The Envelopes, please…

The end of February seems to be the last call to look back and celebrate 2011, and I thought I would do some of my own celebrating before La Paulee and 2012 officially took over.We begin with two forgotten nights and end with the Top Ten wines of the year.

The Envelopes please…

Best Night I Never Wrote Up – New York :

And the winner is… The Don Stott Magnum Dinner

Best Night I Never Wrote Up – Hong Kong

And the winner is… One Blind Sifu

Best Producer

And the winner is…Eric Rousseau.

Best Value White Wine – Gruner Veltliner

I drank a lot of Gruner in 2011, meaning like 30+ bottles. These unique whites from Austria deliver incredible quality at an incredible price. You can get some of the best in the world for less than $50 or even $40 a bottle, and even the really inexpensive ones rarely disappoint for casual drinking.

Best Value Red Wine – Chianti Classico

Italy is a hotbed of uniqueness and diversity, with more grapes and regions in play than probably any other country. As much as I love Piedmont the most when it comes to my Italian wine regions, I find myself often grabbing a Chianti for casual drinking. Even though it isn’t a ‘Super’ Tuscan and perhaps its original popularity has made it less ‘fashionable,’ there is nothing like a good Chianti (try Fontodi or Felsina) to reward a hard day’s work.

Top Ten Wines of the Year

And now, the moment we’ve all been waiting for…

#10. 1996 Krug Clos du Mesnil (98+) – Clos du Mesnil is the Romanee Conti of Champagne, and 1996 is arguably its greatest vintage…ever. One has to go back to 1928 to find a vintage of comparable quality, per the Champagne man himself, Richard Juhlin. It is nice to see theory and practice come together. No matter how great any other 1996 Champagne may be, the Krug C du M takes the concentration and weight levels up a notch. “Whenever 1996 Krug Clos du Mesnil is served, it is a great night. It is one of the greatest Champagnes ever made, and it will be a benchmark for me for the rest of my life. Its nose was deep, big and rich, with aromas of saucy butter, wood, vanilla cream, nuts, oil and yellow musky fruit. The palate was huge yet balanced, with laser-like acidity and a tidal wave of a finish. I summed up the Krug with ‘strength and wealth,’ two of Americas favorite things (98+).“

#10. (It’s A Tie!) 1961 Latour (98+) – Although I haven’t had this wine over 100 times like my European wine brother Pekka (who has declared it the greatest wine ever made), I have had it somewhere around fifteen to twenty times, and it isn’t going out of style yet. One of the true wine monuments to Cabernet Sauvignon. “What better wine than 1961 Latour to have next? The ’61 is Pekka’s personal #1 wine of all-time, and he has had it over 100 times. Man, I thought my fifteen-to-twenty times tasted was pretty strong! The ’61 was another classic, again deep and brooding, full of signature walnut and cassis, with a hint of exotic berry and fig. Caramel and mocha drizzled about the nose. Its palate was also long and thick with perfectly-centered, lengthy acidity and an endless finish. The ’45 was more seductive with its kinky fruit, but the ’61 would win a back alley fight. There were great slate and stone flavors on the finish. This was an extraordinary bottle (98+).“

#9. 2001 Yquem (99) – Now I must confess, I don’t drink much sweet wine, and although I have long adored ancient Yquems, they just don’t make it into my rotation that often. And when they do, they tend to be older, but a 2001 this summer in Switzerland really made me stand up and take notice. It is rare that a young wine leaves a ‘greatest wine of my life’ impression, ie 99 points, but this Yquem did just that. Impressive, and relatively easy to acquire. “Even though I am not a big drinker of sweet wines, it was hard not to notice the greatness of the 2001 Yquem. This was so rich, so oily, so special, with coconut and cocoa butter and an exotic passionfruit, peach and apricot three-way unfolding dramatically in front of me. So creamy, so incredible, it was much more than just so so (99).”

#8. 1993 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze (99) – Historically, this wine in this vintage has averaged 97 points for me, but something magical happened one afternoon in the middle of Hong Kong harbor on a yacht, with another dozen plus Rousseau wines from many great vintages. I almost forgot Eric himself being in attendance. This bottle 1993 reached beyond its normal wingspan and touched the heavens this afternoon, delivering a mind-blowing combination of fruit, finsh and balance. When a great 1993 Burgundy shows fruit like this bottle did, it can be amongst the greatest vintages ever in Burgundy. “There was something extraordinary about this bottle of 1993 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze, bordering on supernatural. Everything I could ask for in a great Burgundy was there – ripe red fruits, forest floor and the complexity of terroir, breed, style, length. The fruit had a catnip-like quality that made me feel happy and silly, and its acidity and finish said, ‘I know I’m good now, but just you wait and see.’ It was impossible to stop drinking, even in the context of a dozen plus other, fabulous Rousseau reds. This may prove to be one of those lightning bolts in a bottle; on this day, it didn’t get any better (99).”

#7. 1999 DRC La Tache (99) – This has traditionally been for me one of the youngest wines to achieve ‘legendary’ status at a young age. While some 1999s have shut down a bit, the La Tache still shows why 1999 is one of the great and generous vintages of our lifetime. Even Aubert mentioned that it may be his greatest vintage ever, and he is not a man who would say something like that lightly. It will be a pleasure to taste this wine again and again and again over the course of the next three or four decades. “Last and never least was a 1999 DRC La Tache, which was clearly the best in our flight of the last three. Its nose was so deep; it felt like I could literally dive into its aromas. There was an oceanic feel to the breadth of its violet fruit. That plush 1999 signature fruit was everywhere. Sweet caramel and nut were balanced by smoke in this behemoth of a nose. The finish was so thick, I had to undo and work the wine back out of my mouth after each sip. It is rare that a wine this young makes me do cartwheels and handstands, but the ’99 LT is that great, especially for such a young wine. Stem and stalk flavors added zip and vim to the fantastic fruit. So long, so strong and so balanced, the 1999 DRC La Tache is an anywhere, anytime wine that has never delivered anything but an extraordinary experience (99).“

#6. 1989 Petrus (99) – It wouldn’t be an appropriate top ten list without one vintage of Petrus, and while there are many great vintages of Petrus that can flirt with this score, I find myself going back to 1989 more than any other vintage. It remains the reference point, great young Petrus for me. I am looking forward to an historical vertical of Petrus back to 1945 to be held later this year. “We warmed up with the 1989 Petrus. Man, I love this wine. 1989 is clearly the greatest modern-day Petrus, the one against which all others should be measured. We’ll see how vintages like 1998, 2000 and 2005 develop, but they will all have to answer to this vintage. The ’89 was unreal as always, even more of a behemoth out of magnum, infantile in its initial expression, and all the more brooding. There was still fruit showing, and its acidity was hidden at first but slowly uncoiled to reveal regality. Big Boy observed its ‘vahlrona chocolate.’ This wine was quite hedonistic, packed and stacked with chocolate, plums and earth, adding up to near-perfection again (99M).”

