The 2002 Romanee Contis

The 2002 vintage for Romanee-Conti is about to be released this Spring, so as is customary, their U.S. importer, Wilson Daniels, held an exclusive tasting of all the new releases at Per Se for the who’s who of the New York Metro area wine trade. Aubert de Villaine was there himself and spoke about the wines and answered questions. There was one unasked question, Why is Romanee Conti the world’s greatest wine?. Because if you ask me, it is.

The event started at 10AM, with a round of Champagne amongst friends, countrymen and Romans such as Daniel Johnnes of Montrachet, Tim Kopec of Vertitas, William Sherer of Atelier, and Fred Shaw. You knew it was a big tasting how often do you see Michael Aaron and Jeff Zacharia in the same room? Let alone, yours truly. 🙂

Everyone eagerly took their seats in the main dining room at about 10:45AM, when the room quickly fell silent to Jack Daniels. (of Wilson Daniels) introduction. Aubert then spoke and later answered questions, but more on that later. First, the wines :

The wines were opened at 9AM and single decanted, poured approximately at 9:45AM, and the tasting really did not start until 11AM by the time everyone was seated.

The 2002 Vosne Romanee Premier Cru, Cuvee Duvault-Blochet. had a noticeably lighter color than the rest of the wines, but a fresh nose nonetheless with rose, plum, stems and an herbal/dill edge. The fruit seemed plump but dressed elegantly to the point where you can’t see the fat&yet. It got less herbal with air, and more violet came out with a pinch of vanilla and wood. The palate was clean and pure, with long acids yet soft tannins and obviously young with some woodsy flavors wrapped around its tender core of violet fruit flavors. There was a drop of that dill on the palate, with a side of crème fraiche (90).

The 2002 Echezeaux had a reserved and shy nose that was instantly emitting more cinnamon, brick, rust and earth in front of a cascade of cherry fruit. The nose was smoky, almost ripe but not quite, possessing great tension between the fruit and spice in a medium way. There were some secondary floral aromas, including stalks. The palate showed a lot more stems and tannins than the Vosne Romanee. William was scratching his head as he found it very closed, especially compared to his memory of 2001 last year. It was reticent, but there was a lot of wine still there! The palate was more stemmy and slaty, with a touch of earth. There was nice a hybrid of red and purple fruit flavors, and the wine’s finesse was most appreciable (92).

The 2002 Grands Echezeaux also initially had an herbal edge with the dill (almost pickle), forest, pine and menthol, but it also had lovely rose aromas, leading into the cherry, dusty and lightly snow-frosted earthy side of its personality. There was a pinch of aggressive wood in its herbal component, but the palate was certainly more powerful than the Echezeaux and much more finish-centric at first. The finish was heavy with its wave of tannins, alcohol and acid that was put together well enough to satisfy the most skilled of wine surfers. I must admit, at first the flavor bothered me a little as I got a bit too much of the wood and herbal side, along with extreme citrus. The wine was wound and a bit angular, but it really fleshed out with time in the glass it really needed that time to get deliciously fleshy and lose that herbal edge (94).

Just when I thought that I would not have another wine from Romanee St. Vivant for a while, next up was the 2002 Romanee St. Vivant. It had a garden-fresh nose with lovely fruit balanced by the green of the stems and fruit, not a bad green, but a green as in an adolescent green of fruit about to bud. There was iron, rose, blood and earth behind it, all buried in the wide-bodied red, violet and plum fruit. A touch of caramel sweetness poked its head out with a band-aid on top of it. The palate was fleshy and deep, with wide-angle fruit, firm yet elegant structure, and a long, slinky and earthy finish. There was excellent balance that was both powerful and feminine. The wine blossomed in the glass, getting redder and less green, and the wine overall was cleaner and fresher in its overall impression and was a bit more elegant on the palate than the Grands Echezeaux (93+).

