I have to say that my first week using the dictaphone has been a resounding success. Expect a flurry of notes from me this summer, as I have a lot of catching up to do, and the following notes are Part III of my trip to Bordeaux…last December.

My third day in Bordeaux last December was centered around a lunch at Chateau Figeac. When we arrived at the Chateau, I was practically falling asleep due to some irregular sleep patterns, but I was quickly able to gather myself in time for a spectacular lunch by our most hospitable and generous hosts, Thierry and Marie-France Manoncourt, the proprietors of Chateau Figeac.

It started innocently enough with the 2004 Figeac, for which I only have a brief note, as I was still warming, make that waking, up. The 2004 was classic, rustic and gritty. Thierry commented how Figeac was the only Right Bank wine with such a high percentage of Cabernet Sauvignon (91).

Next up was the 2003 Figeac and not counting the wines from Hubert de Bouard, the Figeac was the most concentrated Right Bank wine that I had tasted so far from 2003. It had more natural concentration and purity and was very tasty and ready to go. I was very impressed by Figeac’s ’03, even more so than Cheval Blanc (93).

The 2001 Figeac had a deep plumy nose with lots of wintergreen, plum, chocolate and spice aromas. It was quite impressive in the palate with its subtle spice box, solid tannins and alcohol, and long minerally finish. There were also plum, chocolate and earth flavors; the wine had elegance, length and style. It was very impressive, but after the 1990 and 1986 that followed, it didn’t seem quite as special (93).

The 1990 Figeac was very aromatic with lots of olive aromas, both green and black, also with lots of red, wintry fruits, earth and stalk. There was excellent concentration in the mouth, and the wine was very rich yet still so smooth. The nose got saucier and riper, sexier as purple joined the party. There was a nice Cabernet Franc kick to its flavors on the finish. Bipin admired its balance and great acidity. I was then told that the average blend of Figeac is generally 35% Cabernet Franc, 35% Cabernet Sauvignon and 30% Merlot. Olives continued to dominate the wine in a fantastic way (95).

The 1986 Figeac was all about the leather at first, “cuire” someone commented. It had a beautiful nose with more wintergreen, meat, nut, and plummy, sweet, purple fruits. There was a cake-like quality to its sweetness. There was also a kiss of olive, but that was secondary. The palate was rich, long and with excellent tannins and acidity, just a flat-out great Figeac. The ’86 actually had more vigor then the ’90 as it stayed in the glass, still maintaining its level of richness and style, and Madame Nicolas of La Conseillante, who was also a guest at the lunch, also admired its character (95+).

We then time traveled back two decades to the 1966 Figeac. Frank was having a “winegasm” over the nose, but I found it a bit shy, with pinches of anise, minerals and cat box, an edgy personality overall. There were also black fruits underneath. The palate was smooth and pretty, supple with nice earth and forest flavors and a kiss of mineral grit. Bipin thought the ’66 “had everything,” and he could not believe I preferred the 1986 more, but I found the ’66 a bit mellow and liked the whips and chains of the ’86, I joked. The 1966 did put on more weight with time in the glass, and the nose became more and more classic with the wintermint, red fruit and leather flavors, but the palate never quite caught up to the nose in this excellent and beautifully mature Figeac (93). The grand finale was a rare bottle of 1950 Figeac, a vintage that Bipin hailed as a “great Figeac.” The bottle had a cognac-like edge that really jumped out at me, and even Wolfgang found it “very alcoholic.” Mrs. Manoncourt felt that this bottle needed aeration and some extra elbow action, so to speak. Behind that cognac was some chocolate, but this bottle did have a touch of oxidation to it. The wine was “very powerful,” according to Bipin, “more than normal,” according to Wolfgang. There was a lot of concentration on the palate but it was a bit figgy in its flavor profile along with secondary flavors of rust, earth and chocolate. There was a lot of alcohol, earth and leather on the finish, but a kiss of must on the palate. Upon further review, Thierry went down to the cellar to get another bottle, as this one was a bit off. About twenty minutes later, Thierry returned with a second bottle of 1950, and we were all very glad he did. The second bottle was much better. Initially it had shy and sexy fruit, black and purple with pinches of fig and chocolate, all supplemented by light earth. The fruit was so rich that it buried the earth and light leather as well. There was a touch of minerals, baked bread and sexy spice, almostgingerbread in nature. The fruit was so fresh, and the second bottle was night compared to day, or vice versa. The wine was unbelievable in the mouth – rich, big, round, long and with a huge finish. There was plenty of dust and wintry spice and “fabulous!” and “extraordinaire!” came out of the mouth of Madame Nicolas. It was a special experience, indeed. We were then told that three double magnums of the 1950 remain in the cellars at Figeac – what a treat those will be! The palate was long, gritty and decadent with its plum flavors and extraordinary concentration. We were told that at this time Figeac was bottled barrel by barrel, which would account for variation. There was great structure in the nose and excellent grit in the mouth of this extraordinary wine. The rust, leather, earth and tobacco delivered “oomph” and “kapow” like Batman, and Bipin loved its “candy-like sweetness.” This wine was so fresh, as were all of the wines we tasted in Bordeaux that were older for that matter. “Something has to be said about the wines coming from the vintner,” Frank wisely observed (97).

I was most impressed with the wines of Chateau Figeac and left not only feeling fat and happy but also a bit perplexed that this extraordinary Chateau does not receive the recognition that it deserves in the context of other St. Emillions. I can see no logical or sane argument that excludes Figeac from having the highest rating of Premier Grand Cru Classe in St. Emilion. Thierry has always beat to his own drum and is certainly still a fiery and intense personality despite the fact he is approaching ninety years of age. Perhaps he has rubbed some people the wrong way, but I would think that those in control in Bordeaux would be able to put that aside and rate this classic wine on its obvious merits.

After a trip into the actual city of Bordeaux that afternoon, I skipped Wednesday night’s dinner with Alexandre de Lur Saluces, as I was exhausted and needed to rest. All this drinking can be very tiring! The next day, Thursday, we said goodbye to Bordeaux and headed up to Paris where we had a very special dinner planned at Le Cinq at George V, with Aubert de Villaine, only a mere two weeks after I had the La Tache vertical with him in California.

We started with the 1992 Krug Clos du Mesnil, which Frank and I were not feeling at that moment. I didn’t even feel like taking a tasting note. I’ve had this Champagne on later occasions and have found it to be much better. Perhaps it was just that moment in space and time, but it did not leave an impressive impression on that evening. In our initial conversations, Aubert separately shared that he felt 1999 at was the closest vintage he had ever seen to perfection, where both man and nature were in perfect harmony. Take that one to the cellars, folks.

We started with the 2001 Lafon Meursault Charmes, which had a lovely, youthful nose full of tangy and waxy citrus fruits and dust. It was very bright in its wax and mineral components and had a nice dollop of butter. The palate had good richness and roundness, very good acidity, and was quite tasty with nice dust and minerals on its finish. There were lots of citric yellow flavors, and the wine was a touch lighter in the middle but not quite having a hole. 2001 was “a serious vintage, almost too serious, different for whites, good for reds and has never gone through bottle sickness,” Aubert shared. “It is root biting more than fruit biting,” Aubert (or someone else might have) shared about 2001 Romanee Conti(s?) (92).

Next up was a most generous gift to all of us from Wolfgang, a 1978 Montrachet, from Wolf’s cellars. The wine had an amazing nose and was still possibly the best white wine I have ever had. Wolf’s bottle was perfect, amazingly sweet and buttery in its nose with supporting honey, nut and oil. It was deep, long, fat and balanced and had big-time minerals. A botrytis debate developed between Bipin and Aubert about whether there was botrytis in the ’78 or not. Bipin felt there was a touch in not only the ’78 but also the ’71, a claim which Aubert vehemently denied. Wolfgang changed the topic, admiring the ’78 and finding it “like being wrapped in feathers.” The palate was rich, mouth-filling, long and still young, and its acidity lingered in my belly for an incredible amount of time. There was a small tribute to Bipin by Wolf for introducing him to Burgundy a long time ago, which Wolf called “the epitome of pleasure.” The Montrachet had great earth flavors and terroir, and that terroir of Montrachet was clearly evident. There was a touch of benevolent root vegetable flavors, and Wolf likened drinking this wine to a “hole in one – you need a witness.” Bipin called the Montrachet “the only white wine that can match the intensity of a red wine.” The food made the acidity stand out even more and this was certainly a spectacular experience (99).

Aubert shared that the ’69 Vogue Musigny was an epiphany for him. The issue of corks came up, and Aubert said that he has to buy all his corks two years ahead of time, has eight different suppliers and rejects a lot of corks before bottling.

