Wine lovers, historians and long-time readers of Vintage Tastings know of Bipin Desai. When it comes to the great American collectors of all-time, he is without question near or at the top of the charts. Not many people can casually say how they have had ’61 Palmer over 100 times, for starters. But Bipin’s love of wine has gone far beyond personal enjoyment; he has conducted some of the greatest wine events the public has ever seen. When it comes to his closest of friends, there is the Royal Order of the Purple Palate.

The ROPP has been meeting monthly for longer than I have been selling wine, and that’s longer than you may think. Every month a different member hosts a meal at one of LA’s top restaurants and provides the wines as well. All wines are served blind according to a theme, or a clue. And so the games begin.

The first flight of wines had only one clue, ‘same producer.’ The first of that flight had sweet fruit with carob and caramel aromas in its nutty nose. There was a drop of honey adding complexity, with lots of meat, make that smoked beef, then again we were at Totoraku’s (his specialty). The palate was round, rich and luscious with creamy and hidden acidity. It lingered well and was in a great spot. We settled on Cali thanks to some rich coffee flavors, and indeed, it was a 1974 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard (94+).

The second wine was corked, more so in the nose but not so much on the palate. There was a sweeter, riper palate here with almost some tropicality. It had nice thickness and was more open with the most mature fruit, in a gamy and fleshy way. This was the 1970 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard (93A).

The second wine was a lot more moldy in its nose with some garden there but more must than anything else. There were flavors of dust, olive and honey in this smooth, balanced and long 1970 Palmer (94).

The third wine in this flight took immediate charge. There was more chocolate and cream here, and Bipin noted, ‘rhubarb and celery.’ I was feeling the red citrus thing as well, and this was clearly an older wine, smooth and satiny in the mouth. There were library and tree flavors supporting its flesh, fruit and cream. It kept getting better and better in the glass, a tribute to the quality of the vintage, which happened to be arguably the greatest vintage of all-time. It was a 1945 Palmer (97).

The second Burgundy had aromas of tobacco and hot sauce, and then the tomato ensued. This was tomato in all of its stages and splendor, showing different hues and even some sun-dried qualities. The palate was rich and gamy, showing more tomato and morphing into Bloody Mary city. The 1966 Comte de Vogue Musigny V.V. was a long and fleshy wine, gaining in the glass over time (95+).

The final wine on this most memorable night was a 1962 Comte de Vogue Musigny V.V. that was a touch oxidized, but still clearly the wine of the flight. The layers to its flesh, its game and its good stink all added up into what would have been a stunner of a wine. I didn’t write much more at this point, other than, ‘should have been wine of flight, still might be even though affected’ (96A).

Summer is the season of baseball, and summer is also the season to visit Burgundy. So is Fall, Winter and Spring by the way, but there is something about Burgundy in the summer that remains the warmest and fuzziest in my heart. A recent trip had me visiting many old friends (although not and never enough), and one very special day had me at Lafon in the morning, tasting through at least two dozen wines, before a magnificent lunch with The Artist Formerly Known as Dr. Vino. Its magnificence was most about the company and merely supported by the three impressive wines that ended up on the table.

And more did I get, when a 2010 Bernard Moreau Batard Montrachet was ordered off the list at Montrachet, of course. The Batard did not have the intensity of the Chevalier, which is par for the course, as they might say. It was fatter and sweeter, nearly outstanding but just short, perhaps only so by the greatness of the Chevalier (94).

What better way to follow Caillerets than 2008 Coche-Dury Meursault Genevrieres? It had a similar note to the Caillerets, with more ‘er,’ like smokier and longer, etc. It, too, was rich and fat with even more hedonism. The breed of the vineyard stood out like a center in a great frontline (95).

There was only one place to go, and go there we did with the 2008 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. This was clearly the most serious with the tangiest, zippiest finish. Weight and mass equaled length like some sort of wine physics equation. It stole the show with its stony, rock solid personality. There was elevated acid and elevated strength in this Charlie angel (96).

