Blog

It was actually only three days of drinking for me, but it was probably about a month’s worth anyway; by the time Saturday morning rolled around, it sure as hell felt like it, and I had to skip drinking for Saturday’s final session. I even skipped Friday night’s after-party, even with a lot of ‘big lumber’ ready, willing and able.

It started in a civilized fashion Wednesday night at Craft Steak, with a special dinner featuring wines from the actual Golden Cellar. Forty collectors assembled in eager anticipation for what would end up being the second largest wine auction of all time.

You know it is a good evening when the aperitif round is six bottles of 1999 Ramonet Montrachet. Even though it was still a baby, one could not help but appreciate its genetic makeup. Classic aromas of minerals, corn, butter, mint and wheat slowly made their way out of the glass in this brooding and reticent giant of a white. A bit rugged and square in the palate, it had all the big, bruising qualities of 1999 combined with the regal style and elegance of Montrachet. Its palate was particularly rocky and minerally on its finish despite the wealth of butter, oil and citrus in arrears. I do prefer 2000 for early drinking over 1999, but this is a white wine that will still be singing in ten, fifteen and more years, most likely climbing the point ladder as well (95+).

The first official flight was all Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux out of magnum, beginning with the 1995. 1995 is a vintage that most serious collectors are selling rather than buying, although there were still some fabulous wines made in 1995; Roumier and Vogue immediately come to mind. However, most ‘95s can be tart and acidic, very rusty in their personality and a bit on the lean and mean side. Henri Jayer was one of the most revered winemakers in the history of Burgundy, certainly top five of all time, and one of his claims to fame was how he was a master of the so-called ‘lesser’ or ‘off’ vintages, especially after fifteen or twenty years in the bottle. The 1984 and 1982 Echezeauxs that I had from the Golden Cellar on location were most recent testimonies to this fact. All this is leading somewhere, trust me. At the mere age of twelve and out of magnum, this 1995 seemed more 1995 than Jayer, however. It was lean and full of cedar and citrus aromas, a bit woody in its personality despite some grapy fruit lurking in the shadows of its nose. Pungent, austere and rusty all came to mind in both smelling and tasting the 1995, and while it was very good, it was a bit disappointing for a Jayer wine, although the youth and magnum factors could have played into it. There still was a bit of deep, dark and rich Jayer purple fruit there, but it was just a hint (91M).

The 1993 quickly reestablished order in the court. This was an incredible wine. 1993 is definitely a great vintage, but it is still usually a back-sided one, aka more structure than fruit at this stage. This magnum of 1993 Jayer had more fruit than any wine I have ever encountered from the vintage, and I have had most of the best wines from this vintage on multiple occasions. The 1993 had it all; its nose was brooding yet fresh and full of vibrant purple fruits, a rainbow of purple that would have made Hendrix proud. It was supported by twin towers of nut and musk, just absolutely fabulous and still so adolescent in that Miss Teen Burgundy kind of way. The palate was rich and actually lush, still adolescent but so damn good already. It had superb balance to its meaty and rich personality, and a finish that was sturdy yet never lost its deft balance. Amazing stuff (97M).

The 1988 was the first and only wine to show a hint of gamy maturity, that kinky, fleshy style that Jayer transforms into after age twenty or so, plus or minus depending on the qualityof the vintage. The 1988 was very sexy, just starting to show some flesh, sweet in its purple and with a splash of vitamins as well. The classic Jayer musk and kink were there, and the palate was chewy and fleshy, no easy task to achieve in 1988, which is a rugged, tannic, structure first vintage. The 1988 was tasty as well. Its delightful drinkability and approachability stood out in this first flight. While the 1988 might not get much better, score one for Jayer. The ’88 should still have a reasonably long plateau ahead of it, to be clear (94M).

The next flight was dubbed ‘the Leroy Challenge.’ The Man with the Golden Cellar is a huge Leroy lover and feels that Leroy does not get her due respect from many top collectors. Leroy had begun bottling her own estate wines in 1988, so we took three of our favorite vintages, three of our favorite grand crus and three of our other favorite producers and made a special flight, one of our favorite things.