It was time for some red wine, and we had a 1999 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg on tap. Frank murmured to me that the Meo was “not a zinger or doing it for me; maybe it needs some more time.” There was a lot going on in an elegant way for a ’99, lots of crushed red and black fruits, cedar, long t’n a, and some secondary brick, cinnamon, and rust aromas. The wine was very spiny and rusty, and Bipin found there to be “more oak,” but I found the oak under control. Aubert wisely observed that it was “nice to see a wine in its birth after another that is in its completeness.” The palate had razor-like acidity but was still not doing it for Frank. While Wolf and I found more merit in the wine. Bipin joked that he “had never seen Frank in such a sacrificial mood,” to which Frank countered that it was “too young,” to which I added, “we all know Frank likes his wines eighteen and older.” Frank replied in Europe, “Hey, in Europe, it’s sixteen,” which got a laugh. Aubert ended the debate by saying “Forgive me, but I’m used to young wines&I like it!” (94+)

The last wine of this most memorable meal was a 1978 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle, a bottle that came directly from the Domaine. It had a great, classic nose, with deep and dark black fruits, anise, plum, chocolate, minerals, pepper and rust. It was dank and brooding in the nose, a terminator of sorts. The palate was huge with loads of t’n a, still very youthful and almost infantile, shy in its fruit expression but definitely having the “zing thing,” according to Frank. The acidity was like an avalanche on the finish, which had a figgy edge as well. The palate was shy at first with more anise, mineral and slate, but indubitably enormous, and a pinch of flesh crept in over time as the wine gained weight in the glass. This wine was amazingly young, and its youth came across as a bit of emptiness in the beginning, but little by little the wine started to come out of its shell, but it probably needed another four to six hours for us truly to get to know it better. Earth and forest nuances developed and by the end of the evening, we all clearly saw that this was just the beginning for the 1978 La Chapelle (96+).

Aubert was still admiring the 1978 Montrachet at the end. He was clearly moved by Wolf’s generosity and he observed, “you can almost bite the fruit.” He then reminisced about his wedding in 1972, where his 600 guests were treated to twenty-five cases of 1970 Montrachet! “I would never do that today; times have changed.”

The more they change, the more the best taste better.

Ok, I know, I know. I am a bit backed up with my notes in 2006. I know it doesn’t do anyone any good for me to tell you how many notes I have taken, how many wines I have tasted in the first five months of this year, etc. Sorry, but I keep getting busier and busier, and it is the one thing I have had to sacrifice. I tried to have someone take my written notes and type them out, but it took me just as much time translating and double checking as it did writing them in the first place! So, I am going to the audiotape now, and after each event I am going to ‘write’ the event on tape to be then typed out. I hope to be able to catch up and maintain a brisker pace on my reporting duties from here on out. I am still taking notes for all my events and dinners – that you can be assured of! It might be a very newsworthy summer if I can get in a rhythm. One author’s note: I have added ‘M’ to a rating when out of magnum and will do so with ‘J’ or ‘I’ for jeroboam, imperial, etc.

I know I haven’t finished my State of Bordeaux article – that is next, I promise, but after writing about Bordeaux for a while, I had to change gears back to Burgundy for a second, and what better way to do that than to share my notes from Daniel Johnnes’ La Paulee weekend.

Daniel Johnnes did his annual ‘La Paulee’ weekend with a twist this year. Instead of the usual format, he started with a dinner at Daniel, his new home in New York, followed by a Rolling Stones concert for many and then a trip to Aspen for some skiing and more drinking, where the actual La Paulee technically occurred. This year’s La Paulee was a bit more civilized than usual due to its remote location, as a select group of connoisseurs made the trip to Aspen. Daniel, being the gentleman that he is, gave New York a taste before the show hit the road with’The Rock Stars of Burgundy at Daniel,’ as we were joined by Christoph Roumier, Dominique Lafon, Jean-Marc Roulot, Jean-Pierre de Smet of l’Arlot and Pierre Meurgey of Champy, all close friends of Daniel who had brought the wines from their personal cellars for all to try.

We began with a 1992 Roulot Meusault ‘Perrieres’ served out of magnum, and it had a fabulous nose, very smoky with yellow fruits, straw and dust, a touch tropical but also with a touch of vegetable rot, slight but there nonetheless. The palate was full of butter, cream and minerals, and the wine still possessed excellent acidity, a nice mouthfeel and great minerals for a 1992, more vigor than most ’92s, which was probably a combination of format, vintage and vineyard. There was also a touch of that rot/root veggie on the palate, but overall the wine was very nice. The rot wasn’t that bad, and the wine held well. It was more aggressive than the ensuing Lafon with its wild edges but qualitatively equivalent (93M).

The 1992 Lafon Meursault ‘Genevrieres’ had a cleaner nose, though a bit pungent, anisy and waxy with touches of spearmint and honey. The alcohol and acidity sparkled on the palate as there was nice crack and pop to the wine. Racy, spicy yet balanced, the wine smoothed out but maintained its pungent, rocky character (93).

Next up was a real treat, a 1989 Roulot Meursault ‘Charmes’ served out of Jeroboam, the only one he made! The wine had a very deep and intense nose with some aggressive edges that evened out with some air. ‘A little sulfur in nose,’ Brian keenly observed. Some questioned ‘corked?’ but Roulot said he didn’t think so. There was butter and sweet fruit in a very kinky way. ‘I wouldn’t guess an ’89 if served blind,’ Michael observed. I think it was a kiss corked but not enough to make a difference. The acidity was far superior to that of 1992, and its flavors were taut, needing more time. After some food, the wine became more caramelized, and I decided it was definitely corked, but the quality underneath was quite extraordinary with lots of vim and vigor and tremendous potential (94A+&J).

The 1983 Champy Corton Charlemagne had a very exotic, banana cream pie nose. Smooth, a bit oily in its flavor but not in its texture, the wine was not bad but not good and musky in a Mark Gastineau way, and a bit of morning mouth didn’t help. The fact that it was 23 years old and still drinkable was its best quality (84).

The 1991 Champy Clos Vougeot had a fresh, bright nose with vitamins, some soap (?), a little must and nice red fruits, a pleasant overall impression. The palate was also pleasant but a diluted a bit, smooth and easy with a bit of bitter earth on its finish and some light leather vim along with a kiss of citrus (87).

The 1978 Lafon Volnay ‘Santenots du Milieu’ was very earthy and animaly, possessing the barnyard with out too much barn. Fleshy and a good stinky, the wine had a touch of horse sweat and saddle, nice citrus, nice pungency and great minerals behind all that. We were then informed that there were only 35 bottles left in the cellar! This complex wine had roses, a good stink and that brown, gamy mature quality, a tea-like edge in a good way. The palate was delicious, smooth and with red, brown and citric flavors, nice vitamins, nice earth, nice balance – just plain nice&and tasty (93).

The 1990 l’Arlot Nuits St. Geroges ‘Clos des Forets’ had a nose full of pungent intensity and meaty fruit, red, black and beefy fruit. There were secondary complexities of brick and cinnamon, and lots of t and a. There was no sight of Allen and hence no ‘1990 disease’ issues, ha ha. The palate was sturdy, hearty, full and long, with nice earth and black cherry flavors. I was very impressed by this very tasty and fulfilling, muscular Nuits St. Georges (93).
The 1991 l’Arlot Romanee St. Vivant, served from magnum, also had a very intense nose, with lots of smokehouse, citrus, vitamins and healthy wood. Cinnamon crept in. The palate was lean but tasty and vigorous with flavor and character, more leather and cedar than fruit, but I still liked it yet preferred the NSG (92M).

Ahhhh, some Roumier. The 1991 Roumier Ruchottes Chambertin had the most intensity of any of the 1991s, possessing great vigor and long spice, intense musk, earth, leather and great t ‘n a. The palate had stupendous acidity and great spice flavors. The wine was excellent, bordering on outstanding, and won the vigor award for the night (94).

The grand finale of the evening was an incredibly rare magnum of 1985 Roumier Musigny. The wine had a very gamy, earthy and musky nose with great animal, rose, t ‘n a and rainwater aromas. The palate was soft, plush, long and tasty with good earth and mineral flavors and excellent definition. Round and delicious, the Musigny had great dust, earth and vitamin flavors, along with beef, citrus and spice as well (95M).

That should have been enough fun for one night, but there was an after party&at Veritas. Uh oh.

First up was a 1991 Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses,’ which had a lovely nose that was soft and delicate yet firm and aromatic. There were lots of brimstone and brick and beautiful, perfect, dark, plummy fruit. A touch of vitamins, a kiss of stems, that caress of Roumier&I officially made myself horny. The palate was full of vitamins, acidity, earth, stems and vigor. Long, stylish and smooth, Lafon remarked that it was ‘a big wine for Amoureuses’ (94).

The 1999 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos’ had a nice nose and served as an excellent palate cleanser. Strong, minerally and rippling with character, there were aromas of smoke, nuts, white earth and that Chablis kink and verve. Brian found it ‘a little short on the palate,’ and it was, but it was decidedly in hibernation. It had a minerally palate and nice expression therefore, and secondary flavors of rainwater, hidden citrus and light anise, but it definitely wasn’t one of the great ‘Les Clos’ (92).

We temporarily continued with the palate cleansing with a 2002 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet. It had a very tropical and buttery nose, real exotic with its pineapple, mango and buttered, spiced yellow fruits. Some anonymous burgophiles were bashing a ‘lack of character,’ and the wine was atypically soft and easy at first, but it gained rather quickly and expanded to excellence with its stony, defined finish (93).

It was back to the reds with a magnum of 1986 Richebourg, which had a fabulous nose out of magnum with that great ’86 rusty verve, that racy, lean, iron, stem and cedar spice. The wine was very sturdy with lots of vigor in the nose, but the palate was very smooth, still very good but not past that (91M).

A 1996 Fourrier Griottes Chambertin V.V. was intense and full of character, masculine with its big, hearty style. It had a big, rich nose with a touch of gas, but the earth balanced it. The palate was rich, long and vitaminy, full of tannins and dark purple fruits. There was lots of potential here (92+).