It was a night of ‘nother firsts, thanks to a 2010 Fourrier Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques ‘Cuvee Centennaire.’ This was an incredible wine, with enough fruit for a symphony conducted by Mozart himself. There were layers of colors in this ’emotional and sexual’ red, per The Assassin. Red, purple and black combined into one army of light. It was big and rich but delicately strong, still so young and still so polished on its finish. I look forward to revisiting this wine for the next thirty to forty years, it will probably outlast me (96+).

There’s a lot of great wine lovers that live north of the border, eh? Without question, one of Canada’s finest would be a gentleman named Frank. For those of you that know Frank, you would know that you might find him at Barberian’s, Canada’s finest steakhouse. And of course, Frank would be drinking Burgundy, as that is his passion, so Burgundy we all brought.

The first flight was interesting but not thrilling, and the last Chardonnay of this night stole the show white, so to speak, at least for now. The 1999 JN Gagnard Batard Montrachet had a white chocolate nose with wheat and smoke aromas. It was big and rich with a muscular, meaty finish. The terroir of Batard stood out, and this ’99 had more body, more flavors and more balance. It was mo’ better. Honeysuckle and a hint of brown spices rounded out this impressive white (94).

We moved to the next duel, a pair of 2002s. When it comes to the conversation of great vintages of the past fifteen years, this vintage tends to get overlooked, but it belongs in the conversation. The first shot was fired by the 2002 Drouhin Musigny, which had a great 2002 nose. There was pure red fruit, along with great clove and tobacco notes and a pinch of Mary Jane. This was a mmm, mmm good wine with a twist of lime rounding out its nose. Its rich, saucy and meaty palate was heavy yet agile. ‘Great tannins’ and ‘soaring’ came from the crowd. The only negative was that it shut down with some time in the glass (95+).

The 2002 Mugnier Bonnes Mares that followed had nice perfume along with winter and matchbox to its flinty, stony nose. It showed some skin, just enough to keep it interesting, and it was beautiful, long and smooth. The moral of the story of the last two flights was that 2002 is greater than 1996 (93).

It was only appropriate that the 1993 DRC La Tache was last. I have had this wine many times, and it has often been thrilling, but also often been square and unyielding. Fortunately, this bottle was the former. Cedar and mahogany took center stage as they are prone to do with ’93 DRCs, but there was also rich, make that wealthy, fruit with red rose and some touches of tomato. This was a long and balanced wine that had proper portions of fruit and finish. Citrus, cigar and vegetable goodness rounded out the palate. The wine got better and better and better (96+).

It is always nice to see great wine camaraderie amongst new faces in new places, and thanks to Frank, I made a few more amis on this fun, magical evening. All lovers of Burgundy are friends of mine.

Every day, every one of us plays the role of judge. We judge people when we interact with them, we judge people when we read about them, we judge people when we look at them without knowing a thing about them. Then there are real judges, the ones that lay down the law, so to speak. But when it comes to wine, there is only one Judge, but he lays down bottles. And after reviewing the thousands of cases over which he presides, I can safely call him ‘Your Honor.’

A quartet of ancient Margauxs followed, as in the appellation and not the Chateau, save one. The 1929 Cheateau La Colonilla sounded more like a reason to visit the doctor than a wine. Old banana wood and mesquite came out of its sickly nose. Tree bark was there and still fresh, but the palate was a bit tangy, although it possessed nice fruit. It was generous like a good ’29 should be, but there was fungus under its nails and more tang without the Shanghai. The Judge observed ‘incense’ while I found cocoa. It was interesting and good in a perverse way (87).

Sebastien likened the 1928 Margaux to ‘an artist’s studio,’ as he smelled canvas and palette. It was spot on! There was also some George Clintonesque chocolate city there as well. The palate continued that theme in lush, tasty and long fashion. The Judge admired its meatiness, and I its salty finish. Sebastien found its salt to be that of a langoustine, ie of a brinier nature. Chateau Margaux clearly stood out from the rest of the pack (95).

A 1937 Gruaud Larose also had a salty nose, a la seawater from the ocean. It had a soft and smooth palate that was easy, luscious and tender. The goose made it even more loose, or better, I guess that is all about relativity (93).