I love Hong Kong. The city, the people, the energy, and the passion for wine are a combination rarely seen in the world today. My ten days in HK saw a lot of great wines and generosity on display, and the festivities commenced on Monday night, which was technically a ‘category 8’ Typhoon night, with 12 being the highest and most dangerous category. The wind was certainly whipping, but the rain mercifully stayed away until late in the night, really coming down heavily the next morning. Eight was enough to close schools and many businesses the next day, although by the afternoon, the typhoon had passed through, and it was business back to normal.

About eight of us got together on Monday night thanks to the efforts of Lawrence, and Paul was able to secure us a table at Café Gray, which is not officially open but doing a few, special pre-opening meals for some of Hong Kong’s finer diners. Gray himself was there, getting ready for what will technically be the opening in a couple more weeks.

Some 1995 Dom Perignon Oenotheque kicked off the evening in fine fashion. The ’95 had that classic Oeno style ”“ clean, pungent and grassy with hints of hay, citrus and melon. The palate was full and fresh, quite long, yet the acidity didn’t overpower the wine like many young Champagnes. It still sparkled in the glass and had nice zip, rounding out and becoming more fleshy with time (94).

A 1976 La Tache set the stage for what would be a mainly Bordeaux night, and it had a great nose. 1976s can be instant charmers but not be last-longers, so to speak, and I predicted this would be great for about 30+ minutes before disappearing into the air. I guess one could say that ’76 Burgs are great first kissers lol. There was sweet musk and black cherry fruit along with nice stalk, forest and a pinch of menthol in the nose. The palate was full of autumnal fruit flavors, round and balanced, with traces of earth, tea and dust on its finish (93).

Desmond noted ‘chocolate’ right away in a 1959 L’Evangile, and Gary found it ‘quite powerful.’ Loewe concurred, calling 1959 ‘more tannic than ’61,’ in general. It was, indeed, quite chocolaty with a hint of garden goodness, along with some faint aromas of cement and pungent interior. The palate was big and a bit of a bruiser with lots of alcohol showing. Its cassis and plum fruit were walking on slate stilts, and a hint of metal/iron ore was there as well. The L’Evangile’s sexy nose was old but fresh, and its acidity was really long in the belly, but there was some squareness in its shoulders. 1959 was never quite the vintage in Pomerol that it was for the rest of Bordeaux, although clearly still way above average (93).

Unfortunately, a Jean Nony Negociant bottling of 1947 Cheval Blanc was corked (DQ).

Paul had brought a pet wine of his, the 1958 Haut Brion, a vintage not often seen. This bottle was from the Mahler-Besse cellars, and the nose was certainly classic HB. There was that instant whiff of gravel, although oak started to creep in, in eyebrow raising fashion. The tannins and acidity were still firm in the penetrating nose, but its palate also had that oaky edge. The initial attack in the mouth was nice, but its mid-palate and finish were soft. Its flavors were more oak than anything else, although its oak morphed into cedar a bit. I was wondering if the wine was reconditioned at all, but there was no indication that it was (88).

Hello, 1955 La Mission Haut Brion. The first words to be written were ‘wow.’ There was a deep core of cassis and chocolate here, escorted by massive t ‘n a, cedar, mahogany and more classic wood without the oak. The palate was rich, sensual and vibrant, with secondary dust and desert qualities. There were nice, old citrus kisses to its caroby core, and it got more chocolaty in the mouth over time. While it competed with the last wine we would have on this night for ‘WOTN,’ it ultimately fell a step behind as we headed down the stretch towards the finish line (95).

A 1959 Lafite Rothschild was reconditioned in 1998, perhaps a bit too much so. It was sweet and gamy with lots of t ‘n a in the nose, but it came across younger more than older; it didn’t find the right balance that a great reconditioned wine should have. The palate was sweet and chocolaty, flirting with figgy, nicely dense and with flavors of leather, spice and cassis. Lawrence admired its ‘excellent finish,’ and while the wine was tasty, it was a bit hot and lacked the depth that I wanted and expect from this wine. It was still very good, but it should have been outstanding (92).

A 1953 Lafite Rothschild closed the evening in fine fashion. This, being an original bottle, was everything I expected and wanted. At first, it was a bit stinky, and it needed time to blow off some of its initial hay and wet grass. Thick, seepy fruit emerged with some swirling and aeration. The wine was rich and tasty, richer than I expected, and its hay blew into coffee and earth with a pinch of citrus. There was great ‘smack’ to this leathery wine and excellent pop to its finish. Carob, cobwebs and dust were all there as well. The wine was delicious, still vigorous but definitely mature. It remains one of the all-time classic Lafites (96+).

I actually had to go back to work after dinner and ended up spending another four hours trying to deal with deadline issues for our next set of Fall auctions. I wasn’t jet-lagged at all during my trip to Hong Kong, just work-lagged! The next two days were basically devoted to October and November, so I was especially ready come Thursday night to enjoy some more great wine, and we had assembled about fifty eager collectors for a BYO spectacular at the Island Shangri La. It was a quite social affair, and I only managed a dozen, brief notes, but they were good ones :).

We started off with a magnum of 1992 Sauzet Montrachet, which was as great as 1992 can be. The wine was rich and yeasty, only showing a touch of that fast-forwarding 1992 style. Its acidity was still solid, and this was a mouthful of a white, no doubt helped by the magnum format. Sauzet is one of the elite producers of white Burgs, and probably the least appreciated of the elite. His style has a power unmatched by any other producer in Burgundy (95M).

