The second wine had a fabulous nose with aromas of decadent chocolate. Bordeaux was definitely in the house. ‘Smoky’ and ‘powerful’ came from the crowd for this dark wine. ‘So much fruit,’ I wrote, including plum and black cherry, along with great spice. The palate was delicious and mature, similar to the nose but milder, with more carob. It, too, gained in the glass and got richer. While balanced and smooth, it gained this old Burgundy complexity. I was stunned to discover this gorgeous wine was a 1940 La Mission Haut Brion. God bless old wine (95).

The third wine in this incredible, opening flight was another great nose, ‘Spain?’ I guessed. There was big-time coffee bean here, in an espresso ice cream direction. Truffle, chocolate and black fire emerged, and while the palate was again milder than the nose, it was still delicious. The nose became super smoky in a wet tobacco, leafy way. The palate had a hint of metal on the finish; it was pretty but not magnificent. Super Mario found ‘almond butter,’ and SuperSomm added ‘a bit volatile.’ It was a 1925 Marques de Riscal Rioja (93).

Back to Bordeaux?’ I questioned for the next wine. I was on an early roll. It seemed fresher and younger than the second wine, but it wasn’t younger in the end. There were wonderful garden aromas, a stick of cinnamon and great balance with its elegant plum fruit. I was in 1959 camp I must confess, but this 1915 Palmer was much older than that. There was nice balance on its citrusy and waterfall-y palate, which had touches of cedar, tobacco and caramel. While there was initially nice grit to its finish and lingering acidity, the 1915 faded quickly after fifteen minutes or so. So this rating is for the ladies, because I know they hate when that happens lol. Classy and classic, pure and super for 97 years old, the 1915 Palmer was excellent, flirting with outstanding, but it just couldn’t keep it up (92).

A 1953 Mouton Rothschild was actually disappointing; perhaps it was a case of reconditioning gone wrong, as its color was quite youthful. Its nose was mild and not showy, yet it still gave a deep impression. Aromas of seashell, black fruit and pencil gave way to a soft and tender palate. Polished and pretty, there was substance there but in reserve. It felt younger than it was, even though it had mature qualities. It was polished like 1953 can be (92).

The last wine in this second flight had a gorgeous nose with aromas of wafer, caramel and a touch of mint. I was convinced this was from Italy due to its heavy leather and tar in the nose. Someone found it ‘balsamic,’ but its palate had more Cali Cabernet in that Ridge Monte Bello direction. ‘Mint chocolate’ flavors combined with caramel and a stony, gritty finish in this 1952 Inglenook Cabernet Sauvignon Cask J-9. Well done(93).

The next wine had ‘moldy hay’ in its nose per Super Mario. I added ‘raining, barn, woman.’ Bad JK, bad. It was a good mold, like cheese, and it also had nice nut, earth and black/purple fruit. Its palate was elegant and balanced yet shy. It was a 1978 Chateau Montlena Napa Valley Estate Cabernet Sauvignon, which almost seemed like it needed more time(93).

The next wine had a sweet nose full of caramel, tangerine and mint. This was a delicious wine, fantastic if you will. It had that Cali mint a la old Heitz, and it was gritty and sturdy with outstanding acidity. I found this 1977 Chateau Musar outstanding, although one found it had ‘a lot of makeup’ (95).

This flight kept holding its own with a 1971 Guigal Cote-Rotie La Mouline. The nose was open with aromas of weed, forest bark, mushroom, tea, coffee, animal and bacon mixed with ham. As you can see, there was a lot going on lol. This was complicated stuff, and SuperSomm added ‘incense smoke.’ There was no doubting this was Cote Rotie, and I knew because I brought this bottle. This was delicious wine, in a gorgeous spot, released from the cold, dark cellars of The Cardinal himself. As great as the storage is in the caverns of The Cardinal, trust me when I tell you don’t go down there (95).