Ahhhh, the great 2002 Richebourg. It was a step up as the fruit was much more in your face thick, rich and ripe with meaty, plummy and smoky aromas along with vanilla and sweet fruit on the blackberry and plum side. The nose had gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous fruit. It was stunning. There was a touch of cinnamon, and someone keenly observed it stood out for its amplitude and opulence.. The palate was deliciously rusty, with great length and style to its acids, and tannins that make you lick the roof of your mouth but not smack your lips. There was almost perfect sweetness to the wine on the palate and its black fruit, a fruit only matched later by the Romanee Conti itself. A touch of leather rounded out its palate (96).

The 2002 La Tache was a left turn with a very distinctive nose that initially put you in a room recently, yet not freshly, painted. You really had to work the wine in the glass to wake up this sleeping giant’s rose, pre-budding green (as mentioned before), and touches of smoke, rock and wood. There was almost an unsweetened mesquite edge and a pinch of herbs still lying on the vine fresh in the garden. The nose had the royalty factor but was indubitably young and a bit confused, or grumpy perhaps. Why was it being disturbed this early in its life? J There was no confusion about the palate, which had an explosive and long finish, that of a thirty-plus-year wine without a doubt. Don.t touch it for at least five more years, though. The nose morphed into this exotic chocolaty, almond, caramel, marshmallow and Smores thing, and the palate stayed young with its signature green bean flavors accompanied by forest, tang and unbudded fruit waiting to grow up. There is no doubting the pedigree of this wine, but it was the least ready to be evaluated. I am sure it will climb the point ladder in decades to come (95+).

The 2002 Romanee Conti made me want to pull out a dozen clichés such as the real deal, the same as it ever was, the best of the best.. The nose was unbelievably great, phenomenal, awe-inspiring and death-defying, if you will. It is really hard for a young wine to turn me on like this Romanee Conti (and Richebourg for that matter) did. What amazed me the most was how inviting and warm the fruit was in the nose. There was incredible depth of rose, plum, cassis and blackberry aromas. The wine was heavy, yet light on its feet as far as its nose was concerned. Ladies and gentlemen, the heavyweight champion of the worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrld, Romanee Conti! (Applaud now). There were also stems, smoke, coal, forest and chocolate in the nose. The palate was rich, luscious, thick and seductively long. The wine kept getting more and more exotic, and although I assume that the wine will have to shut down in the bottle sooner or later, for the time being all I could say was wow wow wow.. (98+)

The 2002 Montrachet was like licking a rock, William jested, because it was all mineral. to him on the palate. There were piercing minerals in the nose but very tropical and buttery aromas as well, almost Cali-esque I hate to say, but I did have flashbacks of young Kistler and Peter Michael – on steroids, of course. Jason Giambi should get a case for his cellar ouch. (Let’s go Mets, by the way, but I am not a Yankee hater either, for the record). It did have that smoky edge, as well as nice citrus ones. The palate, however, was obviously not California Chardonnay with its layers of fruit and acid, and its length to both. There were great citrus, butter and mineral flavors to the palate, which was very intense and wound with a rocky (positive) finish. The wine was still a baby, but definitively great Montrachet and a bridge between Old and New World styles (95+).

I will close this segment of Vintage Tastings with some comments from Aubert, snippets I got here and there between the introduction and Q & A session. Aubert said that while some have said that 2002 is an extremely opulent vintage with wines that offer immediate appeal and drinking, that was not the case with . There is quality, purity, elegance, finesse and transparency.. In the end, Aubert thinks that 2002 will be another magical vintage like 1962 because it has the finesse and feminine character to back up its substance. The climate can sometimes be your enemy and sometimes your friend, and the vintage is a combination of what we do and the climate.. There was an extraordinary window that opened in the beginning of September thanks to Mother Nature that made the 2002 vintage what it is today. On responding to technology and science, Aubert wisely commented that Science teaches us what we did in the past was right.. He also said that he preferred the Grands Echezeaux and Romanee St. Vivant most today, but that the La Tache had more expressive tannins. and that there was something larger in Romanee Conti.. He also said that the Domaine bottles by barrel or makes an assemblage depending on the vintage.

There is no doubt that the 2002 Romanee Contis are extraordinary wines.