We changed gears with a 1988 Chave Hermitage out of magnum. It was another fabulous nose; sexy, musky, aromatic and ripe yet so Hermitage with its bacon, menthol and spice. It also had an excellent palate, excellent acidity, great spice and great length. It was a tremendous wine out of magnum and absolutely delicious, although this wine might be a point or two less out of bottle by now (94M).

A 1979 Romanee Conti came out, an absolute steal off the list at $2100 I might add. Thanks to that most generous guest – who was that masked man? The most serious of my fellow wine geeks quickly hovered around like bees to honey. My notes started out, ‘whoa&yeah&hell yeah, only what RC can be.’ True, it was better out of a close friend of mine’s Methusalem last year (98 or 99 points, I believe), but I was not complaining! The wine still had great spine and verve out of bottle and tremendous aromas and flavors of earth, cedar, citrus and rose. Traces of tea, cherry and stem joined the party. The wine had medium-weight but long length with great tobacco and cedar flavors along with a razor-like precision (96).

It was back to reality with a very good 1989 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ The nose was deep and full of mint chocolate, and by now I started to feel like it was time to put it on a pillow and tuck myself in. Meaty, saucy and rich yet smooth, there was a touch of game to its beefy palate, which was a bit monolithic, but it did have a tough act to follow and still had some nice vim to it (92).

A 1990 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ followed, and it was more seductive and sexy with its gorgeous perfume and fruit. It was also meaty with some band aid, a caramel glaze and a bit of Christmas cheer to it! Meaty yet smooth and with good acidity, the 1990 still had the femininity of Amoureuses. Don kicked in some wisdom that ‘Drouhin made great ’90s’ (94).

A 1985 Pol Roger Cuvee Winston Churchill was just what the doctor ordered and outstanding, just enough gas to get me out the door and get me home on this wintry, January night (95).

Two or three nights later, I can’t remember to be honest, a whole new crowd had gathered at the Little Nell in Aspen, with a few diehards making the trip out from New York, myself included. Friday night was the organized dinner featuring more wines from the cellars of Daniel’s five fabulous ‘rock stars.’

We started with a 1993 Roulot Meursault ‘Perrieres’ out of magnum, which seemed to be in a sweet spot with its lovely butter, smoke and mineral trifecta and a tasty, root vegetable edge. Very aromatic in its acidity and mineral components, the palate was also full of zesty acidity as well as good slate flavors and a kiss of citrus. It held nicely with excellent sparkle and white earth and fruit flavors (94M).

The 1993 Roulot Meursault ‘Charmes’ was a touch more buttery with excellent caramel aromas and a long and wide impression. The nose had nice bread crust (hard ones) aromas and got a bit spiny with time, and more bread emerged as the wine got broader in the nose with a benevolent streak of really good wood. The palate was round and dusty, flavorful and smooth but definitely on a plateau (92).

The 1993 Champy Savigny les Beaune ‘La Dominaude’ was about the oldest Savigny I’ve ever had, and it had a nice vitamin and earth pungency to it, along with a meaty edge and a pungent spice. There was some bright bing cherry to it, but the palate was soft with some nice cedar on the finish, but not a lot of fruit (87).

The 1990 Champy Clos Vougeot was aromatic and perfumed, with piercing t ‘n a and a lot of alcohol, baked bread and earth. Deep and possessing a lot of intensity, the Clos Vougeot was toasty, long, meaty, earthy and hearty, altogether an excellent wine (93).

The 1989 L’Arlot Nuits St. Georges ‘Clos des Forets St. Georges’ Jeffrey likened to ‘vine ripened strawberries,’ and it totally was. There were also some vitamins, musk, iron and good intensity, a lot of alcohol and vigor. Very muscular, with a bruising style, I liked it a lot. It was rich, meaty, tasty – excellent again! Its nice verve and vigor complemented its thick wood flavors that were just right (94).

For the second night in a row, I preferred the Nuits to the RSV, this time being the 1993 L’Arlot Romanee St. Vivant. It was very pungent and stinky with lots of cat piss and pungent earth, but tough to get past the cat piss. The palate was pungent with less cat piss, more minerals along with rose, gardenia, garden, lemon and lime but not as complex or intense as I would expect (90).

The 1993 Roumier Ruchottes Chambertin was served out of magnum and had a fabulous nose, displaying the best qualities of the ’93 vintage: great verve and vigor, volcanic earth, vitamins, forest, and kisses of nut. It also had deep, dark, black cherry fruit and almost black roses in it. There was stemmy, stern spice on the palate, excellent length, nice balance, excellent acidity – it was another excellent wine. Its flavors were hearty, sturdy and earthy as ’93s tend to be. It didn’t hold as well as I hoped, which was the only negative thing I could say about the wine, but it had been opened about three hours (93M).

From one of the forgotten vintages that I have had a lot of luck with, the 1983 Roumier Bonnes Mares had a gorgeous nose, full of sweet cherry fruit. Nutty, wide open, saucy, fat, lush, and with great musk and spice, the Roumier was ‘outstanding for a 1983,’ Jeffrey observed. The wine had a kiss of wood that was great. The palate was long with nice grit and cedar definition on the finish. Jeffrey continued that it ‘might not be a 30-40-50 year vintage, but a damn good nose.’ I still found the palate delicious with earth and dirt flavors (95).

We changed gears with some whites to end, both of which had a sweeter edge to them. The 1983 Roulot Meursault ‘Luchets’ was served out of magnum, and it had a rich, honeyed, sweet, almost nectar-like nose with tons of butter, orange and apricot. I’ve got to give Daniel credit for serving this last. It also had some peel to it, and the palate was very hearty and vigorous, more so than I expected. Rich and creamy, toasty and with nice acidity, this exotic 1983 was just right for what it was (94M). The 1986 Lafon Meursault Charmes was a little fruity in the nose, waxy, anisy and buttery, although it was also a little corked with some noticeable VA. It had some butter and corn flavors, very fresh as it did come from Lafon’s cellar, of course, but I thought that this bottle might have been topped off as it was a little weird (89?).

A mystery wine was served, and it was a 1949 Remoissenet Grands Echezeaux. It had a pungent nose and seemed half Algerian. It was not 100% 1949, or even 50%, and had a lot of cat box and bret, icky in mouth (DQ).

Another wine was served courtesy of one of the guests, a 1990 La Tache, and three bottles were needed to make the rounds! There was a lot of t ‘n a, but this bottle was a woody one. The palate was big and rich with awesome structure but marred a touch by its wood, which completely took over nose. Even Jeffrey said ‘it just doesn’t sing.’ The structure and length were excellent, but its flavors were ‘oooof’ (95+?).

An after party of sorts happened again, and it started with an awesome and delicious 1979 La Tache. Sorry, those are my notes (96).

Wilf strong armed me into opening my La Paulee red wine, a 1990 Roumier Musigny, as he was not coming to the lunch tomorrow. He invited to me to his ’50th’ birthday celebration the following evening in kind. Christoph gave it an ‘I love it!’ It was full of red and orange fruit, vitamins, minerals and stems. Pungent, fleshy and chunky, the Musigny had a vimful, razor-like finish, one with great earth and finesse (96).

There was one more wine left, a 1996 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, which had me feeling guilty about drinking it as it was so, so young. It had amazing extraction for a ’96 that was atypical. Wilf commented how it was ‘amazing how he hides the oak.’ It had a kiss of gas. It was such a baby, an infant. Rich and full, it was all front and mid as its back side was buried, its acidity struggling to come out but there, lingering in the belly with a citric twist (95+).

Good night, Gracie.

Many spent the next morning skiing down the slopes of Aspen, but not I, for skiing has never been a strong suit of mine. I have only done it four or five times, I confess, and I am a warm weather person and the type of guy who would be staying at the cabin in front of a warm fireplace with a&but I digress. We had to go to the top of the mountain to have lunch at the lodge, and Greg and I hopped a ski lift up, up and away into the Aspen sky.

Upon arriving, the festivities were already in full swing, and a table by the entrance was already full of opened bottles, most noticeably a slew of older Lafon Meursault Charmes brought to us by none other than Randy Lewis of Lewis Cellars! Nice job, Randy. You can always tell who the most serious winemakers in California are by the amount of Burgundy in their cellar, so Randy immediately got voted into my ‘Top Ten’ poll for the week!

I tasted the 1978 Lafon Mersault ‘Charmes’ first. It had a very honeyed and nutty nose, with caramel everywhere, also bready and earthy and still with firm acidity. The wine was still quite rich and had a bready palate, mature yet with vim and good acidity. A nice, dusty citrus kiss graced the finish of this excellent wine (93).

A 1976 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was next, and it was also toasty and nutty, with more kernel to it, and lots of citrus and bright flavors. Smooth, long and with more integrated acidity, the 1976 was tasty and better balanced with less butter and caramel than the 1978, and I preferred it slightly (94).

The 1973 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was very sweet in its musky and caramel-laden nose, which was deeper, more brooding and rounder than the previous two vintages despite being older, also having more apple aromas. The palate was round, smooth, rich, nutty and very sexy – wait a second, that sounds like my ideal woman! Tasty and with good acidity, the 1973 had the best of both the 1976’s and 1978’s worlds (95).

