In a short period of time, Mount Sinai has created the premier wine-related charity event in New York City. This month in Manhattan, $1.5 million was raised to support the renovation of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit with only 100 people in the Grill Room of the hallowed Four Seasons.

The ghosts of business past cowered in the presence of the present-day company assembled, as some of New York’s finest converged in a great showing of generosity and support for the hospital. A great line-up of wines had been selected to serve throughout the evening, but we had to bring a few of our own to keep up with the Angry Man quota, as a quartet of original and a couple of new members were in the house. The wine selection definitely attracted attention, and no matter what I did, I could not get Petra Nemacova to stop looking at me.

A glass of 1995 Krug welcomed us to the Four Seasons courtesy of Krug, and it was clean and crisp, fresh and pleasant but lighter than expected. There was good balance in the mouth and a touch of meat to go with its tangy Krug flavors (93).

Eric the Red Wine Bandit brought a magnum of 1934 Haut Brion. Somehow, I had a glass of that next. There were great and classic aromas of gravel, smokehouse and old mesquite complemented by wild cut grass, cream and dry caramel. Its flavors were tobacco, dry cassis, smoke and gravel, in that order. There was light grit to its dusty finish, and the 1934 was still showing gracefully although definitely on golden pond. (92M).

We restored order in the court with a Big Boy production, a flight of 1959 Champagnes. The 1959 Phillipponat Clos des Goisses. unfortunately had sherry in its nose, on its last legs. as Ray put it. It was probably just the particular bottle as opposed to every 59 Goisses, and there was also dry caramel there. Its flavors were orange and Cointreau-like, its wine-like texture delivering an earthy finish. I hope I get to try a perfect bottle of this rare Champagne again (91A).

The 1959 Krug Extra Sec. was Extra. special as well. Honey drops, white chocolate and a pinch of male musk from the locker room were all in the nose. There was so much white chocolate in the nose, it prompted me to announce to the table that it was like me on the basketball court white chocolate.. That got a healthy dose of laughs, but the palate was strictly business with its long, spritely personality and great white ash, apple and yellow fruit flavors. It was still so fresh and frankly spectacular, most people’s favorite of the flight (96).

I, however, preferred the 1959 Salon ever so slightly. I thoroughly studied the two bubblies with multiple sips until there was none of each left. The Salon was also white chocolate and had musk, honey and a touch of orange which transformed into peach skin aromas. Its flavors were nutty and toasty, long and spiny with great long and balanced flavors. Although the Krug’s first impression was better, I found the Salon surpassed it with time (97).

We were finally back to our sponsored program with a 1996 Leoville Las Cases, which had a gorgeous nose and a sexy feminine perfume that still managed to be forceful. Cassis and a touch of tobacco rounded out the nose. Its palate was very chalky at first, and earth and weed joined the party, and I say weed with only positive attributes in mind. It blossomed into a long, feminine, balanced and pure wine full of mineral and dry cassis flavors (95).

The 1996 La Mission Haut Brion was even more perfumed and had a sweet cotton candy edge. It was sweet and almost tropical. Eric found the same buttered popcorn. quality that reminded him of 1989. There were charcoal and mineral flavors that were expressive and possessing pop.. I did not write down an exact score, but I remember that it was in what I would call the very good. zone, 90-92 points, maybe a touch more.

The 1996 Haut Brion had cinnamon, leather, spine, lavender and a touch of vanilla. It got fatter and sweeter in the nose, but the palate was shy and simpler than expected. There were a touch of garden and beef flavors, but this Haut Brion was definitely hibernating a bit (92).

Ray snuck in a palate cleansing 1971 Mumm’s Rene Lalou. Champagne. It had very exotic tea aromas with honeycomb and rainwater aromas to its fresh nose. It was very classy, balanced, long and sensual. It also had a nice, expressive, rocky finish (93).

I got two out of the next three official. wines for the evening, beginning with a 1986 Mouton Rothschild. Its long, spicy and spiny nose was showing a bit more wood than usual, yet it was still very brooding with dark and deep black fruit along with charcoal. It was very dry and long in the mouth but not intrusive in either of those regards, possessing great balance despite the fact it still seemed like a baby. Despite excellent provenance, it was not the best bottle of this wine that I have had yet indubitably great. I have just had a couple of near-perfect experiences with it, and this was not that. That is one of the reasons one has to taste the world’s greatest wines over and over again, of course, and something that we would never speak upon when in France.. Did someone say bottle variation (96+) ?

The 1986 Lynch Bages was a great showing for Lynch next to its big brother of a Pauillac. It was drinking spectacularly, to be frank, and was in that just right, wine sweet spot that can last for many years, longer than the average American marriage, that’s for sure. There was great cedar, t n a and a long, beefy Szechuan style about its aromas. Long and smooth with cedar and mineral flavors, its palate was also great. I preferred it to the Mouton on this night yet rated the Mouton higher because of the long-term potential factor. I think Mouton will be the greater in the long run. Go write a post about it (95+).

I managed to get a swallow of 1989 Richebourg which was classic and smooth. Sorry, it was just a swallow (93).