A magnum of 2002 Chave Hermitage Blanc stood up nicely to the Sauzet, even though it was from a vintage not held in high regard. If real estate is all about location, location, location then wine is all about producer, producer, producer. A great producer will make quality wines every year no matter what the conditions, and this Chave proved it. The Chave had lots of gamy fruit and glue in its nose. The palate was long and had great spine with lots of honey and wax flavors. Thanks, Dave (93M).

There was a James Suckling sighting, and along with him came a 2001 Massetto. Talk about a great package deal. James is always great company at a tasting and an encyclopedia of wine knowledge, and he was really the first major Western wine critic to experience the Hong Kong market. No one from the West knows Hong Kong and its major collectors more than James. The Massetto was super-concentrated and deep purple personified. The words ‘rich’ and ‘thick’ kept appearing over and over again in my notes, along with ‘super.’ James added, ‘layered and powerful”¦black olives and mint.’ This was an awesomely endowed wine, full of decadent flavors of coffee and blueberry. It was still very young but incredibly sexxxy juice (97).

If there were a Bordeaux that could stand up to the Massetto, a good choice would be the 1989 Haut Brion. It was another ‘wow’ wine; it is always special, indubitably one of the top ten wines made in Bordeaux over the last forty years. Long, elegant yet meaty, it zipped along faster than the speed limit but still seemed like it was moving slowly. It was so sensual, seductive from the first sniff to the last sip, full of carob, caramel, cedar and enough spice for Julia Child’s kitchen cabinet. This is an any place, any time wine. Thank you my friend (99).

The 1982 Haut Brion that followed had many similar characteristics, but there was much more peanut butter here in a peanut brittle way. This had a tender side to it that the ’89 wasn’t ready to show. It was more forward than the seven years between the two, gamier and readier, although still with a long life ahead of it. The ’82 HB seems to be under-appreciated in the market and is certainly the best value of all the First Growths (95).

A magnum of 1966 Haut Brion was all about the coffee in the nose. Its palate was smooth and satiny, soft and tender, fully mature and ready to go. While not in the category of the greatest Haut Brions, it is still very good, though probably best to drink up (91M).

Thomas blessed us with a rare 1969 Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape. As I have recently iterated, I love old Beaucastels. They are amongst my favorite, old wines and an incredible value relative to similarly old, great Bordeaux and Burgundy. This ’69 was no exception. It was full and regal in the nose, emitting black fruits, wet stones and pinches of game, tar and pepper. It was long in the mouth, tasty and tender despite a full finish marked by earth and cement flavors. It was another awesome, old Beaucastel (94).

A 1995 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Cras was pungent and gamy, long and full of iodine and dry leather flavors. While 1995 is a controversial vintage in Burgundy, there is no doubt that Roumier hit the bullseye this year and made the wines of the vintage, and this Chambolle proved why (93).

It was back to Bordeaux with an excellent magnum of 1964 Latour. Its nose reminded me of rich, Christmas pudding. It was long, tasty and sensual, in a good spot out of magnum, displaying classic flavors of black fruit, carob, walnut and pencil (93M).

A bottle of 1983 Margaux was in perfect condition, chalky and minerally, fuller-bodied and more stony than any other bottle of this that I have ever had. Its acidity was noticeable and noticeably good, and its spine and length suggested younger rather than older. Its black fruits were almost entrapped by its minerality; this will be a fascinating wine to follow for the next 25 years (95).

There was one more Bordeaux on this starry night, a 1990 Cheval Blanc, whose nose was full of meaty, wintry red fruits and hints of gingerbread. There is always this hint of game and wild grass to the ’90 Cheval, and I say that in a positive way. The palate was classic all the way around, rich and red, tasty yet still somewhat shy and reserved. This was a meaty, long and regal wine that will be enjoyable for decades to come (96).

I didn’t have much left in me by the time a magnum of 1989 Giacosa Barolo Falleto Riserva came around. Its leather and acidity really stood out at this point, along with its black as night fruit. This was a mouthful of a wine, practically taking my tongue hostage with its sheer strength. Long and zippy, the Giacosa spoke up for Italy admirably on this great night (95+M).

After a good night’s sleep, it was the day before the auction and time for our pre-auction tasting. There were many fantastic wines being poured. I only had time to taste about a dozen of the 35-40 wines being poured, but the standouts for me included 1971 Moet Rose (94), 2004 Marcassin Pinot Noir Three Sisters (94), 2003 Dujac Clos de la Roche (95+), 2001 Lafleur (96) and 1985 Rayas (96). The Moet Rose was delicious, still fresh yet showing some mature and open red fruit flavors, still vibrant with its effervescence and citrusy goodness. The Marcassin was remarkably good. It was rich, saucy and full, a mouthful and then some of beefy, California Pinot that retained the grape’s natural sex appeal. I was impressed, and equally so by the 2003 Dujac. I must confess that I have not had too many 2003 Burgundy recently as I don’t drink that much ‘serious’ young wine, and I have also perhaps been a bit brainwashed by a few Burgundy connoisseurs that this is not a pure or classic vintage in Burgundy due to the excessive, record-breaking heat of 2003. Well, this Dujac lit my mouth up. It was rich and concentrated and still full of acidity and length, making my lips smack and my tongue lick the roof of my mouth. It had sweet fruit, but not what I would call overripe, as the knock can be on ’03. It left me with a yearning to try a bunch more ’03 Burgs in the near future. 2001 Lafleur is a classic Lafleur, and 2001 is a great vintage for Pomerol. I will never forget when one of the Moueixs told me, ‘It will be interesting to compare the 2001 and 2000 over the next ten years,’ and that ultimately one day the 2001 might be held in higher regard. ‘Nuff said. The 1985 Rayas showed the glory of great Chateauneuf du Pape. I don’t know about all these new producers that have achieved huge ratings. When it comes to Chateauneuf, I keep it simple ”“ Rayas, Beaucastel, Bonneau, Pegau, Brunel”¦I might be missing a couple of others, but you get the idea. The classic producers that have been making wine for decades are the ones I tend to prefer, and the same goes for the rest of the world, too. Experience matters. The ’85 was open and rich, tasty and gamy, jammy with its kinky strawberry fruit, supported by hot stones, leather, garrigue and spice. It was the real standout of the whole tasting for me, even more so than the Lafleur despite their same score, since the Rayas was much more open due to the sixteen year age difference.

