We began with a trio of Clos du Mesnils, and they set the tone early. The 1989 Krug Clos du Mesnil was nutty and full bodied with lots of heavy cream and rich butter flavors. Heavy and creamy appeared again in my notes, as it was an outstanding plus bottle, hitting lots of oily notes with rock star acidity (97).

The 1985 Krug Clos du Mesnil was leaner and cleaner than the ’89, and it had more marzipan sweetness with some ice capped mountain action. While it didn’t have the stuffing of the 1989, it was still long, and the Comte found it ‘young and elegant’ and that it ‘needed the most time.’ It definitely unfurled in the glass(95+).

The 1979 Krug Clos du Mesnilwas Montrachet-like with its buttery butter bomb of a personality. This was a little oakier at first, but it turned into woodsy goodness. WOW, this wine had the intensity and sweetness of a DRC Montrachet. This was an ‘epic’ Champagne, roasted and reminiscent of ‘toasted apricots’ per the French Paradox. While starting to mellow and ‘not so fizzy like the others’ per the Comte, make no mistake about it: this was a stone-cold stunner(99)!

Unfortunately, the 1996 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet was premoxed (DQ). Next!

The 1996 Domaine d’Auvenay Chevalier Montrachet was rich, coconutty and almost vodka-ish. There was much more animal here and also butter that was melted. Its palate was meaty and gamier with a bit of brown sugar and honey. It wasn’t a dancer, but you could feel the wine coming, and it did get better in the glass as it tightened up. This was a big, chunky and buttery white, and the Hamburglar admired its ‘concentration, minerality and tension’ (95).

The 1999 DRC Montrachet had a deep, honeyed nose full of floral spice. It had a rich and meaty nose with a full body and touches of yeast. It was heavy and honeyed with so much power. This was a muscular Montrachet like ’99s are prone to be, and the Zen Master found it ‘exactly what you expect in DRC.’ This intense wine got more honeyed in the glass (97).

The 2002 DRC Montrachet was perhaps the most typical of the DRC Montys. It was full of mango, cream, honey and lavender with a sweeter profile. This was another rich white and oh so tasty, but it was getting picked on after the first two. The French Paradox found it ‘too toasty’, and the Comte thought there was a ‘lack of elegance’ oh, the French lol… the Zen Master agreed that it ‘lacked precision’ but it did improve with air time, significantly. Exotic coconut and lemon flavors emerged on its finish, and it still made me happy(96).

The 1982 La Mission Haut Brion had a more chocolaty nose and was ‘darker’ per the Paradox. It had a touch of band-aid to its nose, but the palate had loads of acidity and gravel and charcoal flavors. Its backside banged with mesquite flavors (95).

The 1989 Haut Brion was near perfect, as always. There were deep black fruits with a nutty glaze, and while heavy, it had an effortless finish. It was gritty and zippy with regal acidity and length. It lasted so long on the palate yet was still utterly stylish. It is still the greatest Bordeaux made over the past thirty years, along with the 1989 Petrus (99).

The 1989 La Mission Haut Brion was not as opulent as usual. It had some tootsie pop, chocolatey flavors, but it was a touch cooked and off (95+A).

The 1982 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was unfortunately corked(DQ).

The 1985 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was clearly the best of flight, and it was thick, rich and full of grit. There was all sorts of desert action on its finish. The Zen Master found it had ‘all the elements’ one could want in great Barolo and also noted ‘Chinese tea.’ This was so dry and so long, just awesome stuff and full of tobacco and leather flavors (97).

We went to the young Burgundies next before the old Bordeaux. It’s ok, you can do that when you’re sophisticated lol. It was time for some Musigny, but the 1996 Vogue Musigny VV, was a bit lacking compared to the next two. It was milky with zippy acid on its nose. There were lots of vitamins, make that vitamin city with a m©lange of colors in the nose. The Vogue did pack a ‘punch’ per Zen, but he also found it ‘not approachable.’ It was a bit too dry as well given the context of all the great wines we had been drinking (93).

The 1993 Leroy Musigny showed that ‘signature Leroy’ per Zen, along with ‘fresh blood,’ per another, and ‘Chinese root’ per one more. There was so much garden and the ‘flower of Chambolle’ according to the Comte. This had great stink and was super gamy, rich and saucy, and it only got better with air. This was a ‘crazy tasty’ wine, I wrote, and it was full of forest goodness. The Hamburglar called it ‘one of the wines of the weekend,’ while the Comte found it ‘exceptional.’ There was great smack to its bouncing ass of a finish (97).