We started with a stunning 1990 Dujac Clos de la Roche. This was one of those superlative bottles that was everything and then some. Fruit oozed out of its nose, black and purple in its hue with just a splash of red as well. Cassis, plum, earth, dust, minerals and a perfect whiff of cedar all graced this deep and aggressively aromatic nose. It had that world class combination of sweetness and depth, and the palate was deliciously lush yet long, forward yet youthful, complex yet singular in its greatness. It certainly made it difficult for the Leroy (97).

The 1990 Leroy Clos de la Roche was a big wine, very cedary and earthy in its nose. It had that ‘steroids,’ more modern edge that some Burgundy lovers dislike, and it was also minerally and full of tobacco and eucalyptus. It was difficult to get past the menthol and into its fruit. The palate was big and cedary as well, a touch too much so, but there was no doubting its concentration and weight. Staggering is usually an appropriate word choice when it comes to the concentration and mouthfeel of an estate Leroy wine. However, this bottle of 1990 was not up for the challenge, a bit square and lacking fruit, beefy yet almost synthetic in its personality (92).

I suppose that is not how the Leroy challenge was supposed to play out, but in the words of Lou Buonanno, ‘It is what it is.’ The next flight would have a different story to tell. We started off with an excellent bottle of 1996 Rousseau Chambertin. The Rousseau was lean and racy in its nose, pungent with its animal, citrus and spearmint aromas. This wine was very 1996, full of acidity and the accompanying sinus-clearing qualities. Rose, brick and vitamin were secondary. Its flavors were mostly pungent citrus, rose and brick as well, full of enough acidity and racy structure to smack any lips. It seemed just short of a complete Rousseau, albeit still an excellent and ageworthy one that might flesh out two or three decades away to become extraordinary (94).

The 1996 Leroy Chambertin was definitely one of the wines of the night, and I must say that Leroy’s 1996s are probably wines of the vintage. This is a vintage where she hit the nail on the head. The Leroy was deep and brooding with her beefy style evident yet in a leaner 1996 way, giving way to brick and red cherry fruit, all spearheaded by a blending streak of acidity and menthol that would clear up any stuffy nose. Big, racy, meaty yet fresh, the Chambertin had a similar personality on its palate and a mouth-staining, never ending finish. The wine seemed capable of aging a hundred years (97).

Our Leroy challenge flight was now even; it was up to 1999 to settle this, beginning with a 1999 Romanee St. Vivant. The was very primary, full of violet and dry cassis fruit, earth, rose, animal and that ’99 adolescence, star quarterback style. Minerals, earth and tobacco tried to escape thru the wealth of primary fruit. In the mouth, there was more mint and animal to go with its cassis and earth; the wine wasn’t shutdown, but it still needed a training bra and left me yearning for more (94+).

The 1999 Leroy was a bit more showy, thick and sweet with brick, beef and almost caramel-covered cherry fruit. Rich, round and mouthfilling, I can’t say it was better than the although it was clearly different in style. I would say the Leroy had a tastier personality at this young age, perhaps more developed (which wouldn’t be a good thing) or just flat out more hedonistic in general (which were my thoughts about it), but the line between the two was very fine and definitely a question of stylistic preference in general (94).

Well, the Leroy challenge may have not established a consensus, but it definitely confirmed the fact that on average, her wines are qualitatively equivalent to the other top wines in Burgundy.

We switched gears to old Bordeaux, beginning with a beautiful 1953 Lafite Rothschild. Long considered by many to be the wine of the vintage, the Lafite was classic all the way, although perhaps just starting to gracefully decline and at the end of a 50-year long plateau. The old-timers will say how 1953 was just one of those vintages that was delicious from the beginning and never stopped being so. This bottle had tender aromas of old book and cedar, pencil, nutshell, cobwebs and dry mesquite. The cassis was on the drier side of the coin, a function of its age, and I could see magnums of this making a difference. The wine was still lush, tender, smoky and balanced, soft and charming, quintessentially Lafite and finishing with fine flavors of cedar, earth and tobacco (94).