#5. 1989 Haut Brion (99) – The thing I love most about 1989 Haut Brion is the fact that I have had it at least a half-dozen times in 2011. It is the most accessible, young, great Bordeaux, no exceptions, and it always delivers a near-perfect experience. Some bottles ‘slip’ to 98 points, forgive it. No other First Growth between 1982 and 2005 can touch this wine. “We began with 1989 Haut Brion, which is the equivalent of Albert Pujols batting leadoff. I happened to have this wine last week as well (I love it when that happens), and both bottles were equally great. Great was actually an understatement. How’s this for a different statement – when all is said and done, the 1989 Haut Brion could possibly be the greatest First Growth ever made, and how ironic would that be since Haut Brion tends to lag a little behind the other Firsts as far as overall perception. The 1989 was fabulous with aromas of peanut, olive and densely packed cassis fruit. It was chewy, nutty and long, tickling my tongue and warming my soul. Its balance and length defined ‘thoroughbred.’ The greatest thing about this wine is that it has never shut down; it has always been incredible (99).

#4. 1966 Guigal Cote-Rotie La Mouline (99) – I have had this wine on at least three occasions, and my notes are consistent. The first vintage of Guigal’s La Mouline (which is easily the best of the three La La’s, by the way) remains a benchmark wine for the Rhone. What made this bottle even more impressive was how it sent 1971 and 1978 Roumiers, along with a 1945 Haut Brion (that were all spectacular bottles) to the back of the bus. In fact, it probably knocked the 1945 Haut Brion off this list. “It is rare for a Rhone wine to upstage Bordeaux and Burgundy legends like ’45 HB and ’71/78 Roumiers and so forth, but the 1966 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline did just that. It had a ‘wow’ nose, full of white pepper and sexy supporting singers named violet, bacon and beef. One commented, ‘this is perfect; no flaws.’ It was incredibly tasty, adding lavender to its previous violet and bacon, and its flesh and length were superb. There was great kink to its finish, and its flavor was as good as the Rhone gets. In fact, the 1966 La Mouline, its first vintage, might be the greatest wine ever made in the Rhone. Consistent notes (99).”

#3. 1962 DRC La Tache (99) – It is always great to have a flight of old wines from the same vintage, as it really gives a perspective that one would never have with one bottle. On New Year’s Eve, thanks to Big Boy, we had a flight of 1962 Burgundies that will be difficult to duplicate. Rousseau, Vogue, Roumier…they were all spectacular, but there was only one 99-point wine, and it was La Tache. “It couldn’t get any better, could it? Enter 1962 DRC La Tache. At first, there were oysters and ocean action in the nose; it needed some time to unravel, and did it ever. Aromas of rose and tobacco slowly took over, with secondary rose and menthol seeping up out of its earth. The palate was out of control. It was rich, saucy and long with crazy spice and oomph to its finish. I must confess that I was starting to think the sun was setting on the 1962 vintage, in a long, graceful way, as great vintages fade away and never disappear. I am happy to officially stand corrected. Long live La Tache (99).“

#2. 1966 Krug Blanc de Blancs (99) – This is one of those bottles that doesn’t exist. Really. 500 bottles were made, and it was only made in 1966. This was the pre-cursor/predecessor for the Clos du Mesnil thirteen years later. 1966 is often hailed as the best vintage from Champagne’s greatest decade, and one sip of this nectar states that case clearly and concisely. Every Champagne lover should be fortunate enough to taste this at least once. “Big Boy went straight to the hoop, Blake Griffin style, with the next selection. ‘Perfect, flawless, top five ever produced,’ he went on, and he was right. Richard was at first in the 55/47 camp, identifying the strength of the wine with some of Champagne’s strongest vintages. Its nose was both classic and insane at the same time. There were hints of hinterland oak, along with meaty, yellow aromas that were sweet, rich and nutty in an autumnal way. Its palate was musky and zippy yet rich and lush, with divine flavors of seltzer, bread and citrus. Secondary flavors of orange, chocolate and tobacco emerged in this incredible wine. It was a 1966 Krug Blanc de Blancs, the pre-cursor to Clos du Mesnil that was only made once, and only 500 bottles were made. Holy shit (99).

#1. 1900 Margaux (99) – The Bucket List has one less wine on it. I have never been blown away by a bottle of this despite having it from time to time, more in the early part of this century than later. Thanks to the Keymaster and his magnificent collection, I was treated to a historic afternoon of Margaux led by Paul Pontallier, and the day had the appropriate storybook ending thanks to this bottle of 1900. Burgundy may give more pleasure for the first 30-40 years, from age 40-80 it’s a bit of a horserace, but when it comes to drinking wines eighty years or older, nothing can compete with Bordeaux. Case closed. “We began with a bottle of 1900 Margaux, or should I say THE bottle, as this was the bottle of 1900 Margaux that I had been looking for my whole life, being previously disappointed on a handful of occasions. There was a level of complexity here unmatched by any other wine so far. There were lots of wows from the crowd, along with oohs, aahs and omg’s. Its nose was perfect, so good with its smoke, wheat, earth, chocolate and cassis. The palate was rich and complete, with great sweetness and a long, scintillating finish. There was still zip to its dusty finish, and the fruit stayed great to the very last drop. ‘Unbelievable’ came from the crowd and summed it up perfectly (99).”

Honorable mentions go to the following wines in vintage order, all scoring 98 points:

1911 Moet
1923 DRC Romanee Conti
1945 Haut Brion
1945 Latour
1947 Roederer
1953 Margaux
1961 La Mission Haut Brion
1962 Roumier Musigny
1962 Vogue Musigny V.V.
1971 Salon magnum
1979 Bollinger V.V.F.
1990 Krug Clos du Mesnil
1996 Latour

And the oldest wine of the year also goes to Chateau Margaux with a delicious and still fresh 1864…

It’s a whole new year, so make a resolution to drink better in 2012. You deserve it!

For a while now, the wine market has been buzzing about Hong Kong, China, Asia, etc. 2010 saw HK just eke past NY for the title of world’s largest wine auction market, but it was basically a 50/50 split. 2011, however, saw the margin increase to about 60/40 in HK’s favor. Simple projections might put HK at 70% market share in 2012, but I’m not so sure about that. No one ever talks about the fact that many Americans also bid in Hong Kong auctions. Five of those finest American collectors and I gathered in New York last week for a birthday celebration of The Cardinal, one of America’s greatest wine tasters, as well as collector extraordinaire in his own right.

Unfortunately, The Cardinal didn.t show up. I should disclose that we knew in advance; apparently The Cardinal has been very pre-occupied with numerous altar boy interviews and lost track of his schedule. He had to go back to The Vatican the day of the event, and a few other guests dropped out accordingly, but six of us remained, and we were rewarded for our diligence.

