It was a good week.

This past Thursday, Nashville’s premier collector flew into the Big Apple and took a bite at his favorite chef’s new restaurant, Alto. Scott Conant is the chef, by the way, and his first restaurant is the critically acclaimed L’Impero. Alto is sure to follow in its footsteps, and we had a wonderful meal accompanied by some extraordinary wines, twelve vintages of Chateau Petrus, all from Tennessee Tom’s spectacular cellar.

I shall quote the concise and factual introduction in our brochure about Chateau Petrus:

Unlike Chateau Petrus’ left bank neighbors, one can speak of a true vineyard when talking about this wine. The vineyard, which is 28 acres (including the two smaller blocks in La Conseillante), sits on the highest plateau in Pomerol. One of the secrets of Petrus is the soil. Whereas the rest of Pomerol is gravelly, black clay dominates this vineyard, making it ideal for growing the Merlot grapes (95%), as well as the Cabernet Franc (5%), that make up the planted vines of Chateau Petrus. By Bordeaux standards, their production is miniscule at approximately 3,000 cases annually. Aside from the unique soil, one must acknowledge Madame Loubat for propelling the Chateau to legendary status and Jean-Pierre Moueix for his maintaining this status and raising the bar even higher.’

We started with a 1995 Salon, which was elegant and fresh, stylish and delicate. Tom found it ‘creamy and crisp, just like the 1990’ (92).

We didn’t dilly-dally around, as the first wine was the 1990 Petrus. Its nose was deep and chunky, full of plums, chocolate, black olives and rich, meaty fruit. Underneath, there were healthy doses of minerals and slate, tobacco and green, dewy earth. The nose became more and more forward with its sexy and luscious fruit aromas; the 1990 would prove itself to be a bit of a hussy after having the 1989, but I mean that only as a compliment. The wine was rich, creamy and lush in the mouth but seemed a bit coy and on the young side, although some food really brought out the acidity from behind the fruit. Definitively more approachable than the 1989, the 1990 proved to be an outstanding wine in its own right, and the fruit and acidity really harmonized with a little time in the glass (96).

The 1989 Petrus was less open and fleshy than the 1990, brooding and wound by comparison. It wasn’t tight, but rather reserved, with more minerals prevalent in its nose. There was also more noticeable t ‘n a here aromatically, but it was incredibly stylish and integrated. The nose was big, long, deep and nutty with hints of mocha and cedar. The palate was big, taut and tight with incredible acidity. The acidity was remarkable, and the wine was long, deep and brooding. Dalia admired its ‘musk and amber’ edges, and Tom C. found ‘nickel,’ a member of the mineral family. There is no doubt this will be a 50 year Petrus and then some (98).

The last wine of the first flight was the 1985 Petrus. The 1985 was more open and wild with a lot of olives, ‘green’ ones Dalia was correct to point out. In fact, I had a difficult time at first getting past that ripe, green, Spanish olive quality. Eventually, some sweet nuts, earth, dark chocolate and sappy plum came out. Medium-weight by comparison to the ’89 and ’90, the 1985 was still excellent with a lot of leather flavors, almost rusty and on the drier side. Tennessee Tom found ‘leather, barnyard, dirt, black fruit and spearmint’ and remarked how he liked the 1985 better now, although the 1989 was still the better wine. ‘The complexities are more indicative of old Bordeaux,’ he reasoned (93).

The second flight began with the 1982 Petrus, which was immediately noted for its ‘sweet, sugary fruit’ by Dalia and seconded by Cathleen. Dalia went on to find ‘strawberries ‘n cream and crème brulee.’ Tom C. jumped in with ‘creamy, white chocolate.’ The nose was also deep and earthy with lots of that Tom barnyard, earth and green fruit ahead of its plum and mineral core. ‘Now that’s Bordeaux,’ Tom gleefully observed. The palate was nutty and still with great length and breed, along with flavors of smoke, carob and skin. Its fruit was incredibly rich, plump, fat and juicy with nice balance, but the 1982 did seem on a faster evolutionary track than the other great vintages that we already had, the 1989 and the 1990 (96).

The 1978 Petrus had more ‘lemon,’ Dalia noted, and ‘grapefuit’ Tom C. chimed in. Kathleen found it ‘milky’ and another ‘a little green.’ I found a lot of earth, more dirt actually, olive, and Tom found it a dead ringer for ‘Pichon Lalande’ aromatically. The palate was leaner with a little zip but not a lot. Light earth, light mineral and light leather flavors were there; the palate was definitely light by comparison to every other wine so far and probably just starting to hit the downside of its career (89).

The 1971 Petrus had aromas of cola, plum, slate and light stalk. Tom C. found some ‘smoked pork chops,’ and Cathleen concurred with ‘smoked bacon,’ while Tom was into its ‘scented candle.’ Its palate was beautiful and smooth, prickly in a pleasing way with a touch of grit. Tom liked its ‘floral, waxy spice,’ but this particular bottle of 1971 seemed to be a bit less intense than others I have had. Dino felt the wine was at its peak (94).

We were onto the third flight and the 1970 Petrus. This bottle was much better than the last one I had, but only a point ultimately separated my ratings, which is the power of exponentialism at its finest. Sometimes theory wins over practice, I suppose. This bottle of 1970 was creamy and nutty, ‘more flowery,’ Dalia observed. She continued with ‘jasmine, rose, flowers – Mediterranean.’ There was also underlying chalk aromas, and its palate was chalky and a bit square, more two-dimensional but still outstanding. Dalia was really into the 1970, especially its nose and its ‘passion fruit. I smell a basket of fruit in the South of France in a nice villa.’ Hello (95).

The 1966 Petrus was off to a bad start, and Tom noted that he had ‘had better.’ Dalia also didn’t like it and its ‘coffee.’ Cathleen noticed ‘banana,’ while Tom was on its ‘barnyard and band-aids.’ The palate had flavors of minerals, smoke and gravel, and its alcohol seemed a touch out of balance. It wasn’t the best bottle that I have had either, but I enjoyed its chocolaty, plummy fruit, and its acidity snuck out over time (92).

The 1964 Petrus was very slaty and minerally in a pungent way. It had a very rocky style, but Tom was quick to remark that it was the best ’64 he had ever had. It did have a rich, spicy palate with loads of acidity, but I found it also a bit too slaty as well. Additional flavors of anise were there, and while the 1964 was more intense than the ’66, I still had visions of an extraordinary magnum that I had two or three years ago compared to this bottle (94).

The 1961 Petrus came from a very famous cellar, that of Henry Singleton, whose collection was auctioned off by Christies (boo hiss) a few years back after he passed away. It was an extraordinary bottle. It was very exotic with its deep, plummy, chocolaty fruit and touches of garden herbs. The fact that it was Pomerol was quite clear – you got the minerals, you got the earth, and you got the Petrus. There were no doubts as to its authenticity. Its palate had loads of acidity and was quite gravelly at first but continued to get oilier and chocolatier in the glass. Rich, long and with excellent spine, it was a great Petrus. Dalia, who is quickly becoming my alter-ego and partner in crime, summed it up quite eloquently when she said, ‘It’s like Shakespeare; it’s poetic’ (98).

The 1955 Petrus had a lemony, spiny and sprightly nose with lots of acidic vigor. It was very fresh with some mild cherry aromas. The palate also had excellent vigor with great spice, spine, balance and a long finish. Again, I had recently had an extraordinary bottle of this wine, so even though this one was sound and excellent, it was different and did not achieve the heights of that bottle I had at the 1955 dinner that I did at Le Bernadin last Spring (94).

The 1949 Petrus was a Vandermeulen bottling and maderized (DQ).

Oh, what a night.

The next day found me on my way to Los Angeles, and after getting into LA late Friday night, we were on our way to Carmel Saturday morning for an entire day of La Tache hosted by Aubert de Villaine himself at Auberge. Lunch featured eight vintages and dinner twelve, and the wines were served in flights of twos, orchestrated by the most knowledgeable Wilf Jaeger. Before I get into the wines, I must say that the cuisine at Auberge was spectacular and some of the best that I have had this year. The chef is the former chef at the old Patina, and it is well worth a weekend getaway to experience.

The first pair was 1997 and 1985. The 1997 La Tache had a fabulously open and ripe nose a la 1997 with an underlying touch of benevolent green. Its initial impression was much greater than it would have been later on in the day, and that fact is a testament to the greatness of La Tache and how good it can be when it is a first impression, even in a vintage like 1997 which many collectors do not fancy. The fruit was sexy and musky with lots of crushed red and black fruits, a dash of mint, roses, minerals, meat dripping in oil and that incredible sense of terroir that comes from La Tache. The palate was quite spiny by comparison to the nose, a bit stony and minerally, somewhat unyielding but with a flash of beefy flavors and the potential to flesh out. Someone asked Allen Meadows (who was, of course, on the scene) if the 1997 will always have that slight green quality, to which Allen succinctly and eloquently replied, ‘Yup.’ Despite the austere quality on the palate, the acidity was very good. Irs green edge is what I would call ‘garden good.’ Aubert noted how its touch of green was almost ‘foresty’ and how every year La Tache will show violet and that green, and how that green guarantees the wine will age. That’s good news for this ’97 (93+).

