A few notes from the editor before I get into this week’s event.

1) The event covered last week took place in 2005, not 2004 as I wrote. Sometimes I forget what year it is, but I never forget a vintage
2) The Latour a Pomerol was not 1961, but rather 1955 like all the rest. There is something about typing the words Latour a Pomerol that subconsciously makes me type 1961. I wonder why that is
3) I sometimes get a little fan mail, and fan mail can be positive, but it is occasionally not. I care to share this anonymous letter with all of my readers regarding last week’s 1955 Bordeaux review:

Did you, by chance, actually read the email below before sending it out to a large mailing list? Frankly, I have absolutely no desire to read senseless fluff like this, or if I did, I would instead just keep a subscription to Vanity Fair. The mailing is in my opinion insulting it sounds as if it were written by Paris Hilton..

Wow, did you see that, Paris? We’re like separated at birth or something. Does anyone have access to her numbers or something? I need to compare some serious crib. notes. Or maybe I should start a wine column with Vanity Fair and I thought that was a respectable magazine, too. Who is that who runs it, Graydon Carter or something? Graydon, let’s talk.

So I wrote the guy back, because his response actually made me laugh. I told him:

We’ll take you off the list, but I am going to quote you in my next article very funny!.

So this guy wrote me back:

Thank you for taking me off the mailing list. I wasn’t sure if you were kidding or not in your message below, but if you do quote me, I’d appreciate getting a copy..

Now, that struck me as even funnier. In one breath he wants off the mailing list, and in the next breath he wants to see my next article because he might be in it! You humans are such strange and vain creatures.

Anyway, he made nice and apologized and sent me his best wishes, so it was a happy ending. I called up Vito and called it off, so no one got hurt. Back to Clive

Clive was his usual warm and fuzzy self, semi-recovering from a five hour lunch from which he came straight to our tasting. Clive has so much experience in the world of fine wine, he could probably have done this tasting with his eyes closed. At times, due to the five hour lunch, it seemed as if he was, indeed, doing this tasting with his eyes closed! Clive gave us a few tidbits about the 1990 vintage in Bordeaux, a refresher course regarding this legendary year. It was a relatively large crop; there were no frost or flowering issues. The summer was benign; autumn was dry and not too warm. It was hard not to make good wine, Clive reasoned. 1989 was much hotter, and many wines suffered from hydric stress in the Medoc and had unripe and astringent tannins as a result. According to Clive, the next satisfactory. vintage after 1990 was 2000. He then warned all of us: Don’t buy 2003!. He continued, Well, 2003 is good if you like Cali Cab, i.e., what I call rough trade. Stick to 2000 and 1990.. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Clive was touching upon some of the issues I raised earlier this month regarding the style of some of the newer releases, not only in Bordeaux, but all around the world. Anyway, let’s not go there again. On to the wines

We did the tasting in an order selected by Clive, and we started with a bang and some St. Emilions, beginning with the 1990 Beausejour Duffau. The wine had a deep nose full of sweet black fruits, carob, meat, alcohol and olive. Outside of the olive impression, which pointed towards St. Emilion, the wine gave more of a Left Bank impression. The nose got chunkier, more oily and chocolaty in the glass, while the palate was very rich and meaty. The finish was long and longer with a touch of heat. Some bouillon flavors emerged. Clive found the tannins a bit unresolved. and missed the richness and flair needs time.. He gave it a mere 16 frac12; points. Come on, Clive! I secretly wondered since it was an RP 100, maybe Clive suffered from a little vinous envy, as I found the wine to be outstanding (96). The next wine was Clive’s favorite in the flight, and mine as well, the overlooked and almost forgotten 1990 Troplong Mondot. The nose had a early morning bakery, freshly baked bread nose full of plum liqueur, nut, olive and cedar. It was very kinky in its plum aromas, and cassis quickly got into the party as well. Tons of alcohol, Ray moaned. It was a bit masculine for Ray, the Beaujolais aficionado that he is, and Clive quickly dismissed the notion that there was too much alcohol. The Troplong had more minerals to its nose, with a nice palate full of more minerals, game and those St. Emilion olive flavors. Mike noted a lot of cream. and called it one of those rare wines where he got more in the mouth than in the nose. The wine seemed a hair more powerful, ripe and fresh than the Beausejour and got a 17 frac12; from Clive, and from me (96+). The 1990 L.Angelus was very gamy with a little more stink to it, a touch of dirt and shit there at first. The wine was still meaty, heavy and thick, oily in its nose with those black fruits, a splash of wintergreen and those St. Emilion olives behind it. The nose opened up, and the wine got less stinky, and the palate was big, wide and long but a touch gamy and earthy. Clive said there was more sinew and muscle but not to my taste as much 17.. To me, it was excellent but a bit wild and woolly, not better than the Beausejour or even that close for that matter. Remember, my ratings system is exponential (94) . The 1990 Cheval Blanc was unfortunately corked. You could see the incredible texture of the wine behind that, but it was corked enough to disqualify. As Clive eloquently put it, this wine usually gives one a hard-on for a fortnight, but not tonight.. Well said, Clive, well said (DQ).

The Pomerols were next, and we started with the 1990 Clinet. This wine was an early favorite of mine in the mid-nineties when I was first getting into wine. There was still plummy and chocolaty fruit and a sweet, ripe yet stylish personality. The palate was meaty and alcoholic, hot at that moment with lots of slate flavors on its finish. It was not as ripe on the palate with more earth, olive and mineral flavors. Clive noted that the Clinet had a touch too much new oak and extraction for my taste, but I liked the energy of the wine though, and he gave it a 17 (94). The 1990 La Conseillante was pure olive on the nose with beautiful minerals and sexy, refined Pomerol fruit, although more on the mineral side. There was a touch of kink rounding out the nose and lots of olives on the palate, which was not as ripe as that bottle I had in Vegas a couple months back. The bottle held quite well and surpassed the Clinet in time. Clive called the Conseillante a bit of an underachiever given its location (next to Petrus) should be better one-dimensional.. He only gave it 15 frac12; points! Something was going on there between Clive and La Conseillante. I gave it (94+). The 1990 L’Evangile was a little dirty in the nose with lots of earth, bread, hay, plum and dark fruits behind it. The palate was round and rich, very firm and long in the finish. It was in a bit of a dumb spot right now it seemed and got simpler in the glass, or as Ray bluntly put it, it fell apart.. Clive told us how L’Evangile has improved tremendously over the past 15 years, and the location of its vineyards was next to La Conseillante, VCC and Petrus. Terroir does not lie, and this should be one of the best, although the 1990 was tough and a bit tannic.. Only 15 frac12; from Clive, although I gave it (93) . Next up was the 1990 Lafleur, a magnificent wine that somehow only got 17 frac12; points from Clive, which almost caused Ray to pick a fight. The Lafleur made me writeMmmmmmmm.. That superripe, kinky Lafleur style of prune, plum and black cherry fruit penetrated my nose with its sweet and liqueur-like way, accompanied by pure rock, citrus and rain. The palate was enormous with a huge finish. Ray advised, buy all you can.. Clive took the mic back and explained how Lafleur is on the other side of Petrus, the Western side, and how there are five different, gravelly soils. Clive was cooing, admiring the concentration of fruit and the rich, almost distilled style, which he called the essence of the property, which is why I was surprised to see him settle on 17 frac12;. This was a monumental wine (97+). A brief discussion about styles of wine ensued, and the word garage. came up, setting Clive into a slight fury. Garage is a load of nonsense, he angrily barked, since the best winemaking cannot overcome indifferent terroir.. Now that was the quote of the night, and I am sure all the big real estate guys in New York that I know would concur. Jim observed how the Pomerols were more restrained, tannic and backwards than the St. Emilions, and Clive concurred by saying, I think that is the case in general..

We crossed the river to the Left Bank, starting with a pair of Graves, THE pair of Graves for any horizontal tasting. The 1990 La Mission Haut Brion had a lot of cedar and alcohol in its spicy and nutty nose, which was hot yet still very stylish and long, with lots of Cabernet cedar, a touch of plum, and smoky wood, as Mike noted. There was, of course, the obligatory gravel, which caused someone to admire that I love that a lot of things going on.. The palate seemed a bit soft by comparison to the nose, but it was very tasty with similar components of cedar, gravel and minerals. The wine did get more gravelly, causing Clive to observe how La Mission is always the most austere of the two, while Haut Brion is always rounder and richer.. Clive gave the La Miss 18 frac12;, while JK gave it (94+). The 1990 Haut Brion had a deep and brooding nose full of nut, chocolate and pure earth with great depth to the nose. The palate was long, pure and earthy, as well as being very roasted. This was a pure bred wine, no question, with a touch of thoroughbred, Seabiscuit action, and great length. Clive gushed that the HB was never a blockbuster and doesn’t have to try.. He continued, Frankly, this is where it’s at (referring to both the La Miss and the HB). Sorry, Christian Moueix. Real Bordeaux wine comes from Cabernet Sauvignon.. I was not going to get into that debate, being the Right Bank lover that I am. Then again, I am a Left Bank lover, too. I guess I am the type of guy who needs lots of lovers, but in the end, I might beg to differ. Clive gave tne HB 19, maybe 19 frac12; he thought, out of 20. I thought it was outstanding as well (96) . The 1990 Rausan Segla had a grapy nose, almost Pomerol-ish with that overripe, Lafleur kink. The nose was not as deep or massive but delicious nonetheless. The palate was also grapy, delicious as well, with an earthy, cedary finish. The wine was smooth and satiny, but it seemed closer to its plateau than any other wine sofar. The wine was a dead ringer for Lafleur, so much that I set Ray up later on and he fell hook, line and sinker, which is no easy task. I did switch my Lafleur and Rausan Segla glass when he wasn’t looking, and then I handed him the glass that was in Lafleur’s spot. for our tasting. Too bad it was the Rausan Segla! It was the perfect set up, I must admit, but only because the wines were so similar. The wine held well, and Clive gave it 17 1/2 , telling us how the owner hates garage wine.. (94) The 1990 Margaux seems to be a controversial wine wherever I go. Ray quickly tried to influence our table, calling it over-rated and simple, and how the 1983 destroys it and the 1986 is better.. This bottle was a little dirty in the nose at first with cedar, earth, cassis, plum, soy and lots of fine t n a breed. The wine was very smooth and fine on the palate, elegant with a touch of coffee flavors. The thing about Margaux is that it is not the wine to bring to a comparative tasting; its finesse and style are distinctively feminine and elegant and rarely stand out amongst others. Once you get it in a room by itself, however, you understand, you understand. The acids lingered tremendously in the bottle, and the wine was beautiful, prompting Clive to call it impressive but very young, and difficult to taste and define the underneath qualities of the wine, scoring it 18 frac12; /19 points (95+).

