My second night in Hong Kong was devoted to Musigny, thanks to an anonymous and most generous benefactor. Yes, Burgundy is alive and well in Hong Kong, and I couldn’t think of a better terroir to prove that point. We started with a Champagne and a white before getting into the main event, the Champagne being a 1982 Salon. The Salon had a yeasty nose that was big, rich and bready. It was very fragrant, tangy yet complex. The palate was oily and meaty, almost beefy, big and citrusy with outstanding acidity. Tangy, zippy and gamy, the ’82 was rich and tasty with vanilla cream flavors. At the end of the night, the Salon was still strong, losing its bubbles but becoming decadently delicious and still great (95).

The 2004 Raveneau Chablis Montee de Tonnerre was very open, with a minty and anise-y centerpoint, while Kris observed ‘white lychee and pear.’ Round, minty and delicious, the palate had a nice, feminine side to its acidity. Someone noted ‘sweet and sour apple,’ and another its ‘fresh, good structure.’ Premier Cru Chablis’ are great values ”“ oops, put that cat back in the bag (93).

On to the Moose”¦we started with a flight of ‘young’ wines, its starting point being a pair of 1993s. A 1993 Drouhin Musigny was one of the best bottles of this I have had. I looked up two prior bottles and found that I rated them each 92 points, but this one was significantly better. Yeast was the first thing I noticed, but it quickly blew off into the classic underbrush of 1993. Black fruits, a great nut glaze and excellent sun-baked earth rounded out the nose. Richard admired ‘that ’93 tautness,’ and it was really driven by its mineral and earth qualities. It opened wonderfully and became more exotic with a stir-fried sweetness and actual fruit, holding its acidity for the entire evening. It all comes down to the bottle (94+).

The 1993 Jadot Musigny had more hay in the nose and a bit of stinky barn and green pepper. There were also band-aids there, and good ‘catbox.’ The Jadot had a lot of power, noticeably so after the Drouhin. Some baked bread came out as well as gamy, black flavors and a lot of t ‘n a. Hendra also observed ‘more power,’ and Kris liked its ‘fleshy side of Musigny.’ It had a long, earthy finish, and the tannins and acid of the vintage showed their stuff there, coming out even more in the belly. There was more wood here, integrated yet big, as well as more animal (93).

At first, Richard and I were admiring the 1990 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes and how it was one of the better bottles of this that we had both had. Hendra remarked how it was ‘always this way,’ but this bottle was not stewed or woodsy as others can be. It was zippy with Worcestershire aromas, a bit of celery salt and excellent t ‘n a. It had the best finish of the flight, and its acidity was noteworthy. It squared up a bit in the glass, however, and got more cedary, and the second impression was less than the first. Richard agreed. Its structure was still excellent, but this wine might continue to be a perplexing one for a while (93+).

The second flight began with a rare 1989 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes. It had a minty nose, very forward with its wild fruits, olives and forest aromas. The palate was rich and its acidity long, with that gamy ’89, rich, ripe style. Tasty and balanced, there were significant earth and iron flavors to go with some autumnal and forest floor ones. Kris said it ‘sparkled,’ and it was fresh on its feet, dancing in the mouth. It didn’t get any better in the glass, but it was on a couple of people’s ‘top three’ wines for the night (94).

The next wine was one of my two wines of the night, a 1988 Roumier Musigny. Richard noted ‘a little more substance and linearity.’ Its nose was deep personified, or winified, I suppose. There was great perfume and breed to its sexy and unraveling nose. There was cedar, forest and a pinch of menthol. Its flavors were also deep, just singing, rippling with minerals and acidity on its thick finish. There was actually fruit here for this ’88, which is not often the case in this tannic vintage, and there was enough fruit to stand up to the tannins. Red fruits emerged, and its woodsy complexity was just right, creeping in with time (96).