We started with a 1996 Dom Perignon Oenotheque off the list, as two of our guests were late, and they both happened to have the Champagne. The 96 was rather grassy and herbal, and despite its zippy and impressive finish, its flavors had me leaving it in the glass, which is no easy task. DP Oenos really need at least ten years in the bottle after being disgorged; I think this one was disgorged in 2008 (91+).

A 1966 Krug was more like it, at first coiled and tight, almost a bit tarred. Its nose was bready and full of apple cider, flirting with the sour side of the apple. The palate was also apple-y, yeasty yet possessing great spritz. Rob noted, very laser, with great acidity and a briny, zippy, tangy finish. It kept getting better (96).

Lady Agah noted coconut. in the 1959 Salon. It had a white knight of a nose, with fruit, minerals and wafers to support. The vanilla quality emerged victorious, in unreal. fashion. This was a manly Champagne, and while it didn.t have the spritz of the Krug, its acidity was stronger. Flavors of orange rind emerged on its gamy, bitter finish (94).

A pair of Coches were next thanks to the Artful Roger, beginning with the 2000 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. You could see the 2000 at first smell, but this was meatier than most. Aromas of rainwater, citrus and that signature Coche nutty sex appeal were all present. Lush. and big bosoms. came from the crowd. It was a full-bodied 2000 for sure, heavy and thick, almost unctuous. Great smokehouse flavors defined its earthy, big palate, and a minty finish put this white in its own league. (95)

The 1995 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was more minty in the nose, and more open with its snow-capped white fruit. There was great spice and super menthol flavors in this bigger and lusher. wine. One found it more refined, and while its finish was a bit dirty, it was a good dirty (95).

The 1945 Lafite Rothschild was unbelievable. It was a perfect bottle, with sweet and sour cherry immediately defining its nose. Cedar, musk and caramel joined the party in this open and sexy wine. The palate was fleshy yet still serious, showing all the best qualities of 45, ie fruit, finish and balance. There were great caramel and carob flavors, along with rusty nail. and paprika.. 1945 Lafite doesn.t get much press compared to Mouton, Latour and Haut Brion in 1945, but this bottle was awesome (97).

The 1959 Lafite Rothschild was more factory fresh, as in reconditioned. Deep cigar and chocolate slowly emerged from within. The palate was full and chalky, and a big debate ensued about reconditioning or topping off.. While it was lovely, it tasted too young to be fifty years old.. Thankfully, most producers have stopped the practice. The wine was still outstanding, but it didn.t show as many mature nuances I wanted, especially after the 1945 (95)

A great bottle of 1970 Petrus ensued. It was a beast, and a nice counterpoint to the 59, showing mature and open flavors despite being ten years younger. It had stony and zippy Pomerol fruit, with aromas and flavors of dates, plums and olives. The 70 was huge with extraordinary acidity and a massive finish, although it did mellow after an hour (96)

A bottle of 1955 La Mission Haut Brion was a negociant bottling, but if I didn.t know beforehand, I would have thought it to be one from the Chateau, as it was consistent with other 55 La Misses. Aromas of oatmeal, wheat and classic cassis were framed by gravel and tobacco, along with violet, per Lady Agah. Its flavors were full of chocolate, although it ended up being a touch too yeasty on its finish, more likely at the hands of the negociant than anyone elses (95)

It was goodbye Bordeaux, hello Burgundy, and time to say hello to a wine I had just over three weeks prior, a 1962 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. It’s been a good month. The Vogue once again had a great nose, although it needed a minute or two to shake off this fish tank element. Old wines can often have unusual qualities right after opening that need aerating out, and this was one of those occasions. Once the wine opened, it was knee-wobbling material. Aromas of fresh herbs, cherry cola and divine earth made way for this wild uni/sea urchin edge, which indubitably emerged from the fish tank. I know it sounds unusual, but it was amazingly true, wild stuff. The palate was spectacular, with great game and garden flavors and superb acidity. Someone noted the classic wine metaphor, iron fist in a velvet glove.. I got iron flavors, and bread as well. It was consistently great, just like the previous bottle (97)

All hail the 1971 Romanee Conti. 1971 and are two things that have always gone great together. We.re not talking almonds and coconut here. THUNDERSTRUCK. were how my notes began. It was quite appropriate, as the RC was immediately rocking hard and frenetically. Spectacular. came up twice, as did menthol, meat, rose, iron, citrus, animal and wow.. Its acidity, too, was superb, and it took it up a notch from the Vogue, almost to the most Promised Land of 99 points. That’s fitting, as Romanee Conti already is the most Promised Land (98+)

A couple had to go, and four of us were left with one last bottle, a glorious 1919 Vogue Musigny. I’m not sure it was Vieilles Vignes or not now that I think about it, but it was great. Faint vanilla in that ice cream way handed off to the core of cherry and citrus. There was great spice and spine to this ancient wonder still, and Jay found it bursting. A dollop of mature port flavors made their way into the party. The only negative about this wine was that it started to fade rather quickly. After the first ten or fifteen minutes, the bloom was off the rose, and each sip started to take a step (and point) backwards, but man, that first sniff and smell was unforgettable! It didn.t fall off a cliff, though, so I settled on (95)

New York still knows a thing or two about its fine wine, especially how to drink it.

WARNING: THIS ARTICLE IS OVER 6000 WORDS LONG AND WILL MAKE
YOU BUY SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF CHAMPAGNE

As long-time readers will know, New Year’s Eve has long been a special evening for me every year, as I always make sure to spend it with the world’s #1 collector of Champagne, otherwise known as Big Boy. One of our other, frequent drinking buddies happened to be in town as well this New Year.s, otherwise known as Bad Boy, another of the world’s top connoisseurs of Champagne. Add into the mix the world’s #1 expert on Champagne, Richard Juhlin, and you may be able to imagine the rest. Make sure to add and then some.. And when 2012 arrived, all through the house, every creature was stirring, thanks to Deadmaus.

Now normally, Mr. Rosania hosts an evening of rare Champagne and wine for many fine friends in his home on New Year.s, but thanks to some domestic construction, we were out and about this year. But I am getting ahead of myself, as four days before we welcomed 2012, Richard Juhlin stepped off the plane from Stockholm, and we welcomed him with open bottles. There were three nights of Champagne hosted by the Wine Workshop, and then one hosted by Big Boy, and the momentum kept building throughout the week until I couldn.t take it no more, which was about 2am Sunday morning.

