We started with a 1964 Bollinger RD magnum, disgorged in the mid-80s. It had a yeasty nose with light orange blossom, minerals and light mesquite. It was a touch musty in the mouth at first, very dry and linear. There was still nice sprite and decent straw flavors, but most were unimpressed. It got a ‘sweaty’ from Brad, it was definitely corked and an ‘ehhh’ overall (88A-M).

We got to the controversy early with the evening’s second bubbly. I should note that the King always does his hosted tastings blind, so everyone can make an ass of himself and be relegated to the King’s stable, where God knows what happens lol. There was this wild truffle pudding sweetness to the nose, flirting with a butterscotch. Its flavors tasted almost spiked with something absinthe or de menthe. Something and cinnamon joined the party, but the overall palate gave a minty and medicinal impression, and it was very fresh. Brad said that he ‘never had a nose like this before,’ while Big Boy found it ‘outta this world.’ Everyone was all over the truffles in the nose. People were guessing ‘60s or ‘70s, and then the guessing went all over the map, and no one thought this was a 1923 Bollinger. Even after people knew, some still didn’t think it was :). I haven’t seen too many fake Champagnes in my life, but have seen a handful, and its crazy nose and sickly flavors had to make you wonder, but I couldn’t say one way or another definitively. Airplane Eddie found the nose ‘still mind-blowing’ thirty minutes later (93).

The third bubbly had a more mature nose and was seemingly more advanced than the previous two. There was more baked bread and yeast, as well as petal aromas. The palate was round and wine-like, and I have definitely had better bottles of 1929 Bollinger, seeing that I have had a near-perfect, 98-point one before. The palate was easy and tender, soft and with morning mouth flavors (91A).

The next bubbly also had the truffle oil thing going on, big-time. There was also a hint of floral, sweet, lavender-ish something. Brioche toast aromas rounded out the nose. The palate was delicious, long and balanced, still with a touch of sprite. The palate also had coffee flavors, and its touch of petillance tickled my fancy, as did kisses of white chocolate and sugar. Big Boy declared that we were in 6-star territory. It was a 1900 Heidseick Monopole. Hell yeah (97).

We were starting to heat up, as the next bubbly was also very complex. The 1949 Bollinger had aromas of honey, acacia and edges of minerals and botani ebi sweet shrimp were enveloped in its sweet, floral and decadent style. It was lightly toasty. Its palate was mature, full of caramel and orange flavors, with just a touch of sprite left. Someone noted that it was ‘in a perfect place, mature but just enough acid.’ Its finish was lengthy and dry, and its spriteliness actually picked up in the glass; this was a long, intense and dry wine that still left a fine impression – it still had elegance and delicacy. There were great honeycomb flavors, and this stony, minerally, creamy beauty won’t get any better, but it won’t necessarily get worse for a bit, either. Yum (96).

Another odd bottle was next, and it was a 1961 Salon. ‘Sea dock,’ was the first thing I noted. Bob concurred with ‘barnacles.’ It was tough to get past that, but it did blow off, and a little vanilla cream came through. The palate was round with flavors of minerals and citrus. There was good sprite here, a lean sweetness and a smokehouse edge. The sea dock blew off, and it was very fresh overall, but the King and Big Boy both acknowledged that the bottle was disappointing given what it was. Todd noted ‘apples’ (93).

We were back to Bollinger again, and the 1961 Bollinger was outstanding. There was a bit of sweaty armpit in a nice way, along with shellfish shell ”“ there was this great musky, seared scallop thing happening. The palate had excellent definition, with fresh and lively citrus and vanilla flavors. It was leaning on the dry side with a pinch of sweetness, and had great lime flavors (95).

The next one was even better, also fresh, clean, sugary, edgy, floral and sexy. Its nose was also white meaty. There were decadent oil flavors, and a smoked, outdoor grill style to its flavors. Sweeter and more sugary than the 1961, the 1966 Bollinger was great. A ’66 versus ’61 debate broke out, and one of my fellow enthusiasts was in the ’61 camp, but conceded the ’66 was better now. Eddie preferred the ‘66 (96).