In Vino Veritas,
JK

Recently I spent back-to-back nights in two different cellars in two different states. The first night was at The Don’s, the unofficial church of Burgundy here in America. A delicious lineup of five different wines had me thanking the wine Gods accordingly.

We started with a delicious 1990 Dauvissat Chablis La Forest. This wine really knocked me out and cemented the fact that 1990 may be the greatest Chablis vintage of my lifetime. (Yes, I know, 1996 could be as well). The nose was so warm and mature, yeasty in the best way possible, giving way to earth, smoke, baked yellow fruits and hay. The palate was rich and saucy, meaty and chewy, full of mild citrus and terroir flavors. While at its peak, the La Forest was pure hedonism and had me forgetting about the trees (94).

We paired it with a 1989 Raveneau Butteaux. The Raveneau was much more anisy and spiny, showing more citrus and minerals. It was more wound up, pungent in a good way, clean and long. It had more smack and was more youthful than the La Forest, but it didn’t quite deliver the same pleasure quota, although in five years it may be the better wine (93+)

A 2003 Haut Brion Blanc was a welcome introduction to dinner. The nose was sweet and giving, rare for a young HBB. The appeal of the 2003 vintage made itself known immediately, as sweet aromas of Sauvignon and Semillon fruit combined with the usual suspects of glue, hay and smoke. Almost tropical, the HBB was so delicious, sweet and balanced, elegant yet full-bodied. It didn’t feel like it was on a fast evolutionary track, but rather one of those wines that will always be enjoyable from the word go (95).

A pair of 1999 Leroys rounded out our evening. It has been a while since I have had any Leroy ‘99s, and I love ‘99s, so this was perfect as far as I was concerned. The first was the 1999 Leroy Vosne Romanee Beauxmonts. It had the signature, beefy Leroy style, dripping with black and red fruits, earth, and a long, defined finish. The Vosne maintained its inherent, elegant nature and gave off a silky impression (93).

As impressive as the Vosne initially was, the 1999 Leroy Corton Renardes just bullied over its sibling. It made the Vosne seem lighter and less of a wine, to be frank. The power of the Corton was searing. Its acidity and tannins stomped all over the Beauxmonts, and it kept a rich, powerful core of dense fruit to match its everlasting finish. This was impressive stuff (96).

On the next night, I found myself down South with a longstanding collector of forty years. While half of his cellar had been sold off due to divorce many years ago, and thousands of bottles had been consumed over the years, there was still a lot of great juice left, much of which you will hopefully be seeing soon at auction. We sampled a bunch of wines from the cellar, more eclectic and value selections since we wanted to save the best stuff for the auction. The result was a great testament to the ageability of quality wines in general, and how taken for granted many older wines have become. This evening proved that a wine doesn’t have to be a First Growth or or from only the greatest of vintages to age gracefully and provide much pleasure.

We started with a wine that was never commercially available, a 1979 C.I.B. Corton Bressandes. The CIB is an organization in Burgundy that makes selections and wines every year for seminars that it conducts about Burgundy. My friend happened to help organize a series of their events here in America many years ago, and he was allowed to keep the leftovers as long as he promised not to sell them. He kept his promise, and was I ever glad for it. This wine was stunning, hauntingly delicious, showing mature nuances of game, black raspberry, earth and truffle. It was in a perfect spot and a wine that I could just keep drinking endlessly for hours. It was flat-out delicious. It, coupled with the extraordinary Ponsot that I had sampled recently, made me want to find more 1979 reds! This was a generic Corton Bressandes, mind you. It was what Burgundy was all about ”“ gamy, sweet fruit, supple body and fleshy yet firm texture. This was 99 points on the enjoyment scale; it was that good. I couldn’t stop drinking it, and if it ever did come up for auction, it would probably be less than $50 (95).

We turned to California next with an off-the-trodden selection from one of his favorite winemakers and former friends, Joe Heitz. The 1977 Heitz Cabernet Sauvignon Fay Vineyard was another excellent wine. It was taut and mineral driven in that Heitz style, flirting with anise and chock full of earth, coffee, slate and hints of chocolate. Long and fine with good grit, this was still holding up well after all these years, from a vintage to which no one pays any mind anymore. It just goes to show that great producers make great, or at least really good, wines every year. This is another wine that if it ever came up for sale, it would probably only get $40 or $50, if that. Now that would be money well spent (93).

We went to dinner, and I grabbed a 1978 Heitz Pinot Chardonnay, because curiosity killed the critic. The kick was up, it’ssss goooooood! It was still rich and yeasty, smoky and woody, a solid wine that was clearly mature but still enjoyable. Mature flavors of cobwebs and campfire rounded out this piece of history, and although some alley crept in, it didn’t cross the line. Remind me why they don’t make wine in California like they used to again (90)?

I picked another curiosity, a 1968 Chateau Ste. Michelle White Oak Cabernet Sauvignon. Well, you can’t win ‘em all. The nose wasn’t bad, giving off cedar, cassis and lots of slate, but the palate was a bit sour and thin. It was still fun to try, and drinkable for a 40-year old Washington wine (83).

Since there was a lot of Bordeaux in the cellar, I insisted on one claret, and we had a half-bottle of 1970 Latour. Out of half, the Latour was a bit more mature than your average bottle but still excellent. It was gritty and sandpapery, framed by chunky black fruits and hints of coffee. It went down easy and remains a solid Latour, although not as great as many initially felt it was (93).

This gentleman has a great German collection, so we finished with a 1976 Albert Kallfelz Riesling Beerenauslese Merler Stephansberg, a producer whose family has been making wine since 1450. Now that’s a family tradition! The BA was very good, showing mature aromas and flavors of yeast, peach, basement, lychee, rainwater and minerals. It was a great way to end this evening, one that reminded me how great wine is, especially when you find great ones that aren’t the so-called great ones (92).

The bill for dinner was quite reasonable, especially the $2 corkage fee per bottle. You gotta love the South”¦

It was one month later, so wine’s original Bad Boy Bruce decided to have another get together at his home in New Jersey. It was a smaller get-together than his previous party, but still on hand from last month’s birthday bash were King Angry, the Hillbilly and Alexander the Great. I don’t think the Hillbilly ever left, actually. Bad Boy’s musical world touched us on this night, as we were also joined by Maynard Keenan, lead singer of Tool, a passionate wine lover and maker of fine wine as well. I had dined with him before a couple of years ago, and we had enjoyed an incredible wine dinner at Cru, but I somehow lost those notes and was never able to share that night. He was in town for a concert, and his presence was just enough to spark a fantastic evening centered around 1979 Champagnes, Soldera and Monfortino. The King and the Hillbilly, in a twist of half-inspiration and half-destiny, answered the musical bell and assumed the role they were born to play: the wine world’s version of Tupac and Biggie lol.

We started with a magnum of 1979 Louis Roederer. While good, the Roederer was simpler than I would have hoped and a significant drop off in quality from the Roederer bottles of the ‘60s, ‘50s and older, which all have legendary potential in them. I am not sure when this quality curve changed, perhaps coinciding with an increase in production of Cristal. The Roederer was clean and fresh with light aromas of yellow and toast. The palate was a little pungent, with flavors of urine and minerals (89M).

A magnum of 1979 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill had decadent vanilla aromas. It was ‘peachy and slaty’ per Todd, aka the Hillbilly, and also had great white musk and light toast aromas, more like bread soaked in oil. The palate was still young, very young, with nice bread, toast and white chocolate flavors. There was a bit of dirty earth on the finish, holding it back a bit (94+M).

A 1979 Veuve Clicquot La Grande Dame was gorgeous and lived up to its name. The Great one was admiring its soft, caressing nature. It was very floral with crushed, crystallized fruit aromas, sprinkled in sugar. A touch of hay added complexity. The palate was very clean. It was also long and fresh and possessed great effervescence, an effervescence that was more about its bubbles than its acidity. The Hillbilly said, ‘JK 94,’ and he was right. What can I say, the guy worships me 🙂 (94).

We did a fascinating comparison of three bottles of 1979 Krug, all with different disgorgement dates. ‘Real geeky wine stuff,’ Bruce gleefully admitted. The first was believed to be the original release, some time in the mid-80s. Alexander found it ‘very creamy,’ and Todd ‘more golden.’ It was big and bold, full of that Krug vanilla cream, but it was really more egg cream this time. While big, rich and bold, the ’79 was also a touch aggressive. Bruce thought it had ‘more yeast, balance and development.’ It stayed eggy but in a good way. The second bottle was disgorged in 1990, and showed more youthfully accordingly. Alexander noted, ‘white cherry,’ but there was also a slight must to this bottle. On the palate, it also had the egg, more wood and vanilla cream pie. Big, rich and bubbly, while there was more muscle here, there was also more BO, as in cork issues. The third bottle of 1979 Krug was disgorged in 1988. Again eggy, the third bottle finally had everyone jumping on my egg bandwagon. Todd called it ‘hard-boiled and sulfury.’ This bottle was the best balanced, and while lighter, it was tastier, too. The Hillbilly found it ‘less robust,’ but then again, he’s a big guy and needs those 99-point Shirazes, Priorats and Chateauneufs to wake up his senses lol. He didn’t think it would go well with Possum Stew, always a big factor in his ratings scale. Speaking of which, while all three bottles were different, and one was affected, I found them all to be qualitatively equal and (95).

It was at this point that Bruce started grumbling about the female sommelier he hired to serve at the party. The Hillbilly was all over him, saying ‘you can’t get a girl to come over even when you pay her, and she doesn’t even have to have sex with you.’ It was quite a funny moment, and no one enjoyed it more than the Hillbilly, who hooted and hollered for approximately the next five minutes. We gave him some oxygen to settle him down.

But it was really the 1979 Krug Collection from magnum that got Todd’s attention. The Collection had a great, toasty nose with unreal vanilla cream aromas. The HB noted, ‘more linear and saline”¦a tighter package.’ It absolutely was, and racy enough for any major speedway. It had a rocket-like finish that took off, leaving a trail of dust, minerals and spice. This was the first Champagne I insisted on seconds (96+M).

A 1979 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Rose had a nice nose, very floral in a thick way. There was red rose and strawberry fruit, mint and chocolate. The nose was outstanding and really seduced me, but the palate was milder and more elegant, simple with its sweet and earthy personality. The King agreed about the nose, but found it ‘too sweet like cotton candy.’ Alexander the Great also found it ‘sugary like lemonade’ (92).