The 1985 Drouhin Musigny was again a better bottle than the last time I had this wine just three months ago. What’s up with Drouhin showing better in Hong Kong? Maybe it likes the humidity here. It was the most open of this flight, in ’85 fashion, sweet and gamy and full of Pinot fruit. Caramel kisses and damp earth rounded out its nutty nose. Paul agreed this was a better bottle than the one he had recently as well; in fact, I think it was the same bottle we shared in New York, or same batch. This bottle was in a perfect spot and still ascending (95).

We then took it way back in time with an outstanding 1952 Bichot Musigny. At first, it was a bit gassy in the nose, with a touch of toilet in there, but it opened quickly into wheat, grass and herbs. The palate was delicious and way ahead of the nose with its nutty, oily texture. It was also rich and chocolaty, possibly a bit adulterated but so good, who cares? There was this vanilla ice cream deliciousness, and one said he heard rumors that Bichot bought their Musigny from Vogue during this period. It kept flirting so much with outstanding, I finally gave it to it (95).

A 1952 Remoissenet Musigny had green fruit in a fresh way and a nutty nose. The palate was more milky with some red fruit there, and a sweet flash in a tree bark, cedar and herbal direction. It was simpler but still good (90).

Unfortunately, the last wine in this flight was an oxidized 1952 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes (DQ).

The next pair more than made up for it, beginning with a 1949 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny. It was many people’s wine of the night. Richard crowned it ‘amazing’ right away, and its nose was indubitably great, pungent and with aromas of olives, citrus, rich black and red fruits, cola and cream soda. The palate seemed rich for ’49 but was still elegant on its finish. There were great flavors of sweet plum and purple. There was more posture and style versus the ’47 that would follow, and it got more mentholated in the glass (96).

The 1947 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny was ‘porty’ to one and ‘very sweet’ to another. It was definitely keeping with the hot style of 1947 with its sweetness, as 1947 was one of the hottest years ever on record in the 20th century in Burgundy, I believe. The nose was again great, full of sweet cream and touches of earth and citrus. The palate was lush and earthy, still zippy, concentrated with sweet purple flavors and great spice. It was so sweet that it seemed almost chapitalized, a bit negociant in personality. I am not sure if these were negociant bottles or not. While the ’49 was more demure and distinguished, one couldn’t help but like the ’47 and its skinny dipping personality (94).

It was a grand finale to a monumental evening of Musigny. The Roumier and ’49 Liger-Belair were on the top of most people’s lists, but the Bichot definitely got a lot of consideration, too. There were a few honorable mentions for the Mugnier and ’85 Drouhin as well.

It is good to see Burgundy alive and well in Hong Kong. Thursday night would be our first BYO dinner in HK, and I would have 35 notes before all was said and through, including many Burgundies, although Bordeaux did dominate the landscape provided by the 60 guests. About nine of the wines took me two hours to enjoy, and then the rest in a blitz at the end. Stay tuned!

Last night saw sixty of Hong Kong’s finest collectors gather in a celebration of fine and rare wines, BYO style. This was a first for most of the guests and a new concept; one could tell that everyone wasn’t really sure what to expect at first, but once everyone settled in and got some ground rules, a great time and some great wines were had by all.

The rules for a good BYO are simple: 1) get a list of what everyone is bringing in advance; 2) seat everyone together based on said wines; 3) encourage everyone to pour out half of their bottle at their table and then trade with other tables the rest of the bottle; 4) remind everyone not to grab other people’s bottles without asking 🙂

I found myself surrounded by some of the world’s greatest wines early on, and made sure I got to know them before sampling some of the rest of the room’s selections. I also made sure to make my rounds of giving before I made my rounds of receiving, always a good BYO host rule of thumb.

The night got off to a great start with a 1986 Montrachet. What was even more special is that it came from a parcel of ten cases purchased twenty years ago! About five are left. Taiwan was in the house, and many thanks to my good friend for his generosity, and everyone’s for that matter. The nose was fabulous in an ’86 way ”“ sweet and buttery with lots of wild corn and clear botrytis. There was a little waterfall edge and a touch of benevolent alley. Its flavors were similar, adding some light cement and a bit of butter that has been out on a hot summer day all afternoon. Kisses of caramel rounded out the flavor profile along with game and candle wax, and the acidity was superb and the best ’86 impression that I have had in a while. It is always a good thing to have those unmoved, purchased upon release bottles (95).

