Before I get into the weekend, I would like to let everyone know that you can check out every article I have written over the past 15 months on www.vintagetastings.com/all I know, I need a searchable website. It’ll happen this year.

I am currently in the middle of my ‘State of Bordeaux’ article that describes my trip to Bordeaux this past December, but it seems like it will be one of those articles that ends up being 30-40 pages! It was indeed an amazing journey, but I am about ten pages into it after day one of six! Ugh – this one is going to take a lot of effort, so I decided to skip ahead to a very special weekend, the one where we auctioned off ‘THE Cellar.’ By the way, La Paulee weekend was the weekend before ‘THE Cellar’ weekend, and that was pretty special as well. By the looks of it, look for that article towards the end of February.

I think I was out every night the week of the auction, beginning Monday. I can’t remember Monday or Tuesday now, to be honest, but Wednesday I was at Fleur de Sel with Frank guzzling down an 88′ Zind Humbrecht Gewurztraminer (Clos Windsbuhl VT, I believe) and a 1971 Tommasi Amarone. They were both excellent and in the 93 point territory, but that’s about all you will get out of me for that night!

Thursday was the official kickoff to our version of a ‘Super’ weekend, the weekend we changed auction history by auctioning off the third largest collection of all time, totaling over $10.6 million in sales. I know you know by now, unless you have been in Antarctica for a couple weeks, but I had to say it again anyway – it sounds so good! Some select people came together at Per Se for a very magical evening, courtesy of ‘THE Cellar,’ as all the wines poured that night came from what is considered by many to be the greatest collection in America today. There is no doubt that this dinner affected some activity over the weekend!

It started innocently enough with a flight of two 1991 Burgundies, beginning with the 1991 Vogue Musigny V.V. The Vogue was ‘pretty and elegant’ Ed initiated, and it did have a gorgeous, pure and elegant nose with great aromas of vitamin, musk, iron, red cherry, mint and earth. The palate was solid, youthful but not massive though still firm with nice balance and length. It was still a bit taut and on the earthy and gritty side, but beautiful nonetheless (93).

The 1991 Leroy Richebourg clearly had more power and oak with its big, earthy and woody nose, full of tannins and earth. It was that big, Leroy style, although it managed to stay reined in despite my Kistler and Marcassin flashbacks. The palate was sturdy, big and long, more finish than fruit. Bob noticed how the wine brung out the fishiness of the caviar in the first course more, and it sure did. Roy commented how the wine was ‘too young – her wines need four decades almost.’ Mike concurred with the ‘too young’ sentiment (92+).

OK, enough of the warm-ups, it was time to get serious. The 1959 Roumier Bonnes Mares was incredible. It had a fabulous nose, meaty with lots of iron, tangy musk, vitamins, light iodine, bouillon and autumnal fruit. Rich and expansive on the palate, the 1959 still had lots of vigor and acidity. There was this dark and wild edge to the wine in a good way. The wine was round, lush, fleshy and very tasty, a kinky Burgundy all the way. ‘Phenomenal’ and ‘ridiculous’ came from the crowd (96).

The 1959 Rousseau Chambertin was no slouch, either. It had a milder nose but was still ‘precise,’ as Ed pointed out. There were subtle red fruits, nice t ‘n a, spice and musk, and the Rousseau kept gaining and gaining as the quality and power of Chambertin came out of their shell with a little air. There was good balance and vigor in the mouth, but the Rousseau lacked the layers of the Roumier. There was more citric tang on its brawny finish. The wine was excellent overall but short of outstanding, perhaps only because of the presence of the Roumier served before it. a close friend of mine preferred the Rousseau, I should note, and there were no signs of the hotness of the 1959 vintage in this well-made wine (94).

A notable side comment came from Ed when discussing the difference between Bordeaux and Burgundy, and why he found himself drinking Bordeaux more regularly. He found the wines of Bordeaux to be more consistent and that one could acquire 10-15 cases of a given wine with relative ease, but with Burgundy one has to spend fourteen years looking for that next bottle! If only we could all acquire 10 cases, Ed!

One of the most notably possible showdowns was next: Roumier vs. Vogue Musigny from the great 1962 vintage. The 1962 Roumier Musigny picked up where the 1959 Bonnes Mares left off. At first, it was a little musty, but it thankfully blew off. One bottle was unfortunately severely corked, but not mine. Stylistically, the 1962 was similar to the 1959 except it was fresher and more vigorous, and the Roumier style shone through first and foremost. There was a touch of caramel to this long and sturdy Musigny, which had quite a bit of kick despite being so elegant (95+).

The 1962 Vogue Musigny V.V. took no prisoners. It had an absolutely incredible nose that was singing in the spotlight. Robert called it ‘amazing,’ and it was about as ‘WOW’ as ‘wow’ can get. There were stupendous aromas; everything you could want in your nose of mature Burgundy was there. Someone called it ‘magical.’ Characteristics included fireplace, roses, brick, cedar and earth. The wine was so balanced, gorgeous and sensual, as well as smooth and beautiful. Everyone went ‘gaga’ for this spectacular wine (98).

That was a tough act to follow, so good thing we had a couple of 1978 s on tap. The 1978 La Tache had a meaty, intense and classic nose full of beefy fruit, menthol, citric tang, earth and leather, both spicy and spiny in its symphonic aromas. The fruit on the palate was a touch autumnal, as it should be, very forward and smooth. Ed said it was the best bottle of this wine that he had ever had, but a close friend of mine said that he had had slightly better, and I have had at least one that left a more lasting impression, but then again it was not tasted after wines of such magnificence as the previous four. There was a lot of game and wild boar flavors on the palate for this outstanding La Tache (95).

The 1978 Romanee Conti was served out of magnum, and while Ed liked the aromatic profile of the La Tache better, I found the structural components in the nose of the RC incredible. It was so penetrating in an elegant way and had this decadent, cherry vanilla ice cream thing happening. There was great verve to the palate, as only RC can provide, and additional flavors of earth and leather (96+).

Sadly, that was the end of our Burgundy programming; happily, it was the beginning of the Bordeaux one. We warmed up again with a couple of ‘modern-day legends,’ beginning with the 1990 Margaux. You know it is a good night when a ’90 Margaux is basically a palate cleanser! Taut, wound, and classic, the ’90 was great but seemed like such a baby now, infantile in its ability to express itself after the mature wines that we had just experienced. There was still a lot of Margaux elegance, length and style in this smooth, supple yet vigorous wine (95).

I broke down on the 1986 Mouton and could not gather myself to take a note. This bottle was incredibly closed, despite the fact that I had a near-perfect experience with it only six months ago (DQ).

The 1945 Mouton was another story in the next flight of two wines. Dripping with that old Mouton sex appeal, the ’45 had caramel, menthol, earth, sweet cream and forest floor aromas, all typical for this great vintage. The wine was very smooth on the palate, more so than the three or four 99 point experiences I have had with this wine, but it was outstanding nonetheless, ‘mintier than most,’ someone observed, but I found it par for the ’45 Mouton course, and tasty, long and balanced, perhaps reconditioned and hence the dip in normal intensity (95).

The 1947 Cheval Blanc was out of magnum, and it was a ‘wow’ wine. Inky, chunky, deep and expansive, the ’47 was chocolaty, motor oily and chunkily good. It was a great magnum of this wine and rich, deep and long on the palate with lots of vigor and grit. ‘Oomph’ summed up my notes (97+).

The final flight, or supposed final flight, of the night consisted of four 1961 Pomerols. Yeah, baby. It is no secret that I consider the 1961 Pomerols to be amongst the greatest wines ever made, and we had a Murderers’ Row assembled, beginning with the 1961 Trotanoy. Ed found it ‘Left Bank-ish,’ and I saw what Ed was talking about with its touch of cedar. I was enthralled with its seductive and fabulously decadent nose. It was so sexy and plummy with exquisite mineral and slate balancing out its classic, sweet Pomerol fruit. The palate was outstanding; delicious, gritty, long and balanced, the Trotanoy had prune, plum and mocha flavors with tender kisses of minerals. The wine was absolutely delicious and the sleeper of the flight (97).

The 1961 Lafleur was the only bottle that I would characterize as disappointing on this magical evening, but it was an affected bottle, a touch oxidized. It was gamy and wild, open yet funky in a fleshy way, with kinky fruit and supplements of bandaid and leather. Long, smooth and balanced, the wine still had great character despite the slight maderization. Someone called it ‘The Roumier of Bordeaux,’ but this bottle did not do this deservedly legendary wine justice (94A).