It was the saints. of the Left Bank’s turn, Estephe and Julien. Now that would be two good names for a pair of boys, wouldn’t it? The daughter could be Margaux, of course, and the next son Pauillac could be called Paul, now couldn’t he? Anyway, the 1990 Haut Marbuzet had a weird nose which actually made me pull back. There was some sweet cherry fruit, but a stinky edge as well that was bordering on artificial, a cleaner aroma of sorts. That artificial aroma merged into a distinct dried apple, which Ray verified for me. The wine was very smooth, soft and easy but a little different, further defined by the touch of celery root that developed in its nose. Clive gave it 16 frac12; points, noting that it doesn’t have the class of the next two or the previous four for that matter.. (90) The 1990 Montrose was never a wine that blew me away, a wine that I always felt was a trip to the farm. This bottle was no different with its horsy, stinky nose, earthy and dirty as it always has been. On the palate, the wine was great, with gorgeous texture and concentration, I will admit. It was oily, balanced and long, with lots of earth. The texture was amazingly concentrated, so much so that it could easily improve, but the animalistic edge to it was not a pleasant one. Clive really felt the Montrose this night, calling it much more to my taste than the Cos pure, harmonious, long and intense, and gave it 19/20 (94+). Speaking of 1990 Cos d’Estournel, this bottle had a classic nose full of cedar, cassis, pencil, minerals and a touch of dirt. The palate was classic and pure, full of coffee, cassis, pencil, earth and tobacco flavors. There was a lot of spicy heat to the finish. Clive called it spicy, creamy and rich but lacking finesse 17.. (94+) The first St. Julien was the 1990 Lagrange, which had a classic nose of cedar, earth and tobacco, with secondary animal and cassis. The wine was a touch roasted, with long and fine t n a in its nose. There weregood earth, tobacco and cedar flavors. Clive only gave it 16, but the wine was solid and more than very good, and it got better and held well (93) . The 1990 Leoville Poyferre was a bit horsy as well with its earth and green field aromas. The wine was taut with a hidden core of ripe, cassis fruit. The palate was very tasty, long and earthy with nice, ripe fruit. Clive was very impressed, scoring it 18/20 (93) . Next up was the 1990 Leoville Las Cases. Marzipan, Ray noted, and there was nice, chunky fruit, wound and classy with its earth, rubber tire, grape, nut, cassis and mineral aromas. The wine was beautiful, tasty, balanced and smooth with luscious vanilla flavors. Clive gave it a reluctant 18 frac12; , noting that it was very closed and Margaux-like (in that it was) difficult to get a bead on. Wines built to last will go into their shells, he justified, citing the fact that the wine was great, but that it doesn’t sing. right now (95) .

It was finally time for Pauillac, Big Pauly. as we used to call him in the joint. The 1990 Lynch Bages was another weird, chemical nose, a fact that struck me on the last two bottles of 1989 that I have had as well, both within the last two months. Hmmmm. Ray noted the acetone. as I mentioned rubbing alcohol, but it did blow off a bit with some extra aeration into the typical, beefy, cedary, meaty and tobacco driven nose. The wine got chunky and almost chocolaty, but the palate seemed atypically soft on the palate, which Clive called low acidity.. He gave it 17/20, and I gave it (92) . I need to graph our score comparisons or something. The 1990 Grand Puy Lacoste had a shy nose with a mineral and cedar edge, not with a lot of fruit but pure nonetheless. There was sweet cigar, stalk, tobacco and chocolate traces. The palate was very cedary and minerally, long and fine. I missed Clive’s notes here, sorry (93+). Two wines to go. Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale. The 1990 Pichon Baron was very forward with an in your face nose, ripe but reserved with some animal, earth and kink. There was a bit of cultish cassis and banana fruit. The palate was round, balanced, rich, spiny and long in this excellent, 17 frac12; CC wine (94) . We ended with the 1990 Lafite, the forgotten First Growth of the vintage (we’re not even going to count Mouton). The nose was mild, very shy besides touches of peanut, cedar, cassis, pencil and marijuana. There was ripeness and richness on the palate, length to the finish and great breed. Clive loved this wine, giving it 19 frac12; , saying that the wine was backwards without being closed or adolescent marvelous balance this is what First Growths are all about.. (95)

We did dinner with Clive afterwards, and it was an unregulated BYOB I always regulate, but my life has gotten busier and crazier this year, so I did not have time to coordinate this time, and I actually figured all who came knew enough to represent. Big mistake. I will never have another unregulated BYOB, which is the same spirit behind the 12 Angry Men. Anyway, we had some great wines like 1998 and 1996 Trimbach Clos Ste. Hune, 1970 Vega Sicilia Unico, and unfortunately a corked bottle of 1997 Harlan. I might write that up the next week or so, or it might end up in the land of the lost. files that includes almost all of 2004 and then some, events that I have written up but never typed out and published. I am too tired right now and have too much on my plate this weekend to continue, though.

Next week’s article should be the Paulee. You’ll want to read that one.

We kicked off our Spring tasting schedule in style with a spectacular 1955 Bordeaux dinner at Le Bernadin, one of New York’s finest restaurants. I am ashamed to admit it, but it is actually the first time that I have ever eaten at Le Bernadin due to the fact that the cuisine is mainly seafood, which is not really one of my favorite things. I mean, I am starting to eat more fish here and there due to the amount of set/tasting menus that I seem to encounter, but I would rarely, ok never, order seafood on my own outside of an occasional tuna/salmon tartare or cooked shrimp (after this night, that is) something or other. I have actually enjoyed a couple of real fish dishes within the past year, including an incredible Dover Sole dish at Michael Mina’s in San Fran, and I think some John Dory dish I had recently. However, I think that fish is, well, fishy, and I generally do not enjoy it. While we are on the topic of my quirky eating habits, celery and cooked spinach makes me gag, and I am not big on the texture of mushrooms, although I love the flavors and adore truffles of course, and NO clams, oysters, scallops etc. I guess you could say I am a meat and potatoes man who drinks a little better than my brethren in this esteemed category. Anyway, after this evening at Le Bernadin, it is safe to say that I will be there more often, as the meal was incredible, including the shrimp, lobster and yes, Eric Ripert can make some magic with meat as well. It is no wonder that Le Bernadin was atop the Zagat Ratings this year along with Bouley as best food in New York City, although they should add Shea Gallante and Cru to that short list of exquisiteness next year. Those are a few of my favorite things.

Ok back to the Bordeaux and the 1955 vintage in particular. We had a great lineup of wines, including a very rare flight or two of Pomerols, and the 1955s should be mentioned in the same breath as 1961, 1949, 1948 and 1947 when it comes to Right Bank legendary vintages. For some reason, the 1955 vintage has been below the radar relative to those other great years, but make no mistakes about it, 1955 is a great Right Bank vintage. There are some good lefties. as well, some sumptuous southpaws that you will read about shortly, but it is definitely a right.eous vintage, a la 1998 as a recent comparison of a vintage where the Right Bank wines excelled more than the Lefts in general, of course. We started with a 1955 Ducru Beaucaillou, which had a beautiful nose at first with some ripe cherry fruit, musk, olive, earth and vanilla ice cream aromas. There were nice earth and cedar flavors, on the drier and earthier side. Jim and Wendy were both feeling the mocha and coffee. side of the wine’s personality, but Ray was quick to dismiss it, saying the nose gave me high hopes but the palate dashed them.. There were pleasant olive flavors and good acids still, and as the wine changed in the glass, a lot of caramel and raisin aromas came out. The wine did head south fairly quickly and became angular and even a touch sour, but for the first 20 minutes I actually preferred it to the Lafite, which proved to be a better wine. This bottle of Ducru was clinging to being very good and definitely a wine to be consumed within the first thirty minutes of being opened (90). The 1955 Lafite Rothschild also had surprisingly ripe fruit in its nose, but more in the black cherry direction. There was also an herbal edge, not a negative one, along with nice earth, although it was more dirt than earth if you can imagine the difference. The palate was dirty, earthy and gamy with some wild action and leather flavors. The finish was noticeably longer than that of the Ducru in this very good and ashy Lafite (92). The last wine in this first flight was a 1955 Latour, which had a very dirty nose. Mike felt it was a touch maderized, and there was a general sense of disappointment with this bottle at our table. The nose still had a lot of black fruits, a touch of sap, some carob, nut and that stinky, dirty edge. The palate was chalky, fine and long but should have been better. There were olives, some rust and more acidity here than the others so far. Wendy noted a lot of alcohol, and the wine clearly had the best raw materials so far, but it did not seem like it was all that it could be, at least as this bottle was concerned (93+?).