The only other white at my table was a 1992 Ramonet Batard Montrachet. While 1992 is a vintage that is starting to pass its prime for many white Burgundies, this Ramonet was still far from maturity. I don’t know what he did in 1992 that makes his wines stand out so much from the rest of the pack (with Leflaive right behind it), but the acidity in the 1992 Batard was mind-blowing. It was as fresh as fresh can be, taut, minerally and zippy with incredible white fruit flavors and an endless finish. Smoke and minerals were everywhere; this was a fiery wine that could burn down any wine lover’s palate (95+).

A rare 1961 Latour Haut Brion was excellent, full of gravel, smoke, slate and dirt, slowly revealing a bit of a BBQ edge. There was lots of cement to the palate, and black fruits emerged in time. Samantha noted ‘hickory,’ and someone else ‘high acidity.’ There were still lots of tannins and life left in this ’61 (93).

That red was a warm-up, as we got very serious, very quickly, beginning with the 1989 Petrus. A 1990 would follow, as would a 1990 Le Pin. Now that’s a flight! The ’89 was spectacular and the wine of the night. It had a big, bold nose with lots of t ‘n a, chocolate, earth and black and purple fruits. It was so thick yet so fine. The palate was insanely good, so chocolaty and thick, absolutely delicious. Hendra also commented, ‘more chocolaty and hot.’ This is a staggering wine and a great time to be buying it since the price has practically dropped in half over the past year (99).

I know that the 1989 versus 1990 Petrus is supposed to be a great debate, but to be honest, it isn’t even close. The 1990 Petrus was still an outstanding wine, but the ’89 has just clearly distanced itself from the ’90. The ’90 was minty with a fleshier nose, possessing more red fruits and green olives. It was a bit milkshaky, with secondary aromas of grain and bran. Its flavors were more yeasty, and the palate was still long and elegant, but it left a little sister impression after the 1989 (95).

The 1990 Le Pin was very fragrant in an aggressive way. Aromas of green bean combined with wild, exotic tropical fruits into a unique and ‘sexy’ style. The palate was very shut down at the moment for me, and although it rounded out, it left me with a mellow, soft, tender and easy impression, which was not the case the last time I had this wine late last year, when I rated it 96 points. This bottle needed more time, and will surely get better (94+).

The 1982 Lafleur had a rich, creamy and sexy nose in that kinky Lafleur way. Aromas of coconut, green olives and a rainbow of black, purple and red fruits rounded out the nose, although there was more structure here than other memories that I have of this wine, which can often be super fleshy and wide open. This one still had a long way to go. Hendra hailed it as ‘all seasons ”“ any place, any time’ (97).

The last couple of bottles I had at my table were Burgundies, beginning with a 1999 Richebourg. 1999 plus always equals greatness. Aubert de Villaine and company really hit the bullseye in 1999. The Richebourg’s nose was fleshy, young and zippy, full of violets, lavender and minerals with the encrusted diamonds. The nose was super sexy, oily and ‘just like the 1990,’ per one who would know. The 1990 has a little more power at this stage I think, but the 1999 is even more seductive (97).

Last but not least before I ventured out into the room to receive was a 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes. The Ponsot was a bit milky and yeasty at first, but it blew off into a powerful concoction of menthol, oil, black fruits and yeast without the milk. Its flavors were distinctively black; olives and fruits. It left a midnight impression, lingering on its long and thick finish, which was both slaty and edgy. Concentration was king for this 1990 (97).

The rest of the night was a bit of rapid fire, but all friendly fire thankfully. Forgive the lack of notes, but with a tasting in three hours and the seating for tomorrow’s auction still to be finished, I will have to defer my observations until the next article ”“ I will get to them, I promise! It will be a few paragraphs of recapping, as snapshots were really all that could be taken at this time. Look for a more detailed recap of the rest of the wines in my next article. For now, the scores”¦

The great thing about a BYO is the diversity of wines and the sheer spontaneity of it all. It was a great assortment of great wines, and most importantly, a great mix of people. I look forward to the next one!