The 1961 La Mission Haut Brion was one of those gravelly bottles, full of charcoal, rocks, minerals, earth and tobacco first and foremost. With time, decadent plum and cassis came out along with more iron and smokehouse. I know that the Bordelais never talk about bottle variation, but believe you me when I tell you that there is variation amongst thousands of cases that get produced by each chateaux, especially back in the day. There are two distinct styles of 1961 La Mission that I have come across, one like this being almost excessively gravelly. I still loved the wine; its acidity and minerality were very special, and with time, decadent chocolate and smoky cassis flavors emerged in this outstanding La Miss (95).

The 1961 Latour was very port-like, taking the concentration level up a notch, but it was so concentrated that it almost lost its structure in the wealth of fruit that it had. There was the classic cassis and walnut exacta, and it was definitely delicious, but its acidity seemed buried in its fruit, its almost buttery and bordering on pornographic fruit. Rich, round and lush, I wondered if all of a sudden this wine might be where it needs to be and not one that needs to be kept under lock and key for another twenty or thirty years. Based on many other bottles of older Latour, I think that this was either bottle variation or a personal one (95).

The fourth flight was one of Guigal, another of the Golden Cellar’s favorite producers. We did the 1999 thing, and to be honest, I had a real tough time evaluating these wines at this stage of the evening. To taste and seriously evaluate young wines after being exposed to a few older ones is something that I cannot always do. It was similar to when we had the 2000 Lafleur at the end of that incredible evening at the Golden Cellar, and I think I will avoid doing younger flights later in a long wine evening in the future. Many were ooh-ing and aah-ing over the Guigals, but I just couldn’t get into it, sorry.

The 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline, however, was another story. We had to put things in a little perspective, of course. The nose was out of control good, reeking of menthol, olive, bacon, minerals and gamy, pungent fruit. Waxy, silky and sexy, the nose was a definitiveone for great Cote Rotie. This meaty, chewy and fleshy La Mouline had similar flavors and a beautiful, gamy lushness that really stood out. Animal, iron and smoke joined the party in this winegasmic wine (97).

There was one last wine for dessert, a 1990 Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf du Pape Cuvee Speciale. I think he has only made this wine two or three times, and it is basically a late-harvest Chateauneuf du Pape. The nose was very Amarone in style, with a sweet, pruny and figgy personality. Dark, dank, gamy fruit abounded in this unique wine. The palate was massive, full of alcohol, acidity and a very long finish. Sweet, pruny flavors dominated the palate. Its style might not be for everyone, but it is a singularly great wine that deserves high praise (95).

That brought the Golden Cellar portion of our program to a close, and so begun the afterparty”¦at Cru, of course. A mind-boggling amount of great wine got opened between the hours of 10:30 and 3am. Yes, it got ugly, in a beautiful way, that is. The spirit of sharing and enjoying wine was alive and well in New York City on this night, brought out of the woodworks by one of America’s greatest collections. There were so many great wines opened that I am sure I even missed some that I tasted, and I know I missed some that I didn’t taste. In fact, if you were there, let me know what other wines were opened that I missed! I am a curious fellow.

All these things start innocently enough, and so did this night with a ‘refresher’ white courtesy of Wilf Jaeger. A 2002 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was outstanding as it should be, very big, rich and young yet forward and enjoyable at this early stage. Lots of yellow hues were in the nose and mouth, butter, citrus, other yellow fruits, even a drop of sunshine. Mint, smoke, toast and minerals were very sturdy and a great foundation for this wine to age for a couple decades more (96).

The real refresher wines were the trio ofbubblies that came next, although the first one set a very high bar. Since people were now filing in from the first event, I decided to set the table with a magnum of 1990 Krug Clos du Mesnil, and what a magnum it was. I was surprised how open it was; I expected it to be laser-like and tighter than a nun’s knees, but it was wonderfully gamy, yeasty and pungently delicious in its nose. Don’t get me wrong; it was a baby and very young with seismic levels of acidity and decades of potential behind it, but it was just very open and delicious as well. Its flavors were marinated white meats, combined with golden fruits including one or two raisins, and it had a chewy, wine-like complexity with a finish of a rocketship launching. The party had officially begun (98M).