Big Boy served up a flight of 37s beginning with a 1937 Roumier Clos Vougeot. Well, sometimes, it’s the thought that counts as the Roumier was unfortunately corked, and behind it was an unsavory combination of coffee and vegetal notes. There was some oatmeal brown sugar trying to fight through along with some confectioners and Worcestershire flavors, but in the end its impression was one that left a dirty Jersey. impression. No offense, Jersey, and you guys know what I am talking about anyway (DQ/NR?).

Drumroll, please. A 1937 La Tache was next, a bottle from the Drouhin cellars. It was beyond spectacular and clearly wine of the night. The nose was an orgasmic symphony of beef, blood, iron, spine, musk, oil, leather, citrus&. RIDICULOUS. summed up my notes and the never-ending tale of its aromatic prowess. The palate was also spectacular, showing similar, rich flavors of beef, minerals and blood with an orange twist. Rich, lush, balanced and still powerful, I wish every wine critic got to taste a wine like this to truly understand what a 99-point wine is all about (99).

A 1937 Leroy Richebourg should have been served second, but it was a bit hectic at the time with the glassware and the table, so I was happy that I didn.t miss it like a couple of other wines served prior. There was a smoky and earthy edge to this big and brawny Leroy, but there was still balance and grace here. There were great earth flavors in this wine, which was more Leroy’s style than 37’s or Richebourg.s, but we don.t have to go there. It was still very special (95).

Big Mike uncurled a magnum of 1989 Petrus, and the feeding frenzy was on. Its nose was expectedly wound with lots of cedar and breed, along with traces of cinnamon and edges of leather. It was so wound, infantile came to mind, or maybe that was the behavior of all my friends. I can.t remember now. Chances are, it was both. The 89’s structure, texture and length in the mouth were impeccable. This will be one of the all-time great Petruses (97+M).

Three Latours were on the table courtesy of Sinai, and one magnum of Champagne courtesy of Bruce, who was well on the loose by now. The 1990 Latour was classic with the hot weed and earth components of this particular vintage of Latour, that touch of a roasted edge the 1990 always seems to have. There were nice minerals to its nose, and its palate was very polished, long, balanced and smooth with nice vim (95).

The 1982 Latour also had a touch of weed to it at first, but less so than the 1990. There were big aromas of beef, band-aid, garden and game. Long and smooth, I was taken aback by a lack of expected power, although Ray commented that if Latour could ever be elegant, it would certainly be the 1982.. Its elegance and style were exquisite, don.t get me wrong, but I was a bit letdown and hoping for more, to be honest. You know it’s a great wine when 96 points is a letdown (96).

Bruce couldn.t wait any longer for his rare magnum of 1976 Philliponnat Clos des Goisses.. I never know if I am spelling Philliponnat right. Two P’s in the middle? One L? How about the N.s? This is a Champagne that needs a rap name like P-nuts.. Yes, the P-nuts was great, full of toast and nut, long and edgy. Candied honey, Bruce gleefully observed. It was spectacular Champagne and the perfect antidote for the end of meal blues (96+M).

Lastly, the 1970 Latour was one of the better bottles of this I have had, producing a deep, long nose and a long, spiny palate. I’m hammered, summed up this one and was the last thing that I officially recorded (94).

Well, it wasn.t quite lastly, as Patman had some underground speakeasy where to lure us. There was plenty of Champagne, dancing and even some interviews. All in all, it was a fun night and most importantly one that benefited one of the most important hospitals not only in New York City, but also in America.

A casual conversation turned into a weekend road trip to Chicago in search of some grub. It was supposed to be an Alinea and Trotter.s weekend, as I had been lamenting how I had never eaten at Trotter.s, and also wanting to see what the fuss was about over Alinea. However, Trotter’s has a strict BYO policy of two bottles per table, and that just wouldn.t do for our party of six. So I still haven.t been to Trotter.s. I have to save that one for a romantic weekend. We were led to Alinea by our navigator, Keith, an investor in the property and other restaurants in New York such as Publix and Tasca. He seems to have a magic touch with his restaurants!

Food and Wine hailed Alinea as America’s best restaurant last year. No argument there, as Friday night’s meal was the most daring and dramatic cuisine I have ever witnessed, as well as the best meal that I have ever had. It was well worth the journey. Wizard chef Grant Achatz orchestrated a culinary symphony that filled both the stomach and the soul with its flavor combinations and incredible presentations. I could have taken tasting notes on the 15 or so courses we had as each dish was so intricate and complex, but I decided to do what I do best and stick to the wine.

We started with an uninspiring 1979 Alain Robert Fleur des Mesnil.. It had a mature, bready nose with decent toast and yeast. There was some soda freshness, but drier flavors and touches of sherry kisses. Its flavors were dry and uninspiring, although Peter noted a touch of .citrus. way back. There was still some acidity, but it was too dry and yeasty, and there was ultimately no fruit (86).

We bought a 1989 Krug Clos du Mesnil. off the list, because we are just those kinds of guys, and it had a gorgeous nose full of marzipan and exotic creams. There was a sweet playfulness as well as a cleaner and crisper quality. There were pungent anise and citrus flavors. It was very smooth and satiny, young and tangy, yet still infantile and not showing any fat. It seemed to be a more reserved and elegant vintage by the usual Clos du Mesnil standards. Ray found it a little primary, but it did pack on some yellow, baked fruit flavors and gain in acidity (93+).