The 1985 La Tache had some ‘red meat’ in its nose, a quality off-putting to the fish-only-eating Dalia. The nose was musky and stinky in that good, earthy Burgundian way. There was also menthol, alcohol and some stewed, cherry fruit. The palate was meaty, earthy and bigger than the 1997 with some browned, autumnal fruit. I asked Wilf whether he thought that the 1985 was on a faster evolutionary track than some of its other vintages, and he wasn’t so sure, citing the 1978 and how it has had this quality for a few years without showing any more signs of decay. The flavors were full of sweet soy, menthol and beef along with excellent acidity. The wine was still outstanding in its seepy way, but it seemed a decade older than it should have been. Aubert admired the pairing, citing ‘a rose petal character that the 1997 will have’ (95).

The next pairing was the 1966 with the 1956, both of which were apparently reconditioned; I was unaware at this time that any of the wines were reconditioned and will touch upon that later in my notes in more detail. This bottle of 1966 La Tache was an outstanding one and many people’s favorite wine of the session. Sweet, musky and similar to the 1985 except even fresher and more precise, the 1966 was beefy and meaty with additional aromas of cedar, spice box, iron and minerals. Its palate was full of fresh, red fruits wrapped by some drier, autumnal flavors. Rich, long and fleshy, it was balanced with acidity that was far from its decline. Wilf cooed that it was a ‘good bottle’ on more than one occasion. Dalia keenly observed some ‘green apple and nutmeg,’ and a bit more wood came out with time in a cedar and mahogany direction. Saucy and long with a nice touch of autumnal flavors, I found some similar qualities in this ’66 to the ’85, and Wilf concurred aromatically but found more zip in the ’66. Me, too (96).

The 1956 La Tache smelled almost chapitalized in style, not that it necessarily was. It was the beefiest and meatiest so far, along with a bunch of mushrooms, a dash of Worcestershire, and ‘Chinese herbs that remind me of when I was growing up,’ a close friend of mine added. A bit oaty, the 1956 was flirting with stew, but a good, home-cooked one. It was pretty tasty in that earthy and foresty way, mature and sweet in the beefy, leathery and truffly direction. The 1956 was still holding on gracefully, but Wilf said that he had had fresher bottles. Spearmint came out, and a close friend of mine and Allen got in a 1956 RC vs. LT debate, with Allen firmly in the LT camp (90).

We were discussing 1985 vs. 1986 white Burgundies and a future event when Wilf made a humorous observation, ‘Just add a little Yquem to your 1985s and you get 1986s.’

The next pair was a celebrity death match of sorts, the 1993 vs. the 1990. The 1993 La Tache had a great nose, somewhat shy and brooding yet with incredible intensity without a high volume. There was tremendous pitch along with a refined elegance fit for kings or queens, in the pocket, of course. Dalia found ‘pink roses,’ while a close friend of mine was reminded of ‘2001 with more color.’ There were great stems and purity to the wine, along with mocha, soy and brick. Someone commented how amazing it was that this vintage was trashed ‘not once, but twice’ by a major wine critic, and how it was declared a vintage for ‘masochists.’ It seems now as if most Burgnuts are masochists, then. On the palate, there were stems, minerals, rust, earth and length. It was ‘sneakily long,’ as Allen noted, and it was; it kept going and going in the glass, so fine and ‘so long,’ Wilf concurred. ‘The 1993 is regal; the 1990 opulent,’ Allen concluded. I must confess that the 1993’s feathers got a little ruffled by the 1990, which was a staggering example. On its own, the 1993 was stupendous (96+).

The 1990 La Tache was ‘a poster child for great 1990s, and you know what I think of the vintage,’ Allen led off. The 1990 blew away the 1993 for pure sex appeal with its ‘succulent, sappy vibrance,’ as Wilf admired. Allen added, ‘it just throws itself at you and jumps on you,’ and it sure felt good. Its sex kitten of a nose was sappy, creamy and saucy full of rich, almost syrupy black cherry fruit. Musk, minerals and iron were there, and its t ‘n a were tremendous and vigorous but melted into its enormous fruit. Someone said its finish was ‘more corset than bra,’ and it was obvious by then that the 1990 got all of our hormones raging. The finish had a lot of verve with a super spine and spice. It had the same structure of the 1993 but more power, and much more concentration to its fruit. Paul called the 1993 ‘a Democrat’ while the 1990 was ‘Republican.’ Aubert summed up the flight by calling the two ‘two fighting brothers, one of strength and one of charm, but you can see the parenthood of soil’ (98+).

The final pair of the afternoon was the 2002 with the 1942, which seemed like an odd one, but Wilf explained that he felt that the 1942 would have been like the 2002 at a similar stage. The 2002 La Tache was such a baby by comparison to anything that we had so far, but one could still appreciate its fresh, red cherry fruit. It was not fat and seepy but rather reserved with its mineral and stalk supporting beams. There was that hint of green that Aubert affectionately referred to before, which means that this should have a long, bright future ahead of it. There were stems, ‘roses and almonds,’ Dalia observed. The 2002’s structure was excellent, a little ’93-ish but with redder fruit. All of its component parts were there in a drier style. Wilf was quick to point out that the 2002 was ‘showing surprisingly good, scary good.’ An exotic, mandarin orange edge developed in the nose (96+).

The 1942 La Tache had a mature, musky, meaty, brown sugared nose with flavors of beef, soy, leather and oat. It was not as good as the bottle I had at CRU at the weekend of the Top 100, but still excellent although more advanced. Paul joked that the 1942 had ‘something’ about it, like ‘Grenache.’ He was kidding (93).

It seems that eight wines were not enough for this crowd of connoisseurs, as after lunch a bit of a wine party broke out in the cellar of Auberge, beginning with a 1962 Roumier Bonnes Mares that was fairly consistent with the magnum that I had at the top 100 but not as good, but still alive and kicking but disappointing given the context on the 1962 vintage and Roumier being the producer (92). We had a head-to-head between the 1999 and 2000 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachets. The 1999 was awesome and showed tremendously despite its obvious, youthful nature. It had power, length, breed and its delicious baby fat was just starting to morph into real fruit, and its acidity was staggering (96+). The 2000 was sweeter and less powerful, with more finesse and that clean, fresh 2000 style (94). A 1997 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet finished our palate-cleaning trio of whites in very good fashion. 1997 is a pet white Burgundy vintage of Wilf’s at the moment, who, by the way, was trumpeting the 2004 whites, and he would know. The Niellon was very aromatic with some pinch and pungent fruit, white fruits, along with nut skin, oil, butter, minerals and rain. There was nice flesh, tang and good meat to this rich and long 1997, which was in a good spot now (93). What was this, Bordeaux? It was ok, for it was a 1982 Latour. Classic, beautiful, long and stylish, the Latour had an elegant power to it, although it did seem in reserve, but it probably did not get nearly enough time to come into its own before we animals devoured it (96+). A 1982 Bon Pasteur was delicious, bordering on outstanding (94+), and a 1997 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was outstanding, perhaps never to be better than it was right then/now but absolutely delicious and right there in that signature Coche way (95). There was one more wine, a 1945 Mouton. It had a low-to-mid shoulder, but the bottle was still sound and showing its classic ‘mint chocolate chip’ and meaty fruit. With good acidity still, it was missing a layer or two, but considering the fill level, it was a good show (95A).

I went to get a massage, and when I came back, I found out I had missed a 2001 Romanee Conti and God knows what else. a close friend of mine had not stopped drinking all afternoon, and by the time we got through the second course, he was in early nap mode at the table, but I am getting ahead of myself.

The evening session started with a round of 1995 Salon, which I now figured out had been recently released. It seemed a bit fresher and better than the one I had on Thursday in New York, perhaps because it was out of magnum (93).

The first pair of the evening session was the 1989 with the 1980. The 1989 La Tache had a sexy nose – rich, sweet, oily, musky and full of dark black cherry and raspberry fruits and traces of red as well. The 1989 was consistent with my recent impression of the vintage experienced at the first Angry Man dinner of Year Two. Yes, the reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated, but I haven’t gotten to writing that one up yet. The wine was a bit spiny, ‘square’ a close friend of mine interjected. I was talking about how this seemed to be the best, forgotten vintage of the last two decades, and Paul proceeded to slam it and praise 1988. ‘I don’t know how anyone could prefer 1989 over 1988,’ he said as he called the 1989 ‘screechy.’ I liked the 1989’s spiny vigor, its citric tension and gritty style. There was solid acidity; perhaps the wine was a little less complex than the average La Tache and on the drier side, but there was plenty of potential left. Aubert commented how the 1989 was ‘closed, but you can see the potential in the nose, but blocked as if it had a psychological problem’ (93).

The 1980 La Tache was a reconditioned bottle; until now, I was unaware that the Domaine had started or did this practice. I believe it was reconditioned in 2002. I think that the Domaine keeps these bottles for events and does not recirculate them. Everyone should know how I feel about reconditioned bottles by now and that generally, I am not a fan of the practice and feel that reconditioned bottles never achieve the heights of original ones, although they can still be very good in their own right. After checking, I found that the 1942 was reconditioned from the earlier session in addition to the 1956 and 1966. Back to the 1980, which Paul described as having a ‘brilliant bouquet.’ Dalia found its nose a bit offensive with its ‘salami’ qualities, but then again she thinks pork is one of the worst things known to man. I was more in the Paul camp, finding its aromas intoxicating. Meat, rose, iron and sweet, sweet cherries and strawberries were all present. Paul commented how the 1980 ‘has been at this stage for a while; like 1989, it hasn’t budged in six years, but the 1980 is integrated.’ Allen concluded that he saw a better future for the 1989 than Paul at this point. The wine seemed sweeter as a result of it being reconditioned. The palate was rich, bright and spicy, certainly exquisite but a touch short relative to its paired 1989. Sweet, musky and beautiful, the 1980 was fresh (reconditioned) and seemed on a plateau of maturity, but it did get more spiny and vigorous. a close friend of mine thought it had a ‘simpler’ edge, probably from the reconditioning. Aubert felt the 1980 ‘was giving what the 1989 was not – charm and delicacy’ (94).