I kept it moving with a pair or rare 1996 bubblies, starting with the 1996 Philipponat Clos des Goisses. It had that great streak of 1996 acidity, also combined with this wonderful gamy complexity, full of yellow, meaty fruits but dominated by vitamins. Great stuff to have in the cellar (95+). The 1996 Billecart Salmon Cuvee Nicolas Francois was actually quite similar to the Goisses, but it was a touch more elegant and refined, perhaps longer but in a subtle way. It, too, had a lot of vitamins to it (95).

By the time we got through the bubblies, Cru was kind of packed, basically turning into a hot nightclub for wine lovers. Enter one of my fellow enthusiasts ; initiate rock star moment. a close friend of mine bought the six-liter of 1995 Chave Ermitage Cuvee Cathelin off the list, and everybody got some. As young as it was, there couldn’t have been a better wine crowd to enjoy it, and it was yet another chapter in the book of one of the world’s most generous wine lovers. Although I didn’t get to this wine until much later in the evening, I will provide my tasting note here. The nose was unbelievably concentrated; seepy, sappy and thick like molasses. Classic Northern Rhone action oozed out of the glass: black as night fruits, menthol, bacon, earth charred by a blistering sun. Iodine, iron, charcoal and smoke were secondary. This wine took concentration up a notch, although I will admit that the style of this wine has always been a bit over the top for me. It is almost too concentrated, too extracted, too rich, but I think in forty years or so, God willing, and if I can still find a bottle, it might be one of those indubitable 99-pointers. For now, I had to respect its massive raw materials and King Kong-like presence (95+I). The I is for Imperial aka 6-liter”¦I know for Rhone it is Methusaleh, but M is for magnum”¦

I had to equal a close friend of mine’s generosity as best I could, shit it was my party, and Robert Bohr, sommelier and wine genius behind Cru, recommended a jero of 1986 Romanee St. Vivant. ‘Let’s do it,’ was my quick reply. The wine was glorious. There are many who think that Aubert puts his best barrels into his large format bottles, as the chances of them getting opened at a young age are much rarer; therefore, these wines will be enjoyed at a more reasonable age than many bottles whose corks get pulled at a young age for evaluation. 1986 is one of those years that many have forgotten in Burgundy, but it is one that merits some more attention. , Roumier and Jayer, for starters, made some thrilling wines that are still fabulous. This jero was delicious. It was still on the youthful side, perhaps just entering its plateau, full of classic rose, iron, menthol, rust and vitamin. Leather and citrus balanced like beams of wine justice in both the nose and the palate. Tasty, vigorous and full of citric tension, this wine also had freshly, just-starting-to-wilt rose flavors, along with great rust on its finish. Yum (94J).

I had one more move left in me off the list, a couple bottles of 1999 Montrachet. It seemed like a good time to freshen up thepalate with a white wine, although this was far from a spritzer. The was luscious and rich, sweeter and more open than the Ramonet earlier that evening, although that Ramonet certainly seemed a long, long way away now. Very buttery and tropical, the was chewy and forward for its age, but still very long and brooding on its earthy finish. Kisses of wood on its finish quickly turned into slaps of it, yet it all remained integrated in this big, brooding yet civilized white (96+).

I can’t remember if it was now or later when about 100 hot dogs came in from one of Robert’s secret food connections :). The kitchen was closed, but we needed to soak up all this wine in our bellies, and Robert quickly came to the rescue with a boatload of dogs. They hit the spot so well that we joked that Shea should add them to the menu. Easy, Shea”¦take it f2f2f2asy I’m joking :).

I also can’t remember if it was before or now that King Angry, aka Ray Tuppatsch, stumbled in after coming to the initial dinner, then going to do 15 vintages of Dom Perignon on the side, then proceeding to join us again in his, um, enlightened state. I believe it was he who ordered the magnum of 1989 Roumier Musigny, officially confirming his enlightenment. The Roumier was another superb bottle, 1989 at its finest, dripping with wet red and smoky fruit, exuding the class of Musigny with its terroir-driven personality. Silky, stylish yet full-flavored and large in its presence, it was long, strong and oh so fine. Stones, minerals, and forest floor danced around the edges of the palate in this great wine (96M).