I had the good fortune of meeting Richard Juhlin for the first time earlier this year, on the small yet lovely island of Aland in the North Sea. We were both there in honor of the Shipwrecked. auction, when we set a record for the most expensive bottle of Champagne ever sold. We instantly hit it off thanks to our mutual passion for Champagne, although he drinks it a lot more of it than me, an estimated 300 nights a year. I’m probably just over 100 myself, cut me some slack, will ya? Richard is closing in on 8000 unique Champagnes tasted, not even counting multiple notes of the same wine. Of course, Rob will tell you he has tasted 8001 lol. Much like Allen Meadows in Burgundy, Richard has taken over the Champagne space to become the voice that matters the most, and I couldn.t think of a better ambassador; charisma is his middle name. A former athlete and fitness nut to this day, Richard knows the value of both working hard and playing hard; we focused on the playing hard part :).

In Sweden, his name is pronounced Rick-arrd You-lean, although it is tough not to go by the American pronunciation, aka Jew-lin.. Even he has become accustomed to the latter, although when it comes to awareness in America about his work, I would call that in an infancy stage. There is much America has to learn when it comes to its bubbly. Remember, Champagne is a wine after all, one that ages as well as any red, and it fits at the beginning (always a good start) , in the middle (always a great refresher) , or at the end of any meal (skip the dessert wine and finish with Champagne if you want to do yourself a favor and keep the good times rolling). It truly is one of the most special wines on Earth, especially in the hands of its finest producers, of course.

People came from all over America to attend these events Boston, Atlanta, even Los Angeles to name a few, which shows not only how people love their Champagne, but also that Richard is, how shall I say, someone worth seeking. I mean, he sold 100,000 copies of his first book in his native Sweden; I think that would translate to about 30 million books sold here in the USA if he was American. America still has a ways to go when it comes to stepping away from its Budweiser, but we will overcome.

The first night was more of an introductory course, Juhlin’s welcome to Champagne 101. I learned more on this night than any other in recent memory thanks to Richard’s navigation. I didn.t really take notes, sorry, but I do remember Richard’s unique way to smell and taste Champagne, which I worked on over and over for the next four nights it really made a difference! It’s kind of tough to describe in writing; feel free to bring a bottle of Champagne to me at any time, and I’ll show you :). I remembered a few other tidbits: one, if you drink Champagne more often, your body can process it more easily, as the enzymes in your liver can detect specific types of alcohol. So if you don.t drink a lot of Champagne, it will go straight to your head.. Two, alcohol strengthens the mood you are in, although when I am in a bad mood I always feel better after drinking, so I am not sure I agree with that one! Three, there are over 800 potential aromas in a glass of Champagne. Four, there is only one Champagne he has given 100 points, the 1928 Pol Roger Grauves&it’s a long story, or I would tell it, but I have a shitload of notes here to write. Five, buy old Champagne. Six was the whole NV/MV controversy about labeling what vintages go into the non. or multi. vintage blend. Seven, Champagnes that are recently disgorged are much better a decade or more later, once they re-capture some of their original complexity. So those of you drinking those 1981 or 1985 Krug Collections, or those DP Oenos that are just released, take it easy. If I was more fastidious, I would go on and on. Richard’s first-hand knowledge about the history of the region, the terroir, the grapes and their producers made for a most fascinating evening. We tasted many esoteric, grower. Champagnes; the two standouts were a delicious NV Coquilette Les Cles. as well as a NV Jose Michel Pinot Meunier, which was like a rock star at a tea party with its unique, Marquis de Meunier personality. Consider those a couple of good inside tips for everyday drinking. The evening was a true connoisseurs delight, as Richard put it, due to the diversity of terroir and wide range of growers, including three Champagnes he had never tasted before, out of seventeen total. He might have to rename his upcoming book 8003 Champagnes. now lol.

The second night saw us sample a scintillating selection of 1996.s, the vintage that still remains the reference point of my adult existence. 1996 is so great to me that I can.t even pay attention to any Champagne vintage that is younger, although Richard insisted that 2002 and especially 2008 will both be considered great in the history books. Richard began by telling us why 1996 is so special. For the first time since 1928, Mother Nature provided Champagne with both maximum acidity and maximum maturity of the grapes at the same time. He recanted about the 1928 Pol Roger Grauves, and went on about how 1996 was similar to 1928 due to the amount of sunshine in a relatively cool year. Hello, acid. A cold climate with full maturity of ripeness is the best scenario for a grape grower, and that’s what 1996 provided.

I think it’s about time I start getting to those tasting notes. In the interest of actually finishing this article, let me first provide a summary of the evening at Gramercy Tavern:

Notes on the first flight: For the first sixty, maybe seventy years of the 20th Century, Pommery was an elite producer of Champagne, arguably top five. It has been a long road to recovery, but the 1996 seemed to be on that road. Its nose was lean, with straw and gold dust aromas, while its palate was pleasing and extended, displaying complex flavors of ginger ale, herbs and fennel. It was clean and fresh with a long finish. Richard adored it, very feminine, not aggressive& a winner.. Neither RJ nor JK understood the Bruno Paillard, a Champagne purposefully oxidized to the point of possessing overcooked fruit and too much sherry.. I believe unique, funky, gamey and too much oak were the politically correct ways to put it. The Billecart-Salmon was classy and warm, nutty and toasty with nice caramel aromas. It was tasty and refined, long and satiny, staying seductively nutty until the very end. Richard found more maturity here than in the first or last wines of the flight, and thought it had the best harmony.. He also observed, chocolate, butterscotch, nuts and exotic apple.. The Clos des Goisses won the first flight for most. Its nose was less flirty, but its core was tight, and its palate enormous. Icy diamonds, minerals and white fruits came to mind, as did golden sweetness. Its acidity was special stuff, and a kiss of menthol added a layer of single-vineyard complexity. Richard found it the most interesting, and found aromas and flavors of hazelnut, meat, vegetable, tar and truffle..

Notes on the second flight: Richard thought the Dom Perignon was slightly corked; regardless, I wasn.t thrilled with it, and I felt I got a good evaluation of it. There was manure, petrol and herbs, in a stinky, gassy and herbal way. I don.t know, I just didn.t speak its language even though I wanted to. The Dom Perignon Rose was also quite grassy, rusty and polished but tight and unyielding. Connoisseurs of Dom Perignon don.t regularly drink it after 1976, although the Rose might get more credit when younger. The Pol Roger was the clear winner of this flight; there was great bread here doe, crust and the French open altogether. It was classic, rich and had great linearity with its white fruits and minerals. Richard found it bright and big, chocolaty and complex, with every fruit there apple, citrus, licorice, butterscotch, all in a cocoon of flavor. Sleeping beauty.. I’ll take what he’s having lol. I liked the Grande Dame a lot for drinking now, but I felt it won.t get any better. Its musk and fireplace qualities blended into its bready and fat personality, but its tasty fruit was maturing fast, a sentiment that RJ seconded. It was fairly consistent with the bottle he had the week prior, although actually a bit better on this night.