The next pair was the 1957 and the 1947, the latter being reconditioned. Despite being a ‘bad vintage,’ as Aubert said, the 1957 La Tache had a sexy nose that was very musky with rose, sweet red cherry, sweet leather, earth, band-aid and meat aromas. It was delicious up front with a touch of brown sugared fruit and that pinch of Worcestershire. There were nice earth flavors, and while the finish was short, its acidity was integrated, and the wine was gorgeous. Wilf commented how the ’57 ‘always had a slight burnt quality, as in wood or charcoal.’ (93).

The 1947 La Tache had a musty nose, but beneath that was some incredibly sweet and decadent fruit, along with some leather, Worcestershire and band-aid. Smooth and with long acidity, the palate had nice citric tension. Wilf said how ‘neither of these two have ever been great La Taches,’ and he would know. Paul and Allen concurred that the 1947 could never have been a great wine. If you could get past the fact that it was slightly corked, the 1947 was still a beautiful wine with some nice citric kisses and light meat flavors (93A).

We came back to the nineties with a 1996 versus 1991 showdown. The 1996 La Tache was better than the one I had last week with its racy, spiny nose, which the other bottle had as well, except this bottle was also full of sweet fruit – cherry, raspberry and red currant to be precise. The nose was also firm with its minerals, slate, vitamins and pinches of cinnamon and nutmeg. I was astounded how sweet this bottle of 1996 was. There was a touch of rubber galoshes in there, in a good way like on a rainy day. Tasty and very 1996 with its acidity and stony and stalky personality, the 1996 was a touch young and mean on its palate but still great. Paul found it ‘too structured,’ while Aubert saw the 1966 in it (95+).

The 1991 La Tache was a revelation of a bottle. Dalia was loving it and its gorgeous fruit, which had strawberry joining the usual reaspberry and cherry. There was a similar racy, slaty and vigorous edge to the 1991 as the 1996, but there was even more depth to its fruit and a bready appeal. It was an unbelievable bottle; rich, long, vigorous and deep on the palate with layers of fruit on its thick palate and lip-smacking finish. Paul purred ‘as usual&old faithful.’ It was so rich; someone said that Aubert once mentioned he thought it would even surpass the 1990 (97)!

Paul prefaced the 1962 La Tache by saying, ‘when it’s on, it’s liquid sex.’ It was on. Allen quickly said, ‘we’re rockin’ after one sniff, and it had a gorgeous nose. The bottle was ‘a little sweeter and a touch advanced,’ Allen conceded, but both he and Wilf were like ‘who cares,’ because it was still so great. There was a prickly and edgy quality to the nose, which was decadently full of beef, earth, soy, spice, leather, vitamin and iron. Incredibly concentrated and with tremendous acidity, the 1962 was decadently sweet in a leathery and autumnal way. It still seemed young, and its acidity was ridiculous. Despite the fact that both Allen and a close friend of mine thought the magnum at my Top 100 was better, I preferred this bottle (98).

The 1962 was paired with the 1934 La Tache. While 1934 is a great vintage, this particular bottle seemed a little watered down, though that is the wrong word. There were some spiny edges underneath and nice earth, musk, vitamin and stalk aromas. Flavors of band-aid and earth were on its sturdy palate, but it had that reconditioned feeling, though the finish really came through. Someone said, ‘if it weren’t sitting next to the 1962, you’d like it better. The ’62 shows its flaws.’ Allen agreed by saying, ‘I like it, but it ran into a buzzsaw. ’34, ’59, ’90, ’99 – all very high quality and big volume, which is rare’ (94). The second-to-last historic pair on this historic day was the 1971 and the 1964. The 1971 La Tache was not a great bottle; this wine is always a 98 point wine, and this reconditioned bottle was a little metallic and not ‘the ’71 I love and know.’ Carraway, old wood, iron, vim and vigor were all present, but this metallic edge really marked it. Someone remarked that it did not have the richness of 1971, and while there was some intensity and length underneath and probably enough to merit an excellent rating, at this stage in the night I disqualified it (DQ).

The 1964 La Tache was ‘classic 1964 – big, rich’ and ‘ripe’ Allen interjected and took over for Wilf. The 1964 was heady, rich and meaty with nice t ‘n a, minerals and molasses. On the palate it was also rich and meaty with great animal flavors, both sweet and vigorous with nice earth supplements. Wilf summed it up nicely: ‘This is how I remember 1964; the texture and richness – only Vogue Musigny is close’ (95).

The last pair was the 1999 and the 1978, and it was a no contest. The 1999 La Tache was arguably the wine of the weekend. Bruce was in awe of its ‘jammy’ quality, especially since it was so young. Intense, super thick, full of t ‘n a, the 1999 was so dark and deep, spilling out of the glass with its midnight-like black fruits. There was also menthol, musk, tree bark and minerals in this intense, rich, long and deep wine. ‘Wow,’ I wrote; I could see why Wilf chose this for the grand finale. There was great acidity. It was so juicy and tasty that ‘you could nibble at it,’ someone said. Allen called it ‘impressive’ (98+).

The 1978 La Tache was itself outstanding and a great bottle, but the 1999 took the wind out of my sails. Consistent with the bottle I had over the summer, the 1978 was still delivering despite the storm that the other nineteen vintages had created. Dalia admired its ‘fresh sea’ qualities, and that was all she, literally, wrote (95).

From October 21st through October 23rd, approximately 45 people (though only 35 pours) gathered in New York City for a celebration of the finest wine and food that the world has to offer, our second annual ‘Top 100’ weekend. The weekend was spectacular, of course, and I figure it will make excellent reading over Thanksgiving weekend, so I am sending out that write-up next week before the holiday.

However, something very special happened that weekend as well, something that was not on the itinerary. On Saturday night, CRU received their well-deserved ‘Grand Award’ from the Wine Spectator, and a few of us gathered there for dinner to help Robert and Roy celebrate that achievement. Now, keep in mind that most of us were already at Cru from about noon to 5pm for the second session of the Top 100 and had already put down about 30 wines. I rented a hotel room nearby just to take a nap for two hours; otherwise, I knew I would be toast for that evening. It was the most expensive nap I ever took, but well worth it when one considers the wines that we had.

The evening was definitely a ‘Big Boy’ production, as he was the one that really led the charge to make this happen. Patman, his usual partner in business and crime, was on the scene along with the Burghound, Allen Meadows, and his New York alter-ego Doug Barzelay. Robert and Roy of Cru, and Julianne and Amanda of AMC almost filled out out our consortium. Last but not least, Eric G. was strong enough to endure the doubleheader as well and partied with us all weekend long, in fact. It was good to see all that time he spent in the gym paying off!

***AUTHOR’S NOTE: I was told that I need to do one wine per paragraph to make my notes easier to read for those people out there that have trouble reading. There are more of them than you think! Anyway, let me know if you prefer this broken style of a paragraph per note, or if the old style is better. I would appreciate some feedback!

The games began with a 1964 Louis Roederer ‘Cristal.’ The nose was tangy and waxy with baked, yellow fruits – baked in a mature way; not cooked, just baked. There were additional aromas of bread along with traces of light caramel. The palate was beautiful: smooth, long and fine with nice elegance in the mouth. Bread flavors and that same touch of dry caramel kissed the palate. Its backside was long and lingering with another kiss, this time of citrus flavors. Amanda picked up on its caramel as well, and the ’64 held gracefully in the glass (93).

If the 1964 Cristal was Grace Kelly, the 1990 Krug ‘Clos du Mesnil’ was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Served out of magnum, it was night and day, the Krug being the screeching rooster at the crack of dawn, or the music being played too loud at a nightclub at night. Take your pick; they both work. The Krug was so young, fresh and racy – it was such a baby. Pure-bred all the way, there were reticent aromas of nut, bread, waterfall, minerals and a pinch of caramel. The palate was racy, fresh and long and absolutely gorgeous with tremendous acidity. It lingered like sexual healing and was a spectacular, young Champagne (97+).

We slipped into a 1964 Lafleur, which was very rich in the nose and oh so Pomerol. Rich and fat, the nose had loads of chocolate and plum aromas, a firm slate edge and touches of grilled nuts and bacon. The palate was rich but clearly not outstanding, still very good in its own right but missing that roundness of fruit in the mid-palate. There were nice chalky flavors on the finish. Amanda found ‘dark cherry’ and Julianne ‘leather and smoke,’ although I think that last descriptor might have been a hint (92).

Enough with the Bordeaux; Allen was there, and we did not want him to get dizzy or any hot flashes from a lack of Burgundy, so we quickly segued into a 1952 Vogue Musigny ‘V.V.’ A touch of stew was in the nose, along with some baked fruit, a vanilla ice cream sundae thing and a bit of wood. Both Doug and I concurred that this bottle seemed a bit past its prime, not that 1952 Vogue is a wine past its prime; just this particular bottle. Someone noted that is was ‘more Barolo-like, almost an old Monfortino.’ There were bsolid cherry flavors, excellent dust and nice acidity to this affected bottle of Vogue (93A).