A 1989 Mugnier Musigny was quickly paired with the Roumier, and it was certainly excellent but not on the same level as the Roumier. The typicity of 1989 again showed here, but with more of the usual vitamin and game qualities. Rich, balanced, earthy and with a touch of cola, this was still good stuff (93).

A 1971 Grands Echezeaux wasnext. I think I can, I think I can”¦I have said it over and over again, but it is tough for anyone to convince me that can be any better than it was in 1971”¦ok maybe ’34. 1945, true”¦but after that, I am not sure I can be convinced! This was another great bottle. Grands Ech is usually the best bang for the buck in the portfolio, sometimes even outshowing its ‘bigger’ siblings when tasted side-by-side. Gamy and rich, beefy yet citrusy, lean yet lush, the 1971 also had the expected earth, menthol, rose and rust (95).

There was one last wine that I remember, a 1990 Romanee Conti, also courtesy of one of my fellow enthusiasts , of course. It was consistent with the bottle that I had at Le Cirque eleven days prior with a close friend of mine, Eddie, Ray, Roger, Doug and the Burghound after one of the ‘Burghound in the City Weekend’ sessions, where we tasted about 30 different 1982 whites and 1962 reds. That night at Le Cirque, we also had the ’71, 78 and ’85, but that is another story! Back to the RC at Cru, the last bottle that I can remember having. It was good to see such a young RC deliver both enjoyment yet still have such promise. There was a wealth of red fruit in both the nose and the palate. The wine was rich like nobility, and its finish was one of a perfect, endless summer. It was mouthfilling and gripping, seizing the attention of my tongue and letting me know who was still the top of the mountain. Cascades of red fruit continued to develop with each sip, and the structure and t ‘n a here were not joking around. Hell yeah (98).

I made my best decision of the night by deciding to call it one at 3am. Others were not so lucky, and many ended up back at one of my fellow enthusiasts ’s suite doing who knows what until six in the morning. One of these people was King Angry, who actually threw in the towel on a very significant Thursday night as a result. So, the first night of celebration for the Golden Cellar also officially became the night Ray Tuppatsch was drunk under the table. Had to do it to ya, buddy :).

We picked up the second night where we left off the first, at Cru, but downstairs in a more civilized fashion. We started casually with some bubbly as people arrived. It must have been a full moon, because The Don was the third or fourth person there! Awooooooooooo :).

I ordered the 1996 Billecart Salmon Rose Cuvee Elisabeth off the list. It was beautiful, possessing pretty, open fruit, especially for a Rose. I do not recall ever having a Rose that showed this much fruit at such a young age. Balanced and gorgeous, I might have to start drinking some more of their stuff (95).

The rest of the wines for the first part of the evening were all from the Golden Cellar. The first official flight was one of Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. The 2000 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne had a clean, fresh nose full of floral qualities, along with light, delicate citrus, corn and bread. It was slightly shy in the nose at first, but a sweet butter profile emerged. The 2000 possessed a great finish accompanied by a lip-smacking minerality and white earth flavors. Danielle added, ‘a touch of exotic jasmine.’ Stylish, elegant and gorgeous, I would be thrilled to drink this wine any time. 2000s are so fresh and clean (95).

The 1996 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne quickly took charge of this flight with its incredible nose, similar to the 2000 but with more of everything. Rich and forward, big and buttery, citrusy and smoky, the 1996 was awesome as always, long and lip-smacking, with a racy finish that would make for a fine Nascar ending. Its remarkable flavors were thick, long and fat, full of butter and citrus. This 1996 might go down as one of the greatest white wines ever made (98).

The 1992 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was the most aromatic by far, a bit stewy and buttery, showing that forward 1992 style. Its nose was gamy, yeasty and waxy. Smooth and soft with nice, lingering smoke, toast and white earth flavors, the 1992 still has nice length to its finish, but I couldn’t help but think that this particular vintage of Coche is already over the rainbow and has seen its best days already (94).