We stepped it up a notch in flight number two, beginning with an outstanding 1955 Mouton Rothschild. The wine had a great nose with the sexy, peanutty, minty Mouton spice signature, if you will. The nose was also meaty, perfumed and aromatic with a gorgeous side of Kalamta olives in that ripe, fleshy, purple, olive way. There was also coffee and tobacco in its complex nose, and the palate was round, earthy and medium-bodied. The finish was nice, the acids and alcohol excellent, and the flavors were mainly cedar (95+). The 1955 Haut Brion was full of bacon Cote Rotie, as Rob observed, and Ray found it had hickory bones.. There was an earthy and chocolaty edge as well with a coffee/espresso milkshake side a la the 1928, but there were more twinges of stalk and herb here. The palate was very gravelly and earthy; Mike noted that it ended drying. and that the wine was powdery. in its personality. Wendy was all over the beef jerky, and it did have that Worcestershire splash, and Jim called it smoked meats, and it was very smoked. The wine was over the top smoky and gravelly, Rob found it on steroids, and someone noted loads of tobacco, and I found some lit cigar. Mike was still complaining about its dryness, finding it too dry, and I saw how this wine could rub some people the wrong way. I have had better bottles of this wine, and it wasn.t an off. bottle, but it was very gravelly and earthy (94+). Unfortunately, the 1955 La Mission Haut Brion was corked (DQ).

We crossed the river for the next flight, beginning with the only St. Emilion of the night, the 1955 Cheval Blanc. The wine was incredibly kinky and exotic in the nose; Wendy immediately noted Pina Colada, and Ray found it more coconuts and cream, splitting a hair into two. It definitely had this amazing suntan lotion quality, and Rob was admiring how pure. and laser-like. the wine was. Wendy noted some licorice, and Ray was being his usual self, calling it more anise.. There was no doubting its exotic aromas that were bordering on tropical in a candle wax and Mounds (chocolate and coconut) way. Rob noted big banana .94 Colgin-ish, and while I saw what he was saying, the Cheval had more earth, barn and bread than the usual 1994 Colgin, although perhaps in forty years that Colgin will be the same! The flavors were chocolaty, bready, earthy and slaty, and Mike noted marzipan. and took my Mounds and Almond Joyed me back. Rob got slightly critical and was a little disappointed with its roundness and mouthfeel. and also found it dessert wine-like, a la Chambers Tokay.. The wine was kinky, exotic and outstanding (95). We segued into Pomerol with a 1955 Gazin. There was a lot of coffee, hay and rubber, according to Mike. For the first few minutes, there were a lot of impressions going around, but the wine fell off a cliff rather quickly. There was some plummy fruit, splashes of olive and a nice finish with a touch of citrusy flavors that Mike categorized as lemon sours.. It got a little mintier, but Rob and Ray thought it fell apart too soon. Like the Ducru, it was still a very good wine (and barely holding on to its status there), but again another wine that needed to be drunk relatively quickly once opened (90). The 1955 Trotanoy had a great nose, so young, ripe, rich, saucy and sexy. It was decadently plummy and chocolaty, port-like. Wendy observed, and there were beautiful supporting earth aromas as well. The mouthfeel was incredible rich and great withhuge length and texture on the palate. It was a bully amongst its peers so far with a great body, Jim concurred. The palate was the thickest, youngest and heaviest so far. There were loads of minerals and iron on the finish. Rob noted its deeper. level and Jim also got some chewable vitamin C. in this monumental Trotanoy (96+). The 1961 Latour a Pomerol was a controversial bottle, very cloudy in its color but not bad in the nose with its meaty personality and aromas of raisin, plum, chocolate and meat. Ray found some chlorine, which was there, and the palate was minerally, chalky and earthy. Wendy was all over its sesame and white mushroom, while Ray was feeling iron.. The wine was chocolaty and rasiny, but it was obviously an affected and not perfect bottle, as this wine normally scores 98 points on a bad day, and this day was a 94+?, hence my (DQ). Ahhh, the 1955 Petrus. The nose was a bit shy but still full of the Pomerol plum, earth and mineral as well as the breed of Petrus. Mike noted the inky trail. that the wine left, and the fruit was incredibly sweet, subtle yet gorgeous. The palate had much more strength and was sturdy with great mineral, earth, chalk and slate flavors, all balanced by its plummy and chocolaty fruit. The finish on the Petrus is better, Mike observed, but Rob countered that everything on the Lafleur is better than the Petrus, as he was ahead of the curve (as always), just like he is when it comes to the streets of New York. The Petrus was still extraordinary with the breed of a king and more flavors than Baskin Robbins (97). The 1955 Lafleur was stunning, six star wine, as a close friend of mine would say. The concentration of fruit was amazing, buttery. as Mike noted, along with toffee, plum and raisin aromas. The wine was super thick in the nose with that kinky Lafleur spice in the center of its grapy, cherry, chocolaty, pruny and thick fruit. There was gingerbread without the ginger, ash and bloody meat as well. The concentration, power, mass and weight were unbelievable, and the plum, raisin, prune and butter flavors were more than great. It was one of those wines that you never ever forget (99).

The 1955 Fonseca was actually semi-mature. There were chocolate, marzipan, alcohol, nut and caramel aromas and flavors, with lots of alcohol in the belly and a honeyed palate (92).

I was going to write up the 1990 Mega tasting we did with Clive Coates as well in this week’s email, but a little thing called La Paulee happened, and I had two nights in a row where I got home at 5am, and I am in Florida right now to boot, so stay tuned to the same wine channel next week. We are always on here at Acker.

It just so happened that my official tasting group, the 12 Angry Men, had their February and March events within two weeks of each other based on the schedules of each month’s hosts, Peter I saw nothing in Vegas. J. and Eric Make em clap to this don’t call me for logistics. B., otherwise known as Eric the Red Wine Bandit from previous Vintage Tastings lore. We.ll start with Peter, who hosted his event in a private townhouse in New York City, where former chef to JFK, a wonderful woman named Anne-Marie, created an outstanding menu to complement an equally outstanding lineup of wines orchestrated by Peter.

I was running a little late due to a meeting downtown, so I quickly caught up on the two aperitif wines, a 1989 Lafon Meursault and 1985 Leroy Meursault Genevrieres. The Lafon showed very well, fully mature but still very tasty. Due to the fact that I only got a swallow, I can.t say much more except for the fact that it had already been open an hour, which is not the recommended procedure for a 16 year-old village wine (90+)! The Leroy was a touch over. mature, ie, showing more age than it should have, and was way too bready (DQ).

The sit-down portion of our evening began with a flight of three more Lafons, starting with a 1992 Lafon Meursault Clos de la Barre. Ray remarked that it was a typical 1992. right away, muscling in on the opinions of the group as he is prone and known to do. He tends to be right though, so he can do that. I found the nose to be buttery and toasty, although I had a glass issue that I politely categorized as floral.. The wine was definitely at its peak; I cannot imagine the wine getting any better than it showed at age thirteen on this February night in 2005. Mike was ahead of the curve and noted a banana flavor. on the Perrieres; I noticed it on the Clos de la Barre as well. The wine was bready, tasty and mature (92). The 1992 Lafon Meursault Perrieres had a more intense nose, much deeper and more minerally than its Clos de la Barre brother, with that banana. that Mike picked up on, as well as butter, corn and vanilla. The nose was classic, for Lafon, 1992 and Perrieres as well, although it did not have the power or length on the palate that I thought it would based on the nose. Ray made his pumped up Kistler. analogy that he made regarding the 1990 Lafon Montrachet at the Top 100 weekend. Now you know what not to get Ray for Christmas. Gorky found it racy, and it was in a very elegant and stylish way (93). The wine of the flight for me, and many others, was the afterthought: the 1982 Lafon Meursault Desiree. There were lots of oohs and aahs for its mature, buttery nose that was also full of freshly peeled corn, alcohol, minerals, caramel and bread. It was almost younger than its 1992 counterparts with its great dust and minerals on its finish. Surprise, surprise (94).

The next flight started auspiciously with a cooked 1989 Remoissenet Montrachet (DQ). The next wine rocked the house, however, and it proceeded to sell out a few more shows after its performance on this night! The 2000 Montrachet was extraordinary. The breed of Montrachet, the style of the vintage and the quality of all came through in this bottle. Unlike the 2002 that I had a couple weeks prior, there was no Caliesque impression to its nose, and even Ray was fully erect, a rare sight when it comes to wine. There were piercing aromas of minerals and stones to its racy nose, a nose full of zip, zing and zoom. There were great, taut flavors with toast, minerals, white fruits, citrus and earth. Ray was gushing about the clarity and purity of fruit. while Gorky was admiring its integration and how it is drinking so well, a fact that he interestingly called scary.. Ray had to put something down, so he called the twice the wine of the Sauzet. which followed (97). Well if the was twice the wine of the 2002 Sauzet Montrachet, that would make it about 47 or 48 points, right? Exponential-ism is a good concept, no? Anyway, the Sauzet was flirting with outstanding nonetheless. There was a load of alcohol in its nose, which was also very citrusy, spiny and pine-y. It had an intense nose full of flint and smoke, a veritable Terminator of sorts. The palate was much more drinkable than I thought it would be, very 2000-ish with its clarity and precision. The wine was long and fine, but it seemed like an early bloomer, still outstanding but missing the stuffing that the nose had. Someone noted crayon. (95).