Lastly for this spectacular cocktail round of Meursaults, the 1971 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was exotic with a smoky and buttery nose with a kiss of orangy maturity. ‘Time to drink,’ Christoph Roumier wisely observed. The nose was very buttery and creamy with a touch of caramel immersed in a veil of white smoke. The palate was tasty with an integrated, buttery finish, a little mature for one female guest but just right for this Goldilocks (94).

I finally assumed the position and sat down to a 1990 Paul Pernot Puligny Montrachet ‘Les Folatieres,’ which had a beautiful nose, fresh and bright, with great toast, nut and kernel, balanced with buttery and minerally fruit. This was a tasty wine all around, with nice minerals to its finish, a light sparkle and a satiny smooth impression (93).

It was time to take it up a notch with a 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault ‘Perrieres.’ Wow – the Coche lept from the glass with its signature kernel, nut and toast. Very long and regal, it had great ‘pop’ to it, long and massive yet with buried alcohol and acidity. A touch of root vegetable rounded out its complex and crackling nose. The wine was absolutely delicious, sparkling, popping and singing. Long yet balanced, thick yet light on its feet, the 1996 Perrieres from Coche was outstanding wine, toasty, lush and with enough great acidity to make any chemist proud (96).

What better way to follow up the Perrieres but with a 1996 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne? The Charly was more high-pitched in nose, a bit musty at first, but thankfully that blew off with a little air to reveal a razor of a nose, crackling with wheat, rye, grain and acidity even more serious than the Perrieres. It elicited another ‘wow’ from me, as it was so balanced and harmonized on palate. Long, elegant and smooth, there was a small lack of air/cork controversy, but after stirring it up this ‘Cocha Cola’ left 9 out of 10 tasters in awe. There was a dirty, white earthiness to it, and Daniel was still not liking nose despite his own infatuation with the palate. The acidity rapped to me, ‘I ain’t no joke’ (97).

The 1997 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne had a tough act to follow. While it did have a similar style to the ’96, it was more forward. Very aromatic, with more musk and citrus, the 1997 had the Coche signature there but was milder on the kernel and nuttiness. Still very tasty, of course, the acidity had some pop, but this was a more medium-bodied vintage for not only Coche, but all of White Burgundy, of course, although some food did bring out its acidity more and more to the point of excellence (93).

It was time to pick up the pace. A 2000 Ramonet Chevalier Montrachet had a very lean nose but was still regal with its anise, mineral and overall breed. Corny yellow fruit graced its smooth and easy palate, and I wondered a bit whether this wine was hibernating (92).

The 2002 Jean-Marc Pillot Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Vergers, Clos St. Marc’ (Monopole within Vergers) had some youthful, tropical fruit, with lots of apricot, banana and mango in its exotic profile. Smooth, with nice length and dried minerals, light butter, this was a solid wine, albeit a little different than the usual standard (91).

The 2003 Champy Corton Charlemagne was rich, tropical, tasty and easy – wait a second, that sounds like another one of my ideal&Ok, sorry, I know, I know, I can’t help myself sometimes, wink wink (90).

The 2001 Roulot Meursault ‘Perrieres’ was a beauty yet a baby, full of minerals, very regal, bred incredibly well. It had an absolutely fabulous palate, which was pure, stony, minerally and possessing such purity. The wine was indubitably excellent, and my only question was whether it will put on weight and improve or not (93+).

The 1993 Coche-Dury Meursault ‘Rougeots’ was served out of magnum and had a super, smoking nose that was very vibrant and minerally. It was again signature Coche, and as Donna keenly observed, ‘you could never mistake it for anything else.’ Tasty, toasty and minerally, the wine was long and still very ‘right there,’ and the magnum factor certainly helped define its youthful edge more, I’m sure (93M).

Ok, it was the middle of January and we were on top of Aspen mountain – enough with the whites already! Greg broke the ice with a 1993 Dujac Charmes Chambertin, which was vibrant, smoky and fresh in the nose with aromas of stems and black cherries. Stewed plums, vitamins and musk also permeated through the nose, where one could see the influence of stems. Dujac did make amazing 1993’s, but the palate here was on the smooth and tender side, seemingly more mature than the nose led me to believe but still possessing nice earth and stem flavors (92).

A 1989 Groffier Bonnes Mares had a musty, vegetable nose that seemed a bit off. The palate was much better with the hearty, vitaminy ’89 style and big-time citrus flavors, but still a musty finish. I have always found Groffier’s wines to be very wild and wooly, hit or miss with a few more misses than hits, to be frank (90A?).

The 1998 Roumier Bonnes Mares had a sexy, reserved nose, musky, earthy and stemmy with sweet, cherry fruit looking over those shoulders. Lengthy, brooding, regal, deep and balanced, the palate was defined by peanut and light iron more than anything else at this stage, also by a bit of leather, but this wine was more closed and a bit shut down on the palate, but with lots of potential (92+).

The 1999 Roumier Bonnes Mares got an immediate ‘ooh la la’ from Christoph himself, proud papa that he was at that moment. The nose was very musky and sexy with great breed, brooding with its earth, stems, peanut, vitamins and minerals but also with its dank, dark black cherry, rose and blacker fruits. The 1999 was also very shut down on palate but reeked of a lot more potential and will indubitably merit a higher score eventually (95+).

A jeroboam (that’s three liters for Burgundies) of 2000 Dujac Bonnes Mares made its way over to us. Its nose was full of cinnamon, leather and lots of musky, fragrant fruit. The 2000 was more forward as the vintage is prone to be, with a purple, floral edge, and the wine overall was smooth, tasty, balanced and nice (91J).

The 1992 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee was an interesting wine. Musky, earthy and classic Jayer in its meaty, dark nose, there was also some menthol and earth there. The palate was tasty and smooth with a touch of beef stew but by Jayer’s standards seemed timid (90).

A 1991 Romanee St. Vivant had a nice, edgy, pungent nose with a pinch of vitamins and stems. The palate had rose flavors and nice intensity, also cedar and a vimful, acidic finish, although Ben called it ‘strength without elegance’ (93).

The next wine was probably the rarest wine of the afternoon, at least, and it was a 1990 Drouhin Vosne Romanee ‘Petits Monts.’ Doug informed me that only 50 cases were made and that I may never see it again. It had an unbelievable nose, so perfectly Burgundian – the musk, the spice, the leather, the earth, the meaty fruit, the edge. Just flat out beautiful, it had pure, delicate fruit, finesse and was a gorgeous wine. It might have been at its best, but it was beautiful and the elegant wine lover’s wine (95).

The 1993 Georges Mugneret Clos Vougeot was super spicy and vimful and also had an absolutely fabulous nose with great stems, tension and structure, and red fruits to match. Long, tasty, stemmy and with great spine, the 1993 had a lot to say and a long ways to go (95).

The 2001 Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Cras’ was a bit gamy at first but blew off into a beautiful, classic, medium-weight Burgundy (91).

Someone generously brought a 1943 La Tache which was unfortunately a touch maderized but still very fleshy, meaty, stinky and wild. The palate was gamy, smooth and stewed, still flavorful and with good texture and sound in many regards but affected. Roumier was loving the experience (92A).

The 1934 Clos des Lambrays had a great nose, very pungent with a lot of brown sugar, earth, soy, bing cherry and citric vigor. The palate had those mature, earth and brown sugar flavors (93).

A 2002 Lafon Volnay Champans was excellent, possessing great character and balance, a nice mix of taut fruit and subtle earth, along with vitamins and purple forest flavors (93).

There were a couple more notes that got lost in translation, a mag of 1999 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin ‘Clos St. Jacques’ and a 1 989 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. Sorry, I’ll get to them again sooner or later.

It was Saturday night and time for the unofficial grand finale with one of the best hosts known to winekind, Mr. Wilf Jaeger, who was celebrating his ’50th birthday,’ although I later found out that this was one of many celebrations over the course of this year, or many years, but you’ll have to ask Wilf for the dirtiest of details. It ended up being a most incredible meal, and I was very grateful for the invite.

A little bubbly got us going, a rare and unusal 1953 Philipponat ‘Clos des Goissets,’ their tete de cuvee. Smooth, soft and mature, it had lots of toast, nut and earth with light caramel flavors and not a lot of fizz left, but still a nice impression (92).

The 1989 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was aromatic with a touch of that ‘must’ that sparked controversy earlier in the afternoon. It also had the butter, corn, citrus and minerals. It was obviously mature yet still fresh, though, with some anise and sparkle. The palate was very tasty – mature, round and smooth with flavors of white earth, minerals and light butter. Jean-Marc Roulot commented that 1989 was a low acid year but that this seemed to have more acid than most memories. It still seemed to me to be entering a plateau of maturity, and secondary white smoke flavors emerged (94).

The 1973 Ramonet Batard Montrachet came out ‘a little too cold,’ Carmel observed keenly, but once it warmed up it was candied and caramely. Its mature nose smelled closer to something from the 50’s than 70’s, a bit stewed with corn and vinegar and some cooked fruit, the kind to make candy, though. Musk, lanolin and oil rounded out the nose. The initial flavors were not pleasant: old morning mouth, rancid butter and butterscotch candy with out sweetness. A little vanilla developed and more caramel emerged in its flavors, which got significantly better as the wine kept improving in the glass, smoothing out and also becoming more vigorous at the same time. My score went from the low-80s, practically disqualified to the upper 80s, although I thought the bottle might have had some issues. Wilf summed it up well when he said, ‘Old wine, eh?’ (89A).

A 1996 Montrachet had am amazing nose, so precise and penetrating yet also elegant. Once past the alcohol and acidity in that nose, one discovered minerals, butter anise and smoke. The palate was long, refined, elegant and steely, its acidity very deep and lingering, not in your face but there. It was outstanding for sure, but not more than that for me, although Eric hailed it the ‘Greatest Montrachet ever,’ a sentiment he echoed at my ‘Top 100’ event this past Fall (96).

The 1964 Pousse d’Or Volnay ‘Caillerets’ was a real treat. It had a fabulous nose that was sexy, musky, bright and vimful, with amazing alcohol and acidity still. It also had gorgeous fruit, a rose, plum and cherry mélange supplemented with vitamins and earth. Carmel called it ‘perfect.’ It amazing nose was so good that it smelled good enough to put on the back of my neck and go to the bar. The palate was delicious with great verve, unbelievable acidity and bright cherry, vitamin and earth flavors. Wow (96).

Its counterpart, a 1964 Pousse d’Or Pommard ‘Jarolieres,’ was more meaty and pungent in the nose, still with a similar vitamin and fruit mélange, though more pungent and oily. Wilf and Christoph thought they both might still be improving, and the Pommard also had great character, brawnier and clumsier on the palate but still with nice citric vim and good earth flavors on its finish (93).

We were in for another treat, another one of those wines that does not exist, a 1947 Drouhin Chambertin, and it was a ‘fucking amazing’ bottle, someone muttered in glee. OK, it was me. It had an intense, deep nose full of meaty, chunky fruit, loaded with iron and minerals. It was also a killer on the palate with huge and massive concentration and a long, long finish. The only negative thing I can say about it is that after the next wine, it seemed lesser (96+).

&which brings me to our next wine, a 1929 Drouhin Chambertin. I doubt I will have either of these wines ever again, and if I do that they will not be as in good condition! The 1929 was more elegant with its smooth and round nose and gorgeous aromas of cherry ice cream, mahogany amd light iron. The palate was rich, round, mature and sweet; heavy and with great acidity, amazing and still so intense..let’s just call it ridiculous. It was definitely the wine of the weekend (98+).

While that could have been the grand finale, we had two wines left, the first being a rare 1956 La Tache. Wilf and I had shared this bottle together a couple months prior, but not from his cellar, which he brought tonight. This bottle had a nice nose with good intensity and an earthy mask. This bottle proved very tasty and balanced, with excellent alcohol and acidity and great earth flavors. Its intensity was retained in its nose, and it had long, lingering acidity. Now I understood what Wilf was talking about two months ago (93).

It was a sledgehammer to go as the last wine was a 1993 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee ‘Cros Parantoux’ out of magnum. It had a humongous nose with a deep, dark, chunky edge. A bit of gas needed to blow off, and then the wine revealed deep, dark purple fruits and a mountainous quality. The palate was mountainous as well, shattering in its enormity, so meaty and thick that I ran out of things to say except ‘Thank you, Wilf, and here’s to many more’ (97).

As I sit on a plane headed for Bordeaux via Paris, I figure it is a good time to release the second day of my Bordeaux trip last December! Sorry, I have been a bit backed up this year. I will be tasting a wide assortment of 2005s this week, so before that report comes I best catch up, albeit only a bit.

In case you forgot, day one of my Bordeaux trip, which was organized by Bipin Desai, saw visits to Las Cases, Cos (including lunch), Lafite, Mouton, Margaux, Rausan Segla and dinner at Montrose. Day two began with a morning visit to Lafleur, a good way to start any Tuesday in my book.

The owners, [Jacques and Sylvie Guinaudeau], were incredibly warm and generous people. We saw the winery right away, as it is basically a part of the ‘chateau’ (which was more like a house), and people were working away tending to their wines practically on their hands and knees. Despite the big name that Lafleur has, one could see right away that these were artisans rather than big businessmen, and I had the feeling that I was in Burgundy rather than Bordeaux.

We got a few facts straight during an introductory chat. I believe they said the annual production of Lafleur was 8-14,000 bottles, and that 60% of the wine they make goes into Lafleur, with the other 40% going into the ‘Pensees de Lafleur’ second label. I am not sure if that estimate was for both wines or not, forgive me. Jacques began making the wine himself in 1985 and has ever since. They do not make Lafleur if they feel the vintage is not good enough, which was the case in 1987 and 1991. 1987 marked the first ‘Pensees de Lafleur’ bottling as a result. The grapes come from four hectares with four different soils in the center of Pomerol. From outside the house, we could see just about every major Chateau in Pomerol around its horizons.

We began with a 1996 Grand Village, a Bordeaux Superieur (80% Merlot, 20% Cab Franc) that they have also been producing. The wine had a pure nose with aromas of plum, rose and light earth. Smooth, easy and round, with a touch of earth and leather, the 1996 was not bad for ten year-old ‘Superieur’ Merlot. We were informed that the 1996 was opened accidentally, but once it was, they figured ‘what the heck?’ I neglected to write down a score, either for that reason or accidentally myself.

The 2003 Grand Village was next, which should show a big difference in quality, Jacques insisted. Fat yet subtle Merlot fruit, light minerals and excellent character for a ‘village’ wine resulted in a very nice impression. Jacques remarked how in 2003, the young vines were much more difficult to manage than the old vines due to the excessive heat. There was decent richness to the palate, a little lushness and excellent balance with its earth components. Very toasty with nice mouth-filling tannins, this 2003 was one Right Bank wine from this vintage that could be enjoyed without much thought or expenditure (88)!

The 2004 Pensees de Lafleur obviously had more depth in nose. It was more pungent and intense, full of meaty, vitaminy, Pomerol fruit. It had spice, t n’ a, pungent plums, iron and minerals as well in the nose. The palate, still a bit shy, was nonetheless very good with its rich, concentrated fruit, excellent definition and nice length (91).

The 2003 Pensees de Lafleur had a sweeter, more concentrated nose and lots of grape, cassis, blackberry and black raspberry aromas. Jammy with that kiss of Lafleur pungency, the 2003 was tasty and rich in its fruit expression. There were nice earth complements wrapped around the outside, and the 2003 was more approachable than the 2004 but less intense, with more breast and less butt than the 2004 but qualitatively similar, and I only use those terms in the most respectful manner. I adore them both (91).

It was time to get serious, as five vintages of Lafleur were about to be served. Bipin Desai is a most excellent host, I must confess! Jacques commented about what were the most important factors in making Lafleur what it is: first and foremost was the soil, and the blend and age of the vines were the other two, in no particular order.

The 2004 Lafleur (55% Merlot, 45% Cab Franc) was ‘grape juice – almost black,’ Frank observed. It had a deep, intense nose – thick like an impenetrable fog. The fruit was amazingly thick and brooding, almost hibernating but oh so there. Its tannins and alcohol were buried within yet around its edges. There were touches of anise and minerals, but the core of concentrated Pomerol fruit was what set this wine apart, and while there were still a lot of baby fat qualities to its fruit, it was still decadent fruit aromatically. On the palate was a contrast, as the 2004 was very shy and youthful, dominated by its structure and extraordinary tannins and alcohol. So mouthcoating and long, very dry, and possessing a boat load of minerals, the 2004 reeked of extraordinary potential (95+).

The 2003 Lafleur (50/50 Merlot and Cab Franc) was more fruit forward (surprise) but still intense. Bipin was cooing about the ‘soft and silky style of Lafleur.’ There was great anise and a pungent minerality here, almost jumping out like a cat from its box. Pinches of gingerbread, lots of black raspberry fruit and divine earth rounded out its nose. I saw what Bipin said on the palate, as it was softer and silkier, approachable and with less weight in the middle, yet still possessing excellent grip, but the 2003 was clearly not the 2004. ‘Exotic and seductive’ someone remarked. The 2003 made 2004 seem all the more special (92).

An interesting debate broke out about 2004 versus 2003, and the consensus of the house was that in 30-40 years, the 2004 would be a great wine, while the 2003 was atypical, interesting yet far from classic. Guinaudeau continued that the biggest difference today about Lafleur is not the manner in which they make the wine, but rather the selection. Everything used to go into Lafleur, and now they make a stricter selection.

The 2002 Lafleur (60% Merlot, 40% Cab Franc) was a ‘difficult year for me,’ Jacques confessed. It had the pungent anise and cat’s box edge, also having smoke, coffee, plum, an exotic wood spice a la mahogany and a big streak of slate. To me, it was already very nice. There was lots of minerality to the palate and rock solid tannins and alcohol, excellent pungency, slate and good structure, but Sylvie liked its fruit the most. There were approachable flavors of black raspberry and plum in this medium-bodied Lafleur, which was way closer qualitatively to the 2003 than most would think (91).

The 2001 Lafleur had a classic nose with excellent balance between its fruit and finish components. The fruit had gorgeous plum, earth, bacon, and molasses qualities and great balance with its mineral, earth and t n’a qualities. The nose was both open and aromatic but structured as well. The palate was very tasty with its mirabelle, mineral, earth and slate flavors. Pungent, rich and fleshy, this was another great Lafleur. When Jacques said, ‘it will be interesting to compare the 2000 and 2001 over time, and no one talks about 2001,’ I knew it just wasn’t me. The 2001 won the ‘Miss Congeniality’ award of the morning (95).

