It was time for a gathering of the 12 Angry Men at the end of March, as winter had bottled up much angriness that needed to be uncorked. 1970s Burgundy was the theme, and much generosity was on display as we gathered in our favorite haunt, the private room downstairs at Cru.

We started with a couple of bottles of 1973 Krug, original not Collection. bottlings. Although one bottle was a touch more mature than the other, the fresher bottle had a nice nose of mature honey, dust, wheat, light white chocolate and touches of yeast and dirt. Round, smooth, honeyed and tender, the palate delivered more of a wine-like experience, although it still possessed a pinch of petillance. It got meatier in the nose with air, and its nice citric edges and white chocolate flavors made it easy to drink, but it seemed a bit more mature than it should have been, which was probably the bottle. It wasn.t a bad bottle and was perfectly enjoyable, but probably not a perfect one either (92A?).

A blind trio of 1979 Champagnes was the official first flight courtesy of Bad Boy Bruce, a living testament to the fact that rock n roll will never die. We sat down to the first bubbly, which had a kinky nose with a waxy, pungent, dried apricot fruit aroma. There was also mahogany and lemon pledge in the nose as well, and a bit of maturity crept in quickly. Ray immediately found it a bit off.. It did have iodine, as Gorky noted. Ray preferred to call it gym socks, and he wasn.t being complimentary. There were flavors of earth and milk chocolate, but this bubbly got dirtier and dirtier in the glass and fell apart quickly, a bit stinky. as someone remarked after a few minutes. It was the 1979 Alain Robert Le Mesnil. Since I had a crummy bottle of this in Chicago as well, please, no one serve me this sucker again (85A).

The second bubbly was very aromatic with this floral, acacia-like exotic honey, the type of honey that Carmine would break out at Celeste, one that was made in a certain way at a certain time and only go with a certain cheese. I’m talking exotic here. Some all-bran graced the nose as well. The flavors were pungent, big, rocky and tangy with a wildflower kink. Its big, full-bodied style was full of gamy flavors. Its acidity was a bit more mellow than I expected, not exactly soft, but the Champagne seemed to be on a plateau, but a plateau that it will be on for a while. It had that delicious, wine-like edge to its citrus, vanilla and wheat flavors. It was the 1979 Krug (94).

The third Champagne in this starter flight was incredibly fresh and pungent with fantastic anise, bread and cream aromas. By far the freshest of the trio, there were still loads of acidity here; this was an infant next to the first two. Its flavors were taut and lemony; its finish stony and its acidity longer than a day with the in-laws. Bruce gleefully hailed the 1979 Louis Roederer Cristal as Champagne of the vintage.. It was tough to argue (96+).

A trio of whites comprised the next flight, and we began with the 1973 Leroy Meursault Charmes. It had that waxy, fresh, straight from the Leroy cellar nose. I felt like I could have cleaned the table with it as it smelled like anise wax indoor cleaner. The palate was soft and easy with a touch of yeast and citrus, coconut. as Peter observed, and a touch woodsy on its finish. Uh oh, some angriness crept out from King Angry himself. Ray huffed, there’s no way this is 34 years old.. He said it, not me, but it is tough to be an experienced wine taster and not agree; these cellar wines have to be at least reconditioned. The wine was still pleasant and enjoyable (90).

Roger pulled another amazing old Leflaive out of his cellar as he did at La Paulee, this time it being a 1978 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet. Its nose was Five Alive, aka big-time fruit basket. There was also a stick of butter and an exotic pinch of almost Worcestershire to this smoky wine. Its palate was rich, meaty and buttery, full of exotic garden flavors and possessing great balance. Ray found it milky and smoky, while another found it briny. (94).

The 1978 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche was gorgeous, very fresh, dusty and intense in its long and smoky nose. There was this dried BBQ jerky exotic edge here. Earth, smoke and waterfall rounded out the nose, although Suss was lost in the forest and its woodsy. nature. Its austerity was distinguished, and there was this splash of Worcestershire and tobasco on its finish, probably the same woodsiness that Suss was referring to, although who knows what was happening under the table over there (95).

The Don happened to be upstairs, and I grabbed swallows of a 1996 Dauvissat Chablis La Forest, which was clean, tasty, pure and delicious. I do love a good Chablis (93). Also, there was some 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. 1996 is an extraordinary year for this already extraordinary winemaker, and the 96 Perrieres was absolutely singing on this night, full of flavor and acidity yet balanced and delicious in that smoky Coche way (96).

The reds commenced with a procession of 1979s, three to be exact. One was a last second substitute due to a last second cancellation of a potential new member. All wines in this flight were served single-blind except the one substitute was double-blind.

The first red had cotton candy. in its nose per Peter, and I found this distinct green apple sour to it as well. Rob noted the sweetness of Richebourg, and it was cherry juice city. Very modern and candied, it had that Gros Frere style and indeed was the 1979 Gros Frere et Soeur Richebourg. It had a chalky finish and some t n a to it (90).

Unfortunately, a magnum of 1979 Richebourg was cooked and sickly (DQ).

Due to a last second cancellation, we were forced to throw in a ringer of a wine for this first flight, all the more needed after the DQ.d magnum. It had a fabulous nose, make that incredible and was clearly wine of the flight, although there wasn.t much competition. Leather, spice, tar and dried black roses graced its spiny nose. Long, balanced and still with lots of life, this 1979 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was a stunning glass of wine (95+).

A 1976 Pousse d.Or Volnay Clos des 60 Ouvrees. was corked (DQ).