The 1961 Latour a Pomerol came, saw and conquered most of the guests on this night. ‘Wow’ began my note – we were in familiar territory! Its nose was sexy, musky, kinky, almost Arabian in its exotic spice. Big, rich and kinky, its nose was meaty, oily and Amarone-like as it should be. It was tasty, fresh and vigorous in the mouth, yet it maintained a delicacy that would charm any Burgundy lover. A gritty and sturdy finish rounded out this true classic (98).

What was this! The owner of ‘THE Cellar,’ who was in attendance, pulled out a magnum of the same wine! Creamy, smooth and exotic, the magnum had banana, plum, heavy cream and great minerality. Thicker, heavier and tighter than the bottle, the magnum was slightly marred for me by a touch too much oak. It will indubitably outlive the bottle, but I found the bottle to be more delicious at this stage (95+).

The last wine printed on the program was a magnum as well, of 1961 Petrus. It had an A++ nose full of plum, mocha, oil, nut, smoke, minerals, cedar and leather. The palate was awesome; balanced, taut and long, it was about as good as it gets, although out of magnum it showed a touch less fruit than some regular-sized bottles that I have had (98+).

So we thought the night was over, but there were more goodies in the bag of this most generous collector. We finished up with a 1921 Lafleur (99), 1949 Lafleur (97)and 1934 La Tache (99). They were all spectacular bottles, incredible wines achieving the near impossible fact of following the final flight. The 1921 was from the same batch that I had while working on the cellar, but this bottle made the prior one look almost junior varsity. It was staggering, and the 1949 was spectacular as well, but lacked the concentration and intensity of the 1921 comparatively. The 1934 LT held up to the legacy that the ’34 Romanee Conti left three months prior and proved equally as spectacular.

Another magnum of 1947 Cheval Blanc was opened later on, and mercifully I left after that one to miss a second magnum of 1978 Romanee Conti. Geez, Louise.

As if that wasn’t enough hedonism for one week, ‘Big Boy’ was holding court Friday night with a very special dinner for eight of his closest friends. Everything was served blind. After an exhausting day on the podium hammering down the first session, I was a bit late to the party but caught up quickly. It was the first official meeting of ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.’

The first wine had a mature, seductive nose that was deep, old yet strong, very meaty with lots of iron and iodine, nice t ‘n a and a firm character. There were library flavors on its thick, big and long, long, long palate, and enormous finish. Consistent with last night, this bottle of 1959 Roumier Bonnes Mares was outstanding again. When it rains, it pours (96).

Smoked meats and a powerful melange of wild herbs jumped out of the second glass. There was a little marijuana in there, for sure. The palate was chocolaty, long and sturdy, thick yet with less weight up front and in the middle. There was a tasty streak of vitamins on the finish in this 1959 Vogue Musigny V.V., which could easily last another twenty years. Dalia later added ‘coffee and dried beef’ and motivated me to find some tree bark in the wine as well (94+).

There was lots of t ‘n a in the third wine, which had aromas of smoke, garden, meat, black cherry and soda in its long nose. A sweet perfume permeated the room, and flavors of sun-dried cranberries graced its big, long and smooth palate. It was a 1962 Roumier Musigny. Hello again (96).

The fourth wine had an incredible nose with huge concentration and aromas of nuts, cherries, iron and vitamins. The wine was delicious: balanced, exquisite, gorgeous, delicious and pure. There was great earth and grit to the finish of this 1952 Roumier Bonnes Mares, which eventually surpassed the 1959 with its staying power. Man, I love ’52 Burgundies (97).

The hits kept on coming with the next wine, which had an unbelievably pure and fresh nose but in a subdued and long-term way. There was sexy, musky fruit, deep in its plum, oil, juice and seeds. Its flavors of cherry, rose and leather were long and oily, and the wine blossomed into an extraordinary flower. It was a 1949 Vogue Musigny V.V. (97).

The following wine was distinctively older in its nose, more booky and browned with its earth and oat aromas. Tasty, delicious and mature, the wine was balanced and sexy though definitely a wine for a necrophiliac. It was a 1911 Vogue Bonnes Mares, after all (92).

Water, please. Wine number seven had a pungent, intense and wild nose full of exotic grapefruit; its citric intensity was quite vigorous. On the palate, chocolate, garden, rose and nut oil made their way onto the flavor wheel, and I was quite impressed how this 87 year old bottle of 1919 Vogue Musigny V.V. kept expanding and expanding and expanding until it left everyone speechless, and it was a tough room to do that in (98).

Somehow, I managed to have some of a jeroboam of 1995 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet as a palate cleanser at this point, as I was running upstairs to check on a couple of special friends dining upstairs. Dalia, one of those friends, noted ‘green apples and figs’ as well as ‘pink roses,’ and she was spot on as usual. I added minerals, citrus, sweet corn, and ‘white jasmine’ came from Dalia as well. Her descriptors are as exotic as she is! It was a very complicated wine, at least out of jero (95).

I scurried back down to the private room, only to find some 1964 Krug Collection that was opened three hours ago offered to me as another ‘palate cleanser.’ It was still intense and long, razor sharp and spiny with lots of buttered cream. Wow. It could have rated higher if I had it earlier but was still outstanding after three hours (95+)!

It was back to our regular programming with a 1945 Rousseau Chambertin. It had a mature nose, of course, that was nutty, syrupy and sexy, containing aromas of granola oil, leather, vitamins, earth and grain. It was thick, figgy, long, intense and gorgeous. Absolutely delicious at first, the palate was full of tobacco and cherry flavors, all balanced and exquisite in their expression. An Asian tea thing exoticness developed along with a mesquite characteristic, and despite the wine getting some knocks by a few of the lucky guests, I still loved it, but it did lose itself in the glass more quickly than some of the other wines, and I am not sure if that was the wine in general or just the bottle (95A?)

The next wine had another great nose with a lemon-like intensity but a lot of minerals and spice to go with its big and long personality. Intense in the mouth, the wine was meaty, plummy, oily, fat, juicy and minerally. It was the 1949 La Tache, at our service, outstanding but not as spectacular as some of the other wines served before and after (95).

The marathon continued with a spectacular bottle of 1959 La Tache, which, unlike the ’49, had La Tache written all over the nose and many guesses came out accordingly. The menthol, green pepper and roasted earth trifecta were unmistakable, and the wine was thick, mouthcoating and leathery in a way that would make the Gucci sales racks. It was an awesome wine (98).

I was officially starting to feel it, as there was not much spitting happening on my part. There were four wines to go, and they were all Romanee Contis, beginning with the legendary 1929 Romanee Conti. It was definitively mature, and I think that 50-60 years is the optimum drinking time for a great RC based on my experiences this year, as any RC I have had from the ’20s (only two but still) have both seemed on the declining side, although that ’34 I had in October was as fresh as fresh can be, so perhaps it comes down to the bottle, but the older you get, the riskier it becomes. Nutty and oily with cinnamon sprinkles, the ’29 was deep and fairly intense still, still holding on to outstanding but not much more and perhaps not much longer (95).

The 1937 Romanee Conti was not as good as the bottle I had in October at Bouley for the Top 100 event, but it was still excellent, more on the earthy and garden-y side with lots of old library, cigar and cherry ice cream aromas and flavors (94).

The 1955 Romanee Conti, from the same case that I had before at Big Boy’s holiday party and rated 94 points, was a completely different experience. While the bottle we had in December seemed fully mature and lacked back end vigor, this bottle was the exact opposite…and they were from the same case! It just goes to show you that when it comes to older wines, there is no definitive rating or judgment, just snapshots frozen in time and the eternal memories that follow. This bottle of 1955 was unreal and incredibly intense, causing some Big Boy huffing and puffing (you have to see it for yourself as it is kind of indescribable). The nose was explosive and soared from the glass; and we were in definite winegasm territory. Huge and delicious, that was about all that needed to be (or could be by this point) said (97).

The 1959 Romanee Conti was unfortunately maderzied (DQ), but for so many old and rare bottles it was an amazing show orchestrated by Big Boy. Oh shit, the second session was starting in eight hours.