The 2000 Lafleur had a ‘phenomenal nose,’ Frank cooed. It was classic all the way around with incredible breed – the pungent minerality, the unbelievably pure red and black fruit symphony, the light cedar and jam, and there was an unbelievable harmony amongst all. ‘The ’98 is less concentrated than the 2000,’ Guinaudeau (I think) remarked. There was great structure and intensity, but its balance and high pitch set it apart. The palate was rich, concentrated, mouth-filling and delicious with its chocolaty and minerally flavors. Long, balanced and pure, the wine was dripping with plums, plums and more plums. Believe the hype (98).

It was already a great day, and we were offto Cheval Blanc to lunch with the dynamic Pierre Lurton. Pierre shared some insights about Cheval as well. Generally 60% Cabernet Franc and 40% Merlot, Cheval Blanc was more than St. Emilion; it was ‘unique.’ Some of the keys to making the wine were an early ripening and controlling the water level in the soil, according to Pierre. Generally, Cheval sees 15-18 months in 100% new oak and at least three different types of oak. They believe in picking the Merlot early, as an overripe Merlot is ‘dangerous.’ Not only does Pierre manage Cheval Blanc, but also Marjoresse, Cheval des Andes from Argentina, a new South African project and Chateau d’Yquem, whose 2005 is ‘incroyable’ (unbelievable). When the topic of 2005 Cheval followed, Pierre was nothing but laudatory, citing its ‘exotic fruit and classic structure,’ also noting that each of Cheval’s 23 individual plots were vinified separately.

Ok, it was time for some more wine. The 2003 Cheval Blanc had an amazing perfume, and Bipin found it ‘very true.’ ‘Last year it was completely closed,’ someone observed, but the 2003 was apparently starting to come out of its shell. Its great perfume also possessed purity and elegance, and we were told it was 55% Cab Franc, 45% Merlot. Its nose had red fruits, light minerals, wintry spice and stunning earth aromas to it. The palate was tasty with rich sweet fruit but lacking definition in the middle, similar to Lafleur. The finish was delicate despite some lingering acidity, and the 2003 was very feminine in style. Even Lurton remarked that it was good but not great. It did have an amazing nose, though. Pierre noted its ‘coffee,’ while Bipin admired its ‘sweet biscuit’ aromas and slyly said, ‘almost a touch of Yquem to the nose.’ Its finish came out a bit with time (92).

The 2003 was Pierre’s version of an aperitif, as we sat down for lunch and began with a 2000 Petit Cheval, of which there are approximately 3,000 cases made every year and whose first vintage was 1988. Itwas a ‘great Petit Cheval,’ Pierre proudly stated, as if he was talking about one of his six children. It had an open nose with that Cabernet Franc kink, that weedy quality, but a lot better than the connotation. It had some red and wintry fruits underneath, and Wolf found it ‘very opulent.’ In the mouth, the wine was very tasty, with nice texture and length, and a flash of flesh and earth. Round Two of the wine gave off more purplish hues in the nose, as well as more bread aromas. Rich and in a good spot with its open and semi-lush fruit, the 2000 Petit Cheval also had nice grit to its finish and good character overall. A touch of benevolent Cab Franc green rounded out this very good wine (92).

A 1988 Cheval Blanc had a sexy nose, also in a good spot. Pierre commented how 1988 was a ‘very classic vintage, deep and dark in color,’ and that 2004 was like 1988 with more ripeness, which caused Bipin to mutter something about Pavie that I won’t repeat! Wolf appreciated its ‘great nose’ and found the ’88 to be ‘a wine for Cheval lovers, for the thinking’ drinker. He went on to say ‘nothing (was) overstated’ and admired its ‘beautiful harmony.’ The wine was open and singing, Pierre picking up on some ‘minty’ qualities. The nose did have gorgeous red fruits, nuts, a kiss of vanilla, caramel and a touch of earth. The palate had excellent richness, great balance and a long finish. This was an excellent Cheval all the way. As the wine developed, its bready aromas became divine, and its nuttiness got sexier. Flavors of chocolate, meat and earth expanded on its rich palate, which was a bit rusty in a good way. Tasty and with definition, the 1988 Cheval was a real surprise to me, and its vigor held as tertiary aromas of olive, wintergreen and almost dill joined the party (93).

After the eye-opening 2001 we had at Lafleur, the question of 2001 was asked to Pierre, who felt that 2001 is a ‘forgotten’ year but was a ‘classic’ that ‘will age.’

Pierre pulled out areal treat, a bottle of 1959 Cheval Blanc that had never left the cellars. I had had a great bottle of this wine before, the other also being with Frank (how does that always happen?). This bottle did not disappoint either. From 1950 to 1964, there are a slew of incredible Chevals that seem to be ignored or missed by the American market. Don’t! The ’59 had an amazing nose full of rich, meaty and wintry fruits. Someone was in awe of its ‘amazing sweetness.’ It was fat and meaty with aromas of red brick fruits, a shred of vitamins, oil, earth and game. ‘The wine is perfect to drink. Il vous attendez! (It is waiting for you),’ Pierre gushed. A flash of deep purple, honey-roasted nuts and a pinch of mint rounded out its nose. Rich, sweet and delicious summed up the palate, which still had great t ‘n a, a veritable Raquel Welch of a wine. Incredibly complex and very sweet, this 1959 had hints of 1947 in it. Fig emerged in this rich, lush and gritty wine. It did mature in the glass a bit more quickly than I wanted, but other than that it was magnificent. Some wines are meant to be consumed and enjoyed sooner rather than later when they get to this age. Wolf found it ‘healthy with no flaws,’ while Bipin admired the ‘1959 character of opulence.’ ‘Not a wine of fashion, it is a wine of substance,’ one of my four wise companions said. Raisins crept into its seepy style, and there was some maple to its sweetness (96).

Pierre shared a funny story about how when he was interviewing for the job of Managing Director at Cheval, there was a little discomfort with his last name being Lurton, which is obviously a famous wine name in Bordeaux associated with many other properties. They had asked him if he could use his mother’s name instead, and what was it. ‘Lafite,’ he replied. That got a big laugh. Some people were meant to be in the wine business. One last little tidbit that Pierre left us with was that there are over 1000 bottles of 1937 and 1500 bottles of 1967 still in the cellar at Yquem. Like, whoa.

We changed the dial to modern rock with an afternoon visit with Hubert de Bouard at Chateau L’Angelus. Hubert is one of the more aggressive Chateau owners in Bordeaux right now, working on and acquiring new properties on a regular basis. In 2001, he assumed control of Clos des Jacobins, for one. I must confess that I was a bit exhausted at the start of this tasting, but Hubert’s wines woke me up right away with their more modern style, a style that still managed to respect some of the terroirs’ inherent classicism.

We started with a 2003 Chateau La Commanderie, a property located only 300 meters from Cheval. What was Hubert’s secret to resuscitating this property? Lower yields, stopping fertilizing and paying attention to the different lots within the property were his answers. The wine had a pleasant nose of red fruits, olive, light citrus, and minerals with a limestone edge. One could taste more vanilla from the oak, but it was still balanced and reined in, revealing nice texture and richness. There was a pleasant freshness and sweetness to the wine. Bipin found it ‘low acid,’ but it had a nice, dry finish. The vines were less than ten years old, Hubert pointed out, as well as the fact that 30-40% of the crop was cut back at the end of August for both Commanderie and L’Angelus (90).

The 2003 La Fleur de Bouard was next, a wine consisting of 85% Merlot that was again very modern with the vanilla, new oak edge that was again reined in over its plummy fruit and edges of Cab Franc stalk and perfume. There was more structure and richness here and also good fatness in the middle. There were a lot of vanilla flavors and a nice, dry finish to go with its plum syrup fruit. 1998 was this wine’s first vintage, fyi, and the property (a Lalande de Pomerol) is located 2.5 kilometers away from Petrus itself (92).

The 2004 La Fleur de Bouard was a barrel sample and had more wood accordingly, along with more maple syrup. Vanilla, interior wood and barrel smoke were dominant, but there was still creamy and sappy fruit underneath. While oakier, spicier and longer, the 2004 was a bit square relative to the 2003. Despite all my observations of oak, it was not overwhelming; i.e., it worked, although it probably would be overwhelming to some. The tannins were very gripping, and a touch of bitters rounded out its unbalanced finish (90+).

The 2003 Clos St. Jacobins had an ‘exotic tea’ component, Bipin observed. Hubert countered with ‘dry fruits like fig.’ There were aromas of vanilla (of course), along with smoke, earth, toast and wild Cab Franc stalk. There was excellent structure for 2003 here, but the palate was very vanilla-y and woody with that green Cab Franc stalk flavor. It was a bit aggressive for me but well-made nonetheless (90).

The 2002 Le Plus de la Fleur de Bouard, also a Lalande de Pomerol and basically a reserve selection of the regular La Fleur, had an ink black color. Its nose was also very inky and deep, with syrupy black fruits, vanilla, smoke, earth and pinches of minerals, vegetables and animals. Round, smooth and long, the Le Plus was still on the vanilla side of things but classier, longer and more regal. For a wine from 2002, it was pretty impressive, although I couldn’t help but think that Bouard’s wines reflect his style more than the terroirs, but again it works. Hubert observed ‘minerals and licorice’ (93).