A 1972 Dujac Clos St. Denis was not. Baby’s bottom was the first thing to jump out of the nose, along with tomato, rust, lemon and benevolent oak. It tasted like a Bloody Mary, a dead ringer for the Sunday brunch tasting group. Suss also picked up on tomato and soy sauce. in this pleasing 72, which had good acidity still (93).

Another mystery wine came out, and its nose was roasted and hearty yet seductive. While feminine, graceful and elegant, the wine was still forceful. Suss picked up on bell pepper. and Ray olive. in this outstanding 1972 Chave Hermitage (95).

We were back to our regular programming with a 1976 Roumier Bonnes Mares, which had some big and heady Worcestershire aromas, saucy in nature and soaking up its noticeable t n a. There was a touch of tomato flavors and wood, its wood being a touch over the top. Rich and long, there were hearty bouillon flavors in this still respectable 76 (90).

A flight of 1978s was next, and Slover was silently slurping them down before informing us of the great flight that would follow.

The 1978 Ponsot Clos de la Roche was not the Vieilles Vignes; I am not sure they even made one in 1978 strangely enough. Anyway, the Ponsot had a gamy, olivy nose with lots of stiff tannins, soy and marinated meat aromas. The palate was spicy and spiny with lots of citric twists, olives and game. Menthol flavors were on its finish, and the wine was flirting with outstanding and ultimately got there. Gamy, spiny and long, the Ponsot also had teriyaki beef. flavors per Suss (95).

The 1978 Rousseau Chambertin took it up a notch and was the best bottle of this that I had ever had. Brooding, long, reserved and refined, there was great dust in the nose of this reticent behemoth. Its flavors were pungent and full of great citrus, iron, stem, stalk and beef flavors. It was still smooth, long and great (96).

The 1978 Dujac Clos de la Roche, one of the wines of the vintage, was still excellent yet less than its finest examples. Full of olives and a touch of gas, there were also lots of garden and vegetable aromas: carrots with the ranch dip, tomato, green pepper.&it was big-time green pepper and pungent both in the nose and on the palate. Rich, smooth and with great texture, the Dujac made a nice recovery on its balanced palate. Suss noted toasted sesame seeds. (94). It should be a 98 or 99 point wine, though, but I think this was bottle variation more than an affected bottle.

A 1978 La Tache was aromatic and perfumed, shy and perfumed, more lavender and wildflower than the typical 78 beef and menthol I have come to expect. This potpourri quality carried over from the nose to the palate, where more of the classic beef and menthol emerged in the flavor profile. It was a very good bottle but not a great one; again, not necessarily off but another bottle variation situation. We all know bottled barrel by barrel very often (and to this day) , right (92) ?

A final 1978 was served blind. Meaty, gamy, chocolaty, dirty, and earthy, its nose was quite complex. Graham and honey rounded things out aromatically. Rich, creamy and meaty, its palate had vitamins and the most power of the flight so far. A touch of animal rounded out this earthy and robust 1978 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. It was a great showing for this overlooked vintage of Vogue, whose wines many feel are lackluster between 1973-1989. Well, not on this night ong> (95+).

We needed a palate cleanser, and it was a spectacular one, a 1966 Louis Roederer Cristal. Caramel oozed out of the glass like Scarlett Johansson out of a limousine. Ray took my daydream away from me with brittle, more burnt, cooked caramel, and I immediately saw his four best high school buddies getting out of the limo after her. Bruce gushed, the best vintage of the best decade in Champagne.. Bread crusts, honey, orange rind and hazelnut. (Pat) resulted in an orgy of aromas. It was pure vanilla sex going down the hatch, and it was so good it caused Big Boy to ramble about the 1911 and 28 Pol Roger for about ten minutes. It was a short speech by the usual standards (97).

I think I was back upstairs for a swallow of 1995 Roumier Bonnes Mares with The Don. I had to be, as this was 1970s Burgundy night. The 1995 was so concentrated and extremely impressive, especially for a 1995. While this seems to be a vintage most collectors avoid nowadays, I now see why Roumier most likely made the wines of the vintage and why this rusty Bonnes Mares gets $500+ a bottle (95+).

The 1971 Prieur Musigny had a brown sugared, 1959-like nose. Earthy and big, the palate was brown sugary and oaty. Balanced and pretty tasty, it was good but seemed mature for a 71 (92A).

The 1971 Giroud Bonnes Mares had a weird, peanut butter nose, and so did the palate. There was great structure to its big and long palate, and band-aid on its finish. This seemed to be very atypical Burgundy (91).

The third wine of this 71 flight was a 1971 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze.. Its nose was a bit off-putting, to be frank, full of celery and wood. Its structure was great, though, and its acidity enormous. Its citric twists, tang and length were very special, and its flavors became more benevolent and in the garden spice direction (94).

It was another intermezzo, this time a 1928 Louis Roederer Brut. Caramel and glue, Gorky observed. Asian plum wine. was another’s observations. Wine-like, old and intense, this was another regular. Roederer Brut that showed spectacularly (96+).

A quartet of 1971 s was next, beginning with a delicious 1971 Echezeaux. It had a great nose of classic rose, leather, menthol, garden and iron. It got a little woody without crossing the line, and the palate was of similar character (93).

The 1971 Romanee St. Vivant was very big yet very square, chunky and with lots of acidity and indicators, yet overall a rusty brick of a wine (90+?).