Mt. Sinai Charity Dinner

A couple of nights later I found myself at Patroon for a charity wine dinner to benefit underprivileged patients at Mount Sinai hospital in New York City that raised over $185,000 that night. Notable attendees included Bruce Sanderson of the Wine Spectator and the masterful and always entertaining Kevin Zraly as auctioneer. The event was put together by Robin Solomon and Michael Abbott and resulted in a great time for a great cause. There was a serious wine dinner, and in between courses bottles of wine from the JFK cellar were auctioned off, courtesy of Nice Matin, the restaurant that recently purchased the remainder of the cellar. It was a great event.

There were three flights of wine and a port to be sampled this evening, and we started off with three whites, beginning with a 2002 Moreau Chablis Les Clos. The nose was smoky and stony with nice citrus and mineral overtones, semi-open and definitely on the smoky side of Chablis. There were also aromas of lemon, lime (with the peel and dust of both), and a rainwater freshness there. The palate was tart and tangy, a real mouth-puckerer, and a touch of noticeable wood marked the palate despite its decent acid and citrus flavors. There was no doubting the breed of the vineyard, though (89). Next up was an uninspiring 2001 Olivier Leflaive Puligny Montrachet Les Folatieres.. Ms. Casino Royale, secret agent of the wine world, complained that the wine was watery, and it was. The nose was very oaky with lots of wood, toast and not much more than a little butter. It was average at best, smoky and oaky on the palate with that watery edge (82). The last white, a 2002 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne, was also milder than expected, with a lightly toasted nose and aromas of smoke and bread. The palate was shut down and muted, not complicated or well-bred, quite average and uninteresting (85).

The red Burgundy flight was thankfully better, although the first wine was again either in a shell or just not that good. The 1999 Louis Jadot Corton Greves was slightly alcoholic in the nose with some earth, game and a touch of barn. The oak was a little intrusive, and the nose was wound and rusty overall but not powerful. It was shut down like a lot of 99s at the moment, but the palate had no front, no middle and very little backside. It could develop I suppose, but it was average on this night (85). The 1999 Clos de Tart was next, and finally we had a real wine! The nose was more intense meaty with judicious oak and slight caramel. There was good spice and cedar, earth, forest and pine. The palate had great purity and balance with a nice, gritty finish. The wine was feminine and sexy, and the acids were long (93+). The last 1999 of the flight was the 1999 Clos des Lambrays. It was more herbal in the nose in a positive way, and gamy. It was a touch out of balance on the back side, very slaty and earthy. Ms. Royale noted its raspberry fruit, but the palate was overall earthy and dry, but still quality (90).

The final flight more than made up for the first two, as Bordeaux took charge with the great 1990 vintage and three of its finest wines from said vintage. First up was the 1990 Cos d.Estournel, which had a meaty nose with pencil, walnut, sweet black fruits and dry currant overtones. There was actually a pinch of cantaloupe that I got as well. The palate was smooth and easy, long in the belly with incredible acids but polished tannins, and fine ones at that. The wine was a bit in reserve but excellent with lots of potential (93+). The 1990 Margaux had a heavenly nose with fabulous purity and fruit, showing much better than it did in Vegas last month. The nose was still very subtle, but also meaty in a healthy supermodel kind of way. The fruit was meaty and yes, ripe as well, with cedar and pencil edges. You could smell the prime real estate here. There was a pinch of olive and incredible acids to its fine, long, silky and refined palate (95+). The 1990 Latour was no slouch either, and it was nice to see it perform well. I had actually been fed three shots from three different bottles earlier, served to me by Robin Kelley O.Connor of the Bordeaux Wine Bureau on my way to the men’s room, and it was interesting to see subtle bottle variation even from the same case. There may have been variation, very slight, but there was no doubting the quality of this case overall. So many of the great Bordeaux have been traded so frequently that bottle variation is an issue, even for wines from 1982 or 1990. You know who may be even guiltier than retailers or customers taking shipping or storage for granted? The answer is ignorant wholesalers that did not even have temperature-controlled storage in the 1970s and 1980s; you would be surprised to find out how many did NOT until as late as the 1990s. Anyway, enough of that rant. The 1990 Latour had a deep and rