A 1990 Dom Perignon that followed was tough to drink thereafter. It was pungent and grassy, and despite being very fresh and with a great finish, I wanted to go back to the Mercier. It ain’t easy to go young after you’ve gone old, at least for wine (92+).

A pair of Leflaives guided us off the runway beginning with the 1999 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. There was a big dose of sulfur at first, but behind that smoke, citrus and bright, fresh fruit. There was great game and spice to this buttered banana of a nose. The palate was big up front but surprisingly soft and tender on its finish. Etienne de Montille was with us for dinner, and he remarked that ‘1999 was not a great vintage for white. It lacks a little energy’ (93).

A 1996 Fleurot-Larose Montrachet was fruity and ‘cauliflower soup,’ per someone. It was pungent and unexciting, average at best (85).

A 2007 de Montille Puligny Montrachet Caillerets was a personal favorite of Wilf’s for ‘just drinking,’ and it had a great nose with caramel and butter toffee aromas. It was smooth and tasty, with full flavors and a full finish. Etienne is doing some special things these days, and is a winemaker to watch in Burgundy (92+).

It is still a red, red world, so we obliged with a 1989 Leroy Richebourg. The ’89 had a smoky, peaty nose with a touch of latex to its date and purple fruit aromas. Its flavors were light beef, big grape, dark fruit and black forest. ‘Rustic ratatouille’ wrapped up my notes for this excellent and big-boned red (93).

1989 DRC La Tache? Ok, why not. Any night where a bottle of La Tache is opened is officially special. Its nose was very perfumed and open, although there was some dirty underneath, one of the issues with ’89. The palate was much more expressive than the nose with its rich, meaty and earthy personality. Its finish was thick and showed me its peacock tail. Insert your own joke here (94).

The DRC parade continued with a 1986 DRC Romanee St. Vivant. 1986 has provided me some great surprises over the years at the top level; typically its reputation is hard, tannic, acidic and not a lot of fruit. The RSV was a little mildewy at first, but musk and cereal emerged along with dark fruit. There was this dirty side again to the ’86, but its palate and dry finish were impressive. It stood toe-to-toe with the La Tache (94).

We went back to Leroy with a 1978 Leroy Mazis Chambertin, which was a beauty. It was feminine and tender, some kind of wonderful with its pretty, smooth and satiny sides. Pure, fine, feminine again, that’s all she wrote (94).

1996 was the main event on this night, and DRC and Leroy went head to head again, beginning with a 1996 DRC La Tache. Its nose was intense, with all the screech of 1996, aka acidity. The inevitable mint and spice came second, along with cedar and green wood. The palate was finally starting to show some flesh and fruit; the knock on the vintage is the opposite. The great acidity of 1996 shone through, along with forward strawberry flavors. Jean-Marc Roulot found it ‘powerful yet elegant’ and preferred the LT to what followed (96).

So did I, but it was an ‘Any Given Sunday’ thing more than a ‘Smackdown.’ The 1996 Leroy Chambertin had everyone talking, from ‘more opulent’ to ‘masculine’ to ‘verve tannins.’ It was nutty, brothy, thick and creamy. 1996 is a vintage that plays into Leroy’s style well, although this was perhaps a bit too muscular and a touch stemmy if looking for flaws (95).

The 1996 Henri for Georges Jayer Echezeaux that followed was spectacular. I always find this wine (George’s bottling) to be one of the best values in finest and rarest Burgundy, because according to Martine Saunier, long-time importer, this was always the same wine as Henri, even when there were two labels, which there weren’t after some time in the early 1990s anyway. People pay so much more when George’s name isn’t on the label, but the smart money is on the Georges. The nose was full of that deep purple, Jayer fruit. The palate had unbridled power and breadth, with enough vitamin supplements for a pro-Football team. ‘Red twizzler’ came from the crowd for this bright and pleasure-giving red (96+).

I think I can, I think I can…as soon as I saw the 1962 Leroy La Romanee, I knew I could. Alexander the Great found ‘ash of the fire,’ and here was another great nose, with red fruit, dust, zip and tender earth. The palate was milky and tender, round and lush. As my beautiful, 2-year old daughter Katerina might say, ‘Duhlishussss’ (95).

By now, we were all up and about, stumbling, some bumbling. Wild Bill, one of San Francisco’s local wine sheriffs, had a bottle of 1998 DRC Montrachet in his hand, ready to fire. I referenced this bottle in the Nomadness article; a bottle of this a month definitely keeps the doctor away. This bottle was Botrytis City, which felt like a block away from Alphabet City with much higher rent. It wasn’t too far over the top despite its honeyed and Caramelo Anthony sweetness. It tasted great and was more filling with its coconut cream flavors (95).

That was enough for me for night number two, as there was still one more night left, the grandest of them all.

A 1969 Leroy Montrachet was also excellent with its great old nose of candle wax and butter toffee, along with this old cabinet/attic/house aroma and ‘spearmint.’ There were both great earth and sautí©ed butter flavors. This was a tasty and impressive aged white, and TD Jon noted ‘salted caramel’ (94).

2003 is a controversial vintage when it comes to Burgundy, and a 2003 Ramonet Montrachet showed why. The super hot vintage made the usually divine Montrachet overly sweet in a tropical, mint julep cocktail kind of way. This was the stripper side of Montrachet, but my cash stayed in my pocket after the lovely Leroy. They were such opposites. Fruity and forward, there was nice body here to this extroverted Monty (90).

A 2004 Henri Boillot Chevalier Montrachet was smooth, but it didn’t entice too many notes (91).

Twin Bonneau Corton Charlemagnes proceeded, led by a funky 1980. It had an old, mildewy nose and did not seem like a perfect bottle, perhaps corked. It was weird, and its fruit felt like it was left out in sun over the weekend (82A).The 1985 had a similar personality but on the right side of the bed. Yeast, old corn and caramel were all present in its classic profile, along with benevolent waterfall flavors (93).

A magnum of 2002 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet had a great spearmint, smoke and waterfall nose. Its palate was long, lingering and stylish. Ramonet’s Bienvenues and the vineyard in general remains one of white Burgundy’s best values (94M).

A 1985 Raveneau Chablis Montee de Tonnerre brought to my wine vocabulary some words I had never used before in describing a wine – urinal cake, and it wasn’t a positive. Alexander the Great concurred with ‘bathroom,’ while someone else noted ‘reduced and sulfur.’ This was clearly an affected bottle; how exactly, I am not sure, but it was wild and woolly with weird and peculiar flavors, tough to drink overall (DQ).

A 1998 Ramonet Montrachet was in a great spot with its decadent nut and smoke aromas, along with forest, fingerling potato skin and heavy cream that came across lightly. The palate was pure with lots of crystallized fruit and minerals, good wood, great freshness and lots of secondary nuances. Now seems the right time to be drinking this (94).

The reds eased into the rotation with a couple of 2009s, beginning with a smooth, easy and tender 2009 Liger-Belair Vosne Romanee Les Chaumees (91).

A 2009 Dujac Romanee St. Vivant had ‘wow’ concentration in its nose; this was sexy juice at first smell. Its fruit was dripping with oil, displaying purple and black tones with exotic spices, dates and nuts in tow. The palate was smooth, satiny and beautiful, but both 2009s gave me the impression they need a bit of time to settle in the bottle and blossom again, even though the early indicators are this vintage will be an immediate pleasure giver (95).

The 2000 Dujac Clos St. Denis had a stinky nose, aromatic in a pungent, wild and gamy way. It came across lighter in style, but dark rose held it together. There were nice tobacco flavors without the heat. This is both a wine and a vintage that should be drunk up sooner as opposed to much later. Let me supplement that by saying I just don’t think this wine will ever give more pleasure than now. I could add another supplement, but there are just too many damn wines to write up (92).

The 1991 D’Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs was unfortunately a bit corked; were it not, this felt like it could have been a 95-point surprise of a wine. Its finish was thick and great; this was surely a Volnay impostor! Its fruit was mildewy and its flavors skewed accordingly, so it was tough to evaluate this wine despite the more than impressive body and finish (93A).

A 1998 Clos de Tart had a touch of catbox in the nose, with some rose and t ‘n a blending in. There were vitamin flavors in this solid red (91).

A 1990 de Montille Pommard Rugiens was bready and earthy, possessing aromas and flavors of black rose, rainwater and cereal that was a touch old (88).

Another ’90 followed, this one being the 1990 Roty Griottes Chambertin. Fresh wet rocks and waterfall were the first things noticeable, followed by cigar. Its flavors felt a bit dirty, and its fruit was a touch sour (89).

I quickly recalibrated with some superb whites thanks to Mr. Big. We eased back in with a 1991 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. 1991 is more known for its reds than its whites, and this mature Coche was gamy and yeasty accordingly. Still tasty, there were lots of wheat flavors in this lovely, mature Coche. Its maturity was a good thing, but this was another wine that was ready to go, even a bit beyond that, I suppose (92).

The 1990 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne that followed said, ‘I am older, and I am better, too.’ Being a first born, I completely understood. While the ’90 hinted at some of the style and flavors of the 1991, this was fresher and stronger, by a longshot. Its acidity roared, and I licked my lips like a well-fed lion after each sip. I wish I could read this last phrase I wrote, looks like ‘like a degending on.’ The unreadable notes are always the deepest of thoughts :). The 1990 was wine #22 for the record (96).

The 1985 DRC Montrachet quickly shrugged the 1990 aside, and ultimately knocked the 1990 out of outstanding class, so to speak. Its palate was superb, hitting all the right spots and still ascending. Cocoa butter and mixed nuts were accentuated by sprinkles of yeast and earth, and a full-bodied, buttery skin encased it all well. When this wine hits, it hits hard (96+).

Got all that? I have some briefer notes for the rest of this report, and memory serves me well for some, though not all, of the wines. The Tollot-Beaut is a rare bird, a cherished white amongst many Chardonnay collectors. It was nice to try one for the first time in a while; it didn’t disappoint. The Rousseau was great for 1989, but still 1989. I like the vintage, but do not love it, and while there is strength and character in this year, there is always game and bread to go with its thick, slight out-of-step personality. Jayer is a master of the ‘off’ vintages, and this 1986 proved once again why. It was as good as 1986 gets, showing that deep purple fruit that only Jayer can extract, with light beef and solid acid, a trait of this screechy but sometimes exhilarating vintage. The Morey wasn’t unknown at the time it was served, I just didn’t write it down and can’t remember who the heck it was lol. It was still 1971, and that is always a good thing, and not because it was my birth year. The Mongeard-Mugneret was sweet and musky in its nose with a ‘touch of ashtray,’ but the palate was sour and more disappointing. The producer would later rebound with a ravishing Richebourg, which was seductive and classic. I know I am going out of order now, but I figure it is easier to keep each producer together at this point. The ’85 Richebourg abounded with red citrus, and it kept getting more beautiful as the glass wore on.

And that was night one of La Paulee. It wasn’t officially on the schedule, but sometimes those are the best nights of all.