We had our first wine of the night, and it was from Arizona, our friend Maynard’s estate Cabernet, of which he makes about 90 cases in total. The 2007 Caduceus Cabernet Sauvignon Nagual del Judith was an inky baby. It had a young, sappy and seepy nose, quite juicy in that New World way. There were nice minerals dancing around a core of superripe cassis, make that hardcore; this is Tool we are talking about! The palate was rich, saucy and juicy, with nice flesh to its finish, very good definition and traces of earth, melons and coffee grinds. The winery was named after the staff of Hermes; of course, King Angry insisted that his staff was bigger lol. This was a well-made wine by someone who takes his wine very seriously, and I look forward to trying more wines from him in the future (93).

There were three more ‘79s to go, though, and they were three of Champagne’s finest. The 1979 Louis Roederer Cristal was distinctively Cris. It was very bready, with fine, sweet vanilla wafer, smoke, orange rind and crème brulee aromas in the nose. The palate was rich and heady with a sweet, oily core and an aggressive ‘burnt’ edge in the mouth. Very full-bodied, this ’79 was quite wild on the palate, sporting earth and weed flavors, but they were balanced by pleasing caramel, sweet margarine and yellow corn ones. Bruce hailed it as ‘great and staggering.’ There was a hint of celery, veggie goodness here. At first, the Cristal was all over the place, almost too complex, or as Todd put it, ‘a little furry.’ It really rounded out with some time in the glass, its sweetness reined itself in, and it got oily, kinky and sexy, three of my favorite things when they are enjoyed simultaneously (95+).

While I enjoyed the 1979 Salon more than the Cristal at first, by the time I had finished evaluating the both of them, the Cristal had snuck ahead. The Salon was clean and racy like light speed in the nose. It was so focused with its aromas of white fruits, ice and granulated sugar. It had the perfect sweetness, and it was a ‘laser cannon’ per the Hillbilly. The sweetness carried its perfection over to its rich palate through a rainbow of lemon and lime flavors. Its finish was long, and it had great balance. It was elegant but still big, starting to plateau and mellow, and it continued to mellow more in the glass while the Cris took off. The King added ‘vanilla cream soda’ (95).

Last and certainly not least was the 1979 Krug Clos du Mesnil. The last two bottles that I have had of this were horribly corked; thankfully, history would not repeat itself, and this bottle lived up to its historic reputation. This was the first vintage for what is now considered by many to be greatest Champagne made year in and year out, the Romanee Conti of the Champagne world. The Mesnil had a big, scintillating nose full of cinnamon, antique wood and vanilla bean. It was so big that it came across almost beefy. Deep and regal, it required our complete attention. The palate was rich, heavy and hearty, with its cinnamon and wood qualities carrying over to the palate. It was absolutely delicious, like drinking feathers and still having the meat along with it. With air and food, the wood melted away into a butter bomb. The Mesnil became saucy and decadent, rich and full of vanilla. ‘Vanilla cream soda,’ the King added. Wait a second, you said that for the Salon? ‘Make that celery soda,’ he laughed. This was finally the bottle of this legendary wine that I have been looking for; it didn’t disappoint (98).

It was time for some wine, and we began with a couple of Contis before heading over to Italy. Ray’s mystery wine had a gamy nose full of wintry red fruits and a kiss of menthol, along with rose, garden, citrus and tree bark. The palate was rich and intense with lots of red citrus fruits. There was great spice, tree flavors and a leathery finish that supported cedar and mahogany flavors. It was a delicious 1983 Echezeaux. I have said it before, that many 1983 Burgs can be surprisingly good, especially for ’s (94).

The Ech was paired with a 1985 Grands Echezeaux. Alexander the Great noticed ‘beet cottage’ right away in its big, beefy nose. There were lots of brown aromas, but not as in mature. Some vitamins and rose crept out behind the beef. The palate was oily and concentrated, almost too much so, again beefy. Its finish was lip-smacking but bruising, and the GE was a bit broad-shouldered at the moment. Although I thought the ’85 to be the better wine as far as its raw materials and long-term aging potential, I preferred the ’83 Ech on this night, as did Maynard and Ray (95+).

It was on to the Italians and the Solderas, Tuscany’s true First Growth. By the way, all Solderas are Casse Basse, which is the name of the estate, I believe. There has long been confusion about whether a Soldera is Casse Basse or not, but they all are! The 1997 Soldera Brunello Riserva had a sweet cherry core but was really all about the dust. There was also a cigar dipped in chocolate aroma in this deep, dark wine. The palate was rich and concentrated with great smoked Brunello flavors of beef, earth and leather. I was pleasantly surprised by this 1997, which seems to have floundered in the secondary market recently. Why, I am not sure (95).

The 1995 Soldera Brunello Riserva was more leathery with lots of peanuty goodness to its nose. One could tell the 1995 and 1997 were related, as the Soldera style translates in any vintage. The palate was rich and thick, full of tobacco, black fruit and tar flavors, also marked by a little egg. Its finish was much drier than the 1997’s, and it exerted itself firmly on the back end (94+).

The 1993 Soldera Brunello Riserva followed suit admirably for a vintage that isn’t considered to be a great one. Besides the usual suspects, aromas of glue and oat made their presence known. The 1993 was still rich in fruit although lighter than the previous two vintages, and flavors of leather and sour cherry candy were there in this fairly concentrated wine (93).