For flight three, aka the Blanc de Blancs flight, Chardonnay stated its case, and won. The Ruinart was a bit DP-esque with its grassy style, although cinnamon and pheromones added complexity. It was young and racy, as 1996 oughta be. All hail the 1996 Salon. It may be the greatest young Champagne I have ever tasted, along with the 1996 Clos du Mesnil (we’ll get into the differences in a minute). The 96 Salon was as great as it’s ever been. Every time I have this Champagne, it just kills it, never disappointing. White ice, diamonds, laser show, rockets on skates&.Bryan found it tight and clean, more Chevalier.. He then went on about how every great wine, or terroir, ends up getting compared to Burgundy. Good point. On this night, I preferred it to the Krug Close du Mesnil; on other nights, it has been a different story. Richard found the Salon pure and fat, also finding it one of the night’s top two. The Comtes de Champagne, whose first vintage was 1952 for those keeping score, had the signature butterscotch along with meaty, yellow fruits. Green apples and citrus dominated its finish. Richard found it big and broad-shouldered, with flirty and exotic coconut.. The Clos du Mesnil was so buttery and seductive in a forceful and powerful way. This particular bottle’s palate was a bit nutty and oaky, obvious. as Richard described its oak. It was still the Montrachet of Champagne, clearly, and its body and weight were unmatched despite the personality kinks that this bottle was showing. It kept revealing more nuances with time. Richard called this and the Bollinger VVF the best of the vintage, finding this so fat and creamy, serious and deep. The aftertaste has a double length, and its acidity is the highest.. The last time I had Salon and Clos du Mesnil side by side, there wasn.t any question about the Mesnil being the best; this bottle just showed a bit too much oak. Something that everyone forgets is that every bottle is a living organism and unique in some regard; they aren.t all the same. On this night, I preferred the Salon.

There was one more flight, and three more wines, two of which had Cristal in their name. I have long adored both the 1996 Cristal and Cristal Rose, always finding the Cristal more delicious, yet the Rose more serious. Tonight was no different. I have always loved the kink and butter of the 1996 Cristal; this is the vintage that makes me say no wonder it is popular in nightclubs, as this is the type of girl I would want to meet in one. It just oozed sex appeal, and its reductive caramel and honey flavors had me ready for seconds. Richard reveled in the Rose’s white chocolate and strawberry with whipped cream flavors.. The acid was clearly superior, and its finish was longer than going to the Opera. The regular. Krug was adolescently awkard on this night, and its oak really stood out again at first. The oak cooled off with time, and it became more beautiful and big; college should serve this wine well.
In sum, Mr. Juhlin noted that this evening strengthened my opinion of the vintage..

The next night we were at Le Bernadin, and we were going deep&.Deep Ocean. as one of our guests might say. Every Champagne served was from 1961 or older, and all were from the collection of Rob Rosania. In typical Big Boy, generous fashion, Rob decided to bring a dozen extras, just in case.. It was on this night that we also welcomed Bad Boy back from the Carribean, in what we called a case of perfect timing. At Rob’s insistence, this evening would show no DP, no Krug, no Salon and no Cristal. He wanted to show the true depth and diversity that Champagne had to offer. Mission accomplished.

We started with a 1961 Ruinart Blanc de Blancs, the second vintage ever made. Smoky and toasted. came from the crowd, and I found gorgeous caramel and honey in its nose. There was also apple and hickory, and its palate reminded me of cream soda, fresh from the fountain with a nice corned beef sandwich waiting. Alexander the Great found it amazing, and it was Richard’s favorite of the flight, and he observed, coffee and lemon pie, admiring its sweetness without being sweet.. It was delicious for sure (95).

A quadrafecta was next, beginning with the 1966 Pommery. Richard felt this was the decade where Pommery’s quality started to wane, although this flight kept me hanging on. The 66 was a bit rusty with some rubber tire in its nose, but the palate was mature, round and sugary. This bottle was a touch earthy and a touch advanced, and Big Boy found it clumsy.. While its first sip charmed, it fell apart quickly (91A).

The 1964 Pommery was lightning in the bottle by comparison. Its big vanilla nose had pure white sugar to it and displayed beautiful maturity. It was delicious, mature and clean, a classic all the way around (95).

The 1962 Pommery was more wine-like, but it was still excellent. Aromas of orange rind, dust, honey and bitter sugar made way for a lush, soft and fleshy palate (93).

The 1959 Pommery was well-built and the biggest, per Richard. However, it was a touch oxidized in the nose, although the palate was not as affected and showed more of its true character (94A).

The 1960s made for fascinating conversation when I asked Richard what he thought was the best vintage for what many consider to be the greatest decade for Champagne. 1964 was his answer, although 1966 is the safest, 1962 the most powerful, and 1961 the most generous and charming.. Big Boy added that 1961 is a phenomenal Blanc de Blancs vintage..

It was onto the next flight where a random assortment of fifties and forties flexed their aged-yet-toned muscles. First in flight was the 1953 Philipponat Blanc de Blancs. There was great sugar in its nose with a touch of rust and wet wool. The texture was fleshy and lush, and its flavors were tasty, mainly sugar, caramel and earth. There were touches of menthol and mint on its backside, along with coconut. Mr. Unfiltered found it vegetal, and The Bone Collector felt it had a lack of smell.. Richard noted that it was not fully harmonic, but a nice wine. (91).

A 1952 Heidseick Dry Monopole was oxidized; a telltale sign is morning mouth, or excessive yeast and sherry. No fear, we had a 1949 Charles Heidseick instead. Technically, they are different companies; I assume they were once related, but honestly I am not sure. Big Boy admired its delicate. qualities, and Richard purred that it was close to 1947, one of his favorite vintages of the 20th century. It was almost Sauternes-ish with its lush and tasty personality. While long and delicious, it was just holding on to its last breath of bubbles. It reminded me of 1949 Burgundy; in this vintage, they were brothers in arms (94).

A 1959 Gosset was extra special. Richard reminded us how a 1952 Gosset was actually #3 in his Millenium Tasting. twelve years ago, where he tasted almost 200 Champagnes over a three day period. The Gosset got a lot of wine of the flight. votes. It was really pretty with fresh aromas, and lots of rocks in its nose and orange flavors in its mouth. It was delicious with nice sprite and wheat and caramel flavors. This was sexy wine with a smiling charm and so many layers, and the best bottle of this that I have ever had, noted Richard. Welcome to New York, baby (96).

A bonus bottle of 1949 Alfred Gratien made its way to the table to make up for the 52, and this was our first non-malo. bottle, if my notes serve me correctly. It had a great nose full of apple, pear and caramel. Its acidity was superb, and Alexander The Great found it to be her favorite of the flight (94).