There were a lot of players in the room for ‘THE Cellar’ auction, and they started to drink accordingly. Somehow, some way, I got corralled into tasting a couple things during the lunch break, make that ten things, as once I started it kind of went from there. I couldn’t take any notes, but I took scores and will add some impressions. The 1990 Beausejour Duffau was spectacular, a humongous wine with tremendous texture, fruit and length. Someone called it a ‘baby ’61 Latour a Pomerol.’ Considering that the 1961 went for over $100K over the weekend, maybe it is time to load up on the 1990 Beausejour Duffau while it is still around $9000 (97+)! The 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. was outstanding, still young and very perfumed and full of Ponsot character (96). The 1989 Clinet I could have lived without. It was still a very good wine, but after the first two, it seemed as if this emperor had no clothes (91). The 1990 Mugnier Musigny was great. There was no sign of Allen Meadows, so this bottle of 1990 decided to show very well and even better than previous experiences. You could see why many put Mugnier in Burgundy’s upper echelon today (96+). There was a 1988 Guigal La Mouline, rock solid and outstanding, but a little more lost in the sauce than it usually shows (95+). 1991 Vogue Musigny V.V.? It was back again and consistent with Thursday night’s bottle (93). There was a magnum of 1947 Petrus that followed from a most generous attendee. A bit controversial as it was definitely reconditioned, I am not sure how much 1947 was in it, but there were signature Petrus characteristics and deep, chunky, chocolaty, Pomerol fruit. It was incredibly concentrated, a touch too much for some, but it was an amazing wine nonetheless with a thick and chewy texture, an enormous finish and decadently rich fruit. I had to give it the benefit of the doubt because it was that good (97). A 1995 Rayas snuck in there and proved that it is as good a Rayas as was ever made, even though it is still half the price of the 1990 (96)! That’s my tip of the week for all. We finished with two more Burgs, the first being a 1991 Meo Camuzet Richebourg, which was lean and spiny with a lot of leather, minerals and purple/black fruits (93), and a 1990 Mugnier Chambolle Musigny ‘Amoureuses’ that I wrote down as having but am unsure if I tasted. Sorry. It was time to get up and do the third session.

A post-auction massage revitalized me just in time for the after-party at Thor. It was a little more low-key than the rest of the weekend, which is not saying much because I think the rest of my life will be low-key compared to this weekend! My notes are brief because this was a party, but I hope my impressions are enough to still make one on you.

We started with a pair of Peter Michael Chardonnay ‘Cuvee Indigenes,’ 1995 and 1996. They were both excellent and bordering on outstanding, more Montrachet-like than the Montrachet that followed. Bigger, sweeter and with more acidity, I was in a generous mood so I gave them each (95), although perhaps 94 points was in order based on the comments of a few guests.

The 1998 Jacques Prieur Montrachet, served out of magnum, was smooth, easy and nice, but unexciting for a Montrachet (90).

The 1972 La Tache brought by King Richard of California was a great bottle. This overlooked vintage of LT had a great nose with lots of leather, dark meat, beans and truffles. Full of grit and character, this written-off vintage of LT is a winner (93+).

A 1993 William Seylem Pinot Noir ‘Rochioli Vineyard’ followed the LT quite admirably with its sexy, nutty, musky nose and smooth palate that still had excellent acids. It was very nice (92).

The 1996 Dujac Echezeaux, another magnum, had a great nose, brooding with aromas of dried fruits, nuts and apricots. Long, stylish and reserved, it never quite found itself on the palate and seemed to lack definition at first, though a couple hours of air time really did the wine some good (93).

The 1993 Groffier Bonnes Mares was a bit out there. Groffier’s wines can be delicious, and they can be wild and aggressively green. This one was way too barnyardy and animalistic, and I could not deal with it (85+?)

A 1983 Grands Echezeaux was soft and on the earthy side, and Dalia picked up on ‘green beans and pears’ (91).

There was a magnum of 1971 Latour, which was a beautiful magnum. Smooth, supple, soft and pretty, it goes to show that great producers make at least good wine almost every year (90).

A 1982 La Conseillante was very good but not great and a bit disappointing for the wine and the vintage (92).

The 2000 L’Angelus, though about as modern as I can tolerate my Bordeaux to be, was still an excellent wine and full of a lot of beefy and chocolaty character (93).

A 1978 Vieux Telegraphe Chateauneuf was a treat to try, but it seemed a bit on the dry side, long and full of cocoa but a bit square (92+?).

The 1989 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf is never a wine you can go wrong with, and tonight was no exception. It was delicious as always (95).

A 1990 Chateau Musar held its own amongst this esteemed group, showing perhaps the greatest acid of the night outside of the Dujac and was delicious in that exotic and uniquely funky Musar way (93).

The 1995 Dalla Valle Cabernet, not the Maya, rocked the house with an outstanding showing. Some of these early-to-mid 1990s Dalla Valles are outstanding wines and have always been some of my favorite Cali Cabs of the decade. It was huge and great (95).

Dalia took over the tasting notes for the 1979 Heitz Cabernet ‘Martha’s Vineyard’ with ‘nectarines, pine nuts, brown figs and green squash.’ Whoa! She has me a bit self-conscious about raising my adjective game now! The Heitz was very good, indeed (92).

The 2003 Robert Foley Claret was the grand finale (before the six bottles of Cristal), and it was served out of magnum. Even though it was a 2003, which is supposedly a bit of a tougher vintage for Cali, the Foley showed why he is one of the hottest producers in Cali right now. ‘Red curry, cherry bomb and cloves’ came from the crowd. The Foley was full-throttle, rock n’ roll Cali Cab and outstanding (95).

The party would have gone on longer, but some jackass who was a bit too inebriated got in a minor tussle with someone as he was trying to escort that someone/party crasher out of the party for some reason, proceeding to almost tear his shirt off in the process and then slam a chair on the ground, breaking it into pieces while taking a piece out of the ceiling. Some people just don’t know how to act, I tell you.

Just another typical Acker auction weekend…

This past December, I took my first trip to ‘wine country’ in a long time, but not the Napa Valley with which so many associate the term, but rather to the shores of Bordeaux, my first trip there as an adult. Could I have possibly been in the wine business for over ten years and not have visited such hallowed ground? Why, yes. It has only been little over a year since I have reacquainted myself with the retail side of the business, and it did not make sense for me to go there until my experience in the wine business had come full circle to where I begun, as it has now with retail on my mind. Don’t worry, you can still call me 006 as auctions are forever!

I was very fortunate to have the ultimate tour guide, a personal sensei of mine, Dr. Bipin Desai. Every December, he makes his yearly pilgrimage to Bordeaux, accompanied by his two most trusted friends, Dr. Frank Komorowski and Wolfgang Grunewald, two of the most serious collectors in the entire world, and great guys to match (they don’t always go together!) So, there we were, four horsemen united in spirit and spirits, looking for some answers to the age old question, ‘What’s going on?’

My three cohorts were actually already ahead of me, starting off with a couple of nights in San Sebastian in Spain, which many feel is one of the world’s great culinary destinations now. If you end up in the area, let me know and a recommendation or three will follow. Having my December auction on the 10th, I had to miss that part of the trip. In fact, I was on the redeye flight that left right after the auction. Suffice it to say that I was jello by the time I had gotten to Bordeaux on my connecting flight. After a six-hour nap and then a decent night’s sleep on Sunday, we began our journey on Monday at Leoville Las Cases.

On the way to Las Cases, the first thing I remembered was that wine country is actually farm country. Despite all the big names and world-renowned chateaux, there is very little modernization on the outside on a surface level. It seemed as if the place looked the same twenty years ago, and probably fifty before that as well. Being such a lover of older wines, I felt at home and quite comfortable amongst the vineyards and old chateaux, these magical places trapped in time. While the city of Bordeaux is quite metropolitan, its wine country is not, and that’s not a bad thing.

We were greeted at Las Cases by its winemaker, Bruno Rolland, a third-generation winemaker who has been the official winemaker since 1996. He did not speak much English, so we did our best in Franglais to communicate. Sometimes, the wine spoke for itself. Chateaux Nenin and Potensac are also managed by Las Cases now, so we had a healthy introduction to the week at 9am featuring three chateaux, their second wines, and two vintages, 2004 and 2003.