The 1990 Soldera Brunello Riserva had more garden and bell pepper at first, blacker fruits and a very nutty profile. It was by far the deepest and most expansive nose. The palate was thicker than anything else either, almost over the top with its motor oil concentration. Burnt coffee grinds simmered in the background. This was the essence of Brunello, and when I say essence I mean where something is taken and then reduced and concentrated. The 1990 was so concentrated that everyone lost complete focus, but that usually happens around wine #19 lol. While the 1990 stood out, the entire flight was consistently amazing and a reminder as to the greatness being achieved here (95+).

Unfortunately, a 1985 Soldera Brunello Riserva was corked (DQ).

There was one last dance, a flight of Monfortinos beginning with the 1958 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva. The nose was fabulous, and everything one could want in an old Barolo. There were mature aromas of sweet tea fruit, earth, tobacco, tar, minerals, leather, citrus, oil, smoked meats and truffles. The palate was quite concentrated as well, thick bordering on syrupy. The strength of the acidity was mind-boggling; this was a powerful wine and at age 41 showing no signs of slowing down (96).

The 1961 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was more classic in style, a cleaner, more elegant and feminine style of this wine. This was a beauty, making the 1958 a beast. There was also more reserve and depth in the ’61. Reserve, breed and class all came to mind. The palate was delicious with its mix of tobacco, citrus, autumn and bouillon flavors. Again, there was impressive acidity here, and great smack to its finish, which was full of citrus and earth (97).

The 1964 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva had aromas of sweet cherry, seemingly more mature than its older siblings, but it still possessed a tight core of leather, citrus, old book, tobacco leaf, varnish and sweet cigar aromas. It was round and rich with excellent acidity, nice leather and citrus flavors, and a gritty finish. Again, the acidity really impressed (94).

The last of the four horsemen here was the 1971 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva. The 1971 was more anisy, and bready in a biscotti way. The palate had lots of black fruits, and this came across as the youngest by far, more so than the actual age difference. The acidity again was superb, and its flavors were thick but more tangy, and also more primary at this stage (95).

There was one last wine on the program, a 1976 Dom Perignon. This was a fantastic bottle of Dom, complete with that granulated sugar goodness, rich and delicious. It was long, focused and youthful. Awesome summed it up (95).

I am hoping this turns into a monthly occurrence!

There’s something about July and birthdays that works for me. A close friend and loyal Acker client recently turned 50, and he celebrated in the finest of fashions with two dinners this month, the first of which celebrated his birth year, 1959. He has occasionally made his way into some previous vintage tasting notes, but due to a personal request, let’s just call him ‘Mr. Happy.’ It is most certain that everyone in attendance for this extraordinary evening was giddy by the time the night was over, and the food at Per Se didn’t make anyone grumpy, either.

The evening started with a bang and the only Rhone for the night. The 1959 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape had an explosive and amazing nose; this was clearly an incredible bottle, love at first sniff. Actually, it was Domaine de Beaucastel at the time. I guess they got some new digs soon thereafter! Anyone that thinks Chateauneuf cannot compete with the greatest wines of the world need to start with old Beaucastel. Jules gave it a ‘hubba hubba,’ while Amy added ‘smoked bacon.’ Deep garrigue was accompanied by green olive, smoked meats (indeed), menthol and juicy red fruit aromas in this spicy nose. Jean Luc admired the ‘mint,’ while Sarah admired its balance. The palate was rich, saucy, hearty and earthy, and its acidity was still young; this wine was still ascending at age 50, much like Mr. Happy. Flavors of chocolate, great earth and hints of rust and tobasco on the finish made this wine even more special. Jules summed it up, ‘it’s like really good Wagyu; it just melts in your mouth’ (97).

We quickly moved to Burgundy and a 1959 Mommesin Clos de Tart. Mr. Happy quickly gave it an ‘oh my God and wow.’ It was classic ’59 with that sweet hint of over the top ripeness. The wine was bursting with red fruits, ‘iron ore’ per Jean Luc, and the Happy one concurred with ‘minerality.’ Hints of orange peel and yeast proceeded in this complex nose, along with whiffs of good wood, beef satay and hot cereal with the brown sugar. Its flavors were sweet and tender, silky with hints of metallic goodness, like a shield from bad wine. Mr. Happy found it rhymingly ‘sappy,’ and it was smooth but still a bit hot (94).

The Tart was paired with a 1959 Noellat Romanee St. Vivant, which was about as good as an old Noellat as I have had. It was also sexy with that sweet ’59 style, syrupy and sugary with hints of orange again, but more citrus overall. It was tasty with a bittersweet finish, again with hints of tobasco. The Noellat was hearty with a twisted spice, like brown leather syrup. While the Clos de Tart danced more, the Noellat could knock you out. Jean Luc found it ‘more put together,’ but its ‘dustiness’ bothered Sarah a bit (93).

Some foie gras was served, along with the classic pairing of Sauternes and a 1959 Rayne Vigneau. Despite the magic of the matching, I still find having a sweet wine in the middle of many dry ones a bit intrusive. Nonetheless, I serviced with a smile. The Rayne had a nice nose with aromas of coconut, candle wax and almost a bit of beef. The palate had ‘serious dried fruit’ per our host, peach to be precise. It was rich and sweet with a tender, soft finish. The foie gras brought out its mid-palate and finish more (93).

The next flight was one of Musigny, with a bonus round. The 1959 Moillard-Grivot Musigny had lots of brown sugar in its nose in that chapitalized way. It was very Asian in its profile, and also had some hot, salty pretzel in there. The nose was hearty, spicy and woodsy, but the palate was light, a touch metallic, although it leveled out in a leathery direction. Sarah concurred that the ‘aromatics are on steroids,’ but the palate, although beefy, had tutti frutti fruit and a square finish, although some emerging chocolate flavors didn’t hurt (92).