The next wine was a spectacular one, a magnum of 1952 La Tache recently acquired from one of our auctions. The ’52 mag had an unreal nose screaming with terroir; when I say unreal it is a compliment like ‘out of this world,’ not that it was fake, etc. There were incredible, absolutely incredible aromas of slate, earth and minerals on one side, and the rose garden, leather and amazing spice box on the other. Eric called it ‘immortal’ and Allen echoed my sentiment of ‘unreal.’ Pinches of caraway and smokehouse rounded out the nose. The palate was super tasty, veritable catnip for the feline wine lover in us all. Long and sensuous with sexy strawberry fruit and great earth, the palate had amazing length. It was one of the all-time great bottles of wine that I have had, definitely ‘Top 100’ worthy (98+)!

It was at this point that I tried to jot down the wines we had at Cru the night before after the first session of the Top 100. Yes, we went to Cru Friday night as well for a small after-party. Some people love pain. There was a delicious magnum of 1987 H. Jayer Echezeaux, which I would give about (93) points and an ‘excellent’ rating, and an incredible bottle of 1959 Jaboulet Hermitage ‘La Chapelle,’ only to be rivaled by a 1961 that I had in 2004. It was one of the greatest La Chapelles I have ever had and certainly (97+) points. We also had two way-too-young large formats, a magnum of 1989 La Mission Haut Brion and a jeroboam of 1998 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape ‘Hommage a Jacques Perrin,’ neither of which I could rate at the time. Sorry, guys, I wasn’t making this paragraph into four!

Ok, now that I got that off my chest, we can go back to our regular programming, which was a 1942 La Tache. Someone uttered ‘amazing’ right away. The nose was so deep big, rich and long. Rob summed it up as ‘ridiculous,’ which is another high compliment in Big Boy’s world. Musk oil, leather and deep, dark rich fruit oozed out of its nose. The palate was enormous, expanding like a tidal wave in the mouth at first, and Allen also found it ‘incredibly vibrant.’ Long and spiny, the wine was a bit massive but smoothed out sooner rather than later, costing it a point or two in the grand scheme of things, but for those first twenty minutes or so, it was even more extraordinary (95).

What better choice to have next to the 1942 La Tache than the 1943 La Tache? The 1943 was more wound and subtle, nutty with more cola and dark, plummy fruit. Possessing even bigger acidity and alcohol than the 1942, the 1943 seemed a bit out of balance at first and squarer, but while the 1942 lost a step or two, the 1943 improved and got more delicious and more balanced with time. The acidity was long and strong, and it was also an outstanding wine, equivalent to the 1942 in quality but stylistically different. Allen, on the other hand, said that he has tasted these two side by side three or four times and has always preferred the 1942 (95).

Next up was an incredibly rare bottle of 1946 A. Rousseau Chambertin, possibly one of the last bottles in existence. Allen found it ‘delicious’ and called it his ‘surprise wine of the year.’ Doug found it ‘lovely.’ It had a unique, nutty nose in a fresh popcorn way, a little gassy but still with nice smoke and earth aromas. The palate was also unique and delicious. Someone noted ‘there is real grip here,’ and the wine was absolutely rich, creamy and luscious, but ‘more Brooklyn than Manhattan,’ Rob accurately assessed. That is strictly a New York thing for those of you that might not get it, and it was 100% accurate. A touch dirtier and more rugged, the 1946 may have been more at home in detention than in a school play, but it was still excellent, alive and kicking. Long and with classic, citric tang on its palate and a pinch of what used to be vitamin, the 1946 stirred the pot up when Eric called it a ’92 point wine but a 99 point experience.’ Allen talked me down a point, but I think I talked him up one back (92).

Allen then commented how to have four wines from the 1940’s that were all so distinctively different was amazing. Oops, sorry, I forgot you didn’t know that a 1945 Grands Echezeaux was already on the table. The 1945 had another amazing nose, with deep, rich, plummy, violety and sensual fruit, more floral in its expressions. The wine was smooth with a long backside that was marred by a touch of metal. The metal blew off, and the acid came out, but the wine lacked overall weight; not strength, but weight. There were great earth flavors there, also (93).

The 1929 Vogue Musigny V.V. was a beautiful wine with classic Musigny in its nose but clearly reconditioned. Doug found it ‘a bit topped off,’ and Allen ‘incredibly young.’ Doug and Allen are like State Troopers at the Burgundy Ball, always enforcing good order, behavior and conduct from the bottles! There was gorgeous strawberry fruit in its nutty and meaty nose, and a long and elegant palate, elegant in the way Musigny always is. Allen went on a sidebar that 1929 was the greatest vintage in the greatest decade Burgundy ever saw, citing 1925 and 1927 as the only two clunkers and 1922 as the only average-to-good year. He then cited 1915 as the best of the teens with 1911 and 1919 behind it. The palate of the 1929 was long, still possessing great acidity but falling just a hair short of outstanding for me (94+).

The 1911 Vogue Musigny V.V. was a maderized bottle, still rich and creamy with a long, gritty finish. I felt like the wine could have been 95 points but not much more than that (DQ).

Next up was one of the greatest wines I have ever had, the 1934 Romanee Conti. It immediately got a ‘woof’ from the Burghound and a ‘serious’ from Big Boy. There were lots of oohs, aahs and even a ‘sexy’ from Julianne. Wait a second, she was talking about me, sorry. The nose was incredible with all the classic rust and iron along with a perfect pinch of citrus. The palate was amazing with smoky, meaty, rich, oily, nutty and earthy flavors. Super intense and long, its palate’s rust and leather qualities were great and even had Burghound dreaming of perfection (99). Allen went on to say that he has only rated six wines even 99 points, three of which were the 1962 La Tache, 1928 Roumier Bonnes Mares, and the 1915 La Romanee. He also mentioned that he preferred 1999 over 1996 and 1993 over 1990 in general.

A magnum of 1985 La Tache followed. You know it’s a good night when you go over to the magnum of 1985 La Tache and are like, ‘that’s nice,’ which is exactly what happened when the Burghound found out! It was a great bottle of 1985 La Tache, pure, long and classic with lots of iron, minerals, smoke, citric tang and red fruits that only La Tache could have. Its musk was beautiful, its rust tasty, and its finish long (95).

A 1959 Leroy Mazis Chambertin had a sexy, rich and luscious nose with those classic Leroy dark purple fruits and nutty qualities. Its sweetness was of a violet nature, and its palate excellent with nice richness and meat to its bones (95).

We finally changed gears with the 1966 Guigal Cote Rotie ‘La Mouline,’ its first vintage. I think it was Robert who gave us some musical perspective, noting that 1966 was the year that The Beatles released ‘Revolver’ and ‘Rubber Sole,’ and that it was also pre Jimi Hendrix or Cream. Rob called it ‘like a Rhone Pomerol,’ and it did have a rich and amazing nose that was still so La Mouline. Its violet, pepper, bacon, deep purple and earth aromas all added up to La Mouline’s signature style, and even though this was the first vintage and almost 30 years old, this bottle was incredibly fresh and vibrant, fresher than many other younger vintages that I have had. I couldn’t take my nose away from this wine for about five minutes as I kept digging and digging into its layers of aromas. The wine was everything it should have been, still young, and stylish like Park Avenue apartments. The acidity and length were tremendous, and Allen even called it ‘insane’ (99).

There was still one bottle left, a 1978 La Mouline, but after the 1966, I couldn’t even go there, and I have had near-perfect bottles of the 1978. The 1966 was that good. The 1978 seemed too young and relatively grapy, but perhaps that ’66 took everything I had left out of me. I could not judge the ’78. I had the 1966 again about two weeks later in Los Angeles but from a not-so-good bottle. The 1969 was another story, but you will read about that one in due time.

This past week, 20 of us gathered at Tse Yang, one of New York’s finest Chinese restaurants, for a comprehensive vertical of the Montrachet of Alsace, Clos Ste. Hune. Clos Ste. Hune actually comes from the Rosacker Grand Cru vineyard in Alsace, but Trimbach, who makes the wine, does not want to put Roascker on the label, so they are not allowed by law to put ‘Grand Cru’ on the bottle even though it is Grand Cru fruit. Grander than any other wine made in Alsace, Clos Ste. Hune averages about 700 cases a year in total production and dates back to 1919, I believe its first vintage.

We did not go back that far, but we had every vintage between 2000 and 1990, along with a few other oldies. The most amazing fact about Clos Ste. Hune was how consistent in quality they are from year to year. It was as if every year was a good year in Alsace, as the lesser vintages were still very good, and the greater vintages extraordinary. What is also extraordinary is the fact that Clos Ste. Hune is breathtakingly dry for a Riesling, so while other producers in the region such as Zind Humbrecht have gone for fruitier and more luscious expressions, Trimbach has stayed true to the style of Old World greatness, perhaps producing the only white wine in France outside of Burgundy that can be put on the same quality level. Ok, Chave’s Hermitage Blanc can go in there too, and we are not counting Champagne!