First up was the 2004 Fugue de Nenin, which was 92% Merlot, the rest being Cab Franc. Youthful and pleasant with a touch of bitters was about all I came up with. Young wine is not as easy to write about for me as it is for others, and I was trying to take quick snapshots as we had a very busy schedule, and time was of the essence (85).

You could see the immediate ripeness of the vintage in the 2003 Fugue de Nenin. Its nose was much more aromatic, and its palate more open, which was grapy, young yet smooth (87).

The 2004 Nenin itself had more depth and a smoky, meaty, gamy, Pomerol nose. It was medium-bodied with nice richness, and good slate, plum and chocolate flavors. A decent finish rounded out this good, almost very good wine (89).

I actually preferred the 2004 Nenin to the 2003 Nenin, which was not as ripe as I had expected. This was a trend that would continue throughout the week when it came to Pomerol. The 2003 still had some sweet plum to it, along with chocolate, soy and earth. Drier and with more acidity than the 2004, there was a long finish and olive and bread flavors, but I enjoyed it a touch less than the more classic 2004. Dr. K was in agreement, also in the fact that we both ironically preferred the 2003 Fugue, the second label (88).

We changed lanes and domaines with a 2004 Chapelle de Potensac. The nose was pleasant and had some sweet fruit, but the palate was very uninspiring, a bit lemony and lacking depth or weight (82).

The 2003 Chapelle de Potensac had more structure in the nose with nice mineral aromas. There was lots of structure by comparison to the 2004, but the 2003 still suffered from the same deficiencies overall. Bipin was taken aback by the fact that it was ‘so alcoholic,’ and we whispered amongst ourselves that perhaps Potensac should not have a second wine (84).

The 2004 Potensac had nice aromas and rich fruit in its nose with bread, grape, earth and some baby fat to it. The palate was drier, classic in an earthy and slaty way with a dry finish. It was a good wine (87+).

The 2003 Potensac had more meat, nut and oil to the nose, more flesh on the palate but less structure than the ’04. It was pleasant and nice to drink with some dryness to its finish, but again I preferred the 2004 by a small margin (86).

The 2004 Clos du Marquis,. the official second wine of Leoville Las Cases, had a nice, nutty nose that was softer and fleshier than Potensac. The palate was too dry and a bit sandpapery, however. I found it average (85).

The 2003 Clos du Marquis was the first wine to crack the 90-point barrier (phew). The week was off to a bit of a slow start by my usual standards, I know. The nose was very nice, sexy and musky with a very good balance between its nut and fruit components. The nose was open and flirtatious with lots of mouth coating tannins and some ripe fruit to match, cassis and coffee flavors mainly. The wine felt like it still needed more time to truly open, unlike the other wines that preceded it (90).

The end was near, beginning with the 2004 Leoville Las Cases. The nose was deeper, elegant yet robust at the same time, with meaty fruit underneath. Aromas of nut, cassis, oil, earth and tobacco intermingled complexly. The palate was rich and long with refined tannins and excellent acidity. Flavors of leather, earth, sandpaper and lemon graced its finish. Only 34% of the crop made it into the 2004, versus 54% of the 2003! The palate had flesh without sweetness and was very good, just short of excellent for the time being, but I do have a bit of a handicap sometimes appreciating younger, Old World wines (92).

The 2003 Leoville Las Cases was clearly at the head of this class, jumping out of its glass and taking center stage quickly. Nutty and aromatic, the 2003 had coffee, vanilla bean, smoke, earth and dark fruits underneath. Its concentration was on another level. Its tannins were long, acidity fine and flavors mineral, earth, cassis and tobacco. Everyone was definitely awake after this wine (95)!

We said our goodbyes, and we were off to Cos d’Estournel for a tasting and lunch with Jean-Guillaume, the dynamic son and successor of the legendary Bruno Prats. I liked the guy even before we met him, as he is a ‘John William’ as am I. My middle name is William, for which Guillaume is the French translation. We arrived a little before Jean-Guillaume and began to taste some recent vintages of Cos, one of the hottest Chateaux in Bordeaux over the past ten or fifteen years. Upon pulling up into the chateau, we noticed three flags were flying out front, one from India (for Bipin), from Switzerland (for Wolf) and, of course, the good ol’ USA (for Frank and I). Now that’s class. Cos also has a beautiful museum and tasting room, where we gathered for a vertical of 2002 through 2005, the only ’05 we ended up tasting the entire trip!

The 2002 Cos d’Estournel had nice spice to its nose, and I almost saw the Indian connection on display at the Museum, or perhaps I was being subconsciously influenced. Cos has a history of trading with India a lot over the years. There was nice earth and great balance with its fruit, accompanied by lightly toasted bread, meat and cassis. The wine was pure and had lovely fruit and great flesh, balanced all the way. ‘2002 was a great success in St. Estephe,’ Bipin commented, and Jean-Guillaume’s assistant called the ’02 ‘classic Medoc.’ The palate also had great fruit with vanilla, smoke and mineral kisses and a fine, delicate finish. ‘Really good’ was how Bipin summed up the 2002, and it was. It was beautiful but did not have the concentration or weight of the greatest of vintages, but I bet it will be delicious for the next 10-15 years (92).

The 2003 Cos d’Estournel was a bit muted in the nose at first, with some fat fruit churning underneath. I had some glass issues, so I got a re-pour and started fresh. Pure minerals, light toast, light nut, and subtle earth all graced its nose. The palate was very concentrated and hedonistic, making me sneeze due to its intensity. The wine was a bit Caliesque in its fruit, but oh so Bordeaux on its finish. Someone (sorry I forgot who) said the wine was ‘exotic with a round attack…for such a young wine, this is extremely unusal.’ Secondary aromas of coffee, nut and musk emerged, and the nose started to ripple with minerals. Its finish was first class, loaded with minerals and length, and great earth flavors. Wolf found it ‘very roasted,’ while Bipin felt that quality was ‘burnt’ (95+).

The 2004 Cos d’Estournel had coffee and its grinds in the nose, along with some sexy plum and chocolate behind it. There was a bit of a stalky edge, this pungent earth to it that I liked. Very dry on the palate, the 2004 reminded me a bit of 1986 or 1975 in its tannic and dry personality. There were roasted coffee flavors and plum ones, too, but this baby clearly needed some time. After the 2004, when we went back to the 2003, we could all see how atypical the 2003 really was, and that it was indeed more ‘Caliesque,’ as Clive has been insisting. The enormous finish of the 2004 reeked of potential. Jean-Guillaume joined us in the middle of the 2005 that we were about to sample, and he said something very interesting about his 2004, that in 2-3 years the 2004 will be a wine that many prefer, as it is the most classic of the first three wines we sampled. It is pretty rare that I make a ‘buy’ recommendation, but this is one of those rare occasions where I feel I should say something, and no, I do not have any in inventory as I am writing this (94+).

The 2005 Cos d’Estournel was still ‘grape juice,’ as Bipin noted, ‘but still very balanced.’ Jean-Guillaume was quick to caution us that they just finished the first blend, and that this was more for fun than to be able to seriously evaluate it. He continued that 2005 had ‘the balance of 2000’ but was ‘more profound and with more expression. There is a pulp on the mid-palate, a fatness very rare in Bordeaux.’ The woman from Cos cooed about ‘1945, ’47, ’61.’ As Paul Wasserman said to me in Carmel a couple weeks prior, the 2005 vintage is ‘a fait accompli.’ That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, get ready for a big-time Bordeaux futures campaign this Spring. Back up the trucks and take out your second mortgages now, because they are not going to be cheap, either. Back to the wine&despite the non-sample quality that was insisted, I could see the style of Cos come through the roasted earth, the plum, the cassis, the exotic spice. There was a lot of baby fat and a touch of mint with defined cedar despite its grapy personality. Despite that grapiness, there was balance and distinguished length in its classy, stylish finish (95+).

It was off to lunch we went, after a quick gathering in the salon with some 1988 Krug. After just a few minutes with Jean-Guillaume, one could tell that this was a driven, classy, and intelligent young man (hey sounds familiar), and that the future of Cos d’Estournel is in the most capable of hands. It is clear that Bruno’s torch is at the very least in the process of being passed. Lunch was a trio of older wines (finally!), beginning with one of my all-time favorite Bordeaux of the last 25 years, the 1982 Cos.