The 1945 Lafite Rothschild had caramel on its nose along with pencil, with its caramel outweighing the classic cassis qualities. There were old book flavors in this elegant and graceful claret (94).

The 1945 Mouton Rothschild had that mint and eucalyptus sweetness that is such a trademark for this wine in this era. It was kinky, flamboyant and exotic. There was some ‘spicy pepper’ per the Comte, and I got the Shishito. I also got the pork luau with a touch of pineapple. I told you it was exotic! Toffee and animal led us all into a round of ‘jungle boogie,’ followed quickly by an ‘electric shock.’ This was the wakeup call that the Comte would desperately need tomorrow lol (99+).

The 1980 DRC La Tache was a great surprise to all, but not me. It was elegant and delicious, with nice forest floor aromas, and beautiful red fruits, roses and flowers. There were nice minerals to this vimful LT, and it kept improving in the glass until it was a real thriller. There was so much spine and acidity here in the end (97).

The 1990 DRC La Tachewas milky, yeasty and honestly a touch dirty. This wine was still young, and Puppup was right that it was ‘still tight.’ This was great but not on the level of the others. I should note that I had a magnum of this one month later that I rated 99 points. Maybe I will write that one up, maybe I won’t lol (96+).

The two Rayases that followed were both great, but I couldn’t pay as much attention any more. The 1989 Rayas had a Smuckers jam quality to it, and that is all that I wrote, other than (95). I could see the ’45 Ra in my glass of 1990 Rayas. Such great potential, I can’t wait to try it again in 45 years, and maybe another dozen times before then (98).

And there you have, Night Three of the Greatest Wines of the World Weekend. See you next year.

Day One was in the books, and Day Two, or night rather, was at the iconic Peninsula in Kowloon, on the ‘other’ side of Hong Kong. The Garden Suite overlooked the bay and had a spectacular view of Hong Kong Central, and The French Paradox and The Comte were quickly outside on the massive patio admiring the local architecture of a hotel next door.

The 1971 Salon was a bit mature and advanced, but I admired its caramel flavors and texture, but there was no fizz and it was clearly oxidzed (95A).

Someone called Salon ‘the Montrachet of Champagne’ following the 1996 Salon. It was a little tough after the perfect ’69, but it was so fresh and zippy. The Zen Master was all over its ‘tangerine’ notes (96+).

The Zen Master called out even ‘more structure’ on the 1985 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet, which was also served out of magnum. There, indeed, was better structure and better body to this wine, as well as better balance. It had a full body and a long creamy, zippy finish with ‘lift on the end.’ This was the better wine of the two; the ’85 was still taking off while the ’83 was landing (97+M).

The 1979 Ramonet Montrachet was so young out of magnum with a rich, buttery nose that had a fireplace spark with the brick house casing. The wine sparkled on the palate and had a crazy intense finish. This magnum was about as good as it gets, if it didn’t follow the 1978, it probably would have gotten 99 points from me (98+M)!

The 1985 Ramonet Montrachet magnum was full of ‘ginger’ per the Zen Master. It had a lot more exotic stuff going on, but it was also less intense. I wrote exotic three times, and it had a great chewy texture with ginger candy flavors and more of those exotic notes on the finish. However, it was no match for the ’78 or ’79, as outstanding as it still was (95M).

The 1953 Lafite Rothschild had a great coffee nose that you can often get in old Bordeaux. This was the best in show for this flight and had lots of ‘licorice’ per the Zen Master with toffee and smokehouse flavors. This was spectacularly delicious and a wine that deserves much more credit than its price (98).

The 1955 Haut Brion was ‘smoky and peaty like a whiskey’ according to Charles and ‘richer’ per Zen. This was another delicious wine, ‘so big’ per The French Paradox. The ’55 was fat, chunky and delicious with a lush, rich and gritty finish (97).

The 1928 Lafite Rothschild that followed was full of herbs, mahogany and cedar like a brand new cabinet filled with spices. This was beautiful, pretty, tender and soft. Zen found it ‘peppery,’ and I felt lots of tobacco. The ’28 improved in my glass, and the tannins of the vintage came through in the end, but it was still no match for the 1911 (95).