The 1959 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes was a superb bottle. It had sweet, delicate cherry vanilla aromas with much purer and high-toned fruit. There was lots of citrus here in this very bright and ‘framed’ (Jean Luc) wine. There was also a decadent, floral, lavender soap quality without the soapiness. The Moillard-Grivot versus the Vogue was like bowling versus baseball; ‘no, you mean versus soccer,’ Jean Luc insisted with a smile. Someone admired its ‘precision,’ and Sarah its ‘raisiny’ qualities. This was definitely a raisin in the sun. The palate was round with nice spice, smack and pinch. It had great red citrus components that went on and on; this wine kept on giving all through the night (96).

A 1959 La Tache was a most welcome way to say goodbye to Burgundy. This bottle was a bit affected, but still outstanding. It was quite meaty, almost like meat liqueur, beefy yet tropical as well. There was a touch of cork, and a hint of maderization as well, but it was a fine line between that and gamy. The palate was rich and hearty, brawny and soupy. It had the most muscle of any Burgundy so far, and the most serious acidity of the night as well; in these regards, it was no contest. The inherent greatness of this wine was evident despite it being gamier than usual and despite it having some cork issues (95+A).

It was time for Bordeaux, and we started with some Pomerols, namely a 1959 La Conseillante, which had a fresh, young nose filled with purple fruit galore. Vanilla, musk and hints of coconut unveiled in its sexy nose. There was also gauze there but no need for medical attention. Despite the cavernous nature of the nose, the palate was leaner, possessing more chalk and citrus although still nice purple fruit. Someone admired its ‘floral and rose petal’ qualities (91).

There was one magnum on this starry night, a magnum of 1959 Gazin. Its nose was rich with a deeper and sexier Pomerol kink. Royal garden, chocolate, cassis, plum and ceramics rounded out the nose. I preferred its smooth and satiny style to the Conseillante, as it was more balanced and also had more fruit on the palate. Jean Luc agreed, citing ‘more length’ on the Gazin (93M).

While the first two wines reminded me that 1959 wasn’t as good a year for Pomerol as it was for the Left Bank, the 1959 Petrus reminded me that Petrus doesn’t care. Jean Luc remarked, ‘its intensity is almost painful.’ There was a deep core of alcohol and acidity, as well as an ocean of plum and cassis. Its initial wood blew off into garden, chimney and ceramic, and its palate was absolutely f’in delicious. It popped and hit warp speed, leaving the other two Pomerols in another galaxy. Rich, regal, long and with great spine, slate and vigor, the Petrus made me change my mind about ’59 Pomerols (96+).

The 1959 Ausone wasn’t bad either. Was this the last great year of Ausone until the ‘80s? Perhaps, perhaps. The Ausone needed a lot of work as in aeration to shed its very dusty nose. Red fruits slowly emerged, along with big-time black licorice, rye bread and caraway seeds. It spine and spice created an impression of a deep forest in the heart of winter. The palate was saucy and firm, and it had soupy good fruit, and ‘tar on the back end’ per Jean Luc. Rich, delicious and ultimately perfumed, the Ausone was outstanding (95).

A 1959 Palmer was ‘stinky in the best possible way,’ according to Sarah. Additional aromas of cigar, tobacco, yeast and crusted red meat with a sea-like twist made up its unique nose. The palate was good but a little underwhelming after the Petrus and Ausone (92).

It was not a good day for the Left Bank, as its other representative, a 1959 Latour, was way too oaky, to be frank. I just couldn’t deal with it at this point in time, although I just think it was an off batch rather than an off bottle, so to speak (DQ).

There were a few dessert wines that continued the celebration, one being a 1959 J.J. Prum Wehlener Sonnenuhr Riesling Auslese. It smelled like mother’s milk. There was a whiff of oak that was so clean; it was amazingly young for a 50 year-old Riesling, and its color looked like it could be less than 10 years old! It was delicious and clean, linear and focused, elegance wine-sonified. Vanilla flavors lingered on its finish (93).

The 1959 Huet Vouvray Le Haut Lieu was much sweeter, musky and seepy, rich and smoky with a hint of Sauternes here. Aromas and flavors of yummy honeycomb, apricot and hints of dandelion were all present in this great wine (95).

There was another German, our last sweet wine of the night, a 1959 Von Schubert Maximin Grunhauser Herrenberg Riesling Beerenauslese. It had deep honey and kink in the nose. Thick, rich with a swath of wood but decadent honey to balance it, the Von Schubert was rich, lush and impressive (95).

We had our only bubbly from 1959, a 1959 Cristal. Although it was a little tough going dry after all those sweets, the Cristal managed to show quite well, although it might have showed a point or so better at the beginning of the night. Aromas of baked bread came out first in this rich and decadent nose, although the dessert wines definitely cut the sweetness in the mouth. Someone observed ‘a key lime citrus burst’ in the mouth, no doubt getting that tang due to the dessert wines stealing some sugar from the spotlight. Flavors of oats, earth and yeast were more dominant accordingly, and there was still a kiss of spritz in this sunsetting yet beautiful Cris (94).

There was actually one last wine, a blind wine, served courtesy of one of Mr. Happy’s friend’s who could not make the event. He knew the lineup in advance, and wanted to get him something that he would never forget. The nose had ‘green apple jolly rancher’ per Mr. Happy. It was like Sprite meets Grappa to me. It smelled like I was in a nightclub where I didn’t know the address (not a good thing), and ‘waking up next to a stranger’ per one of the ladies on hand. It was a NV Thunderbird, particular flavor undetermined, if they even have flavors of that swill lol. It was the first time I ever had some T’bird, and definitely the last. Man, that stuff was putrid, so it got the rare ‘Not Recommended’ (NR).