The 1982 Cos d’Estournel had a fabulous nose. ‘I love this wine and always have,’ I wrote. Jean-Guillaume was quick and proud to point out how they made 35,000 cases of the 1982 compared to only 18,000 estimated cases for 2005. Regardless of what may have been a high production that year, the 1982 was still singing to a sold out audience. Its nose was fabulous with great nut, cassis and plum fruits with cedar and chocolate supplements, a touch of raisinet, oil and caroby flesh. The palate was rich, creamy and fleshy with the perfect amount of nut there, great cassis flavors and excellent t ‘n a. It was a first class wine with hints of autumn but by no means autumnal. I have rated it as high as 98 points, and it was good to see this bottle be consistent, as I hadn’t had it in a while and was starting to wonder if I had gone too far that one night after seeing my note over and over in our catalogs! I didn’t (97).

The 1970 Lafite Rothschild required us to go through two bottles, as the first one was slightly corked. The second bottle was a bit fresher, nuttier, meatier and oilier with a Thai peanut edge. The palate was nice and fresh, smooth with a nice ‘Burgundian’ quality someone noted. Velvety, smooth and lush with pleasant, old red cherry fruit, leather and earth on its finish, the 1970 was nice but did not hold in the glass all that well and is definitely in a period of decline (88).

The 1961 Pichon Lalande was a real treat and had an excellent nose with nice vigor of its t ‘n a, peanutty fruit and underlying cassis, a real autumnal cassis. There was this exotic perfume to it blending into the nut that I couldn’t quite put my finger on for a minute and then it came to me: lavender. Words such as ‘elegant, forward and silky’ came from the group. This bottle was actually in the cellar of Cos since 1961, as was the Lafite since 1970! Now that’s provenance. You could see the freshness in both of these wines accordingly. Some Asian grill rounded out its complicated nose, a nose that was much better than its leathery palate. Frank got ‘cassis’ flavors, and the 1961 was smooth and supple, just holding on to its very good status despite the intoxicating aromas (90).

I took a few interesting tidbits from our general conversation that were not related to the three wines we tasted. Jean-Guillaume thinks that Chile is the best place to make good value wine in the world, but that Argentina had better grapes and vineyards, except for the fact that Argentina is much more difficult to deal with. He also cited South Africa and Eastern Europe as the next two potential hotbeds for quality wines, particularly Romania and Bulgaria when they join the EC in 4-5 years. The question of Cos vs. Lafite came up, and what was the difference, and Jean-Guillaume reasoned 1) terroir; 2) Lafite’s consistency over 150 years; and 3) the fact that Lafite always had the financial resources to declassify in bad vintages and make a better wine. Jean-Guillaume went on to define longevity as market penetration and brand recognition, and also stressed the importance of educating one’s workers about wine. The topic of reconditioning came up, and, of course, Bipin had the last word when he said, ‘Those who recondition wines have never learned elementary physics.’ Praise the Bipin!

There was no time to dilly-dally, as we had appointments with Lafite, Mouton and Margaux that afternoon. Lafite was first, where we sampled a trio of 2004s with Charles Chevalier, manager at Lafite.

The 2004 Carruades de Lafite had a sexy nose of sweet fruit and that Bordeaux reserve. Grape and cassis were everywhere, and there was a nice perfume to the wine and a touch of earth, but the nose was decidedly plump. The palate was plump too, rich and delicious with light grit. ‘For such a tannic vintage, there are very ripe and soft tannins,’ Bipin concurred. A higher percentage of Merlot was our answer, of course; 47% compared to 28% for Duhart and only 9% for Lafite in 2004 (90).

The 2004 Duhart Milon had more structure in its nose and was more consistent with the vintage with its minerals and earth along with nut, vanilla, beef and cassis behind those. The palate also had more structure and tannins and while the Duhart was not as pleasing as the Carruades right now, there was greater richness and lots of minerals and length. With time, some depth to the fruit emerged on the palate and more coffee came out. At first, the Duhart was surprisingly close in quality to the Lafite and more enjoyable, but with time the Lafite distinguished and separated itself a bit more (92+).

So the Duhart vs. Carruades brought up the interesting debate of a wine being rated less but at the same time being more enjoyable. I am sure that concept would keep a wine chat room or two up late at night.

We finished with the 2004 Lafite Rothschild, which immediately reeked of a different level. Its regal qualities were quite noticeable, and there was exquisite earth, light nut and deep, black fruits to the nose – not sweet, but deep. The palate was very chalky with a touch of ‘burnt’ to its tannic finish. The wine was very inky and full of unsweetened, plummy fruit. The long and regal finish was impressive and its acidity piercing, but this was a brooding behemoth of a Lafite that needs a lot of time to find itself (93++).

Off to Mouton we went, where we were able to sample a trio of 2004s and 2003s with manager Herve Berland. We began with the 2004 D’Armailhac, whose pleasant nose had a unique dash of cinnamon and floral characteristics. There was also nice cassis aromas, and supplemental earth and leather with a touch of carob. The wine was rich and inky on the palate with concentrated fruit and a nice, sandy grit to its earthy finish. It bordered on excellence, until the Clerc Milon knocked it back to very good (92).

The 2004 Clerc Milon was another impressive wine, though it had a milder, shier nose that was very classic but seemingly shut down. The palate was clean, round and precise with nice balance, length and dryness. While the D’Armailhac was fatter, the Clerc Milon was more classic with its earth, tobacco and dry cassis flavors (93).

The 2004 Mouton Rothschild was very fragrant with lots of nutty decadence. It smelled sappier and nuttier and had lots of coffee aromas, along with firm t ‘n a integrated within its thick fruit. At first, the wine was relatively closed on the palate yet very long with its spicy finish and flavors of sand, leather, earth and mineral that accompanied it. It got an ‘amazing, long and classical’ from Bipin. The Mouton certainly had more depth than the Clerc, but the Clerc was definitely more expressive at the moment. I was quite impressed by this trio of 2004s (94+).

The 2003 D’Armailhac also had a fat nose but was less expressive than I thought it would be. There were nice, subtle aromas of plum, smoke, slate and tobacco. Its fruit was a bit roasted in the mouth, and the wine was more two-dimensional, and ‘more astringent’ Frank chipped in. Bipin loved its silkiness ‘now,’ but I was not as impressed, although it was obviously good wine (89).

The 2003 Clerc Milon mimicked the 2004 with its shut-down personality, but it was still pure with classic cedar, minerals and light earth all in reserve. The palate was in line with its spicy finish, but again I preferred the 2004 counterpart, and I did go back and forth a lot. The 2003 did not seem to have much fruit going for it on the palate, which is supposed to be the hallmark of this excessively hot vintage – was it shut down (91)?

The 2003 Mouton Rothschild left no doubts as to what was the ‘grand vin’ for this session. It had a great nose full of fruits, nuts and earth, and someone chimed in ‘cigar box and pencil.’ Bipin said, ‘it is not burnt like many 2003s.’ It was gamy in its nose with a hint of coffee, chocolate and lots of vigor. The level of concentration of fruit in the nose was a sight to smell, so to speak. Some youthful vanilla rounded out this incredibly rich nose. The finish was enormous, layered and seemingly endless. The palate was rich and oily with lots of vanilla and nut flavors, complemented by earth and animal ones, and the wine still needed to flesh out a bit as it was reined in stylistically, but that finish was like a shot of Novocaine! It coated the mouth for a long, long, long time. ‘We like dry years,’ Herve commented, calling the 2003 the ‘most comparable since 1982’ (96+).

Mouton was a tough act to follow, but Margaux was up to the challenge. We started with the 2004 Pavillon Rouge de Margaux, which had a seductive and charming nose. There was rich plum and cassis fruit, nice nut and vanilla, good minerality and a touch of roast. The wine was delicious, seemingly tannic by Margaux standards but still elegant and refined. There was nice expression of fruit on the palate and a long, mineral-laden finish (92).

The 2004 Margaux was almost identical to the Pavillon Rouge except there was less fatness to the fruit and more structural components. There was great breed to the wine, both aromatically and in mouth, where the palate was spicy, long and sensual, with excellent balance between its fruit and finish. It still retained the elegance, light on its feet as a great Margaux should be. It struck me as the 2004 of the day. Assistant winemaker Phillipe Bascaux commented how the 2004 had much more Merlot and a strict selection to make the best wine possible in this vintage (95).