We took it way back with the next flight, beginning with a 1929 Lanson, another non-malo bubbly, which translates into apple acidity not milk acidity, Richard informed. This was the first time Richard had tasted this wine, and he reminded us what a fantastic vintage. 1929 was. The Lanson was musky and mature, with marmalade and less dimension than 1928, per Richard. There were great musk and oil flavors in this delicious and honeyed wine, which almost lost sight of the fact it was Champagne. In the end, it eeked out the Pommery that followed, although it wasn.t self-evident from the get-go (95).

The 1929 Pommery was butterscotch-y and delicious, so luscious with just a touch of sprite. There was earth and more vim at first than the Lanson, but it got a touch bitter and faded while the Lanson exerted itself. Keep in mind that it all comes down to the bottle; this was a game that could go either way 51 times out of a 100 (94).

A 1928 Perrier Jouet was oxidized. Big Boy comforted us, saying Don.t worry, it was still Perrier Jouet. (DQ).

The 1926 Pommery was incredible. Stuck in between the shadows of 1921 and 1928, 1926 doesn.t really come up in many conversations regarding 1920s Champagne. Then again, that conversation probably doesn.t happen that often lol. This was the best 26 ever, per the KOC. It was rich and buttery, with light caramel and garden flavors, still possessing nice sprite and spice. Someone said the P-word, ooooooooooooo. That’s perfect, by the way (97).

It was time for the flight of 1955s, one of the greatest vintages of Champagne&ever. I have long loved 1955 Bordeaux, and Burgundies and Piedmont are no slouches, either. Could 1955 be the most underrated and underappreciated great vintage of all-time? Yes, it could. We started with surprise a 1955 Pommery. Shit, was there any vintage of Pommery we didn.t taste tonight? Rob’s long love affair with Pommery has long been documented, and who can blame him? The 55 was oh so nutty with sexy caramel action, and a fresh and classic personality. Balanced and long, this oozed goodness (95).

The 1955 Charles Heidseick was night to the Pommery’s day. It was much more elegant and pretty&lovely summed it up, along with more orange (93).

The 1955 Louis Roederer was (DQ) , so we quickly moved on to the 1955 Bollinger, which had that beefy, purposefully oxidized style (without being oxidized). I suppose this is what Bruno Paillard was trying to do, unsuccessfully. This bottle was nutty and zippy with lots of coffee aromas. The palate was thick and creamy, heavy and meaty with a warm, nutty finish (95).

A 1955 Moet was exotic. per somebody, who was that guy lol. The nose had hay aromas, and the palate was lush and flavorful with coffee and earth flavors. It was tasty, complex and smooth, a good show overall. Let’s not forget that Moet makes Dom Perignon, although I guess they run it separately, supposedly (94).

The 1955 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was the first time I have ever seen an original label of a Goisses this old. Richard immediately recognized that this was the best by far of all, in this flight. It had a great nose full of rust, dust and musk. Wet wool, iron, spice and white meat gyro all joined the party in this complex wine. The acidity was still how you like me wow. (97).

There were two flights left, one being a VVF one, which happens to be one of Richard’s personal favorites, one of the greats, as he summated. The 1981 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises had an unreal finish, per Big Boy. There was big-time pear and ginger ale to this long, smooth and fine Champagne. Its minerals and acidity were noteworthy and outstanding (95).

The 1980 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was even more special given its vintage. Have I even ever had a Champagne from 1980? I would have to take the fifth, as it is quite possible, but I honestly don.t remember. Aromas of white cola were balanced by grilled asparagus, in a good way (I love grilled asparagus!) Orange blossom and cinnamon were also present in this undeclared vintage.. Fireplace flavors kept my soul warm in this soft and smooth bubbly. Not surprisingly, it gained in the glass and became more rugged and stronger (95).

As good as the 1981 and 1980 were, the 1979 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was in a league of its own. It was so good, it caused Richard to kiss Rob, in a totally hetero, love at 22nd bottle kind of way :). The 1979 had a fabulous nose that was pure, liquid cream. It was deliciously aromatic with white fruits and musk in perfect harmony. Its flavors were also great, dominated by cola and chocolate at first. This got more than one wow in my notes; its complexity was special. It gained in the glass, its extraordinary acidity flexing with each repetition, gaining a caraway complexity before the last sip sadly disappeared (98).

The closing flight was one of Roederer, not Cristal, yet still Roederer. One of the best kept secrets of the 20th century is the regular. Roederers, at least through the 1950s, maybe 1960s. We started with the 1947 Louis Roederer. This bottle was so fresh it was bordering on imaginary. Aromas of straw, grain, hay and nut all danced around its dangerously good nose. There were lots of flavors in what was ultimately the spritziest. wine of the night; this was a perfect bottle if there ever were one. Long and zippy, the 47 had Richard citing railroad track, this combination of wood, steel, stone and flowers on a sunny day. Only 1947 and 1959, he continued (98).

The 1953 Louis Roederer had another great nose of pure vanilla, musk and smoke. It had a lush, honeyed palate bordering on suckle with a touch of minerals on its pleasant finish (93).

The 1959 Louis Roederer was typically great, although I have had one 1959 that was in 98-point territory, and this wasn.t. There was a touch of body odor here, in a sweaty and sexy way. Caramel, smoke and brick were more traditional aromas. It was lush and so sweet with its musk flavors. Great stuff, even though it can be even better (96).

Last call was a bottle of 1937 Pol Roger, another added bonus courtesy of Rob. I gave it (95) , although I didn.t have much to say about it other than grain, straw, zip, long, smooth.. That was about it for tonight, but tomorrow was New Year’s Eve, and it was time to rest up.

Part One of New Year’s Eve took place at a home away from home, Marea, at least until the clock struck eleven. It was a smaller group of friends and family, the core of which was Richard and I, along with the boys. Big and Bad. Most of the evening was courtesy of Big Boy, although Bad Boy certainly contributed, and I, of course, got the bill. That’s ok, there is one wine auction house in the world that puts its money where its mouth is, or is that its mouth where its money is? As far as I know, I only live once. Big Boy was relishing the opportunity to taste Richard blind on numerous Champagnes, and Richard was up for the challenge, nailing a couple right on the head.

We started with a super-rare 1975 Deutz Ay Blanc de Noirs Oenotheque, of which only 200 magnums were made. There were light straw and golden aromas in this so. fresh bubbly. This is never breathe again land, Rob thumped on the table. I’m not sure it was from above or below the table, but there definitely was some loud thumping happening. The yellow theme continued on the palate, in a dusty way. It was rich, lush and incredibly long and fine. So great, so young, so balanced and with an endless summer of a finish; this was clearly the best Champagne from 1975 ever, and one that transcends the vintage. Richard noted violets. and that signature of greatness, railroad tracks.. It was a good beginning, and to give credit where credit is due, Richard nailed it on the head (97M).