A toast was in order, and a good friend of Mr. Happy delivered and summed up this celebration with one of his favorite quotes, ‘Though youth gave us love and roses, age still leaves us friends and wine.’

I will always drink to that.

FIN”¦

”¦but it wasn’t over. Two days later, we were together again, this time closer to Mr. Happy’s home upstate, and with a whole host more people, including many of the Acker crew. It still had its share of 1959s, although since there were over fifty people, and at least six bottles of every wine served, there was a wider range of wines on this evening.

A glass of 1985 Salon kicked things off. It had a yeasty nose with lots of game and a miso glaze, also with hints of white chocolate and musk. The palate was rich, spritely and long with excellent lift. Very meaty and very gamy, the 1985 Salon again gave me the impression that it might mature earlier than other Salons from top vintages, but it was still outstanding and with serious structure (95).

A 1971 Schloss Eltz Rauenthaler Baissen Riesling Spatlese was delicious, just a pure, hedonistic and juicy Riesling that was in the perfect sweet spot, aka not too sweet and not too dry. There were great petrol aromas and sweet fruit, and aromas of honey, musk, apricot and lychee. There were rich flavors of orange and honey glaze, and a hint of nice ‘butter’ per Alexander the Great (93).

A flight of 2002 Burgs were next, beginning with a 2002 Henri Gouges Nuits St. Georges Blanc La Perriere and ending with a Pillot that I will get to in a minute. Both were pungent and acidic at first, but the Gouges the more so of the two. It had a pungent, anisy nose with aromas of rusted metal and wet earth, but the palate was rich with a lot of backside showing. It had a bruising style, big but clumsy (91).

The Jean-Marc Pillot Puligny Montrachet Cailleret had a cleaner nose that was more mineral driven and rocky, with tantalizing hints of dew-laced yellow fruits. It was balanced with a really nice perfume to it, and what I would call ‘make up flavors.’ Rainwater flavors were clean, elegant and stylish (93).

A 1959 Josef Schmitt Trittenheimer Apotheke Riesling Auslese had a great, yeasty nose with additional aromas of orange peel, rubber, mint and a kiss of very mature wood. Alexander noticed ‘basement,’ and that was a ‘great’ call, of course. There were good sugar flavors on its oily palate with a kiss of cement (94+).

The procession of ‘59s continued with a 1959 Cune Rioja Reserva Especial Vina Real. Aromas of chocolate, game, iodine and lots of leather sat perched in the glass, alert and ready for duty. The palate was also very leathery, still young and with a nice citrus smack to its finish. The Unico that followed made the Cune seem drier and outclassed this excellent Rioja, although others did prefer the Cune, as difficult as I found that to believe (93).

The 1959 Vega Sicilia Unico was incredibly exotic and complex. There was a lot more wood in the nose at first, but it soon gave way to cherry, vanilla and soy, along with a sweet, leathery kink. The wine was flat-out delicious, rich and meaty in that kinky, Unico style. Its kink was in the citrus and leather family, and the wine was edgy and hit staccato notes deftly. It was a great, classic Unico with nice musk, great spice and crackle to its finish, which still had good tannins (95+).

We had the 1959 Moillard-Grivot Musigny again, and I liked the bottle better on this night, perhaps because it was the only Burgundy on this evening ? (Actually, there was one more later, off the menu, so to speak”¦) Competition can be tough, as we all know. It was ‘blue velvet’ per Alexander, whose greatness was showing brightly again. This bottle came across more regally, and its long, gritty tannins played out well with earth, autumn and red fruit flavors (93).

A jero of 1959 Gruaud Larose had a reticent nose, deep but reticent, with nice black fruits, nuts and earth, but shy overall. The palate had classic qualities although it was a bit fruit forward. Bright and round, it was long and gritty but simple, possibly reconditioned (91J).

It was dueling jeros, the next being a 1989 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape. The week was coming full circle, and the Beaucastel was a complete wine to match. Alexander the Great found ‘pork rinds and salty bacon,’ and along with that there was deep violet, cassis and all the black fruits, dark as night, with a hint of garrigue. The palate was superb with hints of pepper and more black fruits, and phenomenal t ‘n a. Its earth components were gritty, agile and balanced, and its finish thick. The ’89 remains a great wine and the true modern-day legend of this legendary estate (96J).

A 1983 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle was a worthy adversary, ‘irony’ per the Great One, who added ‘blood.’ It was much more wound than I remember it last being, but upon looking at the bottle, it did look like a later release. Aromas of black fruits, earth and hot stones were complemented by a big, beefy palate, which was really sturdy for a 1983. It had lots of power and a similar finish to the Beaucastel in its gritty, earthy and balanced style, although it had a more roasted flavor to it (94).

There was one last wine to this night, a 1959 La Tache redux, from the same batch as the bottle served two nights prior at Per Se. It was also gamy with a bit of stew and raisin at first. Mr. Happy noted ‘sous bois city.’ It opened up into aromas of bouillon, autumn, earth, a pinch of cola and wild greens. The palate was insanely good ”“ rich, hearty and fatty like a good piece of sashimi, with awesome concentration, hearty garden flavors and superb acidity. It both danced and boxed, to continue an analogy from the first evening. This was special stuff, and it may not have been a 100% perfect bottle, either, but it didn’t matter (97).
What a week and many thanks to Mr. Happy. Encore encore! I think you need to turn fifty again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that”¦