As good as the 2004 Margaux was, the 2003 Margaux took things to another level. While the 2003 retained the signature style of Margaux found in the 2004, the 2003 was more ripe, heady, forward and sexy than its younger sibling. Wolf found it ‘roasted,’ while Frank picked up on the ‘similar characteristics to Mouton ’04 vs. ’03.’ Bipin joked it was like ‘Chateauneuf du Pape,’ as the wine was so ripe, and its rich, decadent fruit was full of plum, cassis, vanilla, nut and light minerals buried in there with slate aromas. The palate was very rich and super spicy, and this was definitely the wine of the day. This was clearly an exceptional wine, although Bipin noted that it was ‘so unusual to see wine like this in Bordeaux’ (97).

The 2004 Pavillon Blanc de Margaux had a fresh, Sauvignon Blanc nose with aromas of grapefruit, passion fruit, guava, pineapple, ‘quince and melon,’ Wolf added. The nose was quite exotic, and the wine, which was 100% Sauvignon Blanc we learned, had flavors more on the glue and mineral side and was clean but not crisp. It was a nice palate refresher, though (88).

We had one final stop for the day, a visit to Rausan Segla, where we were to taste both some Rausans and some Canons, both under the same management of John Kosala. First, we tried five vintages of Canon. The 2004 Canon had a nice nose with redder fruits, earth and minerals and a touch of wintry spice. The palate had good richness on the attack, those same redder fruits, some Cab Franc stalky complexity and nice earth on the finish (92).

The nose of the 2003 Canon had more 2003 in it than Canon, somewhat mild in its overall personality, red in hue. There was concentration in the mouth but some definition missing in the middle despite a spicy finish (90).

The 2002 Canon had a milky nose with a touch of herbalness, and a palate to match yet a decent finish (87).

The 2001 Canon again was a bit milky and herbal but less so on both accounts with some redder fruits in the nose. The palate was nice with its red fruit, stalk and mineral flavors and long finish. Medium-bodied, this Canon was flirting with being very good (89+).

The 2000 Canon had a classy nose with a lot of breed on the structural side and a feminine personality overall. There was nice balance in the mouth despite some heat on the finish, but the fruit seemed shut down at the moment (90+).

We changed gears back to Margaux with the 2004 Rausan Segla. The ’04 was fragrant with lots of cassisy baby fat and supplementary vanilla and smoke aromas. It seemed a bit overly dry, but I did note that my palate was starting to feel worse for wear (90).

The 2003 Rausan Segla was excellent, starting with its rich fruit in the nose and nutty kisses. There was good earth and a pinch of garden goodness as well. There was nice breed in the wine without any overipeness, although there was certainly more fruit than structure in its balanced nose. Smoke and brick rounded out its aromas. The palate was rich, long and balanced. It had excellent spine and still retained that Margaux elegance. It was an excellent 2003. Frank found all the 2003s throughout the day to be ‘leathery’ (93+).

The 2002 Rausan Segla had a very mild and reserved nose but was nice in that regard. There were touches of cassis and nut there. The wine had a lighter body and lacked weight up front, but it also had a pleasant finish (88).

Finally, we made our way to the last wine of the afternoon, the 2000 Rausan Segla, which had a nice nose with good, nutty aromas that Bipin found ‘absolutely incredible.’ There was a lot of elegance and style here in this classy wine. The palate was long, elegant and fine, with nice structure and length, and Frank found it ‘heads and shoulders above’ any other wine in this session. I liked the 2003 equally, to be frank, or make that not Frank (93)!

So you think that would be enough for day one, right? Did I mention to you that Bipin orchestrated this trip? There was time to shower and change and get right back in the car to go to Chateau Montrose for dinner with the lovely and charming Jean-Louis Charmolue, and his wife, Anne-Marie.

We started with a white, a 2000 Olivier Leflaive Corton Charlemagne. The nose had a touch of baked fruit, very waxy and yeasty in its personality, and a little corn underneath. The wine seemed very advanced for a 2000. There were morning mouth flavors (yes, that is not good), and the wine was too yeasty and weird despite some decent acidity (83).

The theme of the evening was 1975, and we begun with a 1975 Giscours, every lumberjack’s favorite wine. The spiny character of the 1975 vintage jumped out of the glass with anise and alcohol, but there was a surprising wealth of cassis and chocolate aromas along with a kiss of old oak. The palate was also surprisingly rich and fleshy, and its finish had good acidity and tannins that were just starting to melt away. There was nice grit and tasty plum and wood flavors. It was ‘a star of the vintage,’ someone noted, and also the most ready of the evening and actually showed fruit (93).

The 1975 Beychevelle continued showing the style of the vintage with its anise and alcohol aromas. Its nose was earthier but also had cassis and flesh. Perhaps the hardest of 1975s only needed better storage! Its mineral components were stellar, and the wine got nuttier and plummier, dare I say sexier, with its mature yet fresh fruit qualities. The palate was stonier and even bigger than the Giscours in its acidity. There was still nice balance and a long finish. The Beychevelle was spinier and more intense on its back side, and despite this fundamental difference between it and the Giscours, they were practically equivalent qualitatively, although the Giscours was more delicious and fruit forward, more ready, but perhaps the Beychevelle will ultimately surpass it with more time (92+).

The 1975 Ducru Beaucaillou was classic Ducru with its pencil/mineral aromas and plummy fruit lurking underneath. A touch of bread crust, earth and a hint of garden were there as well. The Ducru, as it is prone to be, seemed softer, kinder and gentler than the first two wines, but there was still vim and lots of class. The wine got nuttier, but the palate was able to retain a high-pitched character, vigorous yet elegant. I preferred the muscle of the Beychevelle, but I could see many preferring the finesse of the Ducru, and many did (92).

The 1975 Leoville Las Cases was more open and had a touch of wild animal to its nutty fruit, a bit of old oak around its edges and some vanilla and cream. It had a flash of woody fruit up front on the palate, a kiss too much, but the acidity and spine on the finish were there (90).

Wolfgang was talking to Xavier Borie, proprietor of Grand Puy Lacoste, who was there as well, about 1975 and what happened that year. Xavier said that he felt that the vintage was picked too early overall because there was too much excitement after the disastrous 1971 through 1974 vintages, and as soon as some ripeness came, no one could wait. One or more weeks could have made a big difference, he felt, and because of the early picking, the huge potential of this vintage was missed. Some other comments of note included Wolfgang’s ‘I like Burgundy,’ to which Xavier quickly replied, ‘Nobody’s perfect.’ Yes, the Bordelais are very ‘nationalistic’ when it comes to their wine. Wolf, with the quickness of a great politician, quickly countered that ‘I am married to Bordeaux, but Burgundy is my mistress.’ While the Giscours was Miss Congeniality of the flight, Bipin felt ‘it won’t get any better,’ and the general consensus was Beychevelle and Ducru were the best wines.

The second flight began with a 1975 Pichon Baron, which had a stony nose full of meat and perfume. Carob, earth, nut, grape seed oil and cedar rounded out its aromatic profile. The palate had some flesh and spine, but less than any other wine so far. There was pleasant grit and flavors of nut, leather and cedar, but the wine delivered a lesser impression after the first flight (88).

The 1975 Pichon Lalande was more plummy and approachable in its nose, still possessing slate and mineral components, but its Merlot content showed sexily. It had an intoxicating and alluring style with its nut, oil and meat supplements. The palate was soft and fleshy up front and had light vigor in the back with decent acidity, but the wine was not as good on the palate as it was aromatically, similar to the 1961 we had earlier in the day (91).

It was time for the ‘house’ wine, the 1975 Montrose. The Montrose had a classy nose with a lot of breed, but that 1975 edge of pungent alcohol, anise, minerals and earth. There were shy, deep, dark fruits there, and the palate was quite tasty; long, balanced and elegant by Montrose standards but still with plenty of stuffing. I was torn between 92 and 93 points, ie very good or excellent, so I gave it the home court advantage (93).

While the 1975 Mouton had a ‘very good nose,’ it was ‘better than taste.’ There were nice aromas of cedar, caramel, plum and nut, but the palate had dry, old oak flavors, and the nose quickly followed in that oaky direction. There was solid length, but the flavors were just too oaky for me (87).

Bipin was commenting how ‘many reject the (1975) vintage,’ to which Mr. Charmolue exclaimed, ‘C’est une erreur!’

We ended with a 1934 Siglas Ribaud, a Sauternes with a lovely nose full of burnt orange, caramel, hay and straw, but there was too much oak again for me, kind of like a grumpy old man in the glass (87).