The 1929 Mouton Rothschild was ‘sexy’ and ‘alive’ per The Comte. It was fruity, and I can’t read exactly what I wrote next, but it looks like ‘margarita’ lol. It was a little grapey, soft and fleshy on the palate with just a touch of vim remaining, but this wine was definitely on the downward slope, but at age 89, there were no complaints (93).

The 1985 Roumier Bonnes Mares was dirtier, but it was rich with great body and more stuffing than usual. This was earthy, vitamin-y and iron-y without the irony and a good gaminess. ‘Better balance,”truffles’ and ‘more precise’ came from the crowd (95).

The 1990 Roumier Bonnes Mares had this rubber tire action to its nose, along with rose soap. It was rich and a touch dirty, but it had a great finish. However, the wine left me a little disappointed for such a theoretically epic bottle. It was more ‘easy drinking’ than I expected and remembered from this wine (95).

The 1991 H. Jayer Cros Parantoux was more elegant than the Echezeaux that followed (at this point it was all splitting hairs they were all great!). Northface observed ‘menthol,’ and I found purple rain flavors on its long and flexing palate. This wine was where integrity met sensuality. There was a Rocky Mountain High that this wine gave me, whatever that meant lol (97).

The 1993 G. Jayer Echezeaux was spectacular. It got a ‘Deep Ocean’ from me. Long live Big Boy lol. This was a rich and smooth wine that oozed decadence. There was more of that purple rain goodness along with ‘incredible concentration, color and intensity.’ This was a lip smacker of a wine that got another decadent from me, along with heavy (97).

The 1985 Guigal Cote-Rotie Turque was a beautiful, elegant wine with a touch more bitters to it than the La Landonne. It fell a little short of the bottle I had in London within the last year, which dominated a great tasting. Violets and the classic pepper spice brought it home, although it didn’t bring me home quite yet (96).

The 1991 Guigal Cote-Rotie La Mouline was still dark and deep, full of bacon fat goodness. My belly was feeling like bacon fat goodness, too, at this point (95).

Unfortunately, the 1953 Schloss Johannisberg Furst Von Metternich Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese was off. At this point, there were no fucks given (DQ).

That was a wrap for night two. Night three would be in Macau, after the auction. There was much more tasting to do, and some drinking in the day, too

We began with a rare bottle of 1959 Krug Collection, which was a rich butter bomb with ‘apple juice city’ flavors. It was full of buttery deliciousness. There were nice, fully mature flavors and a rich mouthfeel full of dry honey. The acidity lingered in a sneaky way (96).

The 1973 Krug Collection Magnum was younger and showed much younger. There was more of a mineral backbone with lots of zip. This was very perfumed and had the best of both worlds of young and mature Champagne. Someone commented it was ‘softer than ’59,’ and there were lighter apple flavors (95M).

The Good Doctor preferred the 1990 Krug Collection out of the three, finding it the freshest, which is what he likes in his Champagne. The Hamburglar found it ‘low acid,’ which is generally true for the vintage, he went on. Colorado John found it ‘light and crisp’ (95+).

Jean-Marc Roulot had taken over the winemaking full time in 1989, and he has become one of the greatest white winemakers in the world. While most 1995 whites are past their prime, his 1995 Roulot Meursault Perrieres still had something to say. It had more milky, creamy and vanilla qualities. Its palate was meaty and lush with more vanilla flavors, and the Good Doctor tasted ‘honey’ (93).

The 1996 Roulot Meursault Perrieres had an explosive nose with lots of T ‘n A. The Good Doctor admired how these vintages were all so ‘different.’ There was lots of richness, texture and more length here than the other MPs. Its flavors were nutty, buttery and more yellow. There was nice light spice and great smokehouse flavors as well. Irv noted ‘butterscotch,’ and 12 Gauge correctly hailed it as ‘benchmark’ Roulot (97).

12 Gauge moved on to the ‘weightlessness’ of the 2000 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. This was ‘very Coche’ per The French Paradox, full of lots of smoky fireplace action and clean waterfall qualities. This was a super fresh 2000 that was as good as the vintage in general gets. The Paradox admired ‘the roasted Coche thing,’ and this smoky, icy, lemon pie of a wine left me with a lip-smacking finish (97).

The 2007 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was rich but young, definitely doing its suave Coche thing. It sparkled like diamonds and possessed outstanding richness, but it was still a bit shy. There were lots of white ice, minerals, white fruits and flowers in this í”Springí”-y wine. The Paradox continued, ‘You can see the whole Coche family in this flight’ (96).