We did the Leroy challenge again on this second night, beginning with a repeat of one of the showdowns I did on location at the Golden Cellar. The 1996 Richebourg was classic ‘96 with its aromas of rust, iron, cedar, leather and ‘super’ windex, in the best possible sense of the word. It had great spine, spice and rust to its flavors, super long on its finish but still with great balance. It was still a baby, but what a baby, oh baby”¦.I think I have written that before, but it still works in my book (95).

The 1996 Leroy Richebourg had an incredible nose of rose, oil, crushed fruits, leather, beef, iron and a whiff of wood. Its fruit was super sexy and kept morphing into black and purple hues. There was also an exotic, jasmine spice and crazy complexity in the mouth. Thick and long, here was another 1996 Leroy that was again flat-out great (96+).

Musigny finally came to this party, beginning with a 1993 Mugnier Musigny. The Mugnier had a fabulous nose and great aromatics of forest spice, and beautiful fruit with nice citrus components. While still tight and coy, there was no doubting its potential, although this bottle seemed a little raw compared to other memories. Cedar, citrus and slate provided the foundation for the palate, and the nose gained a milky sex appeal. The palate overall was shut down, though, hinting at the promises that time will unlock. Like many ‘93s, it needs more time (95+).

The 1993 Leroy Musigny Wilf called ‘one of the greatest wines ever made,’ which is high praise from one who could be considered a high priest of wine. Its nose was at first subtle yet oh so brooding, and slowly smokehouse, blood orange, beef andsweet cherry sauntered out of hiding. The aromatics were a veritable sex show. The palate was rich, thick, long and with amazing concentration and grip, showing off the Leroy style. This was a big wine, with great cedar flavors on its finish. Wow (97+).

We ended with a pair of 1990s, Richebourgs again, but enter 1990 Meo Camuzet Richebourg. The Meo had a rich, great, gamy nose, showcasing wonderful spice as well as musky and meaty aromas and a lot of violet. Round and rich with nice flesh and definition, it had an excellent, stony finish. The acidity really started to flex itself more and more with time, and this wine climbed a couple points in my book before I was done with it. It expanded like a complex algorithim, had an overall superb style and was a fabulous wine. Man, I love Meo Richebourgs (97).

The 1990 Leroy Richebourg had a smoky, foresty side to the nose, with deep, dark fruits and a rubbery note, as in burning on a hot pavement. There was also a touch of spearmint. The palate was rich, rusty and long, but again the 1990 Leroy was outdone. I think that next time there is a Leroy challenge, the 1990 needs to be kept on the sidelines and not in the game for her sake. It just does not seem to be the bullseye year for her, and this night’s Leroy challenge pretty much had the same outcome as the night before (94).

Next up was a flight of Jayer, all Echezeaux and some of its best vintages. The 1985 Henri Jayer Echezeaux had an incredible nose. It was that ‘Jayer special,’ with that rich, plummy, dark fruit, sexy musk and sensual perfume. Everything resulted in a nosegasm. I had to quickly grab a tissue; those nosegasms can get pretty messy. Secondary chocolate and coffee emerged. The palate was meaty, rich and had this nutty sex appeal. Smooth, sensual and balanced, this was outstanding stuff although the nose delivered a little more than thae palate, but that is nothing new for 1985 (95).

The strong>1982 Henri Jayer Echezeaux was a twin to the great bottle I had on location prior at the Golden Cellar. Duke was oohing and aahing, and his hands were on the table, so it had to be the wine, which was so fabulously rich, so fabulously lush, so fabulously fleshy and so fabulously long. In the mouth, the wine was chewy with flavors of citrus, earth and dust. Its acidity was crazy (good), and this wine practically stole the show in this flight because it was that good, right now. It almost had this Dao-like edge, and I say that as a compliment. Someone remarked that the 1982 is now where the other two wines will be in another 20-30 years. Somebody save some ’85 and ‘78 (95)!!!

The 1978 Henri Jayer Echezeaux was also classic with great spice. Its nose was round and rich and all about the deep purple. The palate was huge yet had superb balance to go with its length. This wine was a class act. All three Echezeauxs were stylistically different, yet qualitatively equal, although the 1978 distanced itself a bit from the pack; it was pure class in a glass (96+).