So that was Day One. Since I do not know when I am going to get to Days Two through Five, I would like to make some general observations about the entire week and the State of Bordeaux, some of which I have already made, and others that will come forward in the succeeding chapters of this journey.

1)

For the past two weeks, I have spent almost every day in a professional warehouse inspecting thousands of bottles from what I am now convinced is the greatest cellar in America. Having had the privilege of being in hundreds of great cellars in the United States, I can diligently say this cellar is beyond compare. No windows nor sunlight for twelve hours a day, in a fifty-degree cellar is not the manner one would think of to ring in the New Year. Notwithstanding that, as I went from bottle to bottle, my soul got warmer and warmer. I have had many bottles from this spectacular collection, but never before had I seen such a dazzling array of legendary wines in such quantities. For a collection of this size and magnitude, with this level of legendary wines, I felt it my responsibility to inspect almost each and every bottle.

At Acker Merrall, we believe bottle inspection is the most vital part of any auction offering. Therefore, bottles, particularly older and rarer ones, are not objects just to be stamped and checked off like cookies on an assembly line, but rather something which needs to undergo a verification and identification process in order to be offered in any of our auctions. In order to do that, we put each and every bottle through a painstaking process: First, we test the cork to make sure it is firm. Loose corks generally mean the wine has been oxidized. Next, for at least one bottle in every lot we cut capsules for all rare and legendary wines to make sure the corks are properly branded. Next, we check color and sediment levels in the wine to determine how appropriate the wine is relative to its age. These are all important indicators especially with older wines. Labels are the final test. Signs of photocopied labels or older wines with glossy labels that lack texture are both warning signs, though occasionally can be found on authentic bottles. In addition, if a wine has been reconditioned, these steps will further ensure we properly identify
each and every lot. If it looks too good, chances are it has been reconditioned. Almost all Nicolas bottles were reconditioned decades ago and usually with the original wine. This is one reason they have great provenance and are highly sought after. Considering the magnitude of this offering I felt it important to give our clients a “behind the scenes” view of what we go through each and every time we sell wine.

Fine wine has become a commodity, and unfortunately many counterfeit wines have made their way into the auction marketplace. This fact makes inspecting wines of this rarity increasingly important and time consuming, and consequently made inspecting the wines in this cellar all the more pleasurable, as the condition and provenance here are outstanding.

It is now time to focus on THE cellar again. I know this cellar intimately, having had hundreds of bottles of old and rare wines from it. I have often sourced bottles for our Wine Workshop dinners, as well as our Top 100 weekends, during the past two years. I have had some of the greatest wines I have ever experienced from this cellar. Both the collector and I are so confident in the quality of this cellar, that we are offering something to my knowledge that has never been offered before: a money-back guarantee on any unopened bottles for ninety days after the sale. After going through the time-consuming process of inspecting all these wines in the fashion outlined above, I do not think I will see many returns. It is an honor and a privilege to be able to offer this cellar to you.

Even though I have already had hundreds of wines from the collection heretofore, I felt it my ‘duty’ to sample a few things over the course of the past couple of weeks. It started innocently enough with: a delicious 1990 Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin – just the AC wine. It was fresh, tasty, vibrant and very impressive for an AC wine; it didn’t take much persuading for me to polish it off! A 1990 Bon Pasteur a couple nights later was very good. The wine was classic and taut with nice Pomerol flavors and minerals, indubitably sound and still a bit on the young side. A half-bottle of 1974 Mayacamas got me through my first Friday night in fine fashion. Mountainous, big and still tannic, this half-bottle proved why Mayacamas was once considered one of California’s greatest producers of Cabernet. We rang in the New Year in style with a magnum of 1970 Petrus, which was the best example of this wine that I have ever had. Rich, chocolaty, intense and long, this magnum was deep and chunky, full of life and layers and a nice way to ring in 2006.

We had a couple days off early in week two, but we caught up later that week quite nicely. We had a couple of 1991 Burgundies head to head, a Roumier Bonnes Mares vs. a Rousseau Clos de Beze. Both were supreme examples. The Roumier was classic Roumier: full of red cherry and raspberry fruit and balanced by its stems. Burnt caramel, roses, black pepper, earth, some benevolent vegetable and a distinctive cantaloupe quality rounded out this balanced and delicate Burgundy. The Rousseau had more power and was bursting with vitamins, musk, meat and spice. A veritable forest full of flavors, the Rousseau seemed a bit more precise overall, but both were what I would categorize as excellent. A couple of 1945s that I actually declined to offer due to lower fills were an excellent test later in the week. Despite the lower fills, the 1945 Beychevelle and Lynch-Bages were both absolutely delicious. Both wines were mature yet still fresh and full of life, just as they ‘oughta’ be. The Beychevelle was sweet, nutty and earthy with kisses of minerals and tobacco and an exotic smokehouse tang to it. There were lots of mineral, cedar and tobacco flavors, and excellent balance and length. It was excellent overall. I preferred the Lynch, although that was not a universal opinion. To me, the Lynch was so fat and rich, classically beefy as Lynch always seems to be, sweet, nutty and full of fresh cassis and grape aromas and flavors. Long, earthy and dusty, this masculine wine developed some exotic butter toffee qualities and was outstanding in my book. As the week pressed on, I put a little pressure on the consignor that I should taste some special wines to let the public know how good the cellar is (wink, wink). I think he knew it wasn’t necessary, but he graciously decided not to blow my cover. A 1929 Roumier Bonnes Mares was a thrilling experience. There was a distinctive dill quality to the nose, mixed in with a touch of eucalyptus and benevolent vegetable that reminded me of the1991. Perhaps that stemmy edge that Roumier usually possesses becomes dill at age 75, or make that 77. The palate had a beefy intensity and extraordinary acidity still and a touch of tomato a la older s. Sweet, meaty, rich and lush, the wine actually got richer and stronger in the glass. I couldn’t help tasting it over and over again waiting for the wine to fall apart, which it did not. Possessing great texture and length, its mint and wood components became more pronounced in this timeless classic. Come the last weekend of our journey, it was time for a grand finale, a 1921 Lafleur. It was a ‘wow’ wine. Despite some slight volatile acidity, it was a beefy wine with lots of what I would call ‘that Pomerol motor oil action.’ Rich, meaty and oily, this Nicolas bottle had the distinctive Lafleur style – the minerals, the iron, the beef, the oil and the Pomerol fruit. The bottle had that fresh Nicolas style, indubitably reconditioned at some point in its life but still extraordinary. Port-like and delicious, it was in the ‘best wines of my life’ category.

Actually, the Lafleur which was intended to be the grand finale, wasn’t. I had called upon my good friend and Burgundy expert Allen Meadows to help me out with some tasting note support 48 hours before our deadline. It took some persuading on my part, but Allen was up for the task and provided over 120 additional tasting notes to accompany the first session wines. Suffice to say no one else could provide such a detailed and broad perspective of aged and rare Burgundies like Allen. This is precisely why the most knowledgeable collectors consider him to
be the foremost expert on Burgundy in the world.

As we were wrapping up the first session notes, I joked with Allen about how it could be he didn’t have tasting notes for wines like 1966, 1969 and 1978 Romanee Conti. He apologized and said he would sooner or later fill those holes in his database. Consequently, I responded jokingly that we should get a tasting together that evening to fill in a few holes. Naturally, I cc’d the consignor on my email as I knew that Allen and he were good friends. Not to my surprise considering the consignor’s well known generosity, he was up for the challenge, and Allen and I joined the owner of ‘THE Cellar’ with another anonymous friend for dinner four hours later.