The 2001 Le Plus de la Fleur de Bouard had a milder nose by comparison, and I liked that. Its nose had an exotic, floral edge but still a bit of beef, along with sap, purple and black fruits and a pinch of jasmine. Cleaner on the palate, the 2001 had less upfront density but nice length and a cleaner style. There was more mineral and leather on the finish (92).

The 2003 L’Angelus, 58% Cabernet Franc, had the most regal style, and 2003 produced ‘unbelievable Cabernet Franc’ according to Hubert. There was that kiss of modern vanilla, yet also an underlying style and the elegance of the earth. Hubert found ‘red fruits and raspberries,’ and there was also coffee, chocolate and cassis. The L’Angelus was much denser than the Cheval, with an extra touch of dryness to its finish. Big, rich and robust with a long, dry finish, the 2003 had lots of beefy flavors. It was not my style of wine but quite respectable (92).

Wow, is that dark,’ Frank remarked about the 2004 L’Angelus, which to me also had more style than the 2003. There were deep purple fruits and less vanilla than anything so far, although it was still noticeable. Additional aromas of plum liqueur, chocolate, beef and leather were in this subtle (by comparison) nose. The palate was spiny, with a lot of dry minerality and a leathery finish (93).

There was no time to dilly-dally, as it was off to the office of Christian Moueix to taste through the wines of the first family of Pomerol. While Christian was not around, his most knowledgeable son Edouard was there to lead us through a horizontal of 2004s. He was accompanied by the company’s Sales Director Frederick Lospied.

The 2004 Magdelaine had a beautiful nose and such pure fruit, red cherry and currant to be precise, along with musk, vitamins and earth. ‘Just plain sexy,’ I wrote, the 2004 also had a delicious palate full of rich red fruits, earth, vitamins and great minerals. This was gorgeous fruit for a 2004, and the wine still had a nice, long finish, and its dryness was reined in unlike other 2004s that we had already had. The wine did have a lighter to medium body with a small hole in the middle, but the purity was beautiful (92).

The 2004 La Grave, (formerly Trigrant de Boisset), was a property bought by Christian in 1971. It had an attractive nose of plums, light minerals and slate, but also plump, sweet fruit without being too sweet. ‘Nice and smooth,’ Frank observed, and it absolutely was, but it also had a spicy finish. There were flavors of pure, tasty, plummy fruit and excellent earth to this very impressive and classy juice (93).

The 2004 Latour a Pomerol was a bit more pungent in the nose with more animal, yeast and anise aromas, a touch too yeasty. The 2004 was the ‘last vintage with the old block next to the church,’ we were told, as the vineyard was replanted in 2006. The flavors were anise and a touch of cat box, back to the drier style a la other 2004’s. There was still nice, plummy fruit and a drop of oil (90).

The 2004 Certan Marzelle, a property of which I was unaware, was formerly part of Certan Giraud, now across the street from a lower plot of 20-25 year-old vines, next to La Fleur de Gay. It had a musky nose with more blackberry fruit, but it was missing that second level of complexity and a touch dry with more bitter flavors (87).

The 2004 La Fleur Petrus had a great nose, rich and sappy with decadent, plummy fruit. There was also excellent musk, touches of caramel and leather, vitamins, nice earth and bread aromas, along with a touch of baked something in a good way. Edouard observed that it was ‘more fleshy but needs more time,’ and he was right on in that observation. It had a big palate, ‘a mouthful,’ Frank exclaimed. Rich and concentrated, it had plummy and oily fruit and a long finish (94).

The 2004 Trotanoy had a deep, intense nose full of iron, minerals, slate, earth and the sexiest plummy fruit of the afternoon. While Edouard commented how it was ‘always difficult to taste when young,’ a statement with which I agree, this Trotanoy had no problem expressing itself. It was the most stylish wine so far of this session, and I was really digging the core of blackcurrant jam and musk. The palate was very spiny and had super acidity but was still very tight and coy on palate in regard to its fruit. The Trotanoy was so spicy that I needed to lick my lips over and overagain! Despite it being very dry, its finish was indubitably outstanding. If the fruit can keep up, the 2004 Trotanoy may turn out to be truly great and one of the wines of the vintage (95+).

The hits kept on coming with the 2004 Hosanna. It was on the opulent side of plum with a yeasty backbone. Bipin found its ‘chocolate absolutely remarkable.’ Frederick noted its ‘pepper, spice’ and found it ‘elegant, not heavy.’ Mouth-filling, round, and with dry tannins, the 2004 Hosanna had nice flesh and great structure (93).

It was time to have the 2004 Lafleur again, the second time in one day! It was a new context and therefore a new experience, as well as the fact it was the first time I have ever had the same wine in the morning and then in the afternoon. Yes, even for me, that is a rare occasion. Brooding, deep and intense, its nose was like a lurking giant with its muscular style. Chocolate, earth, slate and smoke rounded out the nose, and the palate was consistent, also with enormous, mouth-coating tannins, great acidity, flavors of purple fruits, vitamins and earth, all of which took a backseat to the tannins (95+).

The 2004 Petrus had a much more playful nose despite the same brooding intensity as Lafleur. It was also a bit more approachable, redder in its fruit, muskier and with additional aromas of earth, smoke, vitamins, jasmine and light cedar. The style on the palate was more Muhammad Ali than the George Foreman style of Lafleur. The Petrus danced on the palate with shy yet delicious flavors of plum, earth and tobacco, along with a long, dry finish. The Petrus was indubitably in the same class as the Trot and Lafleur, although perhaps a step behind in its intensity, but that was probably the point! Bipin found it ‘restrained, balanced, beautiful,’ and Edouard made a 1975 analogy and went on an anti-extraction speech citing the ‘delicacy of its dryness,’ summing it up succinctly by saying ‘the better is the enemy of thegood.’ (95+)

You would think that the above would be enough for one day, but remember this is Bipin we are talking about! Dinner was soon to be served, and tonight was ‘Bipin’s Thanksgiving,’ a dinner he hosts every year at Chateau Lafite featuring a who’s who guest list from Bordeaux: Herve Berland (Mouton Rothshild), Jacques Boissenot (enologist), Hubert de Bouard (Angelus), Jean-Louis Charmolue (Montrose), Charles Chevallier (Lafite), Jean Delmas (formerly at Haut Brion), Alexandre de Lur Saluces (formerly of Yquem and still with de Fargues), Thierry Manoncourt (Figeac), Jean-Francois Moueix (Christian’s brother and negociant), Paul Pontallier (Margaux), Jean-Guillaume Prats (Cos), Christoph Salin (Lafite), Christian Le Somer (enologist) , and there were two people who were invited but couldn’t make it: Pierre Lurton (Cheval Blanc) and Christine Valette (Troplong Mondot); and the guest of honor, Jean-Pierre Perrin, who is from a chateau of different sorts, de Beaucastel. Pierre is a Paul Bunyan of a man, tall and broad, and I swear he told me that he biked 200 kilometers that very same day already! There is no doubt he could beat me in any form of any race whatsoever.

We had had our fill of young wines for the day, so we started the meal with a 1985 Montrachet. I had almost forgotten what Burgundy tasted like but soon remembered! Reticent aromas of wax, corn, butter, alcohol and minerals graced the nose. A bit of yeast and wild field were on the outskirts as well. The palate was very toasted and buttery, burnt like smokehouse wood in jerky. Very tasty, the 1985 was creamy, lush, oily, rich, long and smooth, with hidden acids, exotic yellow fruits and wax and nut flavors. Although it might be at its best now, the was still very fine indeed. I asked Bipin if it was at its peak, and he said yes, but then a philosophical discussion regarding the concept of peak begun with Paul Pontallier. To paraphrase Paul, ‘over time we lose some things yet gain in others, what is a peak? Not sure there is such a thing.’ He continued the wine was ‘absolutely delicious – not sure it’s at its peak but it’s everything I like.’ The food brought out the alcohol and acid on the palate a bit, supporting Paul’s thoughts (95).

It was back to our regular programming with anything but a regular wine, a 1945 Calon Segur served out of magnum. It had a great nose full of minerals, chocolate, cassis, nut, old cedar and earth. The wine had such beautiful and fresh fruit, almost grapy. Creamy, lush and elegant, the wine still possessed a nice delicate length to its finish and flavors of slate and old cedar. Simply a delicious wine, the 1945 Calon even got sturdier in the glass and its tannins came out more and more with time (96).

There was another magnum of 1945 claret, this time a 1945 Gruaud Larose. This magnum had a lower, mid-shoulder level but was not bad, perhaps not as good as it could have been, but if I didn’t know, I might not have noticed. It had nice fruit, dark plums and grapes, and a lot of soft, supple structural aromas such as earth, straw, hay and light minerals. There was a touch too much minerality to the palate in its earthier profile, but it still had depth to its fruit and excellent tannic expression. Long, fine, still sturdy and possessing more tannins than alcohol, this was still an excellent bottle, despite the kiss of sherry to its flavors (94A).

Paul gave me some facts about the 1945 vintage: there was a Spring frost, a low crop, a very nice summer that was hot (but not like ’03 and ’47), dry (not like ’05) and there was an early harvest about 9/15 or earlier. Charles Chevallier was in awe of the amazing color that these 1945s were able to retain.