It was time for some red wine, and the first was Burgundy, of course. It had a fabulous Burgundy nose, sweet and tangy, full of hedonistic and musky fruit. Vibrant black cherry, gamy Burgundy essence permeated the nose and palate. Menthol was also all over the palate, and there were round, tea-like flavors, as in the Emperor’s tea. There were also beef bouillon and oil flavors and unreal garden goodness in this spectacular 1969 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze (97).

The next wine was also a Clos de Beze, this time being a 1976 Drouhin Chambertin Clos de Beze. Its nose was much more coy, tight and shy, with an oatmeal nose, along with rose and black chocolate. The palate was citrusy and dry with nice tannins. Clean and clear, it left a very good impression but was tough after the Rousseau (91).

Unfortunately, the 1976 Drouhin Musigny was oxidized (DQ).

It was back to Champagne, and the mini-streak of bad luck continued with a corked bottle of 1970 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. What a shame. There is no doubt that this bottle would have been in the 95+ category if it hadn’t been corked, but there was too much cork to deal at this stage (DQ).

Lucky number thirteen was a 1975 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. Its nose was sweaty, with good animal aromas. It had a nice edge to its very, very dry personality. Strawberry flavors emerged, but overall it was too dry. It did have nice length, and hints of unsweetened marzipan emerged. The sushi brought some life out of it and some bready goodness, but I wanted more from it (92).

The 1979 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises finally lived up to its reputation. As Eddie succinctly put it, ‘Now that’s an f’in wine ”“ really good mousse.’ Big Boy hailed it as ‘great.’ Its nose was incredible ”“ sweet and wide with the bread and meat of a perfect calzone, made with whole wheat and grilled. There was also this ginger snap edge to the ’79, whose crazy complexity and razor-like greatness combined for an intensity unmatched by any other Champagne on this evening. Bready, yeasty edgy, long and full of straw flavors, it continued to get better you better you bet (97).

The next bubbly was very oaky, over the top with its oaky, baked oak. The palate was so thick and meaty, though, it made me want to forgive. Its texture and length were monumental, but the oak was tough to get past. So damn thick but too damn oaky are pretty much the remainder of my notes on this 1979 Krug Clos du Mesnil (95+?).

The VVF’s continued with a 1980 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises, which was dusty, almost spicy in a wintry way. There were nice vanilla notes, but also a hint of alley in the morning, freshly hosed. Nice freshness, nice sprite and nice length made up for a nice wine, simple but nice. I guess it was the vintage (91).

The 1981 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was a bit rubbery at first, Eddie was liking it, but Big Boy found it ‘good but a little empty.’ It opened up to reveal honey, marmalade and quince aromas and flavors, with the flavors adding an orange hue to the overall picture. It kept getting better and better. Big Boy then confessed that he was smoking crack, and a lifelong addict lol (95+).

The 1982 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was peculiar, with a rubber tire nose and a rubber tire, super dry palate. It tasted like it should be great, but just wasn’t (92+?).

Eddie pulled a couple wines out of his bag to break up the Champagne, and it was perfect timing. The first had an intoxicating nose that was smoky, sweet and sappy. Aromas of mesquite and a wood-burning grill along with an exotic perfume graced its nose. There were also great forest and cedar nuances in its fantastic nose. The palate was super ”“ balanced, long and with great stalk and good earth flavors. It was evidently good real estate, and this 1964 Richebourg got oilier and sweeter (95).

The next red courtesy of Eddie had an earthy, gamy nose that had great meat to it. The flavors were more tender with sour cherry notes along with carob and citrus. The menthol and mesquite were admirable, but it was soft in the mouth overall, still excellent. It was a 1969 La Tache, which some preferred to the ‘64. I just felt like saying, ‘Eddif2f2f2f2f2f2f2f2f2e’ (93).

The 1991 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze had a spiny edge with great spice and an easy personality. Meat and blood spilled out of the glass (93).