Recently and on separate occasions, I had the good fortune of experiencing two of Bordeaux’s most heralded vintages in the past twenty-five years, 1986 and 2005. First, let’s talk about 1986. One recollected how originally 1986 was in the shadow of 1985; the wines were hard, and Broadbent gave ’86 four stars after ‘85’s five. 1986 Bordeaux have proven to be long-distance runners, although detractors will say that they will always be too hard and never come around, that there isn’t enough fruit to integrate with the tannins. Let’s see what the wines had to say.

The ‘warm-up’ was a 1986 Meyney. The Meyney had a nice nose, with aromas of green bean, carob, hay and a little benevolent animal. Its profile was dark and nutty overall. The palate was round, also nutty and also with carob flavors, possessing nice spice and still flashy on its finish ”“ I did notice some heat. There were a touch of bitters to its flavors, along with earth and slate on its finish. I liked it overall, even though it fell a step out of balance with time. It was soft and tender, tasty stuff that everyone was loving. Someone remarked it was ‘spiny, with a touch of wood and a surprising amount of legs.’ It was a good show for this good value (90).

A flight of two Pomerols was next, beginning with the 1986 Lafleur. The Lafleur had a kinky and sexy nose, that tutti-frutti side of Lafleur that comes out more in certain vintages. Aromas of sweet grape, game, musk, white chocolate and a hint of caraway were all present. The palate was big and thick with rocky and black fruit flavors, unraveling with slow and squeezing tannins. A hint of motor oil and prune rounded out this delicious boa constrictor of a wine, and there was enough acidity to match (95).

The 1986 Trotanoy was not a match for the Lafleur. It was gamy like the Lafleur, but more figgy. Aromas of carob, caramel and wild boar were followed by round, figgy flavors and a soft and smooth palate. There was nice slate and spice around its edges, and still a touch of heat like a fire that is starting to dwindle. It was pleasant and pleasing, and Julieanne liked the Trot ‘better now’ (91).

The second flight led off with the 1986 Talbot. There were lots of green beans and olives in the nose, which was a bit waxy and spiny, though also clean. Some tickling crushed red fruits rounded out the nose, which also had a little bathwater edge to it. The palate was much more classic; it had sweet, tasty and nutty fruit and a spicy palate that had mineral, earth and game flavors. Sweet cassis, nut and caramel flavors were also there. It was thick in the mouth but balanced, classic and delicious despite a bit of awkwardness to its aromatics (93).

The Talbot was followed by its sibling, the 1986 Gruaud Larose, which also had a bit of that bathwater to it at first. Someone hailed the nose ‘more voluptuous.’ The nose became perfumed and also developed aromas of cola, cherry and wool, and it left a clean and spiny impression. The palate had the minerals, earth, game, carob and cassis. It was smokier and bigger than the Talbot but still distinguished, stylish and long (94).

The 1986 Leoville Las Cases had a big nose and was blacker and inkier. Its purple fruit was decadent and its musk great, and it also had a sexy vanilla quality to it. The palate was rich, long and thick with a nice finish that had lots of unfolding tannins. The palate was refined, and Julieanne called it ‘a nice package.’ It was (95).

It was at this point that I wrote how the ‘86s were so polished and soft and that this was a vintage that seemed to be finally coming into its own.

The ‘odd bull’ of the Left Bank was next, which was called odd due to its high concentration of Merlot. The 1986 Pichon Lalande had aromas of green bean, cleaner, roasted hazelnuts, roasted walnuts and pencil shavings. Its nose was meaty and musky, while its palate was pretty, soft, round, sensual, tender”¦just beautiful. There were classic flavors, and its elegance and style could not be denied. In the end, this was one of the group’s favorite wines (95).

The 1986 Cos d’Estournel had much more peanut brittle in the nose, along with coffee, spice, candle wax and beef. The palate was nutty and quite gamy for a Left Banker, with a pinch of sugar dropped in. It was toasty up front, but waxy on its finish. Lots of minerals and cigar lingered, and it was hailed as ‘rich and dense’ (94).