Dr. Brown’s celery soda was in the house thanks to a 1986 Henschke Mount Edelstone Shiraz. This was a sweet, yet great wine, SuperSomm was guessing 1977 Grange at first. It definitely had that sweet, saucy Aussie style, but it wasn’t over the top, even Goldilocks would have found it just right. It was delicious, and this flight was a great one (94).

The party started crashing hard thanks to a 1956 Undurraga Cabernet Sauvignon Reserva, a Chilean Cabernet. They should have kept this bottle in Chile. It had a yogurt nose with signs of Bordeaux behind it, but the yogurt stuck to the palate, and Batman found it ‘volatile and unpleasant.’ It was drinkable but barely legal for admission requirements. I have never liked Chilean wines. Sorry (80).

A 1950 La Fleur Petrus was Bordeaux at first smell, with a great balance of chocolate, caramel and coffee. It had dark Bordeaux fruits and nice acidity. This Pomerol still had lots to give and was a solid wine from this cult vintage (93).

Perhaps a bit of palate fatigue was setting in, as I have great memories of 1970 Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet Sauvignon, but this bottle wasn’t one of them. Pekka found it ‘a bit peculiar, but I like it.’ There was glue and paint on top of cedar and anise aromas, with flavors of hot earth and minerals (92).

SuperSomm kept firing away, this time with ‘autumn forest, smoke and truffle’ in the 1993 Le Pin. This was definitely an XXX wine, dirty and open with lots of earth and flesh. SuperSomm added ‘kissemura,’ which is slang for something in Swedish. Here, kitty kitty (92).

There were very few wines on this weekend that I found so bad, they didn’t deserve a number…ie, a score below 80. The 1962 Carbonnieux Blanc was one of them. It was hideously oaky and the palate was awful. Glue, green and apple were about all I could say, but it wasn’t enough in any which way (NR).

The third white quickly recalibrated my wine sense with a zippy, perfect bottle of 1998 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. Its signature white fruits, minerals and kink were all on fine display in this fresh bottle, and its finish said it still had plenty of life left in it (94).

The reds started with a classy and classic 1943 Calon Segur (91).Aromas and flavors of earth, cedar, tobacco and cassis came together in this smooth, polished and easy wine. Some violets emerged with time (91).

A 1983 Opus One was kind of oaky and disappointing. Ehhhhh (84).

I couldn’t write much more than ‘I’m done!’ for a 2000 DRC La Tache. I wasn’t kidding (92)

There was a corked 1918 Coutet (DQ) and a decent 1902 Boal Madeira from Lord-knows-who (93).

And that was Day One of the Tasting of the Year.

This is an article about one specific collection, one of the most special collections ever to be auctioned, one so special it achieved over double its high estimate, something I have never seen before, and we have realistic estimates. This was a collection of only Chateau Latour, one of the greatest wines in the world today. But this was no ordinary collection, this was a collection from one of the former family owners of Chateau Latour, and because of their ownership, they would get ‘x’ amount of cases every year direct from the Chateau. These cases went straight into the family’s personal Chateau, where it remained untouched ever since, and the oldest wine on offer was from 1905.

I could immediately smell the freshness still in the 1938 Latour. There was that old vanilla ice cream quality to its fruit along with light cedar, citrus dust and caramel, and its palate was tender, soft and smooth, easy like a day at the beach. Touches of cedar, vanilla, mesquite and cinnamon graced this elegant red, and while it was soft by the usual Latour standards, I was still impressed (90).

The 1948 Latour was much bigger and oakier in its nose, with lots of wood and green bean fruit behind it. The palate was rich and heavy, fleshy and fresh with wonderful texture and a zippy finish. Its wood blew off into a waterfall of cascading cassis and beef, and its weight stood out in this flight. Coffee and chocolate flavors emerged with air, and the wine really started to sing after some time in the glass. I have had this vintage twice before and always been underwhelmed, but I guess I didn’t have them from the right cellar (95).

The next flight began with another impressive ‘off’ vintage, the 1951 Latour. ‘Tannic’ came from the crowd, and we had another incredibly fresh, old wine on our hands. Signature walnut and black fruit were present in the nose, which came across almost as if a shot of Napa Valley was in my glass. The palate was heavy and oily with black fruit and cola flavors, along with a dry, slaty finish (93).

The 1954 Latour was at the bottom of our evening’s pyramid along with the 1938, but that was still a good place to be. This was a bit of a sibling to the 1948 with its green bean fruit, and the nose was quite cedary, showing some fresh paint as well. The palate was chocolaty and tasty with a flash of flesh. Smooth and lingering, there were also chalk and green bean flavors in this lighter yet lovely Latour (91).

The 1964 Latour that followed smelled like it was from the 1980s or younger. Although it was a bit shy, it gave off this Harlan-esque impression in the nose; this was a Napa Valley Latour. The palate was wow with its rich and oily personality. Flavors of chocolate, coffee and minerals combined with a lip and ass-smacking finish. Damn, that’s the second time I wrote that this week, I must have something on my mind (95).

The 1941 Latour is another forgotten vintage that will forever be remembered by me now. The ’41 had perfect purple in its rich and luscious nose, along with caramel cream and a dusty perfume. Its aromas were fresh like mountaintops, and it made me want to sing zippedy doo dah. Garden, citrus and beef broth all emerged in its nose, which took on a touch of tropical kink. The palate was lush and grapy with toasted almond flavors and drops of oil and sex. ‘Carraway’ and ‘wet saddle’ came from the crowd. This was a stunning wine that still had more youth in it than age (96).

The 1942 Latour was also outstanding. A recent outstanding 1941 DRC Richebourg and memories of numerous, great 1942 La Taches made me think this pair of vintages could be two of the forgotten greats. Let’s not forget legends like 1941 Unico in Spain and Inglenook in California, I think it might even have been great in Piedmont as well. Perhaps 1941 is the greatest forgotten vintage of the 20th Century? Back to the 1942…it was much grapier in its nose, in a good way. Its nose was creamy, sexy and exciting with its honeyed, sweet and flamboyant fruit. Surely this had to be from decades later? There was musky t ‘n a in the nose, which also became leathery, adding aromas of bread crust fresh from the oven. The palate was rich and sweet, chewy and fresh, with a gritty and dusty finish. This was another Latour whose freshness made it seem much younger than it was (95).

If the 1947 Latour were a husband, the 1949 Latour would be its wife. This was much more of an intellectual wine, not as obvious or open as many of the previous standouts. There were aromas of candle wax, cedar, citrus and some cobweb in the attic. The nose was more elegant and tangy, still long, but much more feminine. The palate was, of course, fresh, thicker than I expected, but also more on the citrusy side. Flavors of milk and forest floor signaled a different side of Latour, but despite its elegance, it stayed powerful and lingering on its finish. I noted that I wished I had the chance to get to know a full bottle of this wine over the course of an entire evening (96+).

Hello, 1959 Latour. This was still a baby, full of slate, minerals, cedar and paint before giving way to chocolate and coffee. This was another Napa Valley Latour, so young and so chunky that it gave off some Napa vibes, as in the natural expression of Cabernet there. The Cabernet flavors really came through with lots of asphalt, along with rich leather. This was a man still in boy’s clothing (97).

The 1961 Latour finished the two-day procession of Latours as it should have, on top. It was so much tighter than any other Latour previously tasted. Minerals and slate were sentinels guarding its cassis, ink and black fruit. The palate was incredible with an endless finish that was incredibly long and full of superb acidity. Full-bodied, massive and rich, there was a shot of port to its palate, more in texture than in sweetness. ‘Its tannins are still very fresh,’ noted someone. This was as good as this legendary wine gets (99).

We were back in safer territory with an excellent 1978 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot. This had much deeper fruit and was very fragrant, showing off lots of purple musk. It had a nice body with a dry, cedary finish, and taut purple fruit with light citrus kisses. Earth and beef satay flavors combined with hay and straw to show both fresh yet browning, mature flavors. This was a complicated wine (93).

The 1979 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot was in a great spot and stole the spotlight from the usually stronger 1978. It had a sweet nose full of kirsch. I just loved its forward, sexy nose, which had just enough hints of autumn and broth to make the conversation deeper and even more interesting. Boysenberry flavors were super tasty, and this was officially another secretly good red from 1979. There was some ‘pudding gooding’ to its great cherry fruit, and I couldn’t help but drink this wine to the last drop, as well as seconds. There is probably no need to defer gratification for this wine much longer, unless out of magnum (95).

We went from one classic to another with the 1985 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot. This was classic in every sense of the word. Its fruit was pure and clean red with great musk and spice. Oil, blueberry and black cherry joined the nose and fit right in. The palate was delicious, showing off all the positive qualities of 1985. It was full-bodied and long with nice sweetness and earth, everything in balance. This was ready to drink and also ready to age some more (95+).

The 1986 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot was the last, non Vieilles Vignes wine that we would have on this evening. While I have had some thrilling 1986s, this wasn’t one of them. The nose was pleasant- brothy, citrusy and smoky, with nice vitamins and red fruit. The palate, however, showed the mean side of 1986. It was dry and hard, medium-bodied and lacking fruit. Its palate was all acid and rust. Every at-bat can’t be a home run (88).

Next up was our first Vieilles Vignes, and the first one that the estate ever produced, the 1987 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot Vieilles Vignes. There was an immediate, noticeable difference in the volume and concentration here. 1987 is about as low on the totem pole that a red Burgundy vintage can be, but this wine didn’t care what vintage it was from. It did need time in the glass to really show its stuff. At first, green oak dominated, but olives and coffee replaced the wood, and it became more and more impressive, especially considering the vintage (93).

The next flight was all ‘V.V.’ beginning with the 1996 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot Vieilles Vignes. The V.V. style really stood out again; its volume was huge, and its texture bigger than Burgundy life. Its fruit was thick, pungent and soupy, and while big, it was still tight and clean. Fuller than most ’96s, the acid seemed less than usual and the milk more. It kept gaining in the glass, although it still came across abit awkwardly in a pre-teen way (92+).

The 1997 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot Vieilles Vignes was in a great spot, with lots of musk and vitamins, including extra C. It was zippy and citrusy, both not easy to achieve in 1997, along with great verve. This was one of the better 1997s that I can remember, better than most, in fact. It was rich, saucy and tasty, ‘great!’ as I wrote. It occurred to me then that this cuvee seemed to make the lesser years sing louder than normally, but the flip side of that coin was that the better vintages needed more time than usual. Either way you skin it, impressive sums it up (94).

The 1999 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot Vieilles Vignes had a deep nose, with adolescent banana peel and date skin in its shy nose, particularly for 1999. Its finish was rich, decadent and strong in the mouth, but the fruit was shy city. While thick, it was shut down and might need another decade more before it starts to say hello (94+).

The final flight begun with a 2007 Chateau de La Tour Clos Vougeot Vieilles Vignes. ‘2007 delivers again, ‘ I wrote. I have been a big fan of this vintage as far as it being one for early drinking and enjoyment. Floozy isn’t the right word, but party girl is. Forward and sexy, the 2007 showed me skin and kept me in refill mode, although it did seem a little more confused after getting to know the 2008 and 2009 that followed (92).

This was an impressive evening of Clos Vougeot with its finest and most significant producer. The standard cuvee showed wonderfully in vintages like 1979 and ’85, and the Vieilles Vignes cuvee is not even ready to show yet in most vintages. Even 1987 felt on the way up, which is quite impressive! The V.V. is built for the long haul, and a very special and unique wine in Burgundy. Almost every V.V. felt like it needed time to develop, and that it would get better, hence all the pluses. I look forward to revisiting this cuvee many times in the future.

A 2009 Liger-Belair Vosne Romanee Colombiere was corked, too much so to pick up many aromas, but the palate wasn’t as badly affected. If you could block out the corked quality, the palate was tasty and foresty, with deep purple and rich fruit, and ‘great weight’ as one observed (93A).

We took a left turn and went to the other side of the tracks with a 2006 Liger-Belair Nuits St. Georges Aux Cras. Its nose was much earthier, almost rubbery at first, clearly a different terroir. I always feel like I’m slumming it in a back alley of Burgundy when drinking Nuits St. Georges, no offense meant. I think we all know that slumming it can serve its purposes lol. Cedar and tannins jumped out of its nose and not much more, but its palate was more impressive than I expected, delivering a thick and long mouthful. Black fruits, vitamins and a ‘hint of licorice’ were all present in this big and beefy red. Hong Kong’s version of the Old Dirty Bastard was loving it. It was the terroir, of course (93).

The 2007 Liger-Belair Vosne Romanee Les Suchots seduced me as ’07s do. There was great perfume and spice here, with sweet and musky decadent fruit. The palate was soft, tender and delicate with great spice. There was so much finesse in all of Louis-Michel’s wines that they struck me as delicacies. This was sexy, silky and superb wine (94).

A pair of queens was next, starting with the 2006 Liger-Belair Vosne Romanee Aux Reignots. I was wondering why the Reignots would be served after vineyards such as Suchots and Brulees, but after this flight, there weren’t any lingering questions. The 2006’s nose was so pure, impressive with its cedar and breed. There was this kiss of that NSG rubber again, but its red fruit overcame in a so fresh and so clean clean way. The palate also had great spice and nice cedar with a long and expressive finish. Gil observed, ‘that popcorn Coche nose’ (94).

Louis-Michel’s Echezeaux is one of this historic vineyard’s newest stars, and it just keeps getting better and better with bottle age, even though there aren’t any that old in the first place. The 2007 Liger-Belair Echezeaux was tasty, big, rich, long and zippy for ’07, with lots of structure. There was black forest fruit with a touch of tropical Bazooka goodness. This was a big and brawny 2007, a typical but I wasn’t complaining. Its impressive structure and citrus twists were all good in this hood (94+).

The 2009 Liger-Belair Echezeaux was even better, as it should be. Its dense, sweet fruit was balanced by its structure and finish. Fruit and acidity were all in harmony, and the signature style of the Domaine was on full display, with added depth from the terroir. There was great style to this great red (96).

It is difficult for a young wine to get me up in what I call ‘rare air’ territory, ie 97+, but the 2009 Liger-Belair La Romanee did just that. ‘Every 2009 is great, ‘ someone commented, but the 2009 La Romanee was beyond great. Deep and powerful seemed inadequate to describe the depths of its nose, as did rich and decadent. This was ripe yet tense, with leather and smokehouse nuances. It was an ass-smacking great nose; that felt more adequate lol. The palate was like a dense forest of flesh, bramble and cedar, a veritable wonderland in which immersion seemed inviting and inevitable. The wine made time stand still; I felt paralyzed by its greatness, yet I was happy to be so. Speaking of so, ‘so rich, so concentrated, so incredible’ summed up my notes. ‘Hell yeah’ would be another way to put it (98).

There are only a handful of people who emerge in Burgundy every generation to become one of the true greats, and Louis-Michel is one of them. Any bottle of his, any time, count me in.

I landed in HK Monday afternoon, and the first event on tap was an evening of 1982s thanks to the sale’s largest consignment. I had missed two previous opportunities this year to attend an ’82 tasting, and I was looking forward to checking in on this heralded vintage on its 30th anniversary.