First off was the 1962 Rousseau Chambertin. It was a ‘wow’ wine and a stellar start to the evening. It had an incredible nose, so fresh and complex with its menthol, vitamins and meat – all signature Rousseau. Kisses of orange rind and pure cherry fruit rounded out its nose, and the palate was very intense with an enjoyable nervousness on its dry finish. Very dense for a ’62, the Rousseau was all that and then some and a supreme example of Rousseau Chambertin and an outstanding wine, bordering on a winegasm. Next, we went to a 1937 La Tache, which came out of the bottle sweet and exotic, bordering on a Chateau Rayas impersonation. No, this was not Grenache, and over the course of the meal, the 1937 LT kept getting better and better, displaying signature LT qualities like spine, pitch, pungency, cedar, menthol, spice and soy. Before you knew it, the ’37 was ahead in the polls after a slow start and had won over the table quite convincingly. It was a touch reconditioned, but after some air, its true personality took over in outstanding fashion. The secondary and tertiary qualities were fantastic. A 1966 Romanee-Conti was next, from the same case as the six-bottle lot that is being offered in this sale. This was the wine that had motivated us to gather in the first place. It has a stupendous, amazing nose, full of mature yet fresh characteristics. Beef, earth, sauce, menthol, Asian spice and cedar all soared from the glass. It was oozing with fat and oil, and everyone at the table was convinced this was the best ’66 RC that they had ever had. It was simply outstanding. We were three for three, but the fourth wine of the night took things up a notch. The 1919 Liger-Belair La Tache was ridiculous. So concentrated and full of texture, the ’19 was trapped in time at age 87. I hope I am doing as well at that age. Thick and long, there was a touch of maturity to its fruit flavors, but its structure and texture were more amazing than Spider Man. It ended up being everyone’s wine of thenight. Remember that did not take possession of La Tache until 1933, and Liger-Belair had the property at the time. We changed it up with a half-bottle of 1947 Cheval Blanc. I have had this wine between six and eight times, and two of them have been out-of this-world experiences. This was probably in third place all time, and it was from a half-bottle that had a midshoulder fill level! It was delicious and classic, perhaps not possessing the richness of a 750ml, but unbelievably tasty, port-like and Cheval all the way. As if all this was not enough, we popped a bottle of a wine not in this sale, a 1943 Vogue Musigny V.V. It was a very good wine with a shy yet complicated and mature nose, but its palate was soft and easy like Sunday morning. It was still sound, perhaps past its peak, but nonetheless a real treat.

Oh, what a night…and what a couple of weeks. From this random selection of great wines that I had while processing this cellar, there was not one bad, off, or questionable wine. Not one. You can see Allen’s notes for the above wines in the catalogue, as well.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you again ‘THE Cellar.’

www.ackerwines.com/liveauction.cfm

John Kapon

The first half of last week saw me out at the warehouse for various reasons, and Big Boy happened to be there as well inspecting his most recent acquisitions. Some Christmas cheer was in the air, and Big Boy threw his own impromptu holiday party for the gang. Having just returned from a week in Bordeaux and Paris where I literally spent over forty hours at the lunch and dinner tables with many tastings in between, I was a bit wined out, but with the wines and bubblies that Rob was opening, I sucked it up and took one ‘for the team.’

It started innocently enough with a 1966 Dom Perignon Rose, which had an absolutely delicious, honeyed nose. It was very chocolaty for a Rose, also possessing both strawberry and honey aromas and flavors. The palate was big and earthy with tasty wood components yet a soft finish; its acidity was noticeable in the belly but not spicy or ‘kick’-y going down. Rob exclaimed that there were still ‘years of life left,’ and there were due to its subtle, lingering acidity. A touch of Cuban cigar rounded out the palate (94).

We skipped our way over to an original bottle (ie, not Collection) of 1964 Krug. The Collection bottles are those that are released late by the Domaine. Its color was absolutely gorgeous like a White Burgundy. Its nose was bready and yeasty with some definite sunflower oil and yellow fruit aromas. Rob accurately added ‘green apple rind,’ which he finds in ‘every big year’ of Krug. The mouthfeel was full and rich and still had a little sprite to it despite Lou’s opinion that ‘it lost its fizz.’ Honey vanilla and green apple flavors graced its rich and buttery palate. The Krug was ‘a true Champagne lover’s Champagne,’ Rob said, and it was thick, long and wine-like with sneaky acidity. The Krug made the DP seem more exotic, although the Krug also became more exotic with time and developed crème brulee qualities (96).

The party had started, so it was time for some red wines. A 1958 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was next, from a parcel of fourteen cases (yes, fourteen) that had been made available to me out of Europe. This was a sample bottle out of a shipped case for me to try before finalizing the purchase, a purchase whose wines I had already sold out based on this tasting. Thankfully, the wine showed beautifully! It had a ‘wow’ nose, as Rob exclaimed repeatedly. ‘Cigar,’ Lou cooed. The Italians were getting ready to wave their flags, indeed. Being Roberto Conterno’s personal all-time favorite vintage of Monfortino was a lot of pressure for this bottle, which handled it well. The nose was rich, chocolaty, deep and chunky, and the palate matched its richness in a delicious fashion with lots of black fruit, tobacco and tar flavors. Minerals and slate sparkled on its finish, along with its very long yet stylish acidity. Beautiful, sumptuous and classic, the 1958 was a beauty but not a powerhouse Monfortino, at least at this stage (95).

There was another part to this parcel, about 20 (yes, twenty) cases of 1971 G. Conterno Barolo Riserva. The 1971 had a spinier nose with lots of minerals and t ‘n a, a more gravelly and slaty edge with more minerals. There was still deep and nutty fruit behind those, and some signature chocolaty richness. That chocolate quality spread like Nutella in the mouth, as did flavors of tar and tobacco. There were lots of leathery fruit flavors. Rob called it ‘straight down the middle’ and found it on the bottom half of excellence rather than the top like I did (ie, 93 vs. 94 points or 4 stars vs. 4+ stars) (94).

We continued the Italian theme with an affected bottle of 1964 Catina Mascarello Barolo. Its nose was still rich and meaty, full of fruit, a touch of Madeira, iodine and a tar, slate and vitamin pungency. It was very spicy on the palate but also a touch sour. Gritty and dusty, we could tell that this bottle was a bit affected and not at full strength (91A).

Rob insisted on a palate refresher before we went to the French side of things, so he whipped out a 1955 Dom Perignon like the wineslinger that he is in the Wild, Wild East. The ’55 was amazingly bubbly and fresh out of the bottle, ‘so fucking fresh’ is how I actually put it, uncouth New Yorker that I am. The nose was unreal and intensely nutty with additional aromas of cracked bread sprinkled with incredible spices. Vanilla sex came to mind with its white earth and chocolate qualities and fresh and smooth style. While not as deep as the ’64 Krug, the ’55 DP was more effervescent and still rich in its own right, very bright with kinky lime flavors (95).

A 1962 Cheval Blanc made an appearance, and its nose was intoxicatingly Cheval with its meaty black and red fruits, olive, cinnamon and baked zucchini nut bread. Aromatically fresh, exotic, warm and wintry, its palate was fully mature and much softer and easier. The wine seemed just past the point of being very good, so while its nose was excellent still, its palate was not (89).

It was off to Burgundy we went to experience a wine from one of the region’s true wizards. The 1966 Rousseau Clos de la Roche had an amazingly pungent yet still fresh nose of Italian cured meat; Sopestrata and Bresola were being debated when Rob interjected ‘Capricola with a hint of Proscuito.’ It was settled. Long and vimful in its nose, the palate was also long yet a bit smoother with tasty, vitaminy fruit and a little less depth. Tasty and smooth with some good character, the wine was rich with good earth components but not extra complicated (92).

After a big production and a return trip to the warehouse, Big Boy came back with a pretty big bottle, a 1955 Romanee Conti. The nose was ridiculous; both laser and razor-like with its acidity. Krystal joined the party with ‘it’s like a glass of roses.’ There was an amazing intensity of vitamins, minerals, dried Japanese beef, garden and dill that could only come from this particular section of land. ‘Gorgeous’ and ‘phenomenal’ were being thrown around, and the wine was also absolutely delicious BUT fully mature with only a touch of citric spice. There were also flavors of dill, rust and ‘peppermint’ as Rob pegged, and he also noted ‘a little Barolo in it,’ meaning its personality, not that he had his chemistry set with him and did an analysis! It was quite accurate, actually. Despite the fact that it was delicious, the palate trailed behind the nose in terms of delivered expectations and was all forward with no backward vigor left (94).

There was one wine still to go, a 1971 Guigal Cote Rotie ‘La Mouline.’ After never having this wine for my entire life, this was the second time I had the pleasure of having it within the same month! The nose was amazing with its mentholy, wintry, peppery Cote Rotie style. Declious, smooth, tasty and lovely, it was an outstanding wine. What a nose (95)!

Thank you Big Boy, and a Happy New Year to all. May 2006 be a healthy one, and a delicious one as well!