A duo of 1971 s was next, beginning with a 1971 Richebourg. Did I mention that these are a few of my favorite things already? This had a ‘wow’ nose, an incredible nose, with the rose, the menthol, the mint, the rust, the game, the earth, the oil, the leather, the tobacco and the spine of an extra special Burgundy. This was a quintessential, classic beauty. Wilf dryly complimented the wine (and took a small shot at my beloved 1971s), saying that there was less rot than usual. I found the wine sweet and gamy with amazing rose flavors. The wine was slightly softer on the palate but amazing nonetheless (95).

The 1971 La Tache was the second bottle that I had from the Golden Cellar during my tour of duty. Duke called this one ‘the cat’s ass,’ which I think is a good thing :).It was everything the Richebourg was and then some, with a shade less fruit but so much more structure than the Richebourg. Fabulous flavors of menthol, mint rust and ‘screech,’ the 1971 LT was awesome as always, all that and then some (97).

Wine number seventeen for this amazing evening was a 1982 Lafleur. The ’82 Lafleur on offer from the Golden Cellar was some of the best bottles of this that I have seen in a while, as there are unfortunately some counterfeits of this out there. My hunch proved correct, as this bottle was a knockout. The Lafleur was typiclally gamy, figgy, nutty and tasty, with that classic ‘Rayas’ over-ripeness in its nose. Long and balanced, the wine had incredible reserve to it, and it was not as advanced as other bottles of this that I have had. This is special stuff that might equal the 1961 one day (97+).

1952 Pomerols are also one of the Man with the Golden Cellar’s favorite things, and out came a 1952 Petrus. The nose was smoke city, nutty and gamy in a chocolaty way. There was enormous acidity here, and super chocolate flavors. Boing (95).

The last of our Pomerol flight was a 1947 Vieux Chateau Certan, which came from a mid-shoulder fill bottle. It was still good yet affected and not all that it could be. There was still lots of chocolate in this earthy and waxy wine, which seemed milder and more subdued than previous experiences (92A).

A flight of 1959s led off with a stupendous 1959 La Mission Haut Brion. The La Miss had an unreal nose that was chocolate city, supplemented by lumpy oatmeal, forest floor spice and charcoal. Long, grainy and defined in the mouth, its spine was extraordinary, and the wine was simply divine (97).

A 1959 Lafite Rothschild was unfortunately corked (DQ).

The 1959 Latour was also stellar. Although my note-taking skills were starting to wane, only a corpse could not appreciate the deep cassis and walnut aromas and flavors, as well as the wine’s great ‘minty freshness,’ as someone keenly observed (97).

The last wine from the Golden Cellar was another glorious 1985 Guigal, a 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Turque. This wine was singing right now, still young and very fresh, but showing many mature nuances and complexities and big-time menthol, bacon, earth, cassis and chocolate aromas and flavors (97).

We moved upstairs for the after-party, day II. It was another silly display of generosity and great wine, beginning with a magnum of 1989 La Tache. The LT was gamy and vitaminy in the nose, really gamy, and it reminded me of 1999 with the freshness of its fruit, but there was this bad keg flavor that marred the palate for me. There was still nice texture and length, perhaps it just needed to air out, but I had to keep it moving and keep up with the blistering pace of wines being opened (93?).

A 1986 Roumier Bonnes Mares was great, flirting with five stars. It was another example of how excellent 1986 can be. There was fabulous spine in the nose with aromas of vitamins, stems and a cedary edge. Long, smooth, longer”¦it was a beauty (94+).

A 1955 Haut Brion had a super smoky mesquite smokehouse nose. Flavors of buttersoft leather, cassis and band-aid rounded out this excellent HB (94).

There was this 1978 Richebourg. It was a spectacular bottle of this wine. What was most noteworthy about it was how it showed even better than the 1971 we had earlier. The 1971 was still outstanding, but 1978 outshowing 1971 was a new thing for me. What made it more significant was that it happened previously at Le Cirque when we had that quartet of RC’s last week; perhaps a changing of the guard is finally happening relative to ’78 over ’71? Although I am sure many will feel that there is no ‘change.’ Anyway, the ’78 Riche was full of menthol, rust, game, old book and wilted roses. It had a wealth of everything in just the right proportions. Flavors of meat, nut, game, animal, sappy caramel and nuts were all over this super creamy wine. Wow (97).

