to Z greatness’ (95). A perfect 1955 Yquem rounded things out in fine fashion, just as it oughta be and then some (96+).

It was a stellar birthday celebration, a definite Hedonist production. There is one thing that I have learned over the years, a fact reinforced by this incredible night. Life is short, drink it.