It was on to the final flight of three, beginning with the 1986 Margaux, which was extremely spiny and the most wound wine of the night. There were lots of spice, minerals, leather, iron and gyro beef aromas. The palate was again more polished than I expected, especially given the nose. Flavors of carob, spice, dust, earth, leather and waterfall were all present on the palate, but there was a hole in the middle of this wine, or at least this bottle, that held it back (94).

The last Left Bank wine was its most renowned, the 1986 Mouton Rothschild. Its nose was deep and dark, a touch stinky and gamey with a strong whiff of wood and cedar. The palate was also deep, dark and black with oceans of cassis, cedar and minerals. Its finish was by far the longest of the night. This was the only bottle that had a bit of that theoretical 1986 squareness, the only one that still said, ‘give me more time,’ but there was no doubting its raw materials (96+).

The last wine of this fascinating retrospective was the 1986 Cheval Blanc. The Cheval had its classic wintergreen aroma, along with red fruits and green olives. There were great flavors of cranberry, strawberry, interior leather and curds n’ whey. It was tender and pretty, more open than the previous two wines, adding wintergreen and game flavors (93).

So what to make of this tasting? Those that have 1986s in their cellar might want to get to know them again, although at least an hour or two of airtime probably makes a difference. Regardless, there was a lot more polish and tender qualities to this vintage now than I expected, certainly more than the last time I did a retrospective of 1986s about seven or eight years ago. That doesn’t mean that they won’t continue to age; it is important not to confuse power with ageability, and that is something that the Bordelais have been understanding for centuries. I just think that the ‘86s are starting to come into their own, and that its ‘hard’ reputation might not be as accurate as before.

2005 Bordeaux

I guess the other retrospective that I recently did wasn’t really a retrospective, and more like an initial perspective. This was my first tasting of 2005 out of bottle, and while this heralded, potential all-time great vintage of Bordeaux needs no introduction, I wanted to reintroduce myself to these wines after their release.

We began with a disappointing 2005 Pichon Lalande. Its nose was lightly roasted and nutty with aromas of coffee. While elegant, the dryness of its tannins and acidity jumped out. There were lighter, nutty flavors of black tea present, but it did not have the depth I have come to expect for this reliable Chateau (91).

The 2005 Montrose had a bigger nose with much more fruit. It was concentrated and rich with big, buttery flavors, coffee again and some toast while Alexander The Great noted ‘bitters.’ Despite its bigness, it maintained elegance and had softness. Although its tannins were long, they were fine (94).

The 2005 Ducru Beaucaillou was also big, more cedar city in the nose. There was big-time ‘vanilla bean,’ as someone noted. Tasty and nutty, it had mocha, vanilla and milkshake flavors. It continued to gain in the glass and get bigger (95+).

Someone noted ‘mushroom’ in the 2005 Palmer. I did pick up on forest floor, but it was shier and more elegant in the nose. Alexander picked up on a little ‘blue cheese,’ but it was not pungent. It was perfumed and sexy, getting a little grapier as it opened. The palate was great, full of oil, leather, coffee and smoke flavors. There was exquisite balance to this superb wine. It really got my attention (97).

The 2005 Cos d’Estournel quickly brought sexy back with its classic aromas of cedar, nut and caramel. While more elegant than expected, there were great flavors of cedar and what I call fireplace action. This was classic every which way, and it got two ‘fantastics’ from the crowd (96).

The 2005 Leoville Las Cases was tight and a touch anise-y. Stony and cedary, its nose was much more reticent than the other ‘05s. The palate was also very stony, but its length and breed were outstanding. While a bit muted, and much more reserved already, the Las Cases was still serious stuff. Every case should come with a sign, ‘wake me when it’s over’ (95).