A 1973 Trimbach Clos Ste. Hune was a treat to try, still with a very fresh nose full of petrol, subtle minerals and kisses of wise, old oak. It had the gamy, old Clos Ste. Hune thing and exotic fruit underneath. The palate was round and rich but lacking acidity and a touch woody in its flavor profile. It was still very good, and there was a slight icicle impression to its tangy finish (91).

We also ordered a 1945 Huet Vouvray Le Haut Lieu. Moelleux off the list, and the sommelier shared some history with us about how Huet was actually in a POW camp and near death, emaciated and only eighty pounds when freed. The vineyard was in disarray and the vines dilapidated, but somehow Huet returned to make this stunning 1945. Amazing. There were bananas in the nose along with exotic apricot, peach and earth. Sweet caramel, yet not too sweet flavors resulted in a delicious Vouvray that had a cornucopia of flavors, according to Sir Ray, who also noted iron. and marmelade.. Apple flavors rounded out this rich, elegant and stylish off-sweet white (94).

The 1999 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres jumped from the glass with that Coche kinkiness, Bob observed. There were kernels popping, loads of minerals and ample alcohol and acidity to its fresh nose. Nutty and minerally flavors of sweet butter were complemented by a dose of wax and this sweet, white, floral honey. Rich and round with a touch of oil to its texture, the Perrieres was also earthy but lost a little definition in the glass. Flavors of rainwater, kernel and toast rounded out this excellent wine (93).

We bought one more wine off the list since we traveled lightly on the white side, a 1997 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. 1997 has been a pet vintage of mine to drink over the past year or so for the whites, as they are right thurr, and the Leflaive was no exception. There was great balance in the nose of butter, mineral, musk and that Leflaive mint wax thing. The nose was deep, yet the palate was less intense but still nice and with some vigor. Touches of spice made up for a lack of mid-palate density. Soft and charming, the 1997 was very enjoyable (91).

The 1999 Sauzet Chevalier Montrachet was anisy and pungent with a wound, intense nose full of vitamins. Scott noted a touch of chemical. and Ray licorice and mushroom.. There was honey in the mouth; a baked, glazed honey hard stick. Menthol and that gamy Sauzet style came through on the palate, which was rich and full and with flesh and definition. There was lots of anise on its long finish, and the wine grew on me with time in the glass (93+).

A 1999 Colin-Deleger Chevalier Montrachet rounded out the white portion of our program and was toasty and full-bodied with good alcohol and acid. There was lots of power in its nose along with minerals, yellow tang and citrus aromas. There was a touch more winemaker than terroir to the palate, which came across strapping yet clumsy. It opened a shred but was still a bit .synthetic?. as Scott questioned (90).

We shifted to the reds with a less than perfect 1964 Cheval Blanc that was still excellent yet definitely affected. It has a lower fill than most bottles I open of that age, but the nose was still intoxicating with its aromas of rich, hearty and chunky red fruits. Ray noted its mineral and iron. while the sommelier admired its .Rioja.-like qualities that were probably there due to the affected quality of the bottle. The bottle was not perfect, but there were still smoked meats, wintergreen and new leather with the baseball glove oil, as Ray observed, pounding his fist over and over into his hand. The palate still had some richness, and its touch of oxidation was barely noticeable. Its flavors were beefier than usual and complemented by cola and port ones, and while its concentration was still good, the wine lacked its normal definition and acid. This should be a 96 point wine and was only a (93A) on this night.

That was it for Bordeaux on this night. Tomorrow was about the Bordeaux. Of course, that meant that it was time for some Burgundy, beginning with a 1989 Mugnier Musigny. It had a gamy, nutty nose full of sappy fruit. Ray noted sweet cherry and confectioners.. I noticed tobacco and this liqueur-like edge. It was seemingly another solid 89. The palate had more vitamins and less sweetness, and came across more maturely. It had mint, earth and tobacco on its finish. Peter picked up on some metal or iron. awkward flavors. It was soft in the mouth and quickly fell off a cliff, Jay pointed out (89).

The 1991 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. had a vimful and pungent nose full of gamy, vitamin aromas, a veritable vitamin city. The palate was rich, gamy and also vitaminy with a pungent, tangy kink to its flavors. However, there was less definition and explosiveness than I would have thought this heralded 91 would have. This is theoretically one of the wines of the vintage, and if it indeed is, it doesn.t say as much about where the 1991 vintage is heading (92).

The 1993 Rousseau Chambertin, by contrast, delivered an A to Z experience and the weekend’s first outstanding wine. It, too, was vitamin city in the nose but also stem city, and it also had a wealth of crushed red, black and purple fruits to match. The palate was rich and oily, its finish huge and leathery with loads of alcohol and acid. Somehow, it was still velvety, smooth and delicious. It was tough to revisit the other reds on the table after tasting this beauty (96+).

By this time, we were already on our fifth or sixth course, causing Jay to comment that the food made other top restaurants. cuisine seem like .White Castle..

The 1993 Jean Gros Richebourg was cursed by being hailed by Ray as one of my favorite producers and a dark horse.. The nose was a bit reticent and had a touch of lit match, rainwater and light minerals. You had to dig but could see there was depth here, and the palate had a lot of t n a but lacked front and mid-palate definition at the moment. Mint flavors emerged in this potentially dormant wine (91).