It was time for some red wine, and the first on the menu was a magnum of 1978 Chave Hermitage, courtesy of Jim and the one Angry Woman, Wendy. The nose was the best impression a 1978 Chave had ever given me with its smoky, earthy, lightly rusty and gamy qualities. There was soy, sweet Asian spice and mint, as Wendy observed. There was also alcohol and a touch of roasted earth. The palate was chalky, and some were grumbling that Mike’s advice of extra aeration hurt the wine. It was earthy and chalky, with some plummy fruit there, same as it ever was to me, still excellent but not outstanding. With time in the glass, the wine got more earthy and herbal with a garden impression. Time was not on its side as far as staying in the glass despite the magnum factor (93). Next up was the 1990 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle.. Wendy was all over the chocolate chip cookie dough. aspect, which I saw. The nose was incredibly complex full of deep, meaty, figgy fruit. There were raisins, molasses, menthol and roasted earth as well. The nose was far ahead of the palate, which was tight, rusty and earthy with black fruits. The wine was certainly outstanding, but the fruit on the palate was not in a great spot. The structure was amazing, however, with a huge, long and well-bred finish full of earth, dust and spice (95+).

The next flight was comprised of four Chateauneufs, and they were all very special in each of their own right. The 1989 Beaucastel had a great nose, wild, gamy and meaty with Provencal spice, plummy fruit and leather, earth and cassis as well. It was complex and delicious with lots of flavors of game, Provencal herbs and tangy black cherry fruit. It was very tasty (95). The 1990 H. Bonneau Reserve des Celestins. that followed was spectacular. There were loads of t n a in this enormously well-bred beauty of a beast. The fig, Provencal herb and meat qualities were nothing short of awesome. The wine was incredibly enormous, well-endowed yet super smooth. It was the best bottle of this wine that I have ever had, and it was an Acker auction bottle, of course. It was a wine that needed three hours of air (and got two anyway) , and it was actually drinkable in that hair-raising on the back of your neck kind of way (98). The 1995 Rayas has always been a pet wine of mine, a sweet child in the context of the great Rayases of the 20th century and potentially the last great one ever made. The nose was fabulous with great garrigue, smoke, spice and gorgeous kirsch fruit. There were lots of Ray Ass. jokes going around, and I quickly gathered myself to find stones, leather and more spice; in fact, there was a perfect balance of stones and spice and everything nice. There was great fruit and leather to the palate as well (97). The last Chateauneuf of this incredible flight was the 1998 Beaucastel Hommage a Jacques Perrin.. Its sweet, beefy nose was incredibly rich, full of sweet, beefy fruit, both syrupy and decadent. The wine was rich, creamy, lush, pure and surprisingly smooth on the palate, with fine and gritty tannins (98).

The blind game began with one flight and finished with another. The first flight started with a wine that no one on the planet could guess blind, a 1934 Delphine Cote Rotie. It was the best 70 year-old Rhone I have ever had, delicious, old and smooth (93). The following wine was even greater, but a noticeable left turn to the Delphine. It showed incredibly Rhone-ish-ly this night despite the fact that it was a 1971 Penfolds Grange and got very chocolaty in the glass (96+). The 1985 Rayas was awesome. My note read, Man, I love Rayas.. That about sums it up, aside from the fact that I saw the 1985 as an older brother to the 1995 (97). The second flight started with a spectacular 1983 La Mouline. Perhaps the greatest La Mouline of the last quarter century, the 1983 was rusty, earthy, roasted and rich. There was chocolate, cherry, velvet and more rust. It was awesome (98). The 1989 La Turque was so juicy in that chocolate thunder kind of way. I really felt this wine on this night (96). The 1990 La Turque I did not feel as much; maybe it was the bottle. It was very wound up, tight and lacking weight. There was power to its finish at first, but it flashed quickly. It reminds me of myself, Ray chipped in, a little dirty and very sexy muscular, he continued. Maybe that’s why I didn.t like it as much! (93+) The 1991 La Turque was similar to the 1990, but better. How’s that for a tasting note? (94) After some potential ideas were thrown around, the night ended mercifully, especially since it knocked me out for about four or five days. Of course, despite my illness, I still worked an average of ten hours a day, just at home this week.

Eric the Red invited us all up to his home in Connecticut where we were all at his mercy in a blind tasting. After sticking his toe in the water, Eric decide that all the wines would come from him and that everyone could just bring him a bottle from their cellar as their contribution to the event, which worked out quite well, as Eric put together a tremendous evening out of his tremendous cellar.

Eric isn.t much of a white wine guy, but after we each had about three glasses of 1990 Dom Perignon, we were all pleasantly surprised to see three whites on the agenda. The first white had old and mature white Burgundy aromas and flavors, possibly Leflaive, I mused. There was nut, corn, butter and a lot of earth and yeast. There was also a touch of almond marzipan. The wine was still firm in its alcohol, which was well intertwined with its earth components. The center of the wine was a hair short, but the wine was still very good and bordering on excellent as its texture was very oily. Ray kept insisting how the nose was better than the palate in this surprising 1973 Bouchard Puligny Montrachet Folatieres. (92). The next white had a deep, alcoholic nose that indicated an over-the-top, young white Burg that was wound up like a Swiss grandfather clock from the German part of Switzerland, of course, as we all know that Germans are a bit intense. There was popcorn kernel there and minerals galore. as Gorky pegged. When the word galore comes up, there is only one word that comes to my mind, but I digress. The palate was incredibly precise, and it made me guess 1996 Leflaive Chevalier, but it was the 1996 Leflaive Batard Montrachet. Where is a close friend of mine when you need him? This was a very rare occurrence, that being a razor sharp guess by me when served blind. The acids, minerals and earth were great on the palate, and the wine was stunning (97). The final white of the evening was more flowery but still very wound and intense a la wine #2. Ray guessed 1995 Leflaive Batard, and I could not disagree with his reasoning as there was definitely signature Leflaive. There was earth, yeast and bread dough on its smooth yet gritty palate. It was the 1996 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet, which was strange as it did not seem like it was from 1996 or similar in that regard to the Batard. It was still outstanding (95).

The next flight was comprised of four reds, and they were all the same producer, which we did not know at first. The first wine had a great nose that was deep and meaty with traces of caramel, carob, earth, tobacco, iron and rust. It got metallic quickly, but there was still hickory and gravel, prompting Jim to wonder if it was a Graves, but Ray was all over Spain and old Rioja.. The wine held on the palate well and was sturdy and leathery with flavors of tobacco and chocolate. It was a good showing for the 1947 Lopez de Heredia Vina Bosconia Gran Reserva, better than I remember in Los Angeles last year (92). The next Heredia was the 1964, which got beef bouillon. from Jim, sour milk. from Ray and oysters. from Gorky. Jim felt the clam wine. factor, and Ray jumped on with low-tide marsh, that Gorky felt was more saltwater.. Mike came out of the woodworks with wood shavings.. It was a smooth, satiny wine, and a very good one despite all the controversial adjectives being thrown around (91). The 1968 had a super-duper fruit and nut combo in the nose, and we were feeling the older to younger trend. There were raisinet flavors, almost strawberry dipped in chocolate which I think Jim picked up on first. It was sexy, velvety, leathery, meaty and chocolaty. The palate was very meaty and great, both mature and youthful (94). The 1974 was next, I think, but somehow I missed taking a note. Sorry.

Our third flight started with an Italian kind of wine in the nose. Ray only got tobacco, but I felt the Italian thing more. I did write that it could be Bordeaux. The wine was very leathery and earthy in the nose with lots of tar and alcohol, which was barely reined in on the palate. There was a lot of acid and potpourri, someone noted. The wine was a 1926 Musigny, with no mention of producer, but the problem was that the label also said it was from Bordeaux! I can safely say that this will probably be the only Musigny that I ever have from Bordeaux. Most were convinced that it was old Barolo, and that the wine was still quality, but it wasn.t what it wasn.t, so it had to be disqualified (DQ). Did I mention that Eric was not big on logistics? The next wine made us quickly forget the last wine, as it had a great nose full of chocolate, rose and red, velvety fruits. Gorky came out with a low blow, calling it Dr. Barolet Algerian wine, and someone else said Camille Giroud 1940s, while I settled on La Miss/Haut Brion. due to its gravelly nature. Jim noted its blood and iron. qualities, and there was also nut, minerals and alcohol. The palate was ripe and saucy with a touch of liqueur, definitely mature, and rich and fleshy with hickory smoke flavors. It was a 1928 Haut Bailly (94) , a small vindication of sorts for me. The next wine was real wine. according to RR, aka Big Boy. There was citrus on its finish and a warm, meaty, lush nose that was nutty and full of tobacco, probably La Mission, I wrote. The wine was meaty, fleshy, earthy and leathery with sweet tobacco and hazelnut coffee, someone noted. The wine was more open and lush than the Haut Bailly, and Gorky also noted the citrus peel. in this 1928 Leoville Las Cases (92). The third wine made someone say that this is definitely not a horizontal, although it was! The wine was super chocolaty with minerals, alcohol and long acids. Wendy and Mike were both all over its tapenade. qualities, while Gorky was in a sage. stage, and Jim was feeling lavender.. There was leather to its thick and chewy palate, and Ray started thinking Hermitage and said make sure you quote me.. The wine had band-aids. someone said, and I also noted coffee flavors, and an old Cali Cab camp started to form when it was revealed to be a 1928 Haut Brion (95). Got that, Ray? Unfortunately, the 1928 Latour was maderized (DQ).