The 1971 La Tache was another one of those magical 71 LTs. It had been a while for me; after having about half of a magical case that Cru once owned, there had been a few tough luck 71 LTs for me, never achieving the same magical heights as before. Well thanks to Big Boy, we were back in the saddle of this Burgundy stallion. Serious. and ridiculous. came from the overjoyed crowd. The beef, the menthol, the tar, the leather, the citrus, the huge lingering acidity&the 1971 La Tache. It is a wine more timeless than Roger Clemens in that it can still bring the heat (98+).

It was a bad night for Richebourg, as a 1971 was (DQ). No one cared. That’s how you have to be with old wines. If you get an off bottle, it’s on to the next. Of course, when you have thirty wines, that helps ease the pain, but so does a good backup or two for less monumental occasions.

One of the wines of the night was courtesy of The Don, upstairs sipping on some 1966 Clair-Dau Chambertin Clos de Beze.. All I can tell you is that it was fantastic (96).

Somehow, I had a swallow of 1973 Krug Collection (93).

Big Boy quickly bought the rights to the evening and made it a Big Boy Production by purchasing a 1999 Romanee Conti and 1999 La Tache off the list. The RC had ridiculous concentration and insane baby fat. Its richness, super freshness and super crushed berry core were the stuff of legends.. It was still such a baby yet able to show an enormous amount of greatness. Broad-shouldered and flamboyant, the 1999 RC is up there with the greatest ever made. Aubert certainly thinks so, and even one of my fellow enthusiasts recently admired the 99 after tasting almost 100 years of RC. It is indubitably one of the great, great wines of all time (99).

The 1999 La Tache was/is no slouch, either. Pure game, Pat admired. The LT had a spectacular nose as well. The wine seemed more mature with its gamy notes and animal fat, but it was actually more spiny and full of enough brick to make a very very very fine house. Great. appeared over and over in my notes. It was qualitatively equal to the RC yet LT all the way (99).

No one was angry anymore.

The Doctor Is Still In

A recent stopover in LA had me dining with the one and only one of my fellow enthusiasts . I can safely say that reports of his demise are greatly exaggerated, and that there are still a few jewels left in the cellar. Quite a few. We were joined by the Burghound, always on the scent of the best Burgundies opened anywhere he is, Etienne de Montille, and another one of America’s most important collectors, one I would put in the Top Ten. as well. Cut was the location, Wolfang Puck’s hot new restaurant in the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. There were lots of pretty women, but wine was first and foremost on all of our collective minds.

We started with a true connoisseurs. delight, a pair of off-vintage Montrachets from two of its finest producers. The 1977 Lafon Montrachet might very well have been the last bottle of this on Earth. Its nose was still special, caramel creeping out at first followed by corn, wheat and pan-fried butter. The palate had old, yeasty flavors and a touch of tangy citrus. Earth and book flavors were on its finish. This was still a good drink at age thirty despite the fact that it came from one of the least collectible vintages of the last thirty years. Soft, tender and with a touch of wax, the Lafon was pleasant, still holding on. I believe it was Allen who remarked, quite remarkable, not a good vintage at all. I’m impressed. In the context of the vintage, it’s brilliant. It’s lovely wine but not a great wine.. Then a ratings debate ensued. Our anonymous friend felt it was flirting with four stars, I found it flirting with 90 points, but each of those ratings do not really justify the quality.. Allen gave us some vintage details: high acid, low ripeness, a lot of rain.. In the end, I decided to give it 90 points because of the context; however, I couldn.t argue with an assessment of a point of two less (90).

Unfortunately, the 1984 Ramonet Montrachet was corked (DQ).

Wolfgang came down to sit and drink with us for a few minutes. We were just starting to get into a pair of 1959 Burgundies. After a glass of Lafon, a Riesling and beef tangent and upon seeing the 1959, Wolfgang reminisced about when he was living in or near Dijon with his father in the mid-sixties, and he had a great 59 Burgundy and went out and spent all the money he had that week on a couple cases of fine 59 Burgundies and carefully nestled them in the cellar, away from the stash of house wine, which back at that time was a Gigondas, complete with the fancy. wire mesh around it that many Rhones used to have. So a few months later, Wolfgang finally had an occasion that was appropriate to open some of these rare wines. Significant friends were over, and Wolfgang wanted to share these 59 treasures. He went down to the basement to pull out some wine, and everything was gone!!! He confronted the only possible culprit, his father, who defended, What? I left all the good wine with the gold foil on it for you!.

That got a big laugh, but it was time to get serious with a 1959 Rousseau Chambertin. It had a brilliant nose; rich, hearty and beefy with saucy cherry fruit. Oil and nut also were present along with a touch of just right secret. garden aromas. Its leathery spice was exquisite, and it had great power and t n a. It was the total package aromatically. Its flavors had a touch of that 59 hot, sugared quality without the brown and oat, though. It had a gritty edge and a tannic, long finish. Its acids were also long and big. This was special stuff (96).

A 1959 Roumier Bonnes Mares was technically flawed. as Allen observed, a touch oxidized in the nose. It had a Worcestershire quality to its meaty, gamy, mentholy and spiny nose. It was rich and got richer and more complete with food and air. It gained in its beefy and spiny qualities and was quite drinkable despite its flaw (94+A).

A tangent developed about old Burgundies and how even if a Burgundy has a low 6 or 7cm ullage, as long as the color is great, the wine will still be delicious. Hundreds of experiences, our anonymous friend continued. If a Bordeaux is mid-shoulder, he countered, it means trouble. Geometric, perhaps?.