The next bubbly had a mature, warm nose of bread and honey. It was creamy and lush, and the palate was round, rich and smooth, never losing its lushness. It was very wine-like with its orange marmalade palate. There were gold flavors and excellent acidity still to this wooly and textured wine. It was a 1976 Clos Tarin Clos du Mesnil. I don.t think even the owners of this wine at the time would have identified this one blind (93)!

The 1963 Clos Tarin Clos du Mesnil was shot, oxidized unfortunately. I guess all 1963s might be at this point (DQ).

Big Boy went straight to the hoop, Blake Griffin style, with the next selection. Perfect, flawless, top five ever produced, he went on, and he was right. Richard was at first in the 55/.47 camp, identifying the strength of the wine with some of Champagne’s strongest vintages. Its nose was both classic and insane at the same time. There were hints of hinterland oak, along with meaty, yellow aromas that were sweet, rich and nutty in an autumnal way. Its palate was musky and zippy yet rich and lush, with divine flavors of seltzer, bread and citrus. Secondary flavors of orange, chocolate and tobacco emerged in this incredible wine. It was a 1966 Krug Blanc de Blancs, the pre-cursor to Clos du Mesnil that was only made once, and only 500 bottles were made. Holy shit (99).

The next flight was for 2012’s Birthday Boy, Mr. Juhlin himself, who will be turning fifty this year. We started with a 1962 Charles Heidseick British Cuvee, and Alexander The Great and Brooklyn Mike were in agreement over its pineapple. qualities. Aromas of waterfall, musk and nut oil rounded out its nose. Flavors of pineapple and coconut expanded in this long and icy wine. There was great fruit and great mineral components here (95).

A 1962 Piper Heidseick Rose was so rare, even Piper didn.t know they made it until Bad Boy came knocking at their door. The nose was all strawberry rose, so sweet. Richard noted, lower alcohol and more sugar.. It was lush, round and long, with a high dosage. per Bad Boy (93).

The regular 1962 Piper Heidseick was impressive, quite effervescent with its hay and straw aromas, forward and zippy. Flavors of honey didn.t compromise its great freshness, and additional flavors of mineral and white earth were balanced by impressive sweetness (95).

1966 Dom Perignon Rose?. Richard asked. Close, it was 1962 Dom Perignon Rose. Aromas of earth, chocolate and strawberry stood out, complemented by granny apple and cranberry flavors. It had that earthy, sweaty, good drity style of mature DP Rose and was a rock solid bottle. It was surely great with its outstanding acidity and weight (96).

The 1962 Krug had that big, classic Krug vanilla aroma, with a so good. toasty and nutty nose to match. The palate was balanced yet big, with a cascading finish that went on and on and on. You can always count on Krug (96+).

There was one more 62 bubbly, a 1962 Roederer Cristal. Orange rind and butterscotch squared off in the nose, and that Cristal kinkiness shined throughout that battle. The palate was sweet and larger than life with its caramel flavors. The acidity and spritz were both great. This is one Champagne whose performance lives up to the reputation (96).

Enough with the Champagne, we needed some wine, and Big Boy continued the 1962 theme with four of the greatest Burgundies ever made. The first had a wow nose that reeked cherry sex. Its aromatics were so delicately good, just like 1962s are supposed to be at age fifty. Its aromas tickled while grabbing my&.attention. Musk and mint added layers of complexity to this category six hurricane, as Big Boy accurately commented. The palate was super long, with incredible rose and tobacco flavors. Its finish was soft and caressing, yet it walloped at the same time. Long live Rousseau, starting with the 1962 Rousseau Chambertin (97).

We continued with the 1962 Roumier Musigny, which doesn.t exist, except for the few that still have some. Big Boy, The Don, anyone else? Deep, foresty fruit signaled a different producer, and its fruits were a bit blacker. Traces of tobacco and coffee lingered in the nose, along with some tomato and Worcestershire. The palate was phenomenal, possessing superb length. It was hearty in a fine way, typical of great Musigny. The flavors shifted to red, along with tobacco and citrus, in this spectacular wine. Long live Roumier (98).

It couldn.t get any better, could it? Enter 1962 La Tache. At first, there were oysters and ocean action in the nose; it needed some time to unravel, and did it ever. Aromas of rose and tobacco slowly took over, with secondary rose and menthol seeping up out of its earth. The palate was out of control. It was rich, saucy and long with crazy spice and oomph to its finish. I must confess that I was starting to think the sun was setting on the 1962 vintage, in a long, graceful way, as great vintages fade away and never disappear. I am happy to officially stand corrected. Long live La Tache (99).

The 1942 Richebourg, which was supposed to be a 1962, was unfortunately gone with the wind (DQ).

The 1962 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes was also spectacular, though a hair behind the La Tache. Its smoky red fruits slithered out of the glass in an unctuous way; its richness and concentration were as good as it gets in Burgundy. This was so thick and lush, singing at the top of its lungs, yet its finish was so fine. This was higher level juice. Long live Comte de Vogue (98).

We were running out of time, so Big Boy went back for one last flight of Champagnes, beginning with a 1911 Moet, and not the batch that was recently released, which I have not sampled. I’m talking ORIGINAL. Having had two 98-point experiences with this incredible bubbly, this bottle disappointed relatively, but it was still impressive. Ever so slightly oxidized, the nose still delivered immense pleasure with aromas of rye bread crust, nut oil and kisses of caramel and fino. The palate was lush and great, and its acidity was extraordinary, but it was definitely a kiss oxidized (95A).

The 1921 Pol Roger was another great nose, dusty and great in a white cola, zippedy doo dah way. Its flavors were sweet and honeyed, and its finish vibrant, but I did find it a touch sweet, holding back its fantastic self (95).

Everything else is immaterial, announced Big Boy after sipping the next wine. It was another wow nose; everything was starting to border on the surreal. Richard thought this might be the elusive 1938 Krug, but it was the non-existent 1932 Salon Nature. Its nose was deep, rich, sexy and nutty, and while its fruit was mature, it was still delicious, and its acidity was still superior. Lush and creamy continued my notes. Earthy and autumnal flavors suggested this might have been a touch advanced, but since I have no 1932 references, who knows? Big Boy knew only one thing at this point. I am in awe of myself, he summed up lol. To be honest, so was I (96).

There was one Champagne before we hit the road; it was a bottle of 1942 Pommery, and damn was it good. Dirty, but good. That’s how things happen after 11pm lol. There was zip and zoo here, but sweet vanilla took over, and its palate cheered hip hip hooray.. Absolutely delicious, this was Pommery at its best, rich and perfectly sweet in a toffee way. It kept getting better (97).