It was back to Champagne with a great nose, spritely, fresh and special with white meats and fruits. Tangy and citrusy in the mouth, this 1985 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was sexy juice (95).

The 1986 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was taut and citrusy, with a great centerpoint, and corn and butter flavors in a margarine way (93).

Words were starting to allude me as we neared wine number twenty-five, as you can see by my concise notes. The trend continued, as my notes for the 1989 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises read, ‘bready, toasty, corny”¦so fresh and young”¦super fresh”¦super young fresh.’ I think that about sums it up, other than the fact that the ’89 was a monster, one of the wines of the night, just so young and wound that I felt we were disturbing it (97).

We ventured into Bordeaux with a gravelly and smoky nose full of rich tobacco and meat aromas. Cassis, caramel and dank, dark fruit also emerged. Edgy and delicious came to mind as I sampled its rich tobacco flavors. It was round and tasty, balanced like well-managed bank accounts. Are there any of those left out there? Some tootsie pop flavors signified Pomerol, and it was an outstanding bottle of 1947 Latour a Pomerol (95).

The 1945 La Mission Haut Brion showed lots more animal and barn, very gamy and earthy, but softer overall. It did gain in the glass to reveal more game, hay, earth and animal, but was still shy in the company of the Latour a Pomerol (93+).

We had another incredible Burgundy that was meaty and gamy with rose, oil, iron, animal and animal fat. Rich, meaty, delicious was all that was needed to describe the “19?? Je ne sais quoi.” Sorry, I forgot to write down what it was, and was waiting on an update there from the King as of press time”¦it was (95), whatever it was 🙂 .

The 1964 Romanee Conti was also great. I even conceded the notes were over, but ‘this is the shit.’ It also got a ‘yum yum deeeelish.’ It was party-time (95+).

Well, I thought the notes were over, but the next wine gave me one last surge of strength and invigorated me. ‘Killerrrr,’ was how the note began, with a few more r’s in there. ‘Wowowow,’ was next. Smelling this wine was like walking into a royal garden, full of intensity and energy. Despite being so old, it still had remarkable acidity and great richness. Its intensity and spice were noteworthy. I couldn’t even drink the ’45 La Mission after having one sip of the 1906 La Tache. It was an earth-shaker (97).

There were a couple more bottles, a 1952 Bouchard Musigny (91) and a 1969 Marey-Monge Romanee St. Vivant (93), but the night truly ended with the 1906. What a wine, and what a night. Since the King’s secret hideaway is basically on the West Virginia border, a flock of Manhattanhites including me flew out of there in a hurry, as it was really late already. Not much was said on the trip back except ‘Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.’

Last night, New York City’s wine version of the Usual Suspects got together at a secret location to drink and be merry. A kickoff to the holiday season, it all started so innocently, with Bad Boy Bruce checking in with the King, and then it quickly blossomed into something that everyone could fit into their schedule. I happily sampled generous portions of seventeen wines in all, including a grandest of a finale. Many were magnums, and I was glad not to see the usual 25-30 wines since it was only Tuesday, after all.

Champagne dominated the evening, as many Bubblephiles were in the house. Consider me one of them. It was also a Clos des Goisses first quarter, with four magnums going back that spanned a quarter-century. We began with the 1976.

The 1976 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was disgorged in March 2002. All the Clos des Goisses we had were late disgorgements, and done very well. There was great toast in the ‘76’s nose, with a touch of Flintstone vitamins, more bread and ultimately caramel and quince. It was delightfully complex in the nose, but the palate could not keep pace. While smooth and fresh, the ’76 was also simple, solid and easy to appreciate but not as great as I was hoping. Gamy quince and wheat flavors rounded out this very good magnum (92M).

The 1966 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was grassier in its first impression, with similar cracked wheat and now rye crisp aromas. Jo observed its ‘nice mushroomy quality.’ The ’66 was much fuller-bodied, displaying more definition and flavors than the ’76. Much more. There was also great length to this superb Champagne. Edges of white chocolate danced in and out, and its great, earthy finish displayed some dirty goodness. The ’66 was disgorged in November of 2000. He shoots, he scores (95M).