The next wine stopped time. It was one of the greatest wines of my life, a 1934 Roumier Musigny. Everyone at the table couldn.t stop thanking the Doctor over and over again. We were all suddenly groupies happy to be backstage. Spectacular stuff, my notes began. Whoa!. cried the Burghound. It then proceeded to get a woof, and then two more. Yes, it was an official three woof. wine from the Burghound. Before I knew it, Allen was humping my leg. Ok, ok, it was actually Wolfgang’s leg 🙂 The nose had the amazing sensuality of Musigny, and I could see here why release prices of this terroir are approaching $1000 a bottle for the 2005s. Taut red fruits were impeccably balanced with its incredibly rusty spine. The wine had a never-ending finish that never lost its femininity. Chocolate came out on its expansive finish. What a wine (99).

The 1937 Roumier Musigny was no slouch, either. It also had an unbelievable nose, refined and du classe, as Allen put it, yet the 37 was much more decadent and ripe, like the vintage. Allen remarked on its velour.. The initial sweetness of the 37 bothered Etienne a bit, but its softness he admired. The power of the tannins was evident, and the oak showed more of itself here. Allen told us it was the power of the tannins of the vintage.. The power in the 37 stayed strong; lush, hearty and good woodsy. It was hailed as really good. and having good brett.. The 37 versus 34 debate was likened to more hits versus more home runs. Then 29 versus 28 debate was similarly called more spectacular versus better average. The 1937 Roumier really showed the difference between the vintages of 37 and 34 on an ultimate level (96).

I had a couple of other recent, quiet evenings with only one compadre and two wines, so I have decided to include those in this week’s article.

I had the pleasure of dining at Michael Mina while on my recent West Coast swing that saw me in multiple cities on three consecutive nights. If fine dining had a Final Four tournament, I think I would have Michael Mina winning the West Region, Grant Achatz from Alinea winning the Midwest, Gunther Seeger winning the South (even though he recently closed in Atlanta I hope he comes to NY as I saw him here recently) , and Shea Gallante winning the East in what many would consider the upset, except for those of us that already know better. From there, it’s anyone’s game!

Anyway, it was a 2002 night, beginning with a 2002 Ramonet Batard Montrachet, which had a fresh nose full of that Ramonet wax, mint, corn, butter and baked white fruits. It had a very rich and hedonistic nose with vanilla, white chocolate and oak kisses. Its minerality and acidity smelled great. Delicious, fat and rich, it was a mouth-filling wine, still lush and full of sweet corn and yellow fruit flavors despite its youth. Its acidity was under control while going down, yet still lingered in the belly. The 2002 had the texture, weight and dimension to improve but at age five it was a touch shy. It needs to mature a little and blossom (94+).

The 2002 Roumier Bonnes Mares was in a similar position. It had intoxicating aromatics of stems, vitamins, cinnamon and purple fruits. It had its eyes wide shut with its royal fruit, spice and structure components. Its flavors of cherry juice and dust made for a sweet dense core with amazing spice box to it. A pinch of citrus and a hollandaise sauce made with dill instead of tarragon added to its complexity; those came from the wine, by the way. Violet, cherry, blueberry, bright fruit. my friend waxed. Stems, leather, earth and spice were still packed into this long and distinguished wine. Its acidity exploded after some lamb. Raj called it dense. and velvety, but again I felt this wine needs some more time before it is truly outstanding (94+).

There is little doubt in my mind that these will be outstanding wines (ie, 95 points and up) ; however, I just couldn.t give it to them on this evening. I like my wine old, and these infants still need to age in the bottle and blossom into the butterflies they will be. Yes, another ratings debate, I know. Don.t you know it’s the chicken not the egg that matters?

Another top secret get together in New York City turned into a veritable celebrity death match when my 1999 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva squared off against my friend’s 1988 Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape. It was pocket 9s versus pocket 8s, and the 9s held up after the flop, turn and river, aka the scallops, risotto and rack of lamb.

The Monfortino had a gorgeous nose; a good time to drink before it shuts down, was observed. It had the tar, anise, licorice and t n. a, but also deep, chunky black fruits. The palate was thick and tight, very dry and leathery with the tannins of a boa constrictor preying on my tongue. The fruit was a bit lean in the mouth but fattened. A touch of citrus peel, anise, spice and dust rounded out this classic (95+).

The Rayas had a sweet nose that was a mix of garden and kirsch. It had a hearty yet nice balance of fruit and finish. Cherry and cola flavors were up front; rust and pop on the finish both explosively and flavor-wise. Brick and fireplace grew into the nose. My friend felt this bottle was showing a little older than it should have, but it seemed good, as well as ready, to go to me (94).

See I don’t only drink Burgundy!

It was time for the main event, and there must have been four or five hundred giddy people gathered in downtown Manhattan. One or two of dozens of Burgundy’s elite winemakers sat at each table in anticipation of this Bacchanalian orgy. The long, army-style lunch room seating had to have about forty people per table, twenty on each side. It was a bit tight, and a bit hectic to get the seating straight and keep everyone together that came together, even at the same table. I saw a lot of familiar faces filing in as I tried to get my bearings and said my share of quick hellos; the event was so large and frenetic that I could not possibly say hi to everyone I wanted to, even if I saw them sitting across the room. I planned on doing that later, but that didn.t work out quite as well as I had planned.

I actually did make one short round to the table next to us to say hi to Roy, owner of Cru, world champion Bridge player and all-around great guy. He graciously gave me a splash of 1990 Dom Perignon Rose out of magnum, and we were off and running. The 90 DP Rose had lovely orange fruits in the nose and touches of cinnamon, strawberry and exotic kiwi. Long, balanced and dry, the palate had tangy citric fruits and a strawberry lime finish, but it did seem a bit tight and unyielding (94+M).