The 1945 Rausan Segla was another excellent wine, more musky in a minerally direction with meater fruit and a sprinkle of brown sugar, wheat! (that was it), caramel and decadent cassis. Rich, thick, meaty and mouthfilling, the Segla coated the mouth with its cassis fruit and long, minerally finish. It was spectacular at first but seemed to get oakier in the glass, but there was no doubt its port-like concentration was incredible (94).

A 1945 Leoville Las Cases had more straw and chalk to its nose, vimful and vigorous in a spicy way without being spicy. There was still a wealth of plummy fruit there and almost a touch of cinnamon, blending into a foresty wood. The palate was smooth and minerally with nice grip and length but an overall milder impression, but like that 2004 Petrus showed, that can be a good thing! Very pencilly, the Las Cases was initially outclassed by the Rausan Segla but surpassed it in the end (94+)!

It was interesting to study this renowned group’s reactions to this flight. Paul preferred the Calon, Hubert the Rausan Segla, while Charles did the Leoville Las Cases. So much for a consensus! I figured now was as good a time as any to make my ‘bring back the foudre’ stand, especially at a table where it would actually mean something. Paul countered that most fermentations are still done in wooden vats like foudres, and that there were always barrels, just not necessarily new ones, but everyone would have used new ones if they could have afforded them.

Back to the Burgundies we went, and this group of illustrious Bordelais seemed intrigued like kids in a 7th grade biology class dissecting their first frog. and Montrachet was one thing, but I swear that there was a healthy minority at the table who had never even heard of Dujac! It was at that point that I realized that the Bordelais are truly in their own world. One attendee later confided to me that when he is at home, he drinks Burgundy, but he shall remain nameless, as I don’t want to be the guy who gets him exiled to Chile!

The 1985 Dujac Bonnes Mares was first and served out of magnum. It fell all over me like welcome and needed rain with its beautiful nose, a left turn indeed, but definitely one in the right direction! The nose seeped out of the glass with its bright red cherry and raspberry fruit, decadent musk, leather and earth aromas, definitively Bourgogne as opposed to Bordeaux. The nose was also bready, sweet, and with a pinch of citric vigor to get the hair on the back of my neck just right. A whiff of menthol finalized the aromatic profile. The palate was very rich and concentrated by Burgundian standards, possessing spicy alcohol and acid. There were also excellent earth flavors and a kiss of maple sweetness to go with its red cherry fruit. The Bonnes Mares was noticeably breadier than the Clos de la Roche (96).

The 1985 Dujac Clos de la Roche was also served out of magnum and similarly styled to the Bonnes Mares but with more menthol and chocolate; that was what really separated the two. There was also a touch of fresh bouillon and darker fruits in the Clos de la Roche – more black cherries. The wine was firm with more buried alcohol, its flavors redder, and there was less weight than the Bonnes Mares, along with a small hole in the middle of the palate (94).

The 1985s continued with a 1985 La Tache. ‘Still young,’ Paul admired. ‘The older I get, the more I love Burgundy,’ he drifted off, surely a state of temporary insanity if this came to trial! The nose of the La Tache was a bit shut down, a bit dirty to be frank. There was a lot of oil and dirt to the nose, but the palate recovered and was ‘absolutely stunning’ with great lift to its finish, but it did taste a bit beefy and advanced overall. There were great earth flavors and still excellent stuffing to the wine, which had plenty of upside potential left (95A?).

The 1985 Romanee St. Vivant was a fresher style of ’85. The fruit was redder, but the wine still had that dirty edge like La Tache – maybe it was the vintage rather than the bottles? Oily and nutty, there was more seaside action in the nose. There was a similar dirty edge to the smooth and supple palate (92).

The last 1985 wine in this flight was a 1985 Leroy Ruchottes Chambertin, which had a deeper, nuttier, darker Leroy nose that seemed more winemaker than terroir. The palate was full of dark fruits, cola, leather and earth flavors. The finish was very tannic relatively but quickly softened yet maintained a gritty finish (92).

It was time for some wines from the Rhone Valley and our guest of honor. The 1981 Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape was another left turn, but more slight of a turn. It had a mild nose by comparison to the Burgundies yet also had some Burgundian edges to its fruit. Aromas of meat, red fruits, leather, earth and leather slinked out, along with bits of sap, soy, oil and rust. The palate was very hearty with lots of acidity and nice, medium-bright red fruit with autumnal edges, earth and light grit to its finish (92).
We were in for a treat, a magnum of 1954 Beaucastel, from the cellars of Beaucastel, of course, as was the 1981. Nut and earth were the first aromas to show themselves, followed by meat, soy, red fruits, animal fur, a touch of Provence, mineral and more earth. ‘Sauvage,’ Bipin added. Rich and fleshy, the ‘1981 was very good, but the ’54 great,’ Paul decided, and Charles agreed. It was delicious and still hearty (95).

It was time for dessert, and this meal ended in as fine a fashion as it begun. The 1945 Yquem had a fabulous nose full of wax, honey, creme brulee, caramel and orange peel. The palate was so thick, so rich so oily and so concentrated that small children should not be within a mile of an open bottle, for they would definitely get wind of this one and want, want, want. Long, spiny and still youthful, there were additional flavors of biscotti and vanilla. Frank called it ‘perfect,’ and it was pretty damn close (98+).

One more to go, a 1935 Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port. I think I can, I think I can. ‘OOMPH!’ was aboutall I could muster up. White peppery, pruny and alcoholic, I summed up this port from Bipin’s birth year with a ‘yeah’ (95).

And that was day two.

Last month, I took a weekend trip to Europe to inspect a major European collection. I was able to negotiate to be able to offer wines from this extensive collection through our retail operation, offerings that will start this week and continue over the next month as organized by era. The cellar is that vast – some wines were purchased in twenty case parcels! Keep your eyes peeled for more of the ‘Lugano Collection.’

Of course, part and parcel of the inspection process was an extensive tasting of a random selections of wines from this amazingly diverse collection. We settled on ‘six wines from six decades’ and gathered in a small bistro and ate and drink the night away.

We began innocently enough with a 1992 Joseph Drouhin Clos Vougeot. The wine had a pleasant nose, lightly layered though perhaps entering the last stage of the benevolent maturation process. The wine had edge – cedar, mineral, animal and vegetable with kisses of bouillon, earth and hay. Everything was nicely balanced in the nose with a touch of prickle. The palate was tasty and smooth with a pinch of green flavors from the vintage, a wine not to age much longer but still enjoyable. There were nice earth and leather flavors on its finish, but one could sense the animal and vegetable gremlins waiting to bust out in a bad way soon, which is the vintage more than anything else, as the bottle was quite sound. Drink up (88).

A 1988 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle’ had a smoky, toasty nose with lightly roasted Hermitage fruit, deep plum and cassis fruit, and a nutty, raisiny sex appeal. Meaty and oily, its nose was impressive, but its palate was a bit dry with extreme acidity. It lacked the fruit and depth of a great La Chapelle, but it was still a very good one with dry, leathery flavors and a long finish. On the second go-around, it reminded me of 1975 Bordeaux a bit (90).

Speaking of which, the next wine was a 1975 Beychevelle. The nose was amazingly fresh, still with a lot in reserve, but also with deep, dry cassis, minerals, anise and spicy earth aromas. The nose was high-pitched, a summit for tannins and alcohol. It was ‘ruff n’ rugged’ in a good way on the palate, spiny and intense with much more finish than fruit, and a lot of anise and mineral flavors. I like this vintage in general when I need a good spanking (88).

As a side note, I know in today’s number-crunching world that 88 points seems like a scarlet letter, but I would like to take the time to remind everyone that a wine can be perfectly enjoyable and ‘good’ in that score range, especially when dealing with mature wines when the price is right, and the ’92 and ’75 proved just that.

Unfortunately, our wine from the ’60s was corked, so we moved on to a 1959 A. Ligeret Santenay Gravieres, Tasteduvin bottling. Now we were talking. Perhaps it was just the randomness of selection, but the older we went, the fresher the wines seemed to be! The Santenay had a seductive nose of meaty, sweaty and sweet Pinot fruit. There was rich, black, smoky fruit with pinches of prune, animal and bread. The wine was delicious and ‘right thurrr’ – who says Santenay can’t age? Rich, chewy and creamy, the wine had the hot fig flavors of the ’59 vintage, that deliciously brown sugared fruit, complemented by earth, spice, seeds and skins. It gained in the glass in a citric and oaty way (92+).

The grand finale was indeed a grand finale, an original bottling of 1947 Borgogno Barolo Riserva (Borgogno has released numerous older wines as of late, but this was an original). This was my first great experience with the legendary 1947 vintage in Barolo. Yes, I, too, still have much to learn! The nose was perfect Piedmontese bliss – tar, leather, meat, earth, tobacco, roses, book, fireplace, truffles. It was symphonic in its complexity and still youthful in many regards. Absolutely delicious, it got nuttier and stayed spiny with its great t ‘n a. There were great sawdust, mineral, anise and spice flavors, a kiss of citrus on each cheek. This was aged Nebbiolo at our service, a meal unto itself with all the food groups. What was also interesting was the light and browned color the wine had, common for older Nebbiolo. Most wines that had this color would be DOA, but not Nebbiolo (96).

After a random and thorough sampling, I was both excited and confident in the quality of the cellar. There is something to be said for those European cellars, and I look forward to offering you many wines from the above cellar over the next month.