We had a red wine intermezzo, a good thing when a magnum of 1971 Vogue Bonnes Mares. There were nice aromatics, with game, cherry, truffles, earth, bitters and a touch of limy kink to its citric sides. Round, tender, smooth yet still vigorous, it was a nice magnum but I wanted a little more from it (93M).

A small debate began after the 1964 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was served, that being 1964 vs 1966, both specifically and in general. While specifically could have gone either way, in general the answer is 1966, which is not to take away from 1964. The ’64 was disgorged in November 2004 and was very clean with aromas of straw, hay, earth, grass and game. The grass and game really came out on the flavors, along with wild garden ones. Nice acidity and length played right into its ‘stonier’ personality. Elegant, easy, classy and long, the 1964 had everything going for it, but I did prefer the 1966. King Angry and Big Boy were leaning towards the ’64 (94M).

The 1953 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was the finest of our four magnums of Goisses. Its nose was full of wafers with a vanilla sex appeal and drops of honey. Wendy, aka the Angry Chick, cooed, ‘this is why we drink Champagne.’ There was this Wheaties goodness about the ’53, as if health benefits could be derived from drinking it. Its acidity was great, the greatest so far, and its vivacious citrus flavors were impressive. The ’53 stayed light on its feet, in an Ali way (96M).

Time for another red, this time a magnum of 1964 Clair Dau Bonnes Mares. The magnum of Clair Dau had a spectacular nose, dripping with sweet, decadent cherry fruit along with animal, olive, forest and mint. Jo called it ‘sensational.’ Its sweetness became nutty and meaty. The palate possessed flavors of oatmeal, brown sugar, iron and meat on the grill juice. It was round, tasty and sexy, plentiful and flirting with outstanding territory, but ultimately softening like the beginning of a setting sun. The Vogue was more silky and satiny, but the Clair Dau made one think more (94+M).

A magnum of 1975 Bollinger RD was super sweet in its aromatics with a candy corn-like complexity. Thick, lush, creamy and sweet, the Bolly had a good finish and was a better show than many expected. There was nice sprite to its personality and tasty sasparilla flavors. The ’75 still had good bones (93M).

I noted how times must be tough, because it was 10:45pm and we had only had seven wines. In 2007, we would have been up to twenty by now lol. Big Boy then made his own version of social commentary when he relayed that someone told him this past week that he looked like a million bucks, to which he replied, ‘My friend, times are bad, but they’re not that bad.’

And they were not, as next up was a killer bottle of 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. courtesy of the Duke. The Ponsot was spot on, with an incredible and concentrated nose of crushed black and blue fruits. It was menthol city, with delicious mint chocolate flavors and a monstrous personality. Crazy thick and rich, the Ponsot also had an explosive finish that said, ‘see me in 2030’ (97+).

A magnum of original 1961 Bollinger was a touch advanced, very wine-like with wood notes. The palate was honeyed, nutty, round and buttery with apple edges. It was excellent, but should have been better and had lost most of its fizz (93A-M).

A magnum of 1964 Ayala was ‘diesely’ per Airplane Eddie, and very fresh as it was recently disgorged. Rich, vitamin and hearty, the ’64 was excellent but quickly an afterthought (93M).

A very rare bottle of 1966 Billecart Salmon Blanc de Blancs had a stony nose, quite hearty and sturdy with descriptors such as long, big, powerful, ‘heft’ (Patman), rich and killerrr. Its flavors were rich and full of vanilla, delicious despite a woodsy streak. Its full-bodied sweetness was most impressive (95).