Bottles were previously taken at the front upon entering and put in a back room, attended to by one of the dozens of All-Star sommeliers assembled by Daniel Johnnes. By the time everyone in my entourage of ten or twelve arrived, I decided to take charge and get things moving and just get our bottles on our table. It just so happened that Roger brought a magnum of 1985 Dom Perignon Rose. The 1985 was in a much better spot and seemed to be a better Champagne than the 1990 actually. It was more honeyed and full of white chocolate and roses in the nose and had a great palate. There was tremendous verve and vim here; the 85 had excellent vigor along with great balance and spine (96M).

That was it for the Champagne this evening, and a quick glass of 2000 Henri Boillot Montrachet kicked things off since Henri was the winemaker at our table. The Montrachet had light earth, nut and smoke aromas but was a touch musty. Long, fine and gritty, it was very good but not what I look for in my Montrachet, at least at this young age (92A-M). That means both affected and out of magnum.

Ok, it was time to dig into our own wines, and Roger also set the table incredibly well with a trio of whites, beginning with a very rare 1978 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. Gil immediately picked up on white asparagus lightly steamed and grilled.. Of course, it was, as Gil has one of the top ten palates that I have come across with an uncanny and innate ability to put aromas and flavors into words. Incredibly exotic, it also had crazy honey in its nose and a decadent sweetness. In the mouth, it was very meaty with great texture and a rich, oily personality. The flavors in this very special wine were very kinky; 1978 sure was a great white wine vintage. I have always had fantastic experiences with them (96).

We continued the Leflaive procession with a 1983 Domaine Leflaive Bienvenues Batard Montrachet. It had a similar style to the 1978 with its exotic fruit, although the 1983 was sweeter with much more pronounced tangerine. Again, crazy honey made an appearance, this time on the palate; crazy exotic honey city. was the note at the time. The 1983 was very decadent and in a great spot (94).

The last of Roger’s Leflaives was a 1990 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. It got a wow, for starters, followed by a great mix of rock, anise, spine and sex. Yes, the 1990 Leflaive Chevy made me horny, a veritable aromatic turn-on. In the mouth, it was pure, decadent wax and mint along with enough white fruits to bring sexy back. Rich, long yet still smooth, it was definitely a wine to make one bid over the high so to speak, and the pure minerals on its finish were divine (97).

A jeroboam of 1986 Ramonet Montrachet made its way to our table courtesy of Eddie and the table next door. Again, exotic first came to mind, and its nose was full of yellow fruits and wild flowers. It was Big Mike’s favorite so far, and it was young and tight out of jero. There were nice minerals, but the wine was a bit yeasty and suffered from a hint of morning mouth on its finish, perhaps some bottle variation out of the jero or perhaps just the fact that the wines were coming at such a blistering pace that it didn.t have enough time to shake off some cobwebs (94J).

We went back to the Leflaive side of the fence with a 2002 Domaine Leflaive Montrachet. Hubba Hubba. I believe it was Mark we had to thank for this wine, and what a wine it was. It was another wow. wine, rocket science meets rock star. More wound than a Clemens fastball, it had super aromas and flavors of citrus skin, hazelnut, limestone, lime and salt. Still a baby, it had an incredible centerpoint, and although it was still a baby, it was still brilliant, a veritable five-year old prodigy great enough to graduate from college&with a masters degree (98).

A 1990 Comtes Lafon Meursault Perrieres came from somewhere or another, and it was a bit yeasty, meaty and gamy with orange aromas. More confused on the palate, this seemed to be an affected bottle and given the competition not worth spending much time on it (91A).

The 1979 Ramonet Batard Montrachet, however, was worth spending a lot of time on, with and reminiscing about all over again. Honey, smoke, benevolent yeast, lit match, corn, citrus and spine all combined to form a Justice League of aromas and flavors, here to protect and serve by letting everyone know what white Burgundy is supposed to be. It had this sexy, dark and dank Hostel action, European, of course (97).

Wait a second, it was the 1986 Ramonet Montrachet again, this time out of magnum. I hate it when that happens. Smokier and toastier than its jeroboam sibling, the magnum had nice spine, spine and a better finish. It flavors were more wound, and its alcohol and acidity were more noticeable (95M).

Now it was a 1992 Ramonet Montrachet out of magnum. There wasn.t much good wine going around. The 1992 was smoke city, with honey, nut, toast and insane complexity in its nose. Coconut, yes that was it, coconut was there along with incredible spice and great complexity. Its acidity was huge and legendary along the line of&1992 Ramonet Montrachet, of course (97+M).

The last white of the evening, at least for me, was a 1993 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne. The Coche had a great mature nose and was musk central. Delicious, round and pure, it had excellent balance as well (94).

That’s thirteen notes and counting for those of you keeping score at home.

The red part of our program started with an insane magnum of 1969 Rousseau Chambertin courtesy of The Don. I don.t think anyone had their ring kissed more on this night of excess, and that’s what happens when you are the greatest collector of Burgundy on Earth. The Rousseau had a spectacular nose, gamy and meaty, full of iron and smokehouse, a veritable Saw III with its gorily good cherry dust appeal. Spiny, iron-y and hearty, the 69 had great acid, great enough to make Dr. Timothy Leary proud. This wine was flat-out spectacular out of magnum and actually had tremendous fruit, something not every wine from 1969 can say (97M).

I slipped into the 1971 Rousseau Mazis Chambertin, one of the eight wines Big Boy had brought. He and a close friend of mine slipped in about half way through the whites, arriving fashionably late and fashionably dressed as well. The Mazis had a great nose full of purple wildflowers and exotic spice. Gil chimed in with cranberry juice; very clean and pure.. There was great dust and spice to this delicious wine that was smooth and tender yet still possessed excellent rust and edge (93).