After nine bubblies and whites, it was time for some reds. The Good Doctor set a high bar when he said that the 1959 Latour was ‘one of the best bottles of Latour I’ve ever tasted.’ He was absolutely right; I seconded that emotion! This was a perfect bottle that was so sweet (in the right way) and so rich with loads of great spice. Dusty, long, thick and smooth, the crowd cooed ‘chocolate’ and ‘cassis.’ This was a gritty and exciting wine. I often say that I usually prefer the ’59 Latour these days to the ’61, and this bottle was Exhibit A-Z (99).

The 1961 Palmer had the disservice of coming after the Latour. It was also a member of the ‘Better Bottle Club’ as some of us referenced having better bottles – not that this one was off. It was still very nice with sour cherry aromas and a citrusy twang. It had fleshy ice cream flavors and still merited an outstanding score (95).

The 1961 Mouton Rothschild was full of chocolaty deliciousness. It was mature, jammy, creamy and zippy with a nice slaty finish. The Hamburglar pointed out the ‘opulent’ warm vintage, and its rich and roasted flamboyant style backed up that argument (95).

The 1979 Lafleur was more Cab Franc-y and more jammy in the nose, but its palate was very slaty with a dry, dry finish. Boysenberry jam emerged with some time, and the wine continued to show off its long finish (96).

I have always loved the 1989 Lafleur, which struck me like the modern day ’61 but even stronger. This is an undervalued wine in the marketplace. There was lots of oil and alcohol, enough for a Russian bachelor party lol. There was a flash of jam in this monster wine. Intense, super stuff (98).

This bottle of 1990 Dujac Clos de la Roche was not as good as the ’93, having more bouillon, more flesh but a less intense finish. It seemed mellow by the usual 1990 standards for Dujac. It was a little dirty and was another member of the ‘BBC.’ No, the Better Bottle Club, geez. 12 Gauge is a ’90 lover in general, and he found the Dujacs were ‘the closest and most consistent flight of the night’ (94).

The 1985 Dujac Clos de la Roche was outstanding, similar in personality to the 1993 but with more mint. It was really more menthol, which developed into what I hailed as ‘Super Menthol’ lol. There was great citrus and great spice here along with gorgeous mahogany and exotic apricot flavors. Sexy stuff (97).

The 1988 Rousseau Chambertin was dirtier and a little one dimensional compared to the 1985. Another BBC (92).

There was almost something tropical about the 1990 Rousseau Chambertin. It was so rich, a bit soupy and honeyed in those regards, both positives. This was a lush Rousseau with good acid. There were good forest flavors led by cedar and presumably some other tree (again I can’t read what I wrote, it was that time of the night). The ’90 was clearly the richest of the flight, perhaps a touch sweet in a beet like way, but this was a meaty and bite-y wine that showed the best that 1990 has to offer in Burgundy (96+).

It was a spectacular beginning to a spectacular weekend. We would see everyone tomorrow.

We reconvened the next night for the first of two DRC friendly evenings, the first being the more intimate of the two, an eighteen vintage vertical of DRC Montrachet. I can safely say there was no better place to be in the wine world on this night!

We began the evening with a magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon that was super fresh out of the gate, flirtatious and flirting with outstanding. It was an excellent start to an excellent evening, and while ’75 is not in the same category as many other of the better vintages that surround it, good bottles are quite pleasurable (94M).

The 1969 Krug was another fresh bottle with lots of apple juice action. This was a superb and zippy Champagne, in outstanding territory for sure and almost even more (96).

The Punisher seemed to think the 2012 DRC Montrachet was still quite young, but I was enthralled with this admittedly still wound-up wine. Its deep, buttery nose had great stony spice and musk. It was rich, decadent and intense and yes, a bit young, but still quite showy. It had a strong finish. Someone commented that it was great but ‘just young’ (96+).

The 2005 DRC Montrachet displayed some more milky and yeasty aromas. It was tight and a bit pins and needles-y. There was some intensity, but it was more restrained despite its dried caramel flavors and a touch of butterscotch. Someone hailed it as ‘a great bottle of 2005’ (for this wine), and while I was not sure it will improve much, I knew that it definitely will age (95+).

The 2004 DRC Montrachet was the most floral and so sweet, decadent, lush, and creamy. Mmmmm delicious stuff. Since I just reviewed it the night before, I kept my notes short. The Ambassador was feeling like opening up new trade relations and gave it 99 points lol, but he wasn’t too far off (97).