We ended with some young bucks, starting with a 1989 Haut Brion. I wonder how many times I am going to have this wine, I thought, and settled on 100 times as a goal. I have already had it at least a dozen times if not more, and it continues to be one of the all-time greats for a young wine, that is. Mike noted lots of spearmint, and it was minty but also long, smooth and earthy, full of leather and alcohol. The wine was amazing: great, long, spicy and intense (98). The 1989 Clinet was no slouch either, possessing an incredible nose that was so pure and chocolaty, earthy and a touch gassy in a positive way. The wine was smooth and lush, great. with lots of charcoal, leather and chocolate flavors and an incredible A to Z balance. Minerals, bacon and length rounded out this kinky and distinctive Pomerol, whose unique flavors held it back actually (95+). The next wine had more spearmint and a meaty, grilled pork edge. Real creamy, Mike gushed. The wine had a chalky, lush texture, lush fruit and good weight despite its feminine style. It was a 1990 Margaux (95+). The last red wine was a curveball from Eric, a 1995 Joseph Phelps Insignia. The wine held its own, although it gave an Aussie impression to some while Ray was on a Tertre Roteboeuf kick. Harlan?. I wrote. The wine was milky, satiny and long, garage-ish but Cali Cab I was righteously convinced. Big boy came up with the big guess of Insignia. and noted its banana and dill, although Mike said it was too sexy for Cali, but I am not sure what he meant. There were meaty, blue fruits to this outstanding wine that I honestly thought was Harlan (95).

The night wasn.t over as Eric served a 1995 Tirecul Cuvee Madame (which was outstanding) and a couple other dessert wines including some Port from the 19th century, I think. I was too busy admiring the guy who couldn.t speak any English, but somehow knew how to hand roll cigars, work away in his cellar. Man, that was a good cigar

Some last second cancellations got a close friend of mine and I an invitation to a wine weekend in D.C. and Baltimore, spearheaded by Wilfred and his aggressive charity bidding at the last Hospice du Rhone auction, where he won dinner for twelve with Robert Parker at RP’s favorite restaurant in Baltimore (the Charleston) , complete with wines out of his own personal cellar. The group of twelve came from all over the country: Chicago, Texas, Arizona, Seattle, New York and California, so it made sense to have a Friday night warm-up since many were coming a long way. Scott had organized a great meal and BYOB event at Citronelle, where all of us gathered and a couple others who could not make it Saturday, including Mr. Bulletin Board himself, Mark Squires. Parker was not there on Friday night, so Mark became our celebrity guest. The stage had been set for a great weekend, and after sliding down to D.C. and working all afternoon, I was ready to eat, drink and be merry.

We started off with some 1985 Louis Roderer Cristal, which was still young, a touch tangy, stony and minerally. I was a bit queasy from the previous night and the travel, so I wasn.t exactly ready for the Champagne, which was fine and long yet lacking weight on the palate. It was tart and light on its feet, with a touch of seltzer and not as expansive on the front palate as I would like (93).

We had a couple of whites off the list to make nice with the restaurant, beginning with a a controversial 2000 Louis Jadot Chevalier Montrachet Les Demoiselles.. The wine was exotically tropical and had big-time butter rum on the nose, with a baked fruit quality, richness and oak atypical of most 2000s I have had. There were lots of nuts and honey, but the wine was too oaky, woody and buttery. according to one of my fellow enthusiasts , but it did have similar qualities to an incredible 1986 I had at someone’s house once. However, a close friend of mine did find it too advanced for a 2000, with which I did agree due to its caramel and buttered corn. The palate was very oaky and angular, with a touch of heat on the backside, and the acids were long in the belly. The palate was one-dimensional and only had some dust flavors, but I felt it was impossible to fully evaluate on the palate. Someone noted it was much better on the nose than the palate, and it was, and I didn.t mind its kinkiness although I was a bit perplexed by its character given the vintage and its youth. I have to think it will get better knowing the pedigree of the producer, vineyard and vintage (90+). Next up was a 1999 Bouchard Chevalier Montrachet, served out of magnum, and it was much purer on the nose, really standing apart from the Jadot. The nose was clean, pure, fresh and racy, intense and wound yet flashy, full of minerals, citrus and rainwater. Ben picked up on some smoky flint, and the wine was flirting with a Raveneau Chablis Les Clos, I thought. The palate was also very pure, a bit stony and young on the back side with enormous acids. The palate was full of minerals and anise, stony and most likely outstanding in the long term, but a bit shut down in the middle right now on the palate, but I gave its great potential the benefit of the doubt (95). a close friend of mine said that the Cabotte. bottling by Bouchard is even better.

We had one more Burgundy before diving into the sea of Bordeaux assembled, but this time it was a red and a 2000 La Tache. The nose was rich in fruit, yet soft and approachable at the same time, although Mark found it very tight yet gorgeous.. There were loads of spices of stems, cinnamon, iron, alcohol and earth. There was also beautiful rose and plum fruit, green beans and exotic spice. There was the intensity of La Tache with the approachability of 2000. The wine was young on the palate but still drinkable, with very long acids, a touch of rust and a light earthiness to its finish. It was caressing my palate and soft on the front and mid-zones and certainly a very good, potentially excellent La Tache. It held well and the acids were there, but the weight was not that of a great one texturally (92).

It was on to Bordeaux for the remainder of the evening, and we started with a flight of 1989s. The 1989 Lynch Bages was served out of magnum, and a bruiser accordingly. There was an intense nose that definitely needed some air, but once you got past the windex, cat’s pee and alcohol action, there was meaty, beefy fruit with deep cassis, tobacco, earth and pencil shavings. The palate was very tasty with flavors of beef, cassis, pencil and earth, with a long earthy, rocky finish. The wine was outstanding with great power and finesse, and secondary coffee grind flavors (95). The 1989 Leoville Las Cases was very angular in the nose, a bit chemical at first but opened somewhat with air. Others were noting its greenish personality, but I found it more to be must, and there was a lot of earth, slate and Asian spice behind it along with beef satay, peanut and plummy fruit underneath. The palate was more intense than I expected or remembered, and its finish had some hair-raising alcohol and acid, along with a slaty finish. Mark found it corked and I saw it, but it was very slight, although it did come out more with air, making it hard to make a final judgment (92-3?). The 1989 Margaux had a delightful nose that was forward and ripe in a nutty way. The nose had carob, nut, meat and vanilla. The palate was beautiful with lots of finesse and drinking very well. It was silky, soft and very Margaux-like and had nice earth and light grit. A little lime and cola developed, and its finish was dusty, soft and pretty (94).

Cheval Blanc and Haut Brion were on center stage in the next flight, starting with the 1982 Cheval Blanc. a close friend of mine quickly no joy, no lucked. it, and it was a very controversial wine. Now both a close friend of mine and I made the point of how we have had more disappointing bottles of 1982 Cheval than not, and he and Mark thought that this bottle was corked. Now I got the must at first, but I felt very able to judge the wine. With all that being said, behind that must was an intense, deep wine full of alcohol, rose, olive, wintergreen, menthol, nut, cherry, earth and leaf. The palate was rich and round with a wallop of a finish and extraordinary acids and length, and this bottle was actually one of the better that I have had, but a close friend of mine was in disagreement (96). The 1990 Cheval Blanc had a stunning nose that was young and powerful yet flirtatious. There was both ripeness and spine, and seductive red fruit that was both glazed and lush, along with sexy nut, Asian sweetness, leather, meat, light pepper and all kinds of spice, collectively allspice in that it had all of them covered and was too complex to label individually. The palate was awesome and surprisingly approachable with finesse and style. There was elegance, breed and a long finish to go with its great flavors. a close friend of mine found it fat and exotic. (97). The 1982 Haut Brion was unfortunately an off bottle, indubitably cooked (DQ), but the 1989 Haut Brion was a sleeping lion in the nose, majestic yet reticent. There were aromas of cassis, pencil, earth, meat, leather and exotic banana. Loads of t n a were also present in its regal nose and came out with aeration but still remained reined in like a Triple Crown winner. The wine was so young yet so fabulously long on the finish with its earth, length and style. It is still one of the all-time greats (98).

All wines from the 1982 vintage were in the next flight, starting with a 1982 Lafite Rothschild. The nose was gorgeous, probably the best 1982 Lafite I have ever had, with meat on its bones and a cassis, nut and caramel trifecta, and even a touch of kinky citrus. I would certainly call it ripe, especially by the standards with which I was familiar. a close friend of mine called it perfect and gorgeous, the way it should be.. There was a light touch of bread and yeast, and the palate was very dry and long, with more finish than fruit and dominating slate (96+). The 1982 Mouton Rothschild was also controversial, with a close friend of mine calling it very advanced and practically maderized, but this time Mark disagreed, although he did concede it was an affected bottle. It did remind me of the 1928 Haut Brion with its coffee, espresso bean and milkshake. I was in the middle of the controversy; it was clearly more advanced than the average 1982 Mouton, but not completely maderized or undrinkable. There was loads of coffee in its meaty nose, with a caramel and liqueur spike. The palate was solid, but this should be a 97+ point wine, and it seemed lesser with a finish stripped of its normal intensity. It is nice to see an off. bottle perform so well, and if blind I probably would have given it 93 or 94 points, but this bottle had to be disqualified due to how this wine normally performs (DQ). The 1982 Latour had a similar situation, where lots of people thought it was off. or less than what it should be, but it was still better than 95 out of 100 wines. It did have a similar, musty edge to the Las Cases, but to me it was similar to other bottles I have had as well in its extremely wound and minerally personality. There was also pencil, slate, walnut and secondary cassis. The nose got hotter and finer at the same time, but the wine seemed muted on the palate, softer than usual yet beautiful. Although it should be better, I could give this bottle (95+) and still have a good conscious, although Mark felt it was overrated, as always.. The last wine in this flight (which may read more disappointing than it really was) was a spectacular magnum of 1982 Pichon Lalande, again one of the better if not the best experience I have had of this wine. The nose was super sexy, 1982 Pichon Lalande as it ought to be. The Merlot shone though in its gorgeous, sexy and plummy fruit, which was soft and sensual with a touch of olives, lavender, caramel and tobacco. The palate was incredibly rich and fleshy, with similar flavors to its nose and a gritty finish that is right there with a pinch of green bean. It seems perfectly mature, but I guess that is where it has been for a long time according to many. It certainly got the Miss Congeniality, aka most drinkable award. Mark was cooing, so sexy, so sweet, and there was lots of beautiful. and gorgeous. going around, and they weren.t talking about a close friend of mine and I, to be clear J (97).