The Billecart was followed by another, this time the 1966 Billecart Salmon Cuvee Nicolas Francois. The color was a bit dark, so there was some initial trepidation, but the N.F. was outstanding. Aromas of marshmallow, caramel and diesel all came from the crowd. Flavors of anise and honeypot graced this rich, thick and long Champagne, which displayed nectar-like qualities. It was lip-smackingly good with a huge finish, displaying ‘far more muscle’ per Bob. Additional flavors of white chocolate rounded out this killer Champagne (95+).

The 1966 Krug quickly bumped the Billecarts to the back. It was a perfect bottle. ‘Far and away the best,’ seemed to be an initial consensus. It had the signature, old Krug vanilla cream sex appeal, and its structure was nothing less than incredible. Even Eddie gave it a ‘quite good,’ which really means something coming from Eddie! Gentleman Jim appreciated its ‘youthful’ nature, and this serious Champagne had so much power it was flirting with being out of control. Its searing intensity called everyone to attention, and its long, spiny and crushing personality dominated the room. White berry and white truffle flavors developed. Big boy hailed, ‘there’s this and then everything else,’ in a way which made it sound like Old Milwaukee lol, but it certainly was the truth (98).

A 1966 Salon was a worthy follow-up to the Krug, with its big, saucy nose. I wrote ‘rich’ three times in my notes, and it also had vanilla, butter and cream components. ‘Awesome, long, creamy and rich,’ (make that four times). That about summed it up at this point (96).
Somehow, a 1976 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne slipped into the mix before the grand finale. It had been rated 99 points by Richard Juhlin apparently, but this bottle was not that one. It did have the signature C de C butterscotch aromas. Rich, buttery and all-around excellent, it just wansn’t spectacular (94).

Actually, there was another bubbly before the grand finale, a 1921 Moet. The Moet had a sweet nose, like a sugar stick, but also with the vanilla cream. It was wine-like but still buttery and rich, tasty and delicious, round and lush (93).

Last and certainly not least was a spectacular bottle of 1923 Romanee Conti. It was everything one could hope for from a great, old Conti. The haunting bouquet of old, wilting roses, grilled meat, old book, Worcestershire, leather, tender cherry fruit, animal”¦the nose kept going and going, literally haunting the whole room. It still had tremendous concentration and noticeable acidity that was strong enough to carry the kaleidoscopic spectrum of aromas and flavors. It was well worth the extra hour Big Boy made us wait for it as he lectured the night away (98).

I had to run for the hills. I think it was already after 1:30AM.

I would like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. If you read this far, then I know you will be drinking some good shtuff 🙂

May all your wines be memorable.

My recent trip to Asia before my next trip to Asia (in two weeks) found me in Korea, and as I usually find myself, surrounded by a significant quantity of fine wines. This particular evening was all about Bordeaux, 1995 vs. 1996 First Growths, to be exact. It was a great mix of people, mainly young professionals very eager to taste these distinguished wines, and very eager for Korea to lower its somewhat prohibitive tax on wine.

We started with the Haut Brions, and the 1996 Haut Brion had a fresh, waxy nose, spiny and full of cassis, tobacco and nut, but wax was the dominant aroma. A pinch of green bean and a hint of chocolate rounded out the nose. The palate had lots of tobacco flavors with a hint of banana split, very dry but lighter than I expected. There were nice cherry traces on its finish, and solid earthy flavors. Its acidity was also solid, but the body was definitely light and its dryness a bit out of balance. It was still excellent, a clean and jerk type of wine, still with upside potential but definitely not an elite Haut Brion (93+).

The 1995 Haut Brion was much more cotton-candied in its nose, sweet and fragrant with a touch of pruny goodness. There was also wax, and earth and dust joined the party. The palate was more balanced, also with tobacco flavors and an earthy dryness, but better balanced with its cherry fruit and gamy flavors. At first, I preferred the 1995, but ultimately gave a slight edge to the 1996. It would be a recurring theme (93).

The 1996 Latour had a much deeper nose than either of the Haut Brions, brooding but also a bit horsey at first. There were pencil and black fruits behind that and a touch of toll house. The palate was big yet refined, with laser-like acidity yet still full of finesse. There were nice chalky flavors on its finish, along with animal and tobacco flavors. Someone with their Palm Parker out hailed it as ‘near-perfect’ lol. It got szechuany in the nose, losing its animal and green edges to become just what Goldilocks ordered (96+).