A 1982 La Dominique was the only St. Emilion on tap tonight and a real surprise. The A-Train found it ‘minty and grassy’ in a good way, and I added wintry spice and ‘classic St. Emilion,’ as in the opposite of that garage…I guess one could technically call it wine. But I digress, as the La Dominique seduced with its great yeast and game aromas, and the palate delivered an excellent experience, full of great spice, more acid than the GPL and nice minerality. Flavors of green olives tickled my palate on its finish. This was ‘good juice,’ as Bad Boy likes to say, and reminded me how a price tag isn’t always an indicator of pleasure (94).

The 1982 Beychevelle, increasingly popular in China due to its ‘Dragon Boat’ label, had a lot of glue and paint in its nose at first, but there was rich and saucy fruit behind it. The glue and paint stuck to the palate as well, and I wasn’t quite sure if this was a typical or an atypical bottle, but I liked the wine overall despite these unusual qualities (91).

The 1982 Gruaud Larose was on the lips of many as a standout at the end of the evening, but at first I didn’t feel it as much. Its nose was sexy, noticeably fuller and bigger with deep, nutty fruit and secondary carob and yeast. The palate was a bit square and very shy, with cleaner and violet flavors just scratching at the surface. While smooth, it was shut down and a touch green. Fast forward two hours later, as an extra bottle of this was open and un-consumed at the end of the dinner. I couldn’t let that go to waste, so we polished the bottle off after dinner up by the pool. After a couple hours of aeration, the Gruaud starting coming into its own, like a star athlete no one thought would be one. It got richer and more powerful, and its palate started to talk back. Not every wine is ready to go once we pull the cork just because we are ready for a drink. I pounded the last of that Gruaud Larose until we were finished, and it pounded me accordingly the next morning (94+).

The 1982 Calon Segur was also quite popular amongst the crowd due to its ready, willing and able nature. Its nose was open and brothy with yeast, game and nut aromas. The palate was tasty and gamy, a bit more jammy than the others with lots of cherry flavors. The minerals and slate came out, and the finish strengthened (93).

1982 Cos d’Estournel has always been a pet ’82 of mine ever since it smacked down an anonymous First Growth one wine-filled and fueled weekend years ago. I should note that the ‘Any Given Sunday’ rule applies, which is not to say that the other result could also happen on another given day, whether it be then or now. There was great spice to the Cos’ nose, with sweet caramel and honey glazes. The palate was nutty and smooth, super chocolaty and lush. This was tasty in a no need to be hasty way (95).

The 1982 La Mission Haut Brion was more graceful in its nose, a bit reticent like orchestrated movements of a veteran ballerina, hinting at things to come. It was still classically nutty and obviously deep, its pockets bulging out of its well-tailored pants. Game and smoke slithered out of its nose, and while its palate was meaty, it, too, was reticent. Tight and ‘austere,’ this was another beast from the vintage that needed more than the two hours of airtime we gave it, four would have probably been better. Unfortunately, there wasn’t an extra bottle to revisit after dinner, but I will plan on revisiting this wine soon (95+).

What did we have here? A 1982 Lafite Rothschild? Yes, we don’t only sell Lafite, we actually drink it, too. Can’t let it all go to the Mainland now, can we? The Lafite was tight, similar to the La Miss, with lots of cedar, minerals and iodine. Cedar dominated its gritty palate, with fireplace and brick flavors joining the party. It, too, might have benefitted from a couple extra hours. Later in the week, a client from the Mainland told me he had eight bottles of this in one night during the same week. Damn, I thought opening two bottles was impressive lol (95).

So what do I think now of the 1982 vintage? I think it is a great vintage, no question. I think many wines will be in a sweet spot over the next decade, ready to drink and enjoy, which is not to say they won’t continue to age, but I don’t see wines like Grand Puy or Calon Segur etc getting any better. At the top level, there is true greatness. Will the vintage continue to reach for the stars like 1928, 1929, 1945, 1947, 1959, 1961 and other great vintages from before? The beautiful thing is there is only one way to find out: keep drinking ’em, and I plan on doing so for years to come, as I am not worried about missing the boat here any time soon.