There were actually a few other bottles opened, but I didn.t catch them all. It was finally time to go out, and thanks to Bad Boy, we had tickets to the hottest show in New York City, the Deadmaus concert. We arrived at 11:55pm and danced in the New Year with more magnums of Champagne. So many magnums I lost track, but I do remember the 1981 Krug (95M)showing better than the 1982 Krug (96+M) ,even though I thought the 1982 was the better wine. The 81 was showing delicious, mature and bready flavors, and it was still young, but not as young as the 1982, a truly impressive vintage for Krug. The most memorable wine thereafter was an extraordinary magnum of 1971 Salon (98M) , which was like a Starship Enterprise of a wine. Its finish rocketed into the next vintage in such lingering fashion, I can still taste it. It had all the classic components of icy white fruits, sparkling diamonds and endless acidity. I missed a bunch more, as I lasted about two hours less than the Boys..

Remember, life is too short not to drink it. Long live Champagne and its two greatest ambassadors, Robert Rosania and Richard Juhlin. It’s going to be a good year.

Here’s a bit of Christmas cheer for everyone opening a bottle or three today, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a great wine.

After three years of invites, I finally got the Emperor to join me for dinner in Hong Kong. It was well worth the wait.

The acceptance was actually for November. Problem was, the dates got mixed up, and he missed the original engagement. I was determined not to let this opportunity slip away again and insisted on a more intimate gathering in December, and I was ever so grateful afterwards, not only to the Emperor and his presence, but also for my insistence in the first place.

Now the Emperor is one who drinks well, as he should. While he has everything he could ever need, he remains active and experimental in the marketplace, in the spirit of both a true collector and a true connoisseur. The Emperor also likes to do things in grand fashion. Consider a recent dinner he hosted for fifty of his closer friends and advisors, and the according line-up of wines: 2002 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne, 1986 Ramonet Montrachet (jeroboam) , 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares, 1959 Mouton (magnums) , 1990 Petrus and 1985 Sassicaia. For a dinner this large, 4-6 bottles (or equivalent) was opened of each wine. I mean, wow. Where was my invite, I joked. He promised his next similar event would be around my schedule. My fingers are crossed!

Class and style, they do not always go together. Tonight, they were both at the dinner table and on it. We started with a slightly affected bottle of 1966 Dom Perignon. It was a touch maderized, as The Distinguished Gentleman observed. While mature and forward, it was still drinkable and with good spritz. Overall, it was a bit dirty, with bread and white cola flavors, each covered in more dirt (93A).

The Winemaster brought with him a delicious 1961 Oddero Barolo. Sexy aromas of rose, tar and mint jumped out of the glass. It was leathery and sexy like hot leather pants accordingly. A distinctive, secondary aroma of Mesquite BBQ emerged, and Gil noted a touch of benevolent Oloroso.. Its palate had meaty fruit and great smack to its finish. There were taut, red cherry flavors up front, and leather ones in the back. Its oily texture made for a delicious experience. This was a great wine from a great vintage in Barolo (94).

A 2000 d’Auvenay Chevalier Montrachet was next. We were matching the food with the wine, hence the unusual procession. It was a truffle dinner, and we felt the Barolo went better with the scrambled egg dish, and the Chevy with the scallop and crab concoction. The dinner was at Gold, by the way, and chef Harlan Goldstein personally prepared a spectacular meal. Back to the wine&the first thing that stood out about this white was its heaviness. This had to be the heaviest 2000 white that I have ever had; Leroy’s concentrated style was on full display in its thick, rich and heady nose. Aromas of banana peel and nut skin, along with coconut shell, were also there. The palate also had some sweet nut flavors and a buttery personality. While smooth, the palate was a bit dirty, and easier and smoother than the nose had me expecting. Unsweetened 7up and waterfall flavors were present in this elegant. white. This was no 1996, one of the great whites I have ever had (92).

I brought a 1945 Haut Brion, one removed from a nearly complete, original case, and the wine was incredible. What a nose, I began. It was staggeringly complex with meaty and minty fruit, and the same, great wine that I remembered it to be. Fabulous. came from the crowd, and additional aromas of carob, caramel and smoke came from my glass. The palate was full of caramel, tobacco, slate and mineral, extremely powerful, with a slaty, gravelly finish. The nose continued to evolve into an incredible butter toffee display, and it kept getting better and better with more air. Someone (s?) noted, Coney Island in the bottle. and gunpowder and brimstone.. Its power and acidity were extraordinary (98).

A 1966 Haut Brion was no match for the 1945, showing more green bean and stalk in its nose, with a touch of chocolate. The palate was clean, fresh and smooth, with a nice waterbed of cassis underneath. There was tobacco and Graves earth on its finish. This was a smooth and satiny HB, water from Heaven, someone remarked (92).

The next wine was served blind, and The Distinguished Gentleman noted coconut. instantly. The nose was fleshy and almost jammy at first, in an old, Old World way. A bit of green bean crept in, and the palate had that touch of ice cream sundae to it. Banana joined the nose on cue. The palate was fresh, smooth and soft with a tender finish. It was a 1928 Cos d’Estournel (93).

Back-to-back Burgundies followed, both by Roumier, and both two of the most significant wines in the history of the Domaine. The 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares was brought by the Emperor, from the case he purchased at the Don Stott auction a month ago. After this bottle, only six bottles remained despite him having it for only one month. It’s the Chinese way. The nose was fabulous, and this bottle was slightly fresher than the bottle of this that I had a month ago (from a different batch, and equally as spectacular if not more). Red fruits and orange rind jumped out of the nose, and one guest found it more orange blossom tea. than rind. Tea, beef, smoke and earth were on both the nose and palate, which was so fine and so sweet. It was rich with great acidity, long and dusty with delicious nutty flavors. It got more complex, exhibiting more rose, bouillon and sweeter fruit (97).

The 1978 Roumier Musigny had a similar nose to its sibling, but a heavier feel. It took more time to open, continuing to put on weight, becoming oilier as well. Hints of spice and rust started to emerge, and menthol took over the palate, along with extraordinary acidity. The Bonnes Mares was clearly sexier and more friendly at first, but after a long conversation, the Musigny kept unfolding more and more, and this was a dead heat. If I had a bottle of each to drink with a friend as opposed to a glass, I think the Musigny would have won in the end (97+).

It is rare for a Rhone wine to upstage Bordeaux and Burgundy legends like 45 HB and 71/78 Roumiers and so forth, but the 1966 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline did just that. It had a wow. nose, full of white pepper and sexy supporting singers named violet, bacon and beef. One commented, this is perfect; no flaws.. It was incredibly tasty, adding lavender to its previous violet and bacon, and its flesh and length were superb. There was great kink to its finish, and its flavor was as good as the Rhone gets. In fact, the 1966 La Mouline, its first vintage, might be the greatest wine ever made in the Rhone. Consistent notes (99).

It was an evening fit for an emperor. I hope it doesn.t take me three years to get him to come to dinner again.