The 1995 Latour was rounder and more honeyed in its nose, with touches of cola and a hint of syrupy sweetness. It was perfumed in an angel food cake way. The palate was sturdy and rugged, also leathery and big overall. There were stewed flavors of black cherry and cola, and its stewed qualities were those of beefy goodness. However, the 1995 did lose a step in the glass compared to the 1996 (94).

The 1996 Mouton Rothschild was spiny and waxy, a la the Haut Brion. There was also plenty of cassis, or this black, perfumed fruit. ‘Chocopuffy’ was a new word that came to mind. Carob and caramel were also here in a ‘Milky Way’ way. The palate was very spiny and waxy as well; the acidity really stood out. Excellent flavors of cassis, dry blueberry, earth and leather were complemented by a hint of green. The wine stayed spiny, but it also got greener (94+).

The 1995 Mouton Rothschild was a bit Caliesque like a great Screamer. It was rich, lush and creamy with nice spice and exotic truffles and candied something. Powder also came to mind. There were delicious coffee flavors with the griiind, and the palate was rich upfront but soft on the backside. There were excellent flavors with nice roasted edges. I finally wrote that 1995s were better now, but that 1996s were better long term, although the Mouton ended up being a dead heat (94+).

The 1996 Lafite Rothschild left no doubt as to who was in charge, at least up until now. It was a lean, mean fighting machine! It was waxy and spiny like the other 1996s, but also elegant city. There was pungent anise to go with emerging cassis and nut aromas. Lit kindling and cedar joined the party in secondary fashion. The palate was super rich ”“ finally a 1996 with upfront density! It was not only rich, but also big and thick in the mouth, and its acidity was clearly the best of the bunch, so fine yet so sharp, as in ‘on point.’ There were green flashes like lantern, and its finish was precise, linear and singular in its greatness (97+).

The 1995 Lafite Rothschild had a tough act to follow. Its nose was one of baked chocolate croissant and deep cassis and plum. It still had a meaty nose, full of iron and more chocolate, yet it still retained a perfumed-like elegance. The palate was softer and more caressing, and the finish left a soft impression as well. The 1995 was a bit ‘lite,’ especially after the 1996, dry and a touch out of balance like the Haut Brion, still excellent but not as special after the 1996 (93).

Our last pair was Margaux, beginning with the 1996 Margaux. The Margaux nose was super sexy, jumping out of the glass with its candied edge, almost like a root beer float without the root beer. Make that an ice cream soda, that’s what it was, black ‘n white with a little egg cream. The nose was toasty, spicy and spiny, full of coffee, nut and leather aromas, with enough t ‘n a for an S & M dungeon. The palate was thick and long with great acidity, and flavor and aromas of beef bouillon complicated matters in this complex wine (97).

The 1995 Margaux was the best 1995 with its honeyed and caramel nose that was rich, meaty and sexy. A whiff of wood, mainly cedar, rounded it out. The palate was full of roasted cassis flavors and length. Interestingly enough, the 1995 was already throwing a ton of sediment (95).

It was back to the USA, where I would be quite busy at night for the next couple weeks”¦

This past week saw Wolfgang and I in Hong Kong together for a very special dinner celebrating his auction and cellar. It was a most extraordinary testament to a most extraordinary cellar. Amidst all the financial turmoil of the week, the dinner at Robuchon transported us to a place far, far away, about as close to wine heaven as one could hope. Every bottle, shipped from Europe to America and then to Hong Kong, was in ideal condition and showing phenomenally. It really does not get any better, and for this we had Wolfgang and his four decades of collecting to thank.