One more flight, well, sort of&it was a fantastic four of 1990 Bordeaux, starting with the 1990 Montrose. Eric said it was like Australia meets Bordeaux, which raised some eyebrows, but what he meant was that the Montrose was very concentrated by Bordeaux standards. The nose was a little green and stinky, as it always has been in my book. There was green, barn, horse in the barn, horse out of the barn and earth to its nose, with some cassis underneath. The palate has similar flavors, though less wild. Interesting wine, Wilfred said tongue in cheek. The palate was a bit herbal and horsy, although Eric loved the wine, and its texture was its major redeeming quality (92). The 1990 Margaux I wrote was consistent with last night&feeling lazy.. It was another outstanding show for this fabulously stylish wine, which got many people’s wines of the night, the Musigny of Bordeaux, as a close friend of mine put it (96). The 1990 Lafleur had an amazing, kinky nose that only Lafleur can. It was superripe with cherry, plum, cassis and that overripe Lafleur kink, that sweet, jammy fruit. All that fruit was balanced by its stony palate and great structure, although there was a lot more finesse to the wine than I thought/remembered. That’s not a bad thing, of course (96). The 1990 Lafite was a bit overmatched after the Lafleur, a bit stinky yet classic with its pencil, carob and cedar. The wine was not as layered as others and had dry tannins still very good but not great (92).

There were three other wines, although I only had one of them, a blind wine served to us by the sommelier, billed as a 100-point Parker wine.. Now it was obviously Australian, to the point where Mark called it typical Australian swill, to which I replied, come on, it’s extra special Australian swill, playing along. The wine was over the top kinky, luscious and superripe, a floozy in the presence of all these Bordeaux, yet still fascinatingly rich, kinky but modern. If I wanted to be spanked by my wine, someone reasoned. The wine got beat up a lot more than it should have, and I still found it excellent, this bottle of 2003 Mitolo Shiraz G.A.M. (93). I called it a night, well actually I went across the street based on a tip from the doorman, for some sociological studies with one of my fellow enthusiasts . The 1995 Dom Perignon we shared was excellent, although no notes were taken&on the champagne, at least. However, half of the gang remained after dinner and polished off a 1990 Leoville Las Cases and a 2000 Cuvee Cathelin. Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Some final tallies for the evening when everyone was asked for their three wines of the night, and only six wines got any votes: 10 for 1989 Haut Brion, 8 ½ for 1990 Margaux, 6 for 1982 Pichon Lalande, 5 ½ for 1990 Cheval, 4 for 1982 Lafite, and 3 for 2000 La Tache.

The Aussie to cap off the night was a nice transition for tomorrow’s day, spent working in the hotel room. Well, half of it was working and a good chunk of it was debating online on Robert Parker’s bulletin board on his website. Eric had emailed us all that he posted the tasting notes from the night before already online, so I took a peek, and then I noticed this post by the King of Milwaukee. called Anyone Else Notice a Growing Gulf between Hedonists. and Restraint-o-Philes???. Given the debate created last night by the Aussie wine, and the fact that I have been noticing this growing gulf myself, I threw in my three cents and responded:

I think the debate here comes down to modernism (which many call or equate with hedonism) vs. classicism (aka restraint-ism, naturalism, etc). There is a natural evolution that I have seen many collectors go through, where they start off adoring cult wines from Australia and California, but eventually end up gravitating towards the wines of Europe, particularly Burgundy as the final chapter of this evolution. I have seen it countless times. There is only so much modern wines that one can handle, as they are so over the top and almost a drink rather than a glass of wine.

Many wines are made in a style where they are not immediately appealing/drinkable/up-front, where they need time to blossom and develop, and I think that this fact is not always accounted for in critics’ evaluations. They are not flashy and hedonistic, but rather wound, complicated and you really have to work to evaluate and understand them, especially Burgundy. Conversely, many wines that are so amazing initially in this hedonistic way end up being ‘one-hit wonders’ or perhaps ‘one-year wonders’ is a better way to put it as they are only enjoyable for a couple/few years, and then they do not age well at all, or do not get better with age.

The divide is not only a matter of taste; it is almost about the future of wine. There is a growing fear amongst ‘classicists’ that many wines are now being made in a style to get a high score early, rather than being made in a natural way where it can evolve and become the flower that it should be.

I think the greatest wines in the world are those that can age thirty years in a great vintage, or still be quality in those ‘off’ years and be deliciously drinkable earlier on. Wine is supposed to get better with age is a classic theory. Young wines getting 98 and 99 points left and right that have no proven track record to me is not wine justice. Acordingly, these types of wines shoot up in price and become ‘collectible’ accordingly. Winemakers and winery owners are not stupid people, and many of them want to do what every one else wants, which is to make more money and get critical acclaim. The fear amongst classicists is that some wines will not age as well as the approach to making them becomes more ‘modern’ in style, especially in Bordeaux, where there is a great deal of paranoia right now amongst classicists.

I love all the styles that wine has to offer, but I must admit that I find it tougher and tougher to drink these hedonistic wines, even though I can appreciate them. There is something ‘larger’ missing in these wines, something secondary, despite their primary qualities and larger frames and bodies. I just hope there is enough room in the wine world for both camps, and that we will be able to have these debates for years to come. Only time will tell, as time waits for no weak wines.

My three cents…

A few people posted afterwards and echoed similar sentiments, although one woman claimed we were all a bunch of fascististas. as opposed to terroiristas, also saying So what if I follow point scores, and actually love wines that taste good. I guess that makes me some floozy that just enjoys having a good time.. A few made the point that classic wines can be hedonistic, and that word is often misused. Little did I know the big guy was reading and motivated to respond and stir it up. as he later smiled. He, Mr. Parker, said:

Some rather exclusive (as opposed to inclusive thoughts appear in this thread).

John…we can carry on this debate tonight if you want, but your comments strike me as provincial. Nothing wrong with liking one style or type of wine that meets your definition of "classic, but why can’t you or anyone else enjoy…or at the very minimum, respect both Burgundy and Barossa?

Too often on this board there is this pigeon-holing…black vs. white…good vs evil crap that seems aimed at silencing rather than encouraging debate and diversity (Iris…you are right on target, but I don’t think we have a bunch of wine fascists here). But yes, do these posters ever realize there can be no right or wrong when it comes to wine connoisseurship?

John….you certainly know that only a microscopic percentage of Burgundies or Bordeaux are truly better and more interesting wines at age 30 that they were at age 10 or 12.Can you name more than several dozen Burgundies from 1959 or 1964 that are still profound today?

Moreover,it gets tiring to hear the same lamebrain argument repeated over and over again that the best new world wines just don’t age. The evidence is irrefutable that they can age quite well, and this comes from an admitted Francophile…but the Napa cabernets 68s,70s,74s,and more recent vintages such as the 90s,91s,92a,93s,94s,and 95s suggest to me that the finest wines have easily 20-30+ years of life assuming they are well-stored. Jim Dove’s comments about me doubting the 94s are totally false,and where does he base such nonsense…on one HG tasting where an off bottle was tasted? Jim…hate to rain on your parade, but the top 94s are doing marvelously…

From the lower slopes of the Andes to the rolling hillsides of the Maconnais, wine quality and diversity of styles has increased 10-20 fold in the last quarter of the century. Of course there will always be the dangers posed by globalism and standardization, but if the truth be known, those dangers were far more acute 10-15 years ago than today. For every predatory conglomerate such as Constellation buying up all it can and turning over wine-making decisions to the accountants, there are hundreds of young men and women (passionate artisans and craftspeople) planting new vineyards and/or developing new high quality wines in every viticultural region of both the old and new world.

King….you seem to frequently confuse over-extraction with concentration….the latter comes…naturally…from low yields, and/or old vines, and relatively effortless wine-making. Over-extraction is easy to spot….producers who over-extract turn out astringent, bitterly tannic, hollow wines that stand out because they don’t possess the inherent concentration of fruit to balance out the aggressive extraction techniques….they never have balance and taste terrible…which is different than a very concentrated wine that often just needs plently of bottle age to digest its fruit and baby fat and reveal its soul and character.

For all of those coming tonight…think Jim Morrison…"nobody gets out alive".

Whoa! Great, I thought. I was finally going to have dinner with Parker, and I got his blood pressure up on a relaxing Saturday afternoon. I was sure to be a marked man, unable to discuss with him the things that I was dying to ask, probably to be blown off for the entire dinner to whispering in a close friend of mine’s ear. However, I had to respond, as I felt a little misunderstood. So I said:

.Ok ok – first of all, looking forward to tonight!