Big Mike uncorked a magnum of 1978 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, whose nose was nutty, exotic and sexy, so perfumed and elegant yet rich, gamy, long and smooth with cola edges and flavors. A bit shy and shook up, the Jayer was still smooth, long and delicious (96M).

Another 1971 courtesy of Big Boy knocked on my door; it was a 1971 Drouhin Charmes Chambertin and had a gorgeous and pure nose. Someone remarked how Drouhin was .always smooth and pure.. Honey and dry candy flavors rounded out this mature and smooth wine (91).

A 1945 Chateau de la Tour Clos de Vougeot was next, clearly reconditioned and with a nutty and smoky nose. There were big aromatics accordingly, a bit unpure and with sulfur. Long smoky and square, about all I could say is that it had iron flavors. Next (88).

A 1985 Roumier Bonnes Mares seemed like a visiting college applicant at a frat party, being the young buck that it was in the context of the evening. This was one of the better bottles of this that I have had. Perfumed, aromatic and tangy, the Roumier also had great meat, game, spice and balance (94).

1966 Leroy Nuits Saint Georges 1er Cru? Sure why not. I had to have at least one premier cru wine, right? I know, Cros Parantoux is technically premier cru, but we all know better, don.t we now. It actually had a great nose, gamy and meaty, very forward and delicious, full of flavor and very tasty with its vitamins and iron on its finish. It made me feel like it was good for me (93+).

A 1986 Henri Jayer Echezeaux had a great nose full of meat and spice along with the Jayer deep purple. There was a touch of must on the palate, but it was still exquisite. Jayer was a master of the so-called lesser. vintages (93).

Peter’s 1959 Leroy Musigny had baked bread, toast, earth, yeast, game and spine. It was excellent, but who knows if it was really Musigny or even 1959, as some questioned. It was an excellent wine, but it was also an old Leroy causing some to mutter a few unpleasanteries (93).

A 1947 Jaboulet-Vercherre Pommards Rugiens Tasteduvin bottling came out of the woodworks in jeroboam of all things. It was delicious; spiny, spicy, edgy, beefy, gamy and did I say edgy (94J) ?

The wines were coming fast and furiously even though Ray Diesel was conspicuously absent. A 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes had a spectacular nose with a gorgeous and exotic red fruit symphony happening. Very decadent and so sweet and delicious, the Ponsot had great chocolate flavors on its finish (95).

A 1978 Roumier Bonnes Mares out of magnum courtesy of one of my fellow enthusiasts brought brooding to my mind first. It had an earthy, barnyardy, meaty nose that was very gamy and edgy in a citric way. Smooth and satiny, the 78 was nice, long and dusty, lingering in the belly but not as great as other experiences I have had with the wine (94M).

A 1952 Champy Chambolle Musigny was very forward with bacon aromas and flavors (90).

The 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares out of magnum that one of my fellow enthusiasts also brought was spectacular. It got a .wow, too, as its intense spine and great character were immediately both noticeable and noteworthy. The palate was intense, spiny and spectacular as a great 1971 oughta be, delivering more and more with each sip and smell. Big Mike quickly crowned it wine of the night. (97+M).

A 1996 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux out of magnum was beefy, smoky, edgy but with too much oak. On the palate it was by contrast pure, feminine and elegant yet again with too much oak (92M).

That’s twenty eight wines and counting for those of you keeping score at home.

The twenty ninth wine I had on this historic evening was a 1979 Roumier Bonnes Mares, making it the fourth vintage tasted so far. It had a gorgeous nose that exuded wisdom. a close friend of mine found it a touch oaky like many 79s.. Pure and with citric tang, I liked it a lot and didn.t find its oak qualities intrusive (93).

A 1966 Louis Latour Romanee St. Vivant Les Quatre Journaux was smooth, sexy and intense. I love this wine from the 50s and 60s (94).

Big Boy’s 1971 Romanee Conti had a bit of a lower ullage then ideal and was accordingly a touch oxidized. However, the greatness of this wine still shone through on its texture and structure. Game, meat and animal dominated its nose along with some sherry. Gil noted fig compote. and obviously the wine’s usual freshness and intensity were compromised. Its finish was still extraordinary, hearty and big-time, but this is normally a 98 or 99-point wine (95A).

I finally decided to pull out my jeroboam of 1989 La Tache. Man, was it feeling heavy right about now. I slowly made my way up my table, hitting off all of my friends and anyone that stood in my way. The idea behind having this jero was to make my way around the room and share it with all the people I knew but couldn.t sit with. By the time I got back to my seat (about six seats up the table) and then about four seats further down, I couldn.t handle it anymore, so I traded it for a bottle of 1966 Richebourg. Well, that was well planned and poorly executed. My duty to the pen and pad overtook everything else and my intended goodwill went to many less than anticipated. As far as those two wines, the La Tache was intense, spiny and vitaminy with a spectacular nose yet a smooth and seductive palate (95J). The 1966 Richebourg was smooth and sexy (94).

In between those two wines I actually had two others, one being a 1996 Meo Camuzet Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux out of jeroboam. Big-time youth and vitamin was the note. Yes, it was getting to be about that time at wine number thirty four (93+J).

Wendy and Jim had brought a great bottle of 1952 La Tache, which was a brick&hauuussss. The 52 La Tache was indeed a wine to make you clap your hands and shake your booty. Its great rust, spice, spine, cedar and edge were outstanding (95).