We transitioned to the First Growths with a 2005 La Mission Haut Brion, arguably a First Growth in its own right. The La Mission was so exotic compared to the rest. There was great fruit here, and wild aromas like coconut and blueberry standing side by side with classics like charcoal, black currants and truffles. The flavors were also kinky and gamy with exotic marzipan, and its finish popped with more noticeable acidity than anything prior. It was a wild and crazy wine whose outstanding quality could not be denied, but I couldn’t help but wonder if all this exoticness would come back to haunt it later in life (96).

The 2005 Mouton Rothschild was the first of our First Growths, and we had them all ready. Tar, smoke and a little marijuana green crept out of its nose. The flavors were mocha, and the wine was softer and easier. Someone called it simplistic, and while that might have been a bit harsh, it definitely under-impressed compared to some of the wines already sampled (94).

The 2005 Latour had the nose of the night. There was fantastic and undeniable breed here. ‘Nutty nutty, long long and dry dry’ were my first notes. It had enough length to last through double overtime, and the marriage between its signature cedar and walnut aromas and flavors said, ‘happily ever after’ (97+).

The 2005 Lafite Rothschild was a bit unusual at first, emitting this mentholated rub in the locker room vibe, which someone else likened to ‘barnyard.’ It did get more cedary and classic with time, but needed more coaxing. There was a soft and subtle minerality here that provided a beautiful backbone to the wine, like good posture. Its elegant style was overshadowed by the Latour in the beginning, but it, too, had undeniable breed and over time gained on the Latour, closing the gap. Its elegance and breed were ultimately remarkable (96).

The 2005 Haut Brion was full of cigar smoke in the nose to go along with the usual suspects of tobacco, earth and black fruits. There was a tender quality to this powerful wine, which exerted its influence in a quiet and easy way. It was an Obamawine lol. Flavors of earth, tobacco and charcoal were more classically rendered than its sibling La Miss, and definitive bacon emerged in the nose, so much so that I wrote it in caps with an exclamation mark to boot like some hungry dog ”“ BACON! The Haut Brion lived up to its lofty status (97).

We closed with the 2005 Margaux, which was classic all the way. Cedar, cassis, earth and minerals abounded in its long, smoky and elegant nose. The palate was long, decadent and smoky. The Margaux ended up the evening in stylish fashion, as it is prone to do (96).

So what about 2005? There is no doubting the quality of the vintage. It will be one of the all-time greats. The concentration of fruit is already legendary, and there are enough tannins and acidity to keep up for decades. Despite the concentration levels, the best wines have retained the hallmark elegance that makes claret lovers croon. What about the prices? Well, there is no doubt that they were expensive, the most expensive en primeur vintage that anyone has ever seen, or perhaps ever will. There has not been that initial secondary market bounce that most vintages have when bottles finally hit the marketplace, as consumers have said that they are already expensive enough, and the recent yet lessening economic uncertainty didn’t help. They are still selling, and their greatness cannot be denied. We’ll leave the rest up to the market.

As we prepare for our second auction of the year in Hong Kong in 2009, I thought it was a good time to look back on a couple of most noteworthy events related to the great city of Hong Kong. The first event was a Champagne dinner before the auction, featuring a stellar selection of bubblies courtesy of the cellar of Robert Rosania. Rob was offering a slice of the world’s greatest Champagne collection in our last Hong Kong auction, and we wanted to make sure that the local clients who had already let us know that they were Champagne lovers had an opportunity to see what aged Champagne is all about. Rob’s cellar was up for the task, as usual, even when halfway around the world.

A six-pack of 1996 Krug was the aperitif, and when that’s the aperitif, you know it’s going to be a good night. I didn’t take a note for that, as I was too busy meeting and greeting. The first official flight was one of Dom, beginning with a 1971 Dom Perignon. Aromas of cracked wheat and honey jumped out of its seductive nose. The palate was rich, long, dusty and spiny with great fizz. It was fresh, zippy and long, with excellent acidity. This was a superb bottle, absolutely delicious, brimming with white cola and honey flavors (96).

A magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon was next. The ’75 was more herbal, but herbal in a good way. There were also more minerals here, with hints of granulated sugar and toast, along with some rye crisp. It was very fresh as well, more spiky in its acidity and drier in its personality. It was still excellent (93M).