We started with the newly released, hot off the press 2000. The nose of the 2000 was forward and sexy, still possessing a bit of a carefree, teenage side. The nose was quite sweet by Clos Ste. Hune’s standards with lots of pineapple, lychee, musk, petrol, minerals and citrus. With time and air, its sweetness did level out, but Ray was quick to call it ‘juvenile’ although he still found it extraordinary. There were nice supplements of bread crust and gingerbread. The palate was very citrusy, a bit youthful and shut down at first, and there were lots of mineral and wood flavors on its finish to complement its long acidity. The wine reeked of potential, and the wine continued to open more and more in the mouth with time, with exotic tea flavors emerging. Its acidity was something special (96+). The 1999 had a muskier nose, shier, with more rainwater and lighter citrus and mineral aromas. There was nice breed here, but the wine seemed more feminine and elegant. The palate had lots of citrus and earth, but not the style or acidity of the 2000, which made it seem clumsier (92). The 1998 had a ‘classic petrol’ nose, Ray was quick to point out. There was some baked fruit in a positive way and definitely lots of ‘classic’ to it. The fatness of fruit, its citrus, honey, musk and minerals all added up to a total package. The palate was big, rich and heady, and there was lots of finish to its heavy mouthfeel. Still young, the 1998 was long and lingering, and at first I preferred it to the 2000, which did surpass it by the end of the night (95+). The 1997 rounded out the first flight with a more minerally and almost anisy personality. There was petrol, citrus, smoke and ‘pink grapefruit,’ according to Mike. He also pointed out that it was ‘rougher and less elegant,’ and it was a bit square, indeed. The wine was still very good, but and I initially thought that it might not get any better than it was right then. On the second go around, however, distinct lollipop aromas kicked in and the wine improved significantly (92).

The 1996 was very high toned with an amazing nose full of race – zip, lemon, cake, light minerality, fat fruit and a pungent something. There was great breed and style to the nose and a pinch of pineapple sweetness. The palate was very tangy with lots of citrus and wound, stony fruit. Mike thought that this baby had back, ‘big in the back but a thin attack.’ The wine held but did not improve (94). The 1995 had a gorgeous nose, a great combination of musk and fruit, a m eacute;lange of yellow fruits. There was excellent balance between its minerals and petrol. The palate seemed more mature and oily, more on the wood side of the flavor wheel, still possessing lots of acid, though (93). The 1994 was very bright but also possessed a unique nuttiness, one that I determined to be a bit of an oxidized bottle, with which Ray agreed. There was this mature Chardonnay kink to it that I have found in 40 year old Chardonnays! Some classic petrol and minerals were behind it, and the wine was white meaty in a pungent way. The palate was still nice, quite buttery and round with good minerals and dusty flavors, but this bottle was definitely affected, and a pristine bottle could prove to be outstanding (93A).

The 1993 had the most exotic nose of the night, full of coconut, pineapple, lychee and wood, almost like an exotic Asian ice cream. It was also musky with dashes of citrus, candle wax and petrol. There was great roundness and oil to its palate, and while the finish seemed shorter than others, the wine still lingered quite nicely in the belly. The 1993 seemed to be in a great spot, perfectly mature. There were balanced flavors of citrus and earth, and it won the ‘Miss Congeniality’ award of the evening. Lester did not like it as much, calling it ‘awkward – its nose was fabulous but the palate not as much’ (93). The 1992 Bob found ‘similar to the 1992 but with more body,’ and he was right. The nose was a bit more musky as well, meaty and richer with more wild fruits and flowers. It was very exotic in a sweet vitamin way, and its palate was rich and oily, definitely with more body but slatier in its expression (92). The 1991 had a very shy nose, possessing almost a sprinkle of cinnamon and a lit match quality. Exotic in its own right, the 1991 seemed more youthful than its previous two siblings, and also more classic with its citrus, petrol and mineral trifecta in the nose. There were nice citrus and earth flavors and more potential still locked up in the palate, which was strong and spiny. Bob agreed that it was the least mature of the flight, and Ray commented how amazingly fresh these wines were for 12-14 year old white wines from average vintages (92+).

The 1990 quickly laid claim to wine of the night. It had a fabulous nose, ‘always’ as Ray insisted. The nose was incredible, full of musk, rainwater, citrus, nut and a sweet Asian spice. Montrachet was definitely in the house. The richness, length and breed of the wine were all superlative. Flavors of tender, juicy white meat, rain, citrus dust and oil were all delicious. ‘A cut above,’ Lester remarked, and it was rich, exotic and incredible (97). We skipped our first vintages and jumped back to the 1986, a wine that I recently had in Belgium six weeks ago. Another Mike, ‘Wheels,’ thought the ’86 was ‘special,’ and it was and quite unique as well. It had a honeyed nose with an exotic Asian spice and buttery yellow fruits. Its palate was tangy and zippy, still shy, reminding me a bit of the ’99. Jim agreed, calling it ‘still very young’ and ‘punchy.’ Yeasty and hedonistic in a waxy and meaty way, it was different than all the other vintages so far, and its flavors of candle wax and dried honeycomb were very complex and unique. The nose might possibly have been the most complex of the night, in a tormented kind of way, and the 1986 took home the ‘most twisted’ award, even though Wheels came in a close second after dinner (93)! There was one more vintage before the VTs, the 1985. This was pronounced to be Jim’s Thanksgiving wine, as he thought it would go great with such a feast. The nose was quite sexy with a candy corn edge, sweet and musky, but again I thought there might be a touch of oxidative influences here. The palate was rich and nutty, and candy corn carried over to the flavors, along with a nutty finish. If not affected, the 1985 is on a faster maturity track (94A?) Actually, there was another wine that we had, but it was corked, the 1981. If you could get beyond the corkiness, you could see that the 1981 could be something very, very special and completely off the radar. There was an incredible freshness to it, greatness underneath the corked quality and lots of length and classic depth, possibly warranting a 94+ but ultimately a (DQ).

We finished with a couple of VT wines, Vendages Tardives (Late Harvest), and Trimbach’s VTs still finished dryly! The 1983 VT had a dry nose full of apricoty, exotic, sweet, oily fruit, sweeter in sugar aromatically, but still dry on the palate. Ray tried to tell me it was richer and not sweeter, so I sold him some apples to go with his oranges. The wine was impressive. Flavors of teas and sweet cream rounded this beautiful wine out (94). Although many people seemed to prefer the 1989 VT, I did not, and it was the second disappointing bottle of this I have had this year, the first being with the Colonel and his ‘Nuts’ in LA, disappointing given how good 1989 is supposed to be in Alsace. The wine was nuttier and more woodsy, perhaps with more potential, but squarer as well. Despite all the petrol in the wines, I was out of gas (92+?).

There is no doubt that Trimbach’s ‘Clos Ste. Hune’ Riesling is one of the world’s great white wines.

Two nights later, I was in Las Vegas for a ‘stopover’ night on the way to LA. a close friend of mine and Big Boy happened to be in town, so the stars were aligned for a magical dinner at Picasso, where we were joined by a close friend of mine’s brother Dar, his mother, ‘Patman’ and Graham Revell, reknowned Hollywood music composer and wine collector.

We started off with a magnum of 1982 Dom Perignon Rose, which was quite fresh with beautiful red fruits. Long, smooth and balanced, the 1982 was excellent but a touch short of outstanding and not as good as previous memories of this out of magnum. It didn’t have that extra lift, although Pat found it ‘ten times better with the egg and truffle dish,’ which was a true breakfast of champions (94). I noted how Las Vegas is not the restaurant capital of the world despite all the big names out there, as all the restaurants out there are more assembly line productions and do not have the full time attention of the chefs who lend their names to the operations, but Picasso is one of the exceptions where the chef is actually there all the time. It is his first restaurant, and that makes a difference.

We shifted gears to an impressive bottle of 1990 Latour, one of the best bottles of this that I have ever had. It was in perfect condition and had an incredibly youthful nose, Pomerolesque, in fact. Its nose was dripping with chunky, plummy fruit intertwined with t ‘n a, grilled walnuts and a dash of mint. There were also edges of sawdust and leather. The palate was rich, meaty and long with dry (as in young) cassis fruit flavors, chocolate kisses and sweet grape seed and carob touches. The fruit and seed elements were well balanced to say the least. a close friend of mine called the 1990 ‘the next 1959,’ while the 1982 was ‘the next 1961.’ a close friend of mine also admirably noted its ‘sea salt,’ Dar its ‘tobacco,’ and Graham its ‘soil and iron’ (97).

A duo of Petrus (Petruses?) was next, the 1970 and 1971. The 1970 Petrus was a surprising selection to me, as both a close friend of mine and Rob have recently admitted to giving up on this vintage of Petrus, but I guess they wanted to doublecheck that opinion. Pat noted its ‘gamy’ quality right away. Its nose was brooding and chunky with a woodsy whiff to it. Molasses, chocolate and almost eucalyptus were also present, and the wine seemed brawny and a bit shy. The palate was very monolithic and rugged; big, bruising yet still with a degree of finesse. Pat found the ’70 to be mouthfilling, and it was big and long but still had that kiss of obtrusive wood to its flavors. It was rich but short of outstanding for me despite the increased presence of acid over time and its secondary graham cracker and rye aromas. It did gain and was concentrated but might be considered by some to be a disappointment (94+). The 1971 Petrus was fabulous, more classic with its plummy and chocolaty fruit, minerals, cedar and t ‘n a. The palate was delicious; smooth, satiny and balanced with nice plummy fruit. Most if not all at the table preferred the 1971, and a close friend of mine loved its ‘elegance.’ It was more my style as well (95).