BUT in the interest of never being called ‘provincial’ again (and i thought i was a New York born and bred city slicker) , i have to re-speak a little because i think that there is a little misinterpretation happening with what i said

1) I would never ever tell anyone they were ‘wrong’ in their opinions. As a wine educator myself and conductor of easily 100 tastings and dinners a year, one of the first thing that i always tell people that what they like is what they like, and no one should ever tell anyone otherwise

2) i do enjoy and respect all wines and i think my own reviews show that; i did say that i love all the styles that wine has to offer, but i found it personally difficult to ‘drink’ as opposed to ‘taste’ what we all regard as modern styles, which should not always be equated with New World. last night was a perfect example, after we all tasted 15-20 of the greatest Bordeaux of the last 25 years, a blind aussie shiraz was served. there were lots of people making faces and saying they couldn’t drink this etc etc, but i actually enjoyed and respected it and gave it (the 2003 mitolo gam) 93 points for its ‘hedonistic’ appeal (what i categorize as excellent, the score, that is). i couldn’t drink it either though (after 20 wines who could?) , but i really want the record to be straight that i have an appreciation for all of vinogod’s children…another example is that I love Cali Cab and always have (my first love, sniff sniff). There are more outstanding cabs in cali that are not modern even though they are new world, or that find the balance between modern techniques and respecting the vine and the natural beauty of the fruit and other parts of the world, etc…it is a danger to transpose modern and new world, which i think a lot of people do…i think what it comes down to is that classicists want to taste the earth, the soil, and for that to occur, vines need to have decades or even centuries of care and attention put into them; hence the european advantage

3) I was making observations of what I see since I deal with many serious collectors and a lot of passionate and active wine drinkers. There is one guy that i know who is a major collector that started off in France and now drinks nothing but cali and australia and sold off all his bordeaux with me. everyone is different, but more often than not (and with an extreme majority) , i have seen the other transformation, myself included. I was not trying to say or imply that modern wine lovers are wrong, or unevolved neanderthals, but just making a factual observation based on my experience that i see that evolution regularly. i was trying to analyze this ‘gulf’ to which the original post was directed as it interested me because i am hearing about it myself all the time

4) you are right, RP, in that only a microscopic amount of wines are better at age thirty. what we have hear is a debate over the perception of greatness. there are wines that are great to drink in their first 5 or 7 years and absolutely delicious. greatness is a relative term – a bottle can be great because you have a hot date and she liked it (ha ha). My perspective is very skewed and I should admit that – being in the auction world and dealing in mainly the finest and rarest wines, i am exposed to an elite group of wines regularly, the best of the best if you will. So when i see a 97/98/99 score, i think that should be reserved for wines like 1945 mouton, 1947 cheval, 1961 lafleur, 1971 La Tache, 1978 jayer richebourg etc etc etc…now i have given 98 points to 1994 harlan, to 2002 RC this week actually, and for a handful of younger wines, but my overall philosophy differs in that i cannot see some of these younger wines being in that category, especially when they have been in business less than a decade and i have not seen these wines age thirty years and prove themselves. Now whether you score for here and now or for the future (or a combo) is how each individual scores; i have a tough time evaluating younger wines in general after exposure to many great, old wines. it is a skill that I lack. i believe wines should be scored as a combo, but if they are not built to go thirty years, then they should not be getting 97/98/99 points. it doesn’t mean i am right or wrong, it is just how i feel. also, i do think strongly that there would be a lot more older profound wines from 1959 and 1964 if they were all ideally stored from the beginning, however. i have had so many off-the-trodden, random great wines to believe that. unfortunately, it often comes down to the bottle and its storage rather than the actual wine or vintage, but point well-taken. i am referring to a tiny/tiny percentage of wines, but i think that a lot of the people who post are too, just not necessarily referring to older wines like i do.

ok i think i have rambled enough and set the record straight hopefully? any one who has had old granges and ridge, heitz, BV, (or the celestial 1941 inglenook) etc knows new world wines can age with the best of the old world; but will some of these wines from australia, spain, or even st. emilion age as well, these modernists? that is the question – there is not enough track record to prove it yet, and these wines might be better served in their youth…that’s all folks

damn i was supposed to work today too – see alan, that’s why i stopped posting – this board can just suck up your life! anyway, i will archive my notes on a website this year and get current soon – you guys know where to find em

and in the spirit of tonight i will have to quote yellowman to your jim, ‘nobody move, nobody get hurt’ J

I think we’ll be stuck in our seats for a while….

I thought I had set the record straight, at least on my side, and what began as a debate on stylistic preferences turned into a debate on greatness and ratings in general. As dinner neared, I became a bit nervous that I would be public enemy #1, and there were still some unanswered questions to ask.

Well, dinner was served at the amazing Charleston restaurant in Baltimore (the food was great and wine friendly, reminding me of New York’s own Cru). As we all sat down, the topic came up quickly. Before I get into that, I have to make a couple of observations on the man himself. Robert Parker is incredible company at the dinner table; he is warm, sincere, humble and genuine. He likes to enjoy himself, is not afraid to laugh and is also a great story-teller. He is incredibly sharp, quick-minded and witted, and any reports of his demise are greatly exaggerated. Now that I have gotten that off my chest, I must make a few important observations based on the conversation that generated itself regarding modern. wines and ratings in general. First of all, he does not rate wines absolutely; ie, a 98 point Australian Shiraz is 98 points for Australian Shirazes and not necessarily equivalent to a 98 point Bordeaux. I believe this is a very important distinguishing characteristic, and that many people take this for granted, myself included up to this point, especially since I do rate absolutely myself (ie, 98 points is 98 points no matter where the wine comes from). Secondly, he truly believes that these Australian wines will age masterfully. He cited Grange when it first came out and how over the first couple of decades of its life, the wine was ridiculed as being over the top and a fruit bomb, etc, and who can debate its greatness and ability to age now? He feels that the wealth of fruit in these wines and their underlying structure will allow them to be great 10-15-20 years plus. Let’s face it, Australia is probably Parker’s cross to bear, that and the fact he has not reviewed Burgundy for many years, but here he was speaking honestly and candidly about his belief in these wines, and I not only had to respect him, but I also had to/have to believe him until it is proved otherwise, as his experience is second to none. He also admitted that these young Shirazes are a bit tough to drink now, but he could see their potential and respect where they are going. He also confessed to being a bit of a Francophile himself when it comes to picking out things from his own cellar on his own time. In fact, a substantial majority of his personal cellar (now I won.t tell you what percentage) is comprised of French wine. The air was clear, I had my answers and felt understood, and I had more insight into the man who has meant more to the entire wine industry than any other individual. It was time to drink.

We started off with some 1990 Veuve Clicquot La Grande Dame, which was a nice start. It was bready, nutty and fresh with citrus, bread and geyser flavors. The finish was a touch dry (92). All the other wines were selected by Parker from his cellar, and the theme of the evening was the Rhone. First were the whites and a flight each of Chapoutier and Chave.

The 1999 Chapoutier Ermitage Blanc de l.Oree. was served out of magnum and is a 100% Marsanne wine made from eighty year-old vines, we were told. The nose was exotic, forward in its yellow fruit orchestra of citrus, pineapple and quince, along with baked honey and mineral. The wine had a lot more fruit than I expected in its pure nose with a touch of toast. The wine had an amazing texture, very dense and layered with lots of rock, mineral and glue flavors on its finish. There were yellow fruits there, yet shy, with reticent marzipan/almond as well, but in the end the palate was a stony, dry style, which made RP comment how these wines are magnificent very young or very old and how they always seem to go into a shell for at least ten years in between. It would be very easy to argue the wine should have a +. (93) . The 1998 Chapoutier Ermitage Blanc Le Meal, despite being a year older and also out of magnum, had not gone into its shell yet. There was more power and depth in the nose, with a lot of smoky depth and some baked honey, orange and yellow fruits, white meat and fat. The palate was round and rich, much more open flavor-wise. These wines are all about their texture when young, and are so thick and viscous that they bury the good acidity. There was nice dust and grit to the finish with good earth and smoke flavors, complimenting its oily fruit. The wine was smoky like a long cigarette with the filter being smoked by Lauren Bacall very stylish (96). The 1997 de l.Oree. had a civilized nose with the reticent yellow fruits, spice and sweet citrus jelly bean. There was the fresh rain, playful spice and toasty sexiness. There was a gorgeous elegance and style to the nose, but its palate was shut down on its fruit, very dry, minerally and slaty. This wine definitely needed to hibernate, although the nose got more jellied in that quince way, and the palate minty in a toothpick way (92). The 1995 de l.Oree. had a muskier sweetness to its nose with a leathery edge and white fruits to go with the obligatory yellow ones. The minerals were forward, blending into a glue aroma. The anise and alcohol were more noticeably aggressive, but the structure of the wine was outstanding. It was more finish than fruit, rocky and a hair alcoholic, but it had really long acids, the longest so far. The palate was a bit shut down, but the nose stayed exotic and the palate held well in the glass. This was a great vintage of de l.Oree. (95+). The 1992 de l.Oree. had a very exotic nose; in fact, it was a dead ringer for a sweet Loire wine with its apricot, peach and musk aromas. It also had the honey, but the palate was more mature with a touch of fino sherry flavors and a dry finish. Some thought it was cooked, but I felt it to be more mature and unique (90).

Now, it was Chave’s turn, the second mini-vertical of Chave Blanc I have gotten to experience in the last three months. Sometimes in this world of wine, when it rains, it pours. While Chapoutier’s Blancs were 100% Marsanne, Chave’s average about 20% Roussanne. In fact, we were reminded that in the 1800s, Ermitage Blanc was more expensive than Montrachet! We started with the 1999 Chave Hermitage Blanc, which had a gorgeous nose with layers of complexity. There was kinky, baked, yellow fruits, citrus, butter, honey, marzipan, glue, smoke the nose was incredibly exotic, and the palate was smooth, buttery and minerally shy but going to be great (94). The 1996 Blanc was served out of magnum and had a smoky, more forward nose. Though lighter in weight then the 99, the 96 made up for it with its sweeter honey, spice, musk and (good) wood. The palate was smooth, long and almost mature, with good spice and flirting with heat on its finish (92). The 1995 Blanc had benevolent, pungent fruit, with more kink and tang in the nose, buttery and Montrachet-like in its nose, although a close friend of mine quickly called it more like Chassagne.. Aromas of corn rounded out the nose, and the palate was buttery and young with the glue and minerality, and a spicy, subtle, long finish. The wine was smooth and reminded me of the 1999, except the palate was more buttery (94+). The 1990 Blanc was an off bottle and quickly written off (DQ). The 1989 Blanc had a fabulous nose great spine, spice, fruit and alcohol. There was also mineral, bread and anise there. The palate was long and pure with lots of long acids and grapefruit flavors. The nose stayed incredibly pure and complex, with impeccable balance and a piece of the Hermitage rock, so to speak. It is potentially the greatest Chave Blanc of the modern era (96). As a footnote, RP said he thought the Chapoutiers will last longer, and with their incredible texture, it was hard to argue.