We carried on with 2001 DRC Montrachet, which was grassy and gamy with pungency as well. There were lots of waterfall aromas. The palate was much richer than the ’04 and also sweet on the botrytis side, but not as much as the ’08. The Ambassador hailed this vintage as ‘smokin,’ but to me it didn’t have the depth on the finish to be at the tippy top of the point scales. Christian noted the wine’s great lift (96+).

I have always loved the 2000 vintage of this wine, but the 2000 DRC Montrachet might be finally turning a corner and past its prime. This bottle was more mature than memory served me, with lots of waterfall and subpar flesh. It was a bit alcoholic on the finish. This was a gamy, yeasty, chalky and stony wine. Someone called it ‘still good but not the same as it was’ (93).

The 1993 DRC Montrachet was the Miss Congeniality of the night, as it was delicious and a right down the middle fastball of a Monty. It had great butterscotch, pecan and toffee flavors, still all bridled and reined in that proper equestrian way. Christian found it ‘super sexy,’ or his eyes might have been off the table lol. It was also Hollywood Jef’s favorite, getting 99 points from him. On Sunset Boulevard, that’s locally known as a JL ‘fully erect’ lol (96).

The 1998 DRC Montrachet had a musky and wintry nose. It was delicate, feminine and floral on its nose, but its palate was briny and spiny. This was an excellent Montrachet but just short of outstanding (94).

The 1997 DRC Montrachet was delicious and so good right now, a veritable right thurrr. This was a great Montrachet, surprisingly intense and punching way above its weight class with massive acidity. 1997 was an excellent vintage for whites, but nothing I have ever had from that year was this powerful (96)!

The color on the 1995 DRC Montrachet was a bit dark, but the palate was still excellent. It tasted what I wrote as ‘normal,’ but it felt a step behind the best wines. Its palate was drier with lots of caramel flavors (94).

The 1991 DRC Montrachet was a solid wine, a bit square but nice and pleasing. Its palate was intense despite the weaker vintage tag, at least for the whites (93).

The Ambassador exclaimed that the 1990 DRC Montrachet was ‘spectacular!’ That was true, and this was surely the best wine of the night so far. It had incredible balance in a muscular way and was rich and intense with another ‘so’ long finish that kept unfurling. The Attorney General didn’t like it so much, which caused me to write ‘WTF LOL.’ Hollywood Jef declared that it was like the ‘sweetest pussy ever,’ and I can’t quite read my writing after that, but he either said ‘other than’ or ‘better than my wife’ lol. Yes, it was that time of the night (98).

The 1985 DRC Montrachet was also great, are you sensing a theme? It had nectar-like honeysuckle aromas and flavors to match with delicious and decadent rainwater and butter flavors as well. This was in a great spot (97).

The 1979 DRC Montrachet was unfortunately (DQ),completely shot as in cooked/oxidized/gone etc.

The 1973 DRC Montrachet was still pleasant but a little light and square. I appreciated its delicacy and floral edges, but it was no match for the ’78 (93).

And that was that. The next night was the main event at Hollywood Jef’s home in Beverly Hills, where over sixty people came to enjoy and share nothing but wines from DRC. It’s not often you get Wolfgang Puck and Masa at the same party, but this was Hollywood Jef, after all. Everyone seemed to gather around the dining room table that might have sit twelve comfortably, but it also seemed to fit sixty bottles quite nicely. I tasted thirty-two:

For a recap, 1999 La Tache ruled the roost, again, and The Rev blessed that sentiment. There are few DRC wines that are better, and even though it is relatively young, it is and has always been incredible. The ’99 RC needs some more time, but it will catch up. The ’88 RC showed why RC RC needs thirty years anyway before they get interesting, and this was an intense spanking of a wine. The ’02 and ’91 LTs were awesome, and the 1985 DRC Richebourg was in a great spot, and the 1996 Richebourg was just starting to come out of its shell, kicking its way out for sure. The 1957 Riche was delicious and another in a long line of ’57 DRCs delivering in the presence of Bad Boy. The 1947 Richebourg was the oldest wine on the table, outstanding and holding on in an autumnal way with band-aid, leather, chalk and black fruits. Ok I have been writing all afternoon, and it is Sunday. The rest were what we thought they were. Hey Hollywood, I have a suggestion for you: 1961s for 61. Call me : )