We started with a couple of bottles of 1988 Krug Clos du Mesnil. I didn’t have much time to take notes, as I was meeting and greeting everyone as they arrived. I kept insisting how wine is one of the better investments out there, especially now ”“ it won’t become worthless overnight, and at least you can always drink it! The Krug had a fresh, baked bread nose with aromas of anise and a twist of lemon. It was intense and full of spice. It was also rich and meaty in the mouth, with hints of wood flavors and great citrus tang. I don’t think I have ever rated a Clos du Mesnil, Champagne’s vineyard equivalent of Romanee Conti, less than 95 points, and I wasn’t about to start now (95)!

A trio of whites was next, beginning with a sexy 2000 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. Clean and fresh, it had that distinctive Coche nut/kernel kink along with baked, buttered corn aromas. There was also a touch of milk in its long, aromatic profile. It tasted great too, rich and round with superb acidity and lots of butter and mineral flavors. There was great toast and a rocky definition to its finish. Everyone admired its ‘minerality,’ although it lost a step over time rather than gaining, curiously enough (95).

We time-traveled back to a 1982 Lafon Meursault Perrieres. Obviously, the Lafon was much more mature but still fresh, displaying more of a yeasty, mature, buttered biscuit of a nose. Touches of wood, game and lit match were also present. It was rich, long, buttery and woodsy on the palate, mature but still solid and possessing nice grip on the finish, and a thickness not present in the Coche. Secondary aromas of marzipan, forest, seashell and almost scallop (no scallop served, by the way) joined secondary flavors of forest and wood (great ones, I might add). The Lafon held well, and while the Coche lost a point for me, the Lafon added one (94).

A magnum of 1986 Domaine de la Romanee Conti was our third and final white. It was an interesting contrast, the two Perrieres versus Montrachet, almost a handicap match that would make Vince McMahon proud. In the end, the big, bad Montrachet showed why it was still the king of the hill. It kept gaining and gaining and gaining, lasting well into the evening. Its nose was very exotic at first, showing off that ’86 botrytis, along with this saucy Asian sweet plum sex appeal. There is ‘huge potential still,’ admired one of our guests. Yeast, cobwebs and hints of tropical orange were also there. The palate was round and rich, also incredibly tropical with exotic honey, guava and orange marmelade flavors. Its acidity was holding on quite well, which many ‘86s cannot still say, and while it seemed to be plateau-ing, it also seemed to be capable of being there for a while, a sentiment that would get stronger as the night went on. There was great texture in this rich, long, round, gentle giant. A tomato dish really brought out its acidity more, along with exotic tea-like flavors and cement, the type of cement in a brand new, mint apartment building. Two hours later, it was still going strong (96M).

It was time for some reds, and we got right to the point with a 1947 Trotanoy. ‘Wow,’ started my notes. ‘Classic,’ was next. Aromas of rich, ripe plums, chocolate, raisins, citrus and mahogany were stratospheric in their presence. There was also a balancing pungent, rocky minerality after all these years. The palate was so round and lush it reminded me of what it must be like for a child to have ice cream for the first time. It was so chocolaty, so raisiny in that mature yet still healthy way. Its finish was chalky and stony, displaying superb acidity and a great minerality. There was almost a hint of apricot in this exotic red. Sweet and tender yet sturdy and strong, there was no doubt that this was hallowed ground, both 1947 and Trotanoy itself, which seems to be the forgotten great Pomerol (97).

The 1964 Petrus held its own against the Trotanoy. It was darker, thicker and firmer, nutty and even sturdier, possessing aromas of caramel, thick cassis, plum and more black fruits with a pinch of cocoa. The palate was fantastic, rich, thick ”“ did I mention fantastic ”“ I wrote it twice; it was that good. ‘Unstoppably good,’ I continued, as I could not stop drinking each of these two Pomerols. Stony, edgy, long, fine, earthy, hearty, rugged yet smooth ”“ that about summed it up. Old wine, people, that is what it is all about (96).