A magnum of 1985 Dom Perignon Rose was an infant by comparison. There were aromas of strawberry and some Pinot garden goodness. It was fresh and tangy, with a bit of hay flavors, like a roll in the barn. Very fresh and very young, I look forward to when it finally finds its way (95M).

The second flight went back in time even further. A 1961 Pol Roger was still fresh, with a core of sweet and mature aromas. Honey, beer and caramel were dominant. The ’61 was rich, fleshy and round with caramel and honey flavors to match its aromas. There was more integration here than any of the Doms; the extra ten years had done the Pol Roger well. Its acidity was still special, and lots of vitamin flavors lingered on its finish (94).

A 1962 Philipponnat Blanc de Blancs had a great cereal-like nose, like Frosted Flakes meets Corn Pops. This was not a Clos des Goisses bottle, just to be clear. There was exotic perfume and spice, almost jasmine, and its cereal qualities moved in an oatmeal direction. The palate was nice and yeasty with sugar cane flavors and a long finish (94).

A magnum of 1964 Moet was probably the least exciting Champagne of the night, but still very good. Old Moets can be spectacular, particularly pre-Dom Perignon, during the first twenty years of the 20th century and even older, or so I am told. I have only had as far back as 1900. The ’64 was a magnum that had been redisgorged, not necessarily for the better. It was pungent and grassy both in the nose and mouth. Gamy and zippy, it was good but overshadowed on this special evening (92M).

The last wine of this flight was a 1952 Louis Roederer – not Cristal. I always feel like I need to clarify that, remind everyone that Roederer makes Cristal, and also that the regular ‘Roederer’ bottlings are some of Champagne’s finest from the 1960s on back. The ’52 was long-legged, Mommy long legs. The nose was mature and warm, and the palate was rich with a meaty texture and a hint of bubbles left. More wine-like with delicious tea flavors, this bottle was on the mature side but still delicious (95).

A Cristal followed, the 1969 Roederer Cristal. It, too, had pungency to it, more in a gamy way. The nose was a little oaky, as well as bready. The palate was rich, meaty and lush with vanilla wafer flavors, but the oak stayed on the palate and throughout the finish. It did grow on me and get more honeyed, but having had extraordinary bottles of ’69 Cris before, I can say that this wasn’t the best bottle. It wasn’t off, just a lesser batch, so to speak (93).

The 1979 Roederer Cristal was a classic. The nose oozed greatness. Clean and pure, it was full of butter, scotch, butterscotch (yes all three!) and grain aromas, with a pinch of flower in a gourmet soap way. The palate was fresh and zippy, still young and mineral-driven (95+).

A 1949 Pommery was served on its own, and deservedly so. It had gorgeous and sexy vanilla ice cream aromas. Its palate was sexy and smooth, round and delicious. This was great Champagne, special and honeyed (95).

Krug, meet Salon. The 1973 Krug was from an original bottling, and had that signature Krug vanilla cream sex appeal. Quite tasty, it was full of Wasa rye crisp wafer flavors. This was breed Champagnified and Krug all the way. So good and so tasty, the Krug was round and rich with vanilla wafer flavors as well (95).

The 1976 Salon was out of magnum, which probably gave it an edge. It was much tighter and more minerally with a pinch of white fruits and flowers fighting to be recognized. The palate was longer than the Krug, better, and racy beyond belief. Usually it is Krug that bullies everything else around, but the hallmark Salon acidity was still as sharp as a razor, and this magnum had enough freshness and zip to go for many more decades (96+M).

The 1969 Krug Collection was so fresh, another grassy and pungent one. It was still a baby, endless in its acidity, as fresh as fresh can be, as Krug Collections are prone to be. It had perfect balance to its spice and length, and was a testament to the cellars at Krug (96).

The 1979 Krug Collection was out of magnum, and showed more bread and toast in the nose. It was long, zippy and great as well. There were flavors of citrus tang, bread soaked in egg yolk and more lemon. Despite being a decade younger, there were almost more mature nuances to the ’79. Of course, its finish was long (95+M).