It was finally time for some reds, and we started with a spectacular flight of La Chapelles, beginning with the 1990. The 1990 Jaboulet La Chapelle had an incredible nose that was full, rich and meaty with the Rhone game, fabulous earth, smoke, stone and plummy, figgy fruit underneath. There was great balance of fruit and spice, structure and fruit, and a pinch of pepper. The structure was huge, very long but lots of finesse to its dry length (96). The 1989 was musty and corky (DQ). The 1985 La Chapelle was classically rendered and had good character with its fig, beef and spice. The wine was more leathery and earthy but with definition, not an over the top vintage but a very good and overlooked one (93). The 1982 La Chapelle was a huge hit, with lots of oohs and aahs and good reason: this is what mature La Chapelle is all about. a close friend of mine was admiring its high-toned raspberry fruit, which there was along with mint, game, earth, fig and cherry. a close friend of mine observed that it did not have the density of the 1990 or 1978, which it did not, but there was still great structure, and the wine was not plateauing just yet. There was also still expression of tannin in its leathery, dry finish. It was a beautiful wine and very open (94). The 1979 La Chapelle was no slouch either in the nose, more leathery but still with prime beef, fig and caramel, but the palate was very dry and angular comparatively to the nose. I do not think it is coming back, either, and the 1979 certainly seemed just past its prime (89). The 1978 La Chapelle lived up to its reputation and hype and was an incredible bottle. The nose was absolutely fabulous, with everything just right: the beef, fig, blood, earth, leather, musk, smoke and game. The palate is still so young, dry, fine and long. This wine is still a keeper after 25 years (97+).

Chave was back on tap in the next flight, beginning with the 1991 Chave Rouge, a personal favorite of Chave’s according to a close friend of mine. RP revved us up by asking us if we were all ready for some Pinot Noir from Hermitage.. The nose was gorgeous, and I liked RP’s comment about the style of Chave. The fruit was soft and tender with earth, bacon, violet, plum and a touch of soy. The wine was pure and gorgeous, but the palate was all about finesse and elegance. a close friend of mine loved the 1991, reasoning he was a finesse, elegant, complex guy, which sounded more like a personal ad than an endorsement of the wine (93)! The 1990 Chave was much more intense in its meaty, earthy and figgy nose, which gave me a Count Dracula impression. There was freshly grilled meat with a sizzling, marinated, Asian style. There was complex fruit and spice tension, and nice citric tension on the palate with dust, rust and lust as well. The palate was fine yet long, hearty yet smooth, and intense (96+). The 1989 Chave had a roasted nose but lacked the power of the 1990. It still was nice, with medium finesse and style. The palate had citric spice, nice earth, medium-body and a finesse-driven palate. The wine got a little nuttier in the nose (93). a close friend of mine and I tried to equate our scoring systems at this point (he uses six stars) , which we almost did with slight variations, but I will save that for another event where I write down more of his scores I had too tough a time keeping up with my own scores tonight with all the wines! The 1988 Chave had a great nose, one of the more expressive ones for Chave with lots of fireplace action: wood, brick, smoke and ash. The nose was rusty and leathery but in complete balance with the roasted fruit. The alcohol was there but not intrusive, and the nose had a nice, nutty edge. The palate was less exciting on the palate and a bit horsy at first, and a close friend of mine found it a touch acidic. RP commented how the horseshit blew off. and how he didn.t mind it. Eric then said one of the all-time quotables when he said, A good, steaming horse pile is a good thing if it has the intensity to back it up.. Hmmmm no comment. It was a very good Hermitage that gained a little on the palate but did not live up to the nose (91). The 1985 Chave was next, and the signature style shone through. The nose was mild yet deep, with the roasted fruit, nut, vanilla, plum, meat and leather. The nose was fine and intense, quite classic, but again the palate lacked the weight and complexity that the nose hinted at, still very good though (92). The 1983 Chave was more forward with its rose, roasted earth, nut, bacon and moderate t n a. There was secondary vitamin, citrus and tang. The wine was smooth on the palate with good citrus, dust and a touch of game. The wine seemed mature, but like it will be staying there for a long time (93). I have never been a huge fan of the 1978 Chave but have always respected it. This bottle had a plummier nose with some forest, pine, game, bread and the bakery. There was also muffin, oat, leather and dust. It was excellent, just not as great as one might expect (93). It was time to segue to the South and the Chateauneuf du Papes, but a close friend of mine generously purchased a 1990 Chave Cuvee Cathelin off the list. The Cathelin was meaty, intense and ripe in the nose with toast, menthol, beef, blood, eucalyptus and mint. The palate was similar and a little more than outstanding were in winegasm territory (97).

It was on to the Chateauneufs and a flight of 1998s, beginning with the 1998 Rayas. I super-sized you on this flight, RP joked. The nose had stony yet ripe strawberry fruit, very sweet and approachable without the weight of a great Rayas but still delicious. There was also spice and tea, and the palate was leathery and gamy though more about the finesse than the power one would expect out of the vintage (92). The 1998 Vieux Donjon Cuvee Speciale. is a bottling so rare that I did not even know it existed! Apparently it was made in only 1990 and 1998 and is more Mouvedre from older vines and a 200 case production. The only way you can tell it is the Cuvee Speciale is by the lot number and/or gold sticker. You could smell the Mouvedre in the nose, with its dark, earthy and violety side coming out, that dark side of Chateauneuf. There was also earth, hay and almost a bread quality, but not negative. It was a very intense wine, with lots of earth and rust in the nose and a great, earthy palate (95). Next up was the 1998 Roger Sabon Cuvee Prestige, whose nose had this bready, yeasty edge that took center stage, and some cherry maraschino/marzipan fruit behind it. There was earth, teabag and some form/cousin of brett (again not negative but the best way I could describe it). The palate was surprisingly smooth and easy (93). It was at this point that I realized how many great dinners RP can.t take notes since everyone wants to talk to him. The 1998 Janasse V.V. was served out of magnum, which was the equivalent of a sledgehammer when a seven year-old, 1998 Chateauneuf du Pape is in it. The nose was heavenly and full of sexy, red fruits: strawberry, raspberry, red currant and red berry, along with tannins, alcohol, spice and leather. It was especially intense out of magnum, I’m sure. The earth and game were intertwined and buried amongst each other, and the palate was great spicy, hot and long yet smooth, with red fruits and supplemental earth and leather to the rich fruit (96). The 1998 Domaine du Pegau Cuvee du Capo. was shy, yet had a core of incredibly exotic fruit: raspberry and strawberry, gamy fruit with spice and new leather. The wine lingered in the belly longer than any other wine by far so far, to the point that after 29 wines, it hit me in the gut and almost made me queasy. Seeing how I like Pegau, I think it will be extraordinary, although it may not be drinkable to a lot of purists, along the line of those Aussie Shirazes, I suppose (97). The 1998 Marcoux V.V. was next, but a close friend of mine was fading fast, and his fade crossed over to me. I raised the white flag for this wine, which was completely shut down but wow wow wow. on the breed (95+).

We jumped back in time with a magnum of 1989 Beaucastel, which had a heavenly nose and is still their greatest regular. Chateauneuf du Pape to my knowledge. The wine was earthy, gamy, rusty and spicy with great Provencal action and perfectly integrated alcohol. It was an outstanding wine and still shy (95). The only wine from the 1999 vintage was next, a 1999 Vieille Julienne Reserve. The nose was a touch modern, but also got a wow. out of me in that it was deliciously so. The nose was meaty, intense, broad, wide-angled, bready, nutty, and syrupy. The palate was intense as well earthy, rusty and citrusy. It was fine and distinguished, distinctive and long (95). We skipped back to 1998 with a 1998 Chateau La Nerthe Cuvee des Cadettes.. I had this the night of the Super Bowl and found it holding on to very good but definitely not great, and I had a similar impression this night. Oak is more noticeable in the nose for the first time in a Chateauneuf tonight, after that I went right to the palate, which was better and earthy but still a bit oaky (90). There were three more wines to go & inhale & exhale & inhale & exhale. My note for the 2000 Clos du Caillou Reserve started off, I am officially done.. I did scrape together that the back end and acid levels were enormous, and that one should not drink for a few years (95+). The 2000 Beaucastel Hommage a Jacques Perrin. had the best nose of the flight and perhaps the night. You could really smell the meat of Mourvedre and its nut, earth and structure. The wine was long, fine and sturdy (96+). The 1989 Hommage a Jacques Perrin. was da bomb. (97). I recently scored it 98 points out of magnum as well. We are talking RK six-star. territory, that is if he was awake at this point! Actually, a close friend of mine was hanging tough, and his previous generosity motivated me to buy off the list a 2002 C. Dugat Griottes Chambertin, which was very toasty and oaky to the point I couldn.t deal with it, although many were loving it. There were a couple of New World Syrahs thrown in at the end including Pandora and Seymour, I guess from Alban, but I really could not judge any more. Time to go back to the hotel.

In sum, I must say it was a wonderful weekend where I made many new friends. Dining with Parker was a treat, and I hope to see him again soon. It was an event where I gained a new found respect for him and his work, not that I did not have respect for him before, but a new respect that I see many taking for granted out there, a respect that I had been taking for granted as well, relating to his enthusiasm for younger wines. I suppose it is tough being on top of the mountain, but RP seems to be handling it with a Zen-like grace and wisdom. It must be all that ginseng. 🙂