I tasted one more wine before heading off to Cru for the after party. The 1978 Richebourg was smooth and tasty full of beef and menthol as 78 s are prone to be. It was classic and with sea salt flavors (93).

I temporarily recovered at Cru to taste seven more wines and record a couple of good notes. I probably had more wines, but it got ugly very quickly.

This was the second time I have been blessed to have the 1923 Rousseau Chambertin, and it was outstanding. Mature yet still fresh, it had old candle wax, citrus and almost banana peel, and hints of animal fur. The flavors were insanely good; rich, creamy and spiny, this bottle was fresher than the one I had before even though it was from the same batch. a close friend of mine found a little acetone. in the wine, but it was not overwhelming. Rob was admiring the fact that it was eighty four years old and had held up so well (95).

A palate cleansing 1981 Bollinger Champagne Vieilles Vignes was spectacular again, from the same batch I had before at Cru. Intense, ridiculous and insane summed it up (96+).

A 1967 Richebourg had tobacco and citric tang in its nose, and more citrus and a pinch of Worcestershire on its palate. Unfortunately, I did not write a score down, nor did I write one down for the 1980 Dujac Clos de la Roche that came three wines later and was the last wine of the night, or at least the last wine I recorded that night. I think the Dujac was .special, or maybe that was spectacular.. Was it higher. something, and tasty?. I give up. I can.t read what I wrote damnit.

One thing I could read what I wrote for was one of the wines of the night, a wine that should have been the last wine of the evening but settled for second to last, a phenomenal bottle of 1962 Romanee Conti. Actually, I didn.t take that many notes after all, but took a couple of good quotes including indestructible and timeless, as well as at maximum capacity of expression.. Spectacular, intense and very, very special, the 1962 Romanee Conti was about as good as it gets (98).

A 1959 Faiveley Chambertin Clos de Beze was very good but anti-climactic after the Conti. Showing brown sugar aromas typical of the vintage, its flavors of oat, earth and minerals fit the vintage profile as well (92).

That.s forty two notes. Yeah, baby. I know a bunch of them were quickies, but sometimes a quickie is in order. I did what I could!

A couple of out-of-towners beat me up to take them out and after two night clubs and some more Champagne, I got home at 5AM. The next day was indubitably the largest hangover I have ever had. It was like someone chiseled a, well, chisel right into the top of my skull. The hangover was so great it actually lasted two days, and I was pretty sensitive to loud noises for about a week thereafter. I should have spit about fifteen times, just even fifteen sips; then, I would have been fine. I know it and am now ready for next year accordingly&

Congratulations and kudos to Daniel Johnnes for another extraordinary evening of camaraderie and fun. It took an ocean of work and months of planning to pull it off, and people often take that for granted.

Looking forward to next year!

After a year hiatus in Aspen, Daniel Johnnes brought the glory of La Paulee back to where it belongs in New York City, and over 500 hundred of the country’s most eager and avid collectors descended upon Manhattan like phylloxera to old vines for a celebration of what many feel are the world’s most desirable wines, Burgundy.

The actual Paulee was Saturday, but Friday night was a special dinner featuring the wines of Bonneau du Martray and Domaine de la Romanee Conti, and Aubert de Villaine was in the houuuuse. The event was hosted in Bouley’s new .test kitchen, which seemed half test kitchen and half bachelor pad. Not only was David on hand cooking, but so were Daniel Boulud and Michel Troisgros, and a who’s who of the country’s top sommeliers, including Robert Bohr, Paul Roberts, Rajat Parr, Richard Betts (and others – don.t take it personal if I forgot you) were leading the service of the esteemed selections on hand.

Some 1996 Salon greeted us, and it is still the best Champagne I have had from this spectacular vintage (97+).

We took our seats and worked our way through the whites, beginning with a 1996 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne. The nose was toasty and nice, reserved yet with style. Light coconut and rainwater aromas graced the nose. Tom thought the wine was served .too cold, and it was a bit muted, but it was chock full of flavors. A veritable spice box city, the wine was long, smooth and lush with great minerals and slate on its finish. Pure yellow fruits and stone cold flavors made this exquisite wine very enjoyable, although I was looking for a pinch more acidity in my 1996 (94).

The 1992 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne had a honeyed, sweet nose which reminded me of buttered, brown sugared bacon. Sweet and candied, the palate had a kiss of morning mouth that signaled to me the wine was starting to decline, and Tom even questioned whether it was oxidized. I didn.t think it was oxidized; it was just 1992 and not one of the best examples of the vintage yet still round and tasty but definitely drink up (90).

The 1979 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne was the biggest DQ I have ever had, like corked to the nth power with a healthy side of rotten vegetables (DQ).

The next flight began with a 1983 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne, which had this Asian glaze, almost like a sweet and sour pork. Lemon rind and tang were quite prevalent as well. The palate was very tangy with excellent pinch and zest, full of pitch and spine, again just short of outstanding but certainly delicious (94).

The 1986 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne was similar to the 1992 with that touch of sweetness, but it had more butter, more center and much better acidity despite being six years older. Its nutty flavors and excellent spice made the palate stand out, and its finish had great lift, resulting in my favorite wine so far (95).

Lastly, the 1976 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne was a bit yeasty and perhaps slightly oxidized, possessing morning mouth and average at best (85).

Ok, enough of those whites, it was time for the reds, and we started with a 1979 La Tache out of Jeroboam. Worcestershire and a noticeable whiff of oak were the first things that came to my nose, and while there was just enough cherry and tomato behind those to make the bloody mary, the oak was a bit intrusive. The palate was spiny with lots of acidity, very hearty, edgy and spiny, a bit over the top in that regard. Tom noted a short attack and a lot of t n a, and that summed it up. Now I have had some great 1979 experiences out of large format, but this was not at the top of that pyramid, which just goes to show that those big bottles have variation, too. It was still very good (92+J).

The 1980 La Tache got a quick 19/20. from Tom, and it had that great old tomato sex appeal. Yes, only in wine can old tomatoes have sex appeal, I know. The nose had a lot of other things going on, including cherry, rust, spice, spine and that unmistakable La Tache terroir, all very balanced and round. There was great finesse and balance to the mouth with touches of spice and spine. It might not ever be better, but it was still outstanding, although Rob had to put it right on the bottom of 5 stars, indicating that he definitely thought it wouldn.t get any better (95).

A couple of 1990s interrupted the La Tache procession, beginning with a 1990 Echezeaux. The Ech was wound up with lots of t n a in the nose along with good wood. Popcorn was there as well. Smooth, supple and with cedar, Rob G. found it charred and a bit singed. (91).

The 1990 Romanee St. Vivant had a little bread to the nose, more crust along with white smoke. With more structure and vim, the RSV still had nice balance to go with its vigor. It was similar to the Ech but had more expression both aromatically and flavorodically. Ok, I made that one up some one give me an adverb to describe flavors (93)!

Big Boy was starting to get antcy, as the dinner was a long affair, so my notes were a bit brief on the next flight of two as we grabbed our tastes in the back as Big Boy needed to circulate his legs and blood flow. The 1991 La Tache was smoky and seductive with good cedar, t n a and sweet soy. It had a nutty kink and delivered an excellent experience (94).

The 1990 La Tache was big, long and cedary, a touch woody but not excessively so. I have had a lot of variation with degrees of wood and my 1990 La Taches, and this one was in the middle, still indubitably outstanding. However, I hate to be a member of the No Joy, No Luck Club, but I have had near perfect bottles, not to say this was off, just variably not as spectacular (96).

The next two wines I had to tell Big Boy to slow down, as it was a flight of 1978 and 1971. As a trade off, we missed the last two wines including a 1982 Montrachet, but at least I got to take some decent notes for these two, starting with the 1978 La Tache. The 78 had an incredible nose and was everything it should have been, full of menthol, beef, cedar, spine and bouillon. It had a rich, mentholy palate and was smooth and balanced, seemingly on a plateau, not going to get any better but not flat, as Big Boy put it. Yes, the 1978 La Tache may be on a plateau, but it sure is a nice place to be right now (95).

The 1971 La Tache had candy to the nose, silky smooth in its style, also possessing iodine, iron, perfume and a kinky floral edge. Smooth and balanced, there was tomato, spice, Worcestershire and beefy flavors but no secondary. ones, as Rob observed. This should be a 98-point wine but was a mere. 95-point one. The wine was reconditioned at the Domaine in 1996, a practice that Aubert refuses to do anymore, but he unfortunately did in the past on a few occasions before he knew better per his own admission. It is ironic how all these direct from the Chateau. bottles get obscene premiums due to the provenance. when most of them are often less complex wines because they have been reconditioned. For the record, reconditioned wines can be great but will never achieve the heights of a well-stored original bottling. I suppose it is better to have a sure thing that is an A or A- than a possible A+, but once you have had the A+, you sure do want it again (95).

Big Boy and I slid over to Cru and started the after party early. The 1978 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes had cherries, according to Gil, and a barnyard edge with grass, wheat and earth. Gil added young goat dunked in the petting trough. and .dried cherry skin.. Yes, the Gilmeister was in the house, straight from Las Vegas where he probably hadn.t slept for three weeks. Bob added goat milk.. It had that old, dried Barolo cherry and was very good but not a great Vogue (92).

A 1959 Grands Echezeaux had massive olives. (Gil) but was also oxidized a touch, still meaty and tasty but affected. It still had light rust and spine (91A).

Eric bought a 1985 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Les Brulees. off the list, and it had that deep, dark Jayer action. Bob called it a .raspberry milkshake.. It was rich with a grape seed and skin edge and a nice, lip-smacking finish (93).

Since we did miss the last two or three courses at the original dinner and were drinking quite a bit more, we were eating again as we needed to soak up the poison and still a bit hungry. It was right about now that Daniel strolled in to hang out a bit, and he seemed a bit perplexed that we were chowing down again. Daniel, it wasn.t personal! !!

It was time for some bubbly, and a magnum of 1959 Pommery was incredible. Honey, butterscotch, white chocolate and a caramel toffee extravaganza. per Gil, the 1959 Pommery was spectacular and practically a sexual experience (96M).

My notes from here on out are practically illegible, but I did have two more outstanding reds and one of the greatest Champagnes I have ever had. A 1959 Clair Dau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques was delicious, outstanding and 1959 all the way with its big Gevrey personality and hot.-tempered palate (95). A 1971 Faiveley Musigny was extraordinary, smooth, soft and satiny, gaining in the glass unsuspectingly with the grace of a boa constrictor, its acidity squeezing life into the glass while idle chatter filled the air (96). And the last wine of the night was a Champagne, out of magnum, of course. All I remember is after having some of it, I didn.t want to drink anything else for the rest of the night. I must have had three or four glasses of it; it was that good. Similar to the Pommery but with more substance and length, the 1959 Louis Roederer Brut was not Cristal, but it didn.t have to be (98+M).

That was enough for the warmup. night. Tomorrow was the main event.