We ended with two wines from the Fifties, beginning with a 1959 Mouton. The nose on this 1959 was incredible, ‘as good as it gets,’ a close friend of mine noted. Pat quickly joined the forming consensus, saying ‘if I ever meet a woman that smells like the ’59 Mouton, it’s over.’ The nose was divine with its rich, chocolaty, musky, meaty, chunky and cassisy fruit. It was so young and fresh, basically breathtaking. Additional aromas of carob, vanilla and caramel were present as well. The palate, however, was quite chalky, long with its cedar flavors but a bit short on its fruit. Still outstanding, the 1959 had a 99 point nose and a 94/5 point palate. It did flesh out a bit and improve, and coffee flavors emerged. Dar liked its ‘aristocratic’ qualities (96+). The 1955 Petrus was the grand finale, and it was a great bottle of this wine, one which I preferred to the Nicolas bottle that I recently tasted at the Top 100 weekend. Sometimes even Nicolas bottles can suffer the ‘watering down’ of being reconditioned, although it is rarer. The 1955 had a gorgeous nose, subtle yet sweet with its chocolaty Pomerol fruit. Bready and smoky, the 1955 was chunky and balanced between its fruit and finish components like the 1971. Incredibly rich in the mouth, the 1955 had gorgeous texture and beautiful plum flavors, and it was long and cocoa chocolaty. Its finish sparkled with minerals (97). The rest of the evening was brought to us by Big Boy Entertainment. It was a long night, one that saw me turn into a pumpkin at about 4am after being up 24 hours straight. If I didn’t sign a confidentiality agreement, I’d tell you all about it.

On that same night in New York, Dave Hamburger led a BLIND tasting of 2002 Aussies, and here are the final tallies. Remember, everyone who voted had five points given for their first place wine, four for their second, etc., and one point for their fifth placer. I am quite surprised how little regard the group had for the Integrity, which is usually at the top of most Aussie tastings!

2002 Shirvington Shiraz 1st place 39 votes
2002 Torbreck Run Rig 2nd place 37 votes
2002 Greenock Creek Shiraz Alice’s 3rd place 33 votes
2002 Kalleske Shiraz Greenock 4th place 30 votes
2002 Clarendon Hills Astralis 5th place 22 votes
2002 Amon-Ra ‘Barossa’ Shiraz 6th place 20 votes
2002 The Colonial Estate Shiraz Exile 7th place 18 votes
2002 Glaetzer Shiraz 8th place 16 votes
2002 Kaesler Shiraz Old Bastard 9th place 15 votes
2002 Torbreck The Factor 10th place 13 votes
2002 Kay Brothers Shiraz Block 6 11th place 12 votes
2002 Henry’s Drive Shiraz Reserve 12th place 9 votes
2002 Noon Shiraz Reserve 13th place 4 votes
2002 Marquis Philips Shiraz Integrity 14th place 0 votes
2002 D’Arenberg The Dead Arm Shiraz (corked) 14th place 0 votes

That’s what it was, in effect. Months of planning had culminated this past Thursday in our modern-day recreation of the 1976 Paris Tasting, the tasting heard ’round the world that forever changed the global perception of California wine. Close to sixty people, including four panelists, gathered together to see if all the gains made in the last thirty years in technology, knowledge and awareness about wine had made a difference to the not-quite-age-old question of whether France or California makes better wine.

The panelists included two of the judges from the original tasting, Steven Spurrier (the organizer of the first event and now of Decanter) and Christian Vanneque (pronounced Van-kay, then of Tour d’Argent and now a publisher in Indonesia of all places). The panel was also represented by the ‘New Guard’ of Robert Bohr (of Cru) and myself (of Acker). Our panel of experts was only four but very experienced and internationally represented with a Brit, a Frenchman and two Americans and a mix of age groups. The wine-loving group that attended was quite diverse as well with different age groups, nationalities, and genders and an excellent census overall.

We had followed the same format of the original tasting and tried to recreate a similar selection of wine types, qualities and range of vintages. There were eleven whites and eleven reds, six of each from California. The order was selected out of a hat by our own Dave Hamburger. Before the tasting started, Steven noted to someone how the lineup we had assembled was even ‘better’ than the original assortment, perhaps a subconscious admission that the quality of wines today is higher than thirty years ago, an opinion trumpeted by Robert Parker himself when the opportunity arises. All the whites were served, votes were collected and a discussion followed between the group and our panelists. The identities of the white wines were revealed, and then we did it all over again with the reds. The most significant difference between the two events was the voting system. Before in Paris, each judge voted on the European-standard, 20-point system and all the votes were added and tallied. Since this was an American audience more accustomed to the 100-point system, and since most of the audience was not a wine professional like in Paris and perhaps not prepared or comfortable in rating every wine exactly, we stuck to our usual and effective system of asking people to select their five favorite wines (for both the whites and then the reds) and giving five points to every first-place vote and one for every fifth place vote, etc. We then tallied all the votes, keeping the panelists’ votes separate from the group.

After a slow start (the wine service was a bit delayed) and a detailed introduction about the event and words from myself, George Taber and Steven Spurrier, we were officially ready to begin. George was actually the catalyst to this event with his recently-released book ‘Judgment of Paris: California Vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine.’ He was looking over the summer to set up some events this Fall to promote his book, and once the book ended up on my desk, a recreation of the tasting was the first thing that came to mind. The book is a great read for any and all wine lovers so pick up a copy!

White #1 had a buttery, tropical and lightly minty nose with good minerality and pleasant wax aromas. The mango, banana and pineapple fruit in the nose made me think Cali as the wine sweetened in the glass. The wine had a rich, oily mouthfeel, both buttery and nutty but also with a touch of bitter wood flavors on its finish. Its finish was medium-bodied and subtle, and I felt the wine did not gain in the glass. Overall, it was very good but not a thrilling glass of Chardonnay, at least for me (91).

The group gave the wine 57 votes, good enough for sixth place, and the two of the panel’s four members also had it in their ‘Top 5,’ which was enough to have it finish in third place for the panel! When the group’s and panel’s votes were merged, the wine actually fell to seventh place over all, one of the few wines where the merged results made a difference in the overall placement of the wine. The panel did represent less than ten percent of the overall vote, of course, so that makes sense. The wine, by the way, was the 2003 Chateau Montelena Chardonnay. Remember, none of the wines’ identities were revealed until after everyone had tasted all of the whites and voted, all of this happening before any organized discussion. The second white was more refined and elegant with a great m eacute;lange of nut, minerals, smoke, popcorn, slate and earth in its nose. There was great verve and an elegant, distinguished spine to the wine. Tasty and toasty with an excellent balance to the palate, the wine lingered well, held well and kept improving in the glass (94).

It was the 2002 Joseph Drouhin Beaune Blanc ‘Clos des Mouches,’ one of my pet white wines that happened to be at the original tasting as well. The panel gave the wine five overall votes, good enough for a tie for fifth place for the panel, but the group did not notice this wine very much and it finished in last place with only 20 votes. The panel’s votes did not affect its overall placement. Personally, it was my fourth favorite white wine of the night. White #3 had a handicap as both Robert and I were convinced that the ‘red’ bottle was corked (each of the three bottles had their own color code on the tables). My following note came from another bottle. Despite this handicap, the group gave this wine 87 votes and a third place finish! No one on the panel voted for the wine. There were some nice bread aromas to the nose, some expressive minerality and acidity, and a flash of sweet caramel underneath. The palate was taut, stony and smoky with lots of spiny and spicy alcohol to its finish. Big, good and with potential, the 2002 Aubert Chardonnay ‘Ritchie Vineyard’ flirted with excellence but still felt like a bit of a baby (92+).

The fourth white wine had an incredibly exotic nose unlike any other white. The wine jumped out of its glass kicking and screaming with lots of exotic white and yellow floral aromas and loads of jasmine but also a unique, pungent, limestone kink. The palate was crisp and clear with lots of minerality, great balance and a stylish impression, but it seemed to lack this potential extra dimension that I wanted it to have; it was excellent, but I wanted it to be even more, and I thought that vintage might be a factor. Exotic and stony, its nose kept singing, but its palate did not expand (93). Chablis must have been a bit more difficult to make in 2001, as the wine was the 2001 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos,’ another one of my favorite things. The group gave the wine 31 votes, good enough for only tenth place. No one on the panel voted for it.

The next white was our fifth wine of the evening, and it finished in fourth place for the group, receiving 83 votes and one additional vote from the panel, my own. That technically had it tied for seventh place on the panel. Its nose was smoky and musky with nice vigor and minerals but more musk. There was an exotic orange and tangerine oil edge in a very dry way. Some baked honey was like a playful kiss of sweetness, and the palate had a delicious molasses and caramel kink, but not an overly sweet one. The finish had the biggest expression so far, like a wave of activity. Its flavors were pure and white smoky, and the wine had a good balance of both Old and New World sensibilities (94+). It was good to see one of Cali’s classics fare well, especially since the owner, Mike Grgich, was in the audience! It was the 2001 Grgich Hills Chardonnay, ‘Carneros Selection.’ White #6 had a serious yet unyielding nose, muted and shy yet still deep at the same time. There were lots of minerals in its subtly penetrating nose with whiffs of alcohol and acidity tickling my nose like the hot breath of a mysterious woman on the back of my neck. Long, citric and bright, the wine was like a coiled snake that needed time to be charmed. It coated the mouth more so than any other wine with great stone, earth, mineral and citrus flavors. A touch of smoke added itself to the mix, and the wine kept expanding in the glass over time, practically exploding with time. It was the outstanding 2002 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes,’ my personal third favorite wine of the night (95). The group gave the Lafon 54 votes, good enough for only seventh place, and the panel had it in fourth place overall with six additional votes. Interestingly enough, when the panel and the group’s votes were merged, the Lafon fell to eighth place overall. It was very close between fifth and ninth place I should add, separated by only eight votes. Speaking of that, the next wine, white #7, received 53 votes, edged out by theLafon for an eighth place finish while the panel had it tied for fifth place with an additional five votes. Again, when the group and panel were merged, the wine fell a spot in the rankings, which will become clear why, soon enough. White #7 had lots of spiny vigor in the nose but a pinch more tropicality than the previous wine, not overtly but there. There was nice pungency here in this excellent wine and great balance and length. It seemed to be the biggest bridge between the New and Old World so far, I wrote. Its sweetness kept creeping out in the nose, but its spine on the finish kept kicking in this 2001 Kistler Chardonnay ‘McCrea Vineyard’ (94). White #8 was quite popular, receiving 100 votes from the group, which was good enough for a clearly second-place finish. It only got one vote from the panel, though, again technically tied for seventh place there. The nose was very spiny, spicy and vigorous, quite pungent and intense. There were secondary aromas of citrus, cotton, smoke and a flash of banana. The palate was much more one-dimensional, to me that is. It was very brawny and woodsy and clumsy in that regard. There were caramel flavors, but I found the wine to be overly bitter. Big and rich but lacking a center, this wine had a big kick and expanded but failed to define itself for me on the palate, although I saw that there was a lot of potential for this wine to improve. It was the 2001 Marcassin Chardonnay ‘Marcassin Vineyard’ (91+).

The last group of three wines was fascinating in that two of the three were clearly the favorites of the panel and the third was clearly the favorite of the group. White #9 had a nose that I like to categorize as ‘Mmmm.’ It was clearly the best nose of the night so far, pungent in that ‘just right’ way and bristling with minerals, nut, popcorn and smoke. It struck me as being a wine from Domaine Leflaive well it was. The palate was young and searing cold in a way, finish-heavy but oh so young. Its palate was dominated by its alcohol and minerality, and there is a long, promising future ahead for the 2000 Domaine Leflaive Batard Montrachet (96). The Leflaive was my second favorite white wine of the night, and it received a whopping 15 votes from the panel, clearly at the top of all of our lists and overall the panel’s second favorite wine. However, the wine finished in ninth place overall amongst the group with only 52 votes. Remember, eighth place received 53 votes, seventh place 54, and sixth place 57, so it was close. If the panel’s votes were merged, the Leflaive jumped to sixth place, the most significant change when the votes were combined. The tenth white of this historical event was the winner of the first half of the evening, receiving 114 votes from the group, a clear margin for first place. However, this wine received no votes from the panel! ‘Back to tropicality,’ I wrote. Reined in and somewhat dormant, there were still aromas of honey, mango, banana and some smoke. The palate had a bitter, rubbery finish, but its tropical flavors and oily texture were impressive. However, the wine seemed more one-dimensional to me (perhaps because it was served after the Leflaive), and the palate seemed woodsy and brawny overall. It was the 2002 Peter Michael Chardonnay ‘Belle Cote’ (90). The last wine received all four first place votes from the panel. It was indubitably the best wine according to our panel of experts and also received 60 votes from the group, good enough for a fifth place finish there. Ironically, adding the panel’s 20 votes to the group’s 60 did not affect its final placement, which would have remained fifth, albeit a lot closer to the other top four scorers. Back to the wine the 2001 Coche-Dury Puligny Montrachet ‘Les Ensiegneres’ was stupendous. I had heard rumors that Coche-Dury himself has said that his 2001s are even better than his 2000s or 1999s, and now I am a firm believer that those rumors are true. Wow! Intense, complex, rich, long and balanced, there was everything I could want in my young white Burgundy, including a degree of approachability. The classic Coche-Dury flavors and aromas of nut, kernel, minerals, earth and yellow fruits were all in perfect harmony on this night (97).

For the record again, the top five wines of the group were:

1. 2002 Peter Michael ‘Belle Cote’
2. 2001 Marcassin ‘Marcassin Vyd’
3. 2002 Aubert ‘Ritchie Vyd’
4. 2001 Grgich Hills ‘Carneros Selection’
5. 2001 Coche-Dury Puligny Montrachet ‘Enseigneres’

However, the top five wines of the panel were:

1. 2001 Coche-Dury Puligny Montrachet ‘Enseigneres’
2. 2000 Domaine Leflavie Batard Montrachet
3. 2003 Chateau Montelena
4. 2002 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’
5. 2002 Drouhin Beaune Blanc ‘Clos des Mouches, 2001 Kistler ‘McCrea Vineyard’ TIE`

Merging the group with the panel did not change the order of the top five wines.

So where did the first half of the tasting leave us? For my palate and the rest of the panel, it was clear how overall, the French wines were better. The way that the Coche-Dury and Leflaive stood apart from the pack was by many lengths. My top four wines were French Burgundies, but the top four preferred by the group, the masses if you will, were all Californian! The line was being towed carefully in the discussion about palates and experience as our expert panelists, steadfast in their opinion about the fact that Burgundy really won this head-to-head match up (46 of our 60 total votes went to Burgundies), were careful not to dismiss public opinion while trying to justify those of our own. The best way to sum up the difference is that the California wines had a tropicality, a sweetness, a forward quality and approachability that the Burgundies did not. This is not to say that the California wines did not have style, balance, or substance, either. For my tastes, there is nothing even close to White Burgundy as far as white wine goes; there is a snap, crackle and pop inherent in the terroir as well as a natural acidity that can be extraordinary when Mother Nature is compliant. I thought to myself, ‘is this a natural course of wine drinking evolution?’ I have always been pro-Californian and supportive of the area, as the wines of California were my first love and are for many wine drinkers. I have seen more often than not though, a gravitation towards the styles of the Old World after a few years of collecting or serious wine-drinking, myself included. Did people just need more exposure or was it me who was over-exposed? Why did I find the two most popular wines more on the clumsy, brawny and woodsy side and not find as much enjoyment here? I felt a bit like a radical for a moment, someone with a contrarian opinion that might not necessarily get out of there alive if it got ugly. It was the classic Pamela Anderson versus Grace Kelly debate (can you guess which wine is which?). Despite the opinions of the panel, the masses had spoken and California (and Pamela) had a clear cut victory. However, due to that contrarian opinion of the experts, the victory had a serious asterisk, and then the question that beckoned was whether the opinion of the panel weighed more than the public’s or not? When Steven was asked if he thought that the French public would vote the same as our American constituency, Steven said that he would be very surprised if it did. One excellent point arose from Ray, who asked me on the side what I thought would happen if we did the same tasting with these very same wines and vintages ten years from now, inferring that the white Burgundies would pull away over time from these Californians.

There was no time to dilly dally, however, and we had to move on to the reds. The tasting was running well over our time expectations and although no one was in a hurry to go, we wanted to keep things moving. Now, this tasting was an incredible amount of logistics, one that found me getting up from my seat a little more than I would have liked, and I did feel a bit of palate fatigue while tasting the reds. I gave all of myself to evaluating the whites (and getting the tasting to run smoothly); perhaps that was a little too much, and Ray poured twenty Spanish wines down my throat the night before, which didn’t help either. While I am still confident in my overall perceptions of the wine, I do feel that I was missing an eye, or palate I suppose, for nuance and subtlety after halftime, so the deck would be personally stacked against the wines of Bordeaux as I would soon find out. I am not trying to make any excuses but rather to provide a little personal context for what lies ahead.

Red #1 rang like an alarm clock that we were in Cabernet land. The nose was big, rich and balanced with nice vim. There were hearty cassis aromas and also minerals, cedar, smoke and a great balance between its alcohol and acidity, veritable scales of justice lingering in the air. There was great potential in the nose, for sure. The palate was rich and long at first but did not hold together in the glass that well, or perhaps that was me. Charcoal and grapy flavors marked its chalky finish, and I wondered about bottle variation (91+). Sure enough, this wine finished in last place with only 26 votes and no votes from the panel. It was the 2001 Chateau Montelena Cabernet. The second red’s nose was much milder by comparison with some leather, sole, light cedar, black fruit and coffee aromas. The nose was deep but not spiny, and the palate produced a lot of smoke and cedar flavors, spicy tannins and alcohol, more tannins than alcohol yet bright overall with a great grip. There was lots of minerality to this almost overly dry wine (93). I guess the group was still warming to the reds, as this 2002 Leoville Las Cases only received 34 votes and a 10th place finish. Again, the panel did not have any votes for this wine. Red #3 was a big hit, accumulating 76 votes from the group and a third-place finish. It also tied for second place on the panel with a respectable ten votes there. However, it was one my least favorite and lowest scored wines of the entire night. The wine was forward but also marked by green bean. There was some chunky fruit behind that, but the green bean stayed in charge of this red. There was also some chalk, light dust, earth and sugar snap pea joined its vegetable side. The finish had some spark, but the wine was more medium than full and softer overall. The green marked the flavors as well, and that is not one of my favorite things (85). It was the 2001 Sociando-Mallet, which was a very good show overall for this afterthought despite my own personal feelings on the wine. The fourth red had an exotic, super sexy nose with sweet fruits such as black cherry, boysenberry, cassis, blackberry and blueberry. There was a candied edge but in a handmade caramel from Guy Savoy kind of way. The fruit was quite psychedelic. On the palate, the wine was enormous, eliciting a ‘wow’ from me. There was a huge finish and heavy extraction – this wine summed up quite nicely why I love a good Cali Cab unless it’s a Bordeaux, I wrote. Big flavors of coffee, mineral, slate and cedar rounded out the wine, which thankfully was a Californian (96). The 2001 Robert Foley Claret scored well, finishing in sixth place with 60 votes. There were only four votes from the panel, and they were all mine, as this was my second favorite wine of the night. It was a sign of things to come.

We continued on with the fifth red, which had a nice nose that was shier yet still interesting with its aromas of carob, leather, earth, smoke and cedar. The palate was less interesting, though, with a sparkle to the finish but overall at a disinteresting stage. I did not get much out of it, that’s for sure (90+?) However, the rest of the panel loved this wine, giving it 12 votes, good enough for a first place finish! The group vote count equaled 51 which meant 9th place for the 2000 Mouton Rothschild. Sacre bleu! I have had the wine before and liked it a lot more – was it me at this stage of the night? Do young Cali Cabs overwhelm young Bordeaux in a head-to-head situation? Why was I starting to veer from the rest of the panel, since we were all basically in sync for the whites? Those are all the things I thought about once the wine’s identity was revealed. The sixth red finished in the group’s overall top five, in fourth place in fact with 72 votes. There was only one vote from the panel, as it was my own fifth place finisher. The wine had a boatload of exotic, blueberry syrup like fruit; as exotic as the Foley was, this took it up a notch, which turned out to be a surprise for me as I had a much different impression of the wine when I had it before this year. In fact, I had picked the wine as I felt it would be more similar to a Bordeaux in the context of the event and my past experience. There were additional, baked ginergbread aromas. Its t ‘n a were supporting yet in the background underneath its rich fruit. The palate was great, more classic yet still more exotic than I expected, both rich and fleshy and with good cedar spice and flavors on the finish. It was the 2001 Constant Cabernet (95). It was another surprise, top five finish. The seventh wine ended up being my own personal favorite, which carried it to a fifth place finish on the panel with seven votes. The group also had it in fifth place with 62 votes. It was another exotic nose with huge jasmine andexotic Asian spices on the nose and some lingonberry syrup action. Gingerbread and yes, pina colada, danced around my nostrils in an awe-inspiring, Amazonian way. The palate was enormous; huge, mouthfilling, long and longer. The palate was extraordinary and enormous, a King Kong amongst gorillas. The funny thing about this wine is that a friend of mine, whose palate I respect, had the wine the week before and trashed it. It was the 2000 Harlan Estate (96+). Wow, indeed. I was stunned by the Harlan’s showing. I figured if one wine could bear the burden of carrying the 2000 flag (not a great California vintage), it would be the Harlan, and I was right. There is no doubt in my mind that Harlan Estate produces California’s best Cabernet. It almost always wins every blind Cab tasting it is inserted into, my votes included, or it is pretty close to the top of the countdown. It isn’t such a secret as soon the 1994 and 1997 vintages will be over $1000 a bottle at the way the market has been going. I have another Harlan story, but I will save that for later. The eighth wine of the second session had a mild nose by comparison, seemingly shy, smooth and easy in the nose, although I felt that there was something lurking in the shadows. The palate was all about the finish for me, sandy, dusty, earthy and with lots of potential, but its front and mid-palate did little for me at this stage. This wine was hibernating, dormant, whatever you want to call it, but perhaps it was me as this was the most popular wine of the night, the 2000 Haut Brion, receiving 98 votes from the group and an additional ten votes from the panel, which was good for a tie for second place on the panel (90+). At the point where I knew that this was the Haut Brion, my belief that young California wines show better than young Bordeaux in comparative tastings was confirmed, but then I asked myself the question: why did the group and the panel think differently and like this wine so much versus me? Was the fact thatthe California wines stood out to me a sign of strength for the Cabernets, or was it rather a weakness of mine caused by fatigue? Why were the Bordeaux wines so muted, shy and vague in the mouth to me? I was quite stunned that the two first growths were such uninspiring wines to me and so inspiring to others.

We had three wines to go, and I liked two of them – guess where they were from? Yes, they were from California. The ninth red of the night had another exotic nose – very kinky but more beefy, still seductive with its chocolate and coffee. The palate was similar with great balance and a firm finish. The wine didn’t explode on the finish like some other reds, but it did keep gaining in the glass and was one of my top five wines, this bottle of 2002 Colgin Cabernet ‘IX’ (94+). It got three votes from the panel (technically eighth place there), again all my votes I believe, and 52 votes from the group, also good for eighth place overall. Red #10 was the 2000 Montrose, which got 56 votes from the group and seventh place overall, sixth place from the panel with its five votes. Now this was a wine that I just had two weeks ago and found to be outstanding, rating it 95 points. This bottle was far from that experience. I found myself about halfway between pomp and circumstance. This bottle, or the experience of this bottle in the context of the evening, was above average but not even very good. I gave the wine 88 points and found it uninteresting overall. All three wines from the 2000 vintage did not rock my socks on this night. Again, I was suffering from some palate fatigue in the second part of the night, but regardless the discrepancies were large. The last wine was the second most popular wine of the night (77 votes) and also happened to be the first place finisher in 1976. Even the panel had it in fourth place with 8 votes. It was the 2001 Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars Cabernet ‘Cask 23,’ a forgotten soldier amongst today’s cult superstars. The nose was an all-around classic, rich with nice cedar and a palate with excellent length and a lot of class. Unfortunately, that’s about all that I was able to scratch up by this stage for notes (94).

So the top five reds of the group were:

1. 2000 Haut Brion
2. 2001 Stag’s Leap ‘Cask 23’
3. 2001 Sociando Mallet
4. 2001 Constant
5. 2000 Harlan

The top five of the panel were:

1. 2000 Mouton
2. 2000 Haut Brion and 2001 Sociando Mallet (TIE)
4. 2001 Stag’s Leap ‘Cask 23’
5. 2000 Harlan

If the panel’s votes were merged with the group, it would have flip-flopped second and third places with the Sociando coming ahead by one single vote. It also would have flip-flopped sixth and seventh places, and eighth and ninth places. The top three wines were separate from the pack regardless, but fourth place through eighth place was all within a range of ten votes after the merge, very close. Ninth place (now the Colgin) wasn’t that much farther behind; only the last two wines (Las Cases and Montelena) were significantly lower in their vote totals.

The panel had 37 of its 60 votes go to the French wines, a closer margin than the whites, but if it were not for me the percentage would have been a lot higher. My top five wines were all Californian Cabernets. Now I have made the statement before that I believe the greatest Bordeaux are significantly better after age 30, and this tasting certainly seemed to cement that opinion in a very personal space, one right next to Jimmy Hoffa in the Giants end zone, which is right where many people would probably like to see it. In my mind, there is no doubt as to the superiority of California Cabernets at a younger age than the wines of Bordeaux from an enjoyment perspective, ESPECIALLY when matched up head-to-head. The richness and ripeness of California Cabernets overwhelm young Bordeaux. These Bordeaux wines, on their own, might have caused me to tell a different story. Again, Ray made his point about doing the tasting many years from now, and the point was a good one. There have been a handful of California producers that have proven their wines can age for decades: Heitz, Montelena, Dunn, Ridge to name a good chunk of them. With the new explosion of ‘cult’ wines in the nineties, the list of California’s elite producers have changed, and only time will tell if these new wines can age 30+ years gracefully.

So what can I personally say after recreating this historical tasting? One, it needs to be done with older wines – a separate experiment that I will be sure to recreate within the next year publicly or privately. Two, what the public likes and what wine experts like are not necessarily the same thing. I thought about this fact and why certain reviewers were more popular than others. Three, the event reminds me of that Harlan story I mentioned earlier. I said how Harlan always seems to win all the blind tastings it is in, how great I think their wines are, etc., even showing well at this event with the handicap of the 2000 vintage. So one day a while back, I decided for fun to bring a bottle of Harlan, I think it was 1997, over to one of the country’s leading Burgundy collectors and aficionados, let’s call him Don. It was a bottle that I had purchased for an event and never used, and I was eager to show Don that California could make some world-class wine, too. After warming up with a delicious Raveneau Chablis and then enjoying a fabulous 1969 Leroy Musigny, it was time for me to break out the Harlan, but after these two great Burgundies, the Harlan seemed dazed and confused, lost in the glass, and emperor without any clothes. Don quickly resumed getting to know his Musigny better, and I sat there dumbfounded and stunned that my Harlan did not shine on this occasion. Now, it could have been an off bottle, or perhaps the ghosts of Burgundy past exorcizing this demon in one of their most hallowed places, Don’s dining room :). Given how the whites showed and given this timely story about Harlan, this recreation of the 1976 Paris tasting, the New York Tasting of 2005, reminded me one important thing: that Burgundies are the greatest wines on Earth. That was MY moral of this story.