A trio of Bordeaux was our next flight, beginning with a magnum of 1986 Le Pin. Even though the Le Pin had been open and decanted for two hours, it was still tight; there is ’86 for you. Its nose seeped deep, deep purple fruit, sweet plum and cassis, as well as garden and sexy Pomerol cream. Its flavors were chocolaty and super stony, the whip of those 1986 tannins showing strongly, and its acidity remarkable. This was a big wine with big flavors and a nice edge, so chocolaty that ‘yum’ was appropriate, and green beans joined the party, in a good way. 1986 is one of those years where some Pomerols hit it on the head too, probably only tobe recognized many years down the road like 1952 (95M).

A 1982 Latour was a nice reference point, and about as good a bottle of it as I have ever had. Could I have expected anything less from Wolf? Classic aromas of walnut, cedar and spice slowly oozed out of the glass. Its length was noticeable right away aromatically. It was much nuttier than the Le Pin, both in the nose and in the mouth, where caramel, mineral and walnut flavors danced. The wine was very long and very fine, possessing that hallmark ’82 elegance and class yet still brooding like a Latour. It was stylish and so elegant, elegant like a hammer kissing a nail softly. Coffee flavors rounded out this special bottle (97).

Our last Bordeaux on this night was a 1975 Lafleur. Surprisingly ripe, the ’75 was much more open than I last remembered it. This bottle had the signature, kinky kirsch and black cherry jam aroma of mature Lafleur, extremely ripe and juicy in its fruit. The palate was thick and sturdy, spiny and possessing the best t ‘n a profile so far. If other wines were big, this wine was a monster. Thick and ripe, with additional flavors of black olives and earthy rust, the ’75 Lafleur was gamy, juicy and kinky, everything it was supposed to be. This evening was turning into a textbook night (97+).

Ahhhhh, Burgundy. The 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. just shattered every memory that I have had of this wine and immediately catapulted itself into the best ever category. It was ‘so aromatic, so pungent, so gamy”¦’ So? Incredibly ripe, there were sweet redcurrant and cranberry fruit aromas, along with great spice. On the palate, it was ‘so rich, so hearty, so acidic”¦’ So? Acidic as in great acidity, not heartburn, although the Ponsot did make my heart race! There was a rich, cranberry goodness to the flavor profile with a kinky raspberry twist. Monstrous and offthe charts, this was a ‘wow’ wine, and probably the best bottle of Ponsot ever made (98+).

As good as the 1979 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux was, the Ponsot made it difficult to notice. The Jayer had this herbal edge like pellet-ized grain. It was rich, sweet, round and gamy with cherry and vitamin flavors, but I think it would have showed much better had it been served first. Oops (93).

The last flight of Burgundy was a fitting closer, beginning with a stellar 1966 Richebourg. Aromas of vitamins, spice, spine, roses and cherry spilled out of the glass like beautiful body parts out of a designer dress. The palate was rich and hearty, full of acid, instantly achieving check plus plus plus status. Flavors of vitamin, citrus, rose, light leather and carob made it lip-smackingly good, along with touches of forest floor and animal cage. I was seduced by the Richebourg and left begging for more (96).

A magnum of 1966 Romanee Conti was next. Yes, magnum. There was more animal in the nose than in the Richebourg. The RC was darker and beefier yet reticent with hints of bouillon. It was an intense ‘stonewall’ of a wine, very gamy and hearty on the palate with flavors of rose, rich meat and minerals. It stayed hearty and improved, displaying more thickness and the directions to iodine city. While the Richebourg may have had more finesse and caresse, the RC made its point loud and clear (97M).

While that would have been a fitting ending, there were still two wines to go. The 1949 Leroy Richebourg was gamy and pungent, with even more animal and black fruits. It had a Lafite-like cedary edge as well. Long and rich, there were nutty flavors and nice citric spice on its earthy finish. It was the big yet square, make that squarer (94).

The 1983 De Fargues was an afterthought, but still excellent. Cotton candy city, rich, sweet, smooth, practically as good as Yquem”¦that’s about all I had left in me (93).

What a night. What a cellar. The economy will be just fine sooner or later, but there will be no cellar of Wolfgang Grunewald again.