We closed with the 1990 Krug Clos du Mesnil. If there was a fitting closer, it would be Clos du Mesnil, the vineyard equivalent in Champagne to Romanee Conti. The 1990 was so good, so young, like nails on a chalkboard in its pitch. A hint of oak needed some time to integrate, and the 1990 needs time in general to integrate. Its acidity reminded me of Wolverine, ready to destroy anything in its way. It had lots of flavors of earth, minerals and what I would call tombstone, as this Champagne laid to rest everything else (97).

It was a spectacular evening of Champagne, a testament to how well it ages, and a testament once again to Rob’s cellar. I can’t wait for ‘the greatest Champagne dinner of all-time.’ We’ll keep you tuned in for that one.

The other chapter of my Hong Kong diary actually took place in New York. One of our biggest clients in Hong Kong was passing through New York ten days after the auction, so we decided to give him an official New York City wine welcome. We were joined by the Angry Men’s first family, gentleman Jim and Little Miss Angry, as well as Alexander the Great, a welcome addition to any dining experience.

We warmed up with a 1990 Dom Perignon, which was one of the better bottles of this that I have had recently. It was rich, nutty and beefy, a bit of a bruiser, but long and full of structure (95).

A 1990 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche was full of aromas of honey, honeycomb and honeysuckle in its creamy nose. There was a hint of floral that Wendy likened to ‘grandma’s lilac perfume.’ Our friend noted ‘chinese herbs.’ It was more ready than I would have thought, buttery and full of ‘petrol flavors,’ as Wendy noted, and she also agreed that it was ‘definitely ready.’ Another guest at the restaurant to whom we gave a taste noted that it was ‘almost like a dessert wine’ due to its sweetness of fruit. There were nice yeast flavors on its sunsetting finish (94).

The 1989 Haut Brion Blanc was a spectacular white. Its nose was pungent, full of glue, straw, cat’s pee and a pinch of twisted honeycomb. That Graves minerality reeked out of the glass. The palate was coy at first yet rich, very regal with tons of breed and acidity. This was the best young white Bordeaux that I had ever had. It retained its character throughout the evening and even became more complex, with more of its floral side coming out, along with jasmine tea, marzipan and coconut. It got more and more delicious as it opened with air (96+).

We traveled to Burgundy with a 1993 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses. The nose was milky, stemmy and earthy, and Jim noted ‘the scent of a woman.’ It was perfumed, in the lavender direction. Its flavors were on the ’93 side, full of leather, tree bark and earth. Its fruit was both black and purple in its personality, and its acidity really came out with time. It flexed and grew stronger, and a little mint came out. I vascillated between 94 and 95 points, and settled on (94+) as it just wasn’t giving me as much as I wanted just yet, at least from this bottle.

Next in line was a 1964 Richebourg, which happened to be the birthyear of our honored guest, so I guess it was fate! The Richebourg was open and hearty, rich and long in the nose. It had the garden, the mint and the menthol of old . Wendy found it ‘meaty and smoky.’ The palate was rich and lengthy, hearty a la ’64. There was nice grit and meat, and Jim noted ‘iron,’ which I saw with a little more air. Gamy, mesquite flavors lingered on its rusty finish, and its acidity asserted itself more in the nose. Alexander liked it more on the nose than the palate, but I enjoyed it overall (94).

We closed with a 1955 Mouton Rothschild, one of my favorite Moutons of the 20th century. Alexander noted ‘liquid lavender,’ and Wendy ‘red licorice.’ Its core of cassis was undeniable despite traces of wild grass around its edges. Wendy then continued her red fruit feelings with ‘raspberry.’ Our guest felt that it needed more time to open and that its aromas were secondary rather than primary for a wine of such an age, and perhaps we were a little eager to experience this wondrous wine. The palate was rich and big, long and still young, with great cobweb and old bark nuances (95).

It was another special evening, and even though it was in New York, I could thank Hong Kong for it. In less than three weeks, we will be back in Hong Kong and with three special events already planned, I am sure I will have more to share soon.