We finished with a quartet of 1993 Leroys, beginning with the 1993 Leroy Richebourg, which had a deep, dark, sexy, meaty and musky Leroy nose. Vitamins, iron, earth, leather and stems all abounded, and its intensity of fruit was ridiculous, someone observed. The palate was big and long yet less fleshy than I expected. The finish was long and leathery with nice dryness and rich, earthy flavors. It was so on the border between being excellent and outstanding that I felt like I needed a visa to drink it (94+).

The 1993 Leroy Vosne Romanee Les Beauxmonts. was long, seamy, sexy, nutty, minerally and slaty in its subtle yet firm nose. Meaty, rich, tasty, long and nutty, it had very good acidity and a long spine and qualitatively closer to the Richebourg than I would have thought (94).

The 1993 Leroy Clos Vougeot was a touch off and corked in the nose. Behind that, there was quality, and it seemed that the style of Leroy was unmistakably more noticeable than that of the vineyard. All these wines were eerily similar (93A).

What was supposed to be the last wine of the night was the 1993 Leroy Chambertin. Theory and practice came together finally, as the Chambertin had the best nose, the most breed, and still that Leroy style, of course, but the vineyard expressed itself more here. There seemed to be more Asian influences in its flavors, along with leather, beef and stem, perhaps a touch of venison, even (95).

I forgot we ordered one more wine off the list, a 1986 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline.. I remember this being a bit of a sleeper Mouline, but by this point and after 15 or so courses, we were all sleepers! The nose was very open, rich and chocolaty with aromas of nuts and caramel. The palate was peppery and spicy, not that spicy but decent. It was nut city in the mouth and had a touch of coconut skin to it but was not as tasty as I remember, or maybe I was hallucinating at this point (91).

It was Super Bowl weekend, so there were Bears, Bears, Bears everywhere. It was also frigid with temperatures flirting with zero degrees. Saturday there happened to be an auction in town, so we spent the day at the auction and drank a few things during the day to keep warm. I was actually working at the auction on my laptop on our own February catalog, so there was some sort of simultaneous combustion happening in the room.

After much hesitating on my part, as I was still in recovery mode, we had a rare 1979 Philliponnat Clos des Goisses. Champagne, which seemed like a ringer for Krug. Champagne is the best way to work through a hangover or get back on the horse, so to speak. The nose was spectacular; rich, bready, toasty and yeasty. Bob admired the fact that it was undergoing the perfect transition from young to old.. Meaty and rich in the mouth, it had hints of mint and caramel and was flat-out stunning (96).

A 1999 Grands Echezeaux had great aromatics, sensual with its red brick and forest floor fruit, cassis, iodine and lit match. It was still an infant, yet rounder and softer in the glass than I expected. There were nice stem flavors, but it seemed a bit hibernating (93).

A 1996 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes. had a weird, chemical nose with wood shavings, firm t n a, and sweet, simple cherry behind it. Flavors of sour milk were not that great, and it seemed Ponsot really missed the mark in this vintage. He does have that reputation as being an all or nothing, home run or strikeout, kind of producer, and this was definitely a strikeout (84).

We snagged a 2004 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne off the list, and it had fabulous and fresh aromatics, full of signature Coche minerality, nut, rain, honey, white smoke and citrus. It was a touch sweet aromatically, flirting with a Caliesque style, but it had great complexity of earth in there as well. It was softer in the mouth but still a baby, and Gil picked up on unripe gooseberry on the finish.. There was lushness and small doses of citrus and butter, all covered up. There was a little pop to the finish but more of a reserved quality. It needed time and will most likely be outstanding in time (94+).

We finished the afternoon where we started, with some Champagne, a 1982 Salon. The Salon had a nutty, gamy nose, more pungent than the Goisses. There was a touch of sweet cream there as well. It was still very fresh, a touch baked and yeasty in its flavors. Burnt orange edges and a kiss of sherry rounded things out. Ray noted that it had good champagne oxidation. and wondered whether there was an ever so slight touch of VA (95).

Thankfully, I got a long nap before dinner at the Peninsula’s new Avenues. restaurant. It was only five or six blocks from where we were staying, so we decided to take a brisk walk over. It was so cold that by the time we got to the Peninsula, I had a headache from the cold. It was unbelievable.

We warmed back up with a magnum of 1979 Charles Heidseick Cuvee Charlie. Champagne. This magnum was released in 2000 by Heidseick and accordingly fresher than the average 79. There were nice, pure aromas of buttered toast and light sweetness. Bob noted strawberry jam.. Ray complained it was a bit young out of magnum, and that a recent experience out of bottle was better. It was very fresh and racy, long and with zest and pinches of apple and citrus. It lacked flesh in the mouth yet fattened out a bit with time (92M).

A pair of Cunes was next. Old Riojas are one of my favorite things, converging towards old clarets while maintaining a unique Spanish kink, and Cune is one of the best producers of the 20th Century. I have had great Cunes dating back to the 20s and 30s and was happy to see a pocket pair on the board.

The 1950 Cune Rioja Vina Real. Gran Reserva had the nose of a great Bordeaux, very 50s Cheval in my mind a la 53 or .55. Ray admired its chocolate, and it was big-time chocolate. We all concurred it would be a great ringer in a Bordeaux tasting. Sundried cherry, leather and tobacco emerged. The palate was medium-rich and round with a long, chalky finish. Bob picked up on clove, leather and sandalwood.. It was rusty and vimful with great brick and pottery aromas and flavors, simply a beautiful wine (94).

The 1962 Cune Rioja Vina Real. Gran Reserva was musty in the nose; Ray called it bretty. and Bob sweatier.. If you could get past that, there was nice cherry jam, more jam here than the 1950. More Rhone-like in nature, the 1962 had peppery and smoky flavors, blacker fruits, leather and baked caramel edges. There was more richness, power and length here, but that is not always a better thing as I preferred the 1950 stylistically. I suppose the must didn.t help (93+A).

We had a mystery wine courtesy of the restaurant, which was a generous touch. It was served blind. Someone noted it was more like two than one, and it was and seemingly Spanish, having that egg-like Vega edge. A touch of pepper graced its Rhonish palate, which was obviously much younger than the first two wines, a baby in comparison with its modern, black fruits. Smooth, round and young, this 1995 Cune Rioja Vina Real. Gran Reserva was very good but needed another decade or two (91).

A quartet of serious 1989 Bordeaux was how we decided to finish the evening, at least the dinner portion of our program. There was no messing around, as we started with a 1989 La Mission Haut Brion. Smoky, gravelly and slaty were the first words that came to mind, but the wealth of cassis and plum fruit behind it quickly took over. Still a baby in its own right, its wealth of fruit was ridiculous and also quite enjoyable despite its youthful personality. Cigar and cedarbox. came from the crowd. In the mouth, the wine was rich and mouthfilling with a great, lush texture. Flavors of plum, tobacco and dry caramel graced this potentially 80-year old wine. It was so poised with incredible tension between its fruit and structure.. Its fruit flexed in an elegant way. Bob said that if he believed in 100 points, this would be it. I countered even if I believed in 100 points as well, it was still too young for that (97).

The 1989 Troplong Mondot also had a great nose with a hi-toned note of pine resin?. Bob questioned. The nose was deep, long and spicy, very Cheval with its wintergreen components. Its rich, red fruits were very saucy, and there was great t n a. Hints of chocolate rounded out the nose. The palate was also rich and saucy with just a shred missing in the middle, but enormous power on its backside. Peter noted its chocolate, and it got waxier (95).

We shifted gears to Pomerol with the 1989 Clinet, whose nose was markedly different with its pungent style. Anise, plum liqueur, minerals and chocolate sex oozed from its decadent nose. It was a black and purple hornet of a wine, also touched by cream, yeast and hints of exotic fruits like fig and date. Rich yet soft with light minerals and light texture, there was more balance and initial softness in the mouth than I expected from its wound and flamboyant nose. Gamy, anisy, cherry and truffle flavors rounded out its profile, but the Clinet did keep gaining and putting on weight with more air, and it also gained this lime-like exoticness. Ray and Peter preferred the Troplong while Bob the Clinet, and I must admit that I waffled a bit back and forth and finally decided that they were qualitatively equal, although I think the Clinet has the potential for a longer life (95+).

We ended with perhaps my favorite wine from the vintage, the 1989 Lafleur. Tonight was no exception. The nose was brooding, almost like Frankenstein in a trance. It left us all in a trance, digging deeper to get at the core of this extraordinary wine. Its deep, dark nose was full of concentrated purple and black fruits and a touch of currant tang. It had the spice, the spine; this was serious juice with amazing t n a, brood and breed. Ray and I got into an 89 versus 90 Lafleur debate, him being on the wrong side of it with the 90. Hints of raisiny sex appeal rounded out the nose. The finish was huge without being huge, like the 6. 8. power forward that can still bring the ball up the court; aka, it was still stylish despite its large frame. It is still my favorite Lafleur of the last forty years, pure class in the glass (98).

Surprisingly to me, four out of the five dentists who drank these 89s preferred the La Mission. If there was a jukebox in the joint, I would have played, I drink alone..

We put our differences aside to slide over to the other side of the hotel into the bar, pop a few Champagnes and poll some local women. The 1999 Cristal was stellar, full yet elegant, long yet taut, with sweet fruit yet a dry finish. There was great elegance and length to this thoroughbred of a Champagne (96).

A 1990 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill. was off (DQ), so we went to the 1991 Philliponnat Clos des Goisses, which had nice effervescence and bread aromas. Gil, who had just joined us for a nightcap after a Commanderie 1982 event, pegged butchershop. with that sawdust on the floor and meat combination of aromas that one gets when walking in to a butchershop. It was a great call. The 1991 was delicious with nice caramel and toast flavors and lots of character. Full-bodied and with admirable length, the 1991 was impressive for a vintage where you do not see much Champagne (94).

Some of us went out, and some of us went home. It was Super Bowl weekend in one of the Super. towns, after all. The rest of the weekend is strictly classified information.

I know everyone thinks that I am out every night of the week drinking like I am starring in Leaving Las Vegas 2.. Well after the last three months of 2005, I felt like I had been on about twenty too many auditions, and I started to lay low, save new Year’s Eve as you all know about already. The laying low has continued, but the second week of January brought me out to Los Angeles for some work in a cellar and a notable night out, at least one where I was actually taking notes.