There were two wines left, wines number 28 and 29 for the evening, and it was a fitting ending to two incredible evenings of incredible wines. A 1990 Roumier Musigny was, as it should be, spectacular. Aromas of ‘kefir,’ ‘burnt cherries’ and ‘perfume’ were all noted. Atypically chunky and thick, the 1990 was deep, rich, long and thick; a fundamental of the vintage, I suppose. It grabbed my tongue’s attention, and the wine really had to be chewed before swallowed. It still felt like it had fifty years ahead of it (96+).

The 1991 Roumier Musigny was up for the challenge of being paired with its more esteemed brother. It was more typical in style, with that waify elegance and forceful, feminine aromatics of red fruits, cured meat and green olives. There was ample t ‘n a in this well-balanced and long beauty (95).

I should know better, but I ended up at Tenjune and downing six bottles of bubbly with a few, select friends. The prior night ended at 3am; this one 4:30 – probably not the best recipe to cook up the couple days before the biggest auction of the year. Doh! I gotta start remembering that I am not 25 anymore. Just because all the beautiful women around are that age doesn’t mean I am 🙂

I eased into my Friday at a gingerly pace, making sure to be well-rested for the big show that afternoon. In fact, I was feeling rather groovy by the time the curtain came up and the actual Golden Cellar auction began.

We started everyone off with compliemtary glasses of 1996 Salon, generously donated to the auction by the greatest Champagne collector in the world, aka Big Boy style. It is still the best young Champagne that I have ever had (97+).

About 100 lots into the auction, there was a slew of lots of 1998 Petrus, and I pulled out a couple magnums of said wine out from underneath the podium and got the party started right. It was one of those ‘great moments in auction history’ that you might see on WSPN one day. I grabbed a swig, and I was amazed how chunky and rich and chocolaty this was out of magnum. It was amazingly good. I remember this wine being so tight on release that I was stunned and surprised (in a great way) how showy and flavorful it was. Full of earth and minerals, and just dripping with plums and chocolate, this was some serious stuff (98M).

There were a bunch of other wines going around throughout the evening, but I am kind of brain damaged about it. I had a full plate without sitting down to dinner.

I do remember three significant magnums quite well, the first being a 1953 Petrus. I had been saving this beauty for a special occasion, and here we were. I had sourced this and a ’59 through top negociants in Bordeaux after getting pictures in advance, etc. I remain one person who is not afraid of old wine. The magnum was a bit shook up, I must confess, causing Big Boy to grumble, so I quickly took it around the room for a tour of duty. Most people were loving it nonetheless. It was elegant a la 1953, yet meaty and chocolaty, perhaps a touch yeasty but still right across the border of being outstanding. Rich, long and stylish, most people loved it (95M).

Big Boy went with the magnum of 1959 Petrus, which was even better, very stony, minerally and much more structured than the 1953, as it should be. It didn’t have the charm of the 1953, but it had more power, depth and intensity. It was a great magnum (96+M).

A magnum of 1947 Margaux was good, a bit earthy and yeasty, showing more old book and cobweb flavors than fresh fruit. It was a senior citizen, not the bottle but just the wine,and its tender, leathery personality was just holding on to its very good status (90M).

I also remember an excellent 1959 Certan de May. It was chocolaty, gravelly and earthy and showing quite well (93).

The last thing I remember drinking was a 2001 Romanee Conti, an animal of a wine, so rich and so primary, fleshy, thick and mountainous in its personality. Beef blood, black fruits, leather and cedar were everywhere, but it was the sheer sap here that was most impressive, although it was very young to get a complete experience (95+).

I had drunk myself under the table; I skipped the after-party and couldn’t drink at all on Saturday. Everything finally caught up with me. I need to exert a little more self-control, I know. Shit happens, and so did the second largest auction of all-time. I have never seen an auction quite like it.