It is only fitting that my first official tasting of 2007 would be with the Royal Order of the Purple Palate, Dr. Desai presiding. It was good to see the gang, including a couple of emergency substitutes, which were already part of my gang anyway.

A blind Champagne was served out of magnum. It was light and without a lot of flavor definition, still possessing nice acidity but without flesh. There were rainwater flavors; it was smooth and long but seemed like a non-vintage blend on steroids at first. It was very dry and bready, more back street than opening night, but also more stylish and racy over time. It was a 1990 Pierre Moncuit Le Mesnil. (90).

All wines are served blind at a Purple Palate event, and we started with a flight of three whose clue was same grape, same region..

The first wine of this flight was very aromatic with a lot going on in its nose. There was fleshy fruit, exotic mint mocha chip and tobacco like a wet cigar leaf. It also had caramel, more mocha and this exotic smoked meat quality. Touches of grape and lavender rounded out the nose. Its mouth was tasty with lots of rocky flavors, cassis and dirt. It was a touch burnt, but in a good way. Christian admired its incredible texture and sweetness, as did Joe. It was a 1959 Heitz Pinot Noir. Who says Cali is a Cab, Cab world (95) ?

Although I have given away some general information about the flight, at the time I was writing this note, we were all still clueless. The second wine was even more mint chocolate chip than the first, sweeter and with more tobacco, also eucalyptus, oak and vanilla. It had nice balance, round and with a bit of ice cream flavors. It was smooth, long and a bit oakier but not offensively so, and it also still had good acid for a 1952 Pinot Noir, a 1952 Martin Ray Pinot Noir, to be precise (92).

There was one more wine in this rare and fascinating flight, and it was the sweetest of the three, very decadent and port-like. Open and exotic, Wolf remarked how it shows so much wood, and Jefery concurred with .vanilla and oak.. It was Wolf’s least favorite of the flight, but I liked its creamy and caroby palate, also marked by hints of smoke and citrus. It was chunky and had some soda aspects to its flavor profile, but it was also figgy, fleshy and seemed more advanced. Well, it was the oldest of the flight, being a 1949 B.V. Beaumont. Pinot Noir. Obviously, Beaumont carried a little more weight back then than it does now as a designation (93).

Once the flight was revealed, a heated discussion ensued. There was a general consensus that the flight was a bit Cabernet-ish in style, and Christian commented how perhaps a bit of field blending. occurred. Then Ed gave a fascinating tidbit about how back then, that taxes were different for different grapes, so it would not be surprising if winemakers put Cabernet in a Pinot bottle to pay less taxes since Cabernet was the most highly taxed grape! He then commented about how the flight reminded him of a decade in Burgundy when he just started drinking, the 1830s. Just kidding, Ed :).

The next flight.s clue was same vineyard, three different vintages, flown in by the proprietor.. Leave it to Bipin to get one of the greatest wineries in the world to hand-fly in a flight of wines for his monthly get-together. That’s Big Boy Style, although Bipin is never one to admit it!

The first wine had a mature nose yet was still fresh. Apple, cassis and plum were all there; the nose was definitely full of fruit. Musky, nutty, sensual and long, its nose was matched by its palate, which was rich, meaty, round, long and balanced. Its mouth-filling personality had great flavors of earth, chocolate, tobacco, caramel and citrus. Ed and Joe admired its raisiny ripeness. and concluded it had to be a wine from a warm weather climate. Eventually, we were informed it was a 1953 Vega Sicilia Unico (96).

The second wine was aromatic and smoky with sun-dried, red cherry fruit and tobacco aromas along with a dollop of citrus. Smooth and balanced, the wine was drier than the first, long and nutty with great spice and acidity. It kept gaining in the glass, impressive for a 1942 Vega Sicilia Unico (95).

The final wine of the flight was a 1964 Vega Sicilia Unico. A forgotten Unico, the 1964 reminded me that there is no such thing as a bad vintage of Unico. Its nose was chunky and chocolaty, yeasty yet fresh. There were aromas of egg, earth, tobacco, smoke and cassis. Tasty and with great length, the 64 was dirty, smooth, fleshy and chocolaty, also possessing great acidity (95).

Inspector Levy noted how there was not as wide a difference (between the wines) as the age.. Hmmmmmm. They released that 1970 how many years ago?

There was one flight to go, whose clue was Consecutive decades, same grape variety from two small properties sharing an ancient name.. Got all that?

The nose was a bit different in the first wine with this pungent, twisted, spiny character and lots of Worcestershire aromas. Very beefy in a bouillon way, it was long and kissed by mature barley and earth flavors along with oil, plum and petrol in this very deep wine, a 1959 Leroy La Romanee (93).

More chocolaty, dirty and a bit grassy, the second wine in this flight was very rich, also with lots of bouillon. Earth, band-aid and mushroom tea (don.t ask me how I know that one) flavors were present in this wild, wooly and dirty 1949 Marey-Monge Romanee St. Vivant. This was the property that eventually purchased (91).

The last wine of this flight had the cleanest nose of the flight with its fresh, citric vigor and tang. Earth and lemon made their way to the foreground in this spiny and vigorous wine, which did seem slightly chapitalized, but I still liked it. Wolf complained that it was too young. and questioned whether it was doctored.. Well, it was a late release Leroy, a 1961 Leroy La Romanee the RD of vintage wines (94).

There was a dessert wine, but in case you haven.t noticed, I don.t pay much attention to those. Having arrived from the East coast just a couple hours before dinner, it was time to say good night.

This year, Big Boy had an intimate gathering of 15 or 20 close friends at his home in New York City, and I was one of the invited guests. It was the perfect remedy for what traditionally has been a night that I stay in, as in New York City it can often be amateur night without the Apollo.

We had a quick pre-game huddle and decided that we would drink Champagne from 7:30-9pm, change it to red wine until 10:30pm and then finish with Champagne for the rest of the night. It was a good game plan.

A magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon Rose kicked things off, and Jim and Wendy were all over its strawberry and cream. aromas. That was the nose in a nutshell, which also had excellent freshness, complementary rose, subtle earth and white chocolate. There was also nice freshness in the mouth with good vim and fine bubbles. It was not superlative Champagne but was solid, a little dirty in its flavors on its long finish. The acidity seemed to be going with the wind (93M).

The magnum of 1966 Moet Brut Imperial that followed had a gorgeous nose of honey, nut, cream and toast. There was great blend and balance, and it was still fresh with warm, medium-bodied straw and earth flavors, a touch of yeast, and again a bit of a dirty finish. There were also tasty yellow fruit and gold dust flavors. A lot of people preferred this to the 75 Rose (93M).

That was a big bottle of 1975 Bollinger RD, a jero to be precise. Jeros always seem so much bigger when you are trying to actually pour one! Big Boy was a bit aggravated, as he felt the 75 was not cold enough.. This bottle was re-disgorged in 1996 and had a very wafery nose, very distinct. There was supporting straw, yeast and sun-dried yellow fruits. It was lightly creamy and lightly tasty, and then tootsie pop aromas developed, and I got seconded on that emotion. There was not a lot of fruit definition in the mouth, which gave it a lighter-styled impression. There were baked bread and earth flavors, nice sprite and decent acidity. Wendy came up with .cookie dough and baked pineapple. aromas along the tootsie pop lines and also admired its effervescence. Jim finally noted that it tastes younger. You can tell about the RD. (91J).

That was all the time left in the first period, so we segued into some red wines. First was a magnum of 1929 Haut Brion, from the same batch that I had at the Top 100 Weekend in October. It again delivered a complex experience. Rob noted that it was so Burgundian, while Wendy admired its Asian spices. Tobacco, leather, mesquite and espresso bean were all very expressive, and despite these aged aromas dominating, there was still a healthy dose of cassis fruit underneath it. Wendy picked up on green tea and saffron.. There was still amazing color to this gravelly magnum. Its palate was pretty, less complex than its aromatics with nice flavors of Worcestershire, citrus and mocha. Paul found smoked sausage, and Teona even got into the act with antique wood.. It was very consistent with the Top 100 magnum. It got tangier, prompting Rob to say drink em up. This is totally integrated and ready to go.. Tasty, balanced and smooth, there were nice, cedary flavors and still light vim on the finish (95M).

A 1952 Cheval Blanc magnum was next. 1952 is one of my favorite Right Bank vintages and still a bit of a secret. Someone admired its smoky. nose. I found its nose to be incredible, full of crushed red fruits, sweet black cherry liqueur and oil, musk, marinated lamb, and nice floral sexy back. behind it. It was black and blue and red all over, symphonic in its aromatic display with touches of bramble, cigar and leather. It flavors were pure, its balance between fruit and finish superb, and its definition extra special. There was still a prettiness to it, its length and backside both elegant and firm. Wendy and Jim combined with .lavender, tea leaves, hoisin, Worcestershire, Burgundian, spectacular.. It was pretty special (96+M).

The 1978 Gaja Barbaresco held its own after the Cheval, but it was a touch corked, but not enough to cloud the judgment or experience of it. There was still the classic tar and leather, along with a bit of motor oil. It was very wound with a lot more structure than I expected. It was very spiny, possessing extraordinary acidity in the mouth. It was very schreechy, long and earthy with a hint of potpourri (93M).

The 1978 P. Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle. had a spectacular nose, singing with that Rhone bacon and menthol, as well as some good barnyard, as Jim noted, but it was a barnyard distinct for the Rhone. It has slow and slithering t n a, an anaconda of a nose almost, along with great spice and beef. Wendy picked up on .saltine. and wintergreen.. It was smooth and tasty, but there was not an ocean of acidity left nor a lot of tannins. Wendy accurately observed. The thing about 78 La Chapelle is that every time I seem to have it, even out of magnum in this example, it seems to be approaching full maturity and not this colossal infant that many people perceive it to be. Don.t get me wrong; it was a great bottle of wine but one that I always seem to expect more from (95M).

Wine time was over, and it was time to batten down the hatches and drink a lot more Champagne. If there is anyone in America with a greater Champagne collection than Big Boy, then I want to meet him! There were plenty of options on hand, but Rob wanted to freshen our palates back up with a 1996 head to head match-up of Salon vs. DP Rose. These were both served out of bottle and the only things on this night not served out of larger format.

The 1996 Salon was served out of a successfully sabered 750ml. There were actually four successfully sabered bottles by our host, who must have been practicing a lot on cases of Korbel or something, as he had it down. The 1996 Salon was like the razor’s edge; there was so much vim, vigor and acidity here it was like being in the eye of a storm. One could see the greatness of the 1996 vintage in the Salon, which was fresh as a baby.s bottom. It was white meaty underneath that 1996 greatness; so balanced, so long, so stylish and deeply penetrating. Rob gave it 6 stars. Incredible. Pure Blanc de Blanc Le Mesnil. No dosage.. It was probably the greatest young Champagne that I have ever tasted (97+).

The 1996 Dom Perignon Rose was no match for the Salon. Wendy called it a disservice. to serve this after the Salon. There were light rose and pink grapefruit aromas. It had some intensity and length to the palate, lots of acid but a softer character of flavor, and lots of dirty earth flavors on the finish as well, much like the.75 and 66. It just didn.t stack up to the Salon (93).

Magnum force returned with a 1959 Pommery. Someone called it Vahlrona chocolate.. It did have an exotic nose, a bit wild and wet, yeasty with some swimming pool there. Its wine-like palate had tangy fino flavors on its finish. It had tasty, creamy and nutty flavors, and cocoa traces on the finish (91M).

Jim and Wendy had most generously brought a magnum of 1959 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, which was the most exotic and complex&wine of the night. It first revealed cream and orange soda qualities and was a bit reserved. It became milky, earthy and white dirty in a good way. Wendy called it .fruit salad. due to its tropical exotic edges. It was very wine-like, and much more complex in the mouth. It actually drank like a fine, aged Montrachet. It was incredibly buttery, and even Pat separately noted how it was like a nutty, old Montrachet. and also picked up on .canteloupe.. Comtes de Champagne is 100% Chardonnay and a Blanc de Blancs Champagne. The butter, the toffee, the toasted nuts; it was an insanely good white Burgundy, more special by the fact that it was almost 50 years old. Many great old Champagnes become wine-like, and I have come across no finer example of that fact than this 59 (96M).

A magnum of 1959 Dom Perignon had a touch of freshwater to it, a pinch of good stalk and white sugar aromas. It was the freshest of the 59s but also had a weird, indoor wax aroma. It got more sugary in the glass along the line of a Dr. Brown’s celery soda and was good but not a standout after the Taittinger (92M).

Finally, some Krug. However, the magnum of 1962 Krug Private Cuvee Extra Sec was oxidized and very flat (DQ).

No fear, the 1964 Krug Collection was here. It was great, also having that younger quality of the Bollinger RD as Jim referred to, but Rob was adamant that Krug does not disgorge with younger vintages as other houses might, because that is what Remi Krug told him and is also so fresh due to the steel corks that they age the bottles with. So I asked Rob to ask his good friend Remi Krug himself about what happens behind the scenes at Krug, whose response was:

.Disgorgement is the ugly name for the operation by which the sediment formed in each bottle by the secondary fermentation is expelled out of the bottle, allowing the Champagne to be bright and limpid as one expects. As such, every champagne must be disgorged. At Krug, we usually do this 8 months to one year prior to expected shipment date. This is a minimum because, for some of our wines, and in particular for Krug Collection vintages, there may be a much longer period of time between disgorgement and shipment. There is no mathematical time. It varies as we feel best appropriate.

This being said, disgorgement date does not have, for Krug, the importance that some people believe from what they hear as the truth for some of our colleagues. The exceptional and well acknowledged longevity of Krug results from ( i ) the quality of our very strict selection of grapes, ( ii ) our unique first fermentation in small oak casks which literally “vaccinates” our wines against future oxidation and consequently grants them this extraordinary longevity, and, finally, ( iii ) the quality and harmony of the blend itself. These are, for Krug, I insist, the real reasons for the extraordinary taste developments over many years and even decades. In this very specific context, the disgorging date is a minute detail of no real importance.

And, beyond all this, there is, of course, ( iv ) the storage conditions. Ideal here in Krug cellars, near to perfect at the most serious wine stores&this can really affect the ageing pace of any great wine. You should always buy your great wines from great wine specialists..

It was much more intense than the Bollinger; big, full and long, there was great sprite here. It was rich in the mouth with intense straw and cream flavors, highlighted by white truffles dipped in chocolate. Yum (96M).

The ball dropped, and a jero of 1949 Pommery came out. Having recently had both the 53 and 47 Pommery out of Jeroboam with Big Boy, he mentioned that he had saved the best for last. Clearly, that was the case. I had never seen anyone saber a bottle of champagne, let alone a magnum, but when Big Boy sabered the 49 Pommery jeroboam, holding the pundt in one hand and the saber in another with no outside assistance after nearly five hours of imbibing, i knew we were in an official wine twilight zone. Fresh, special, pure and long, the Pommery was light on its feet yet packed a punch (95J).

Last but not least was a magnum of 1961 Dom Perignon .Charles and Diana Wedding Cuvee.. This was specially released from Dom Perignon for the Royal Wedding. Big Boy got a few cases when he recently acquired Buckingham Palace. Ok, so maybe he only made an unsolicited offer. Pat found the 61 Krug-like.. It was fresh, long, spiny and had a vigorous and intense palate, an outstanding Champagne (95M).

The notes were waning, and the dance floor was heating up, as Big Boy turned his living room into the Marquee and led the booty shaking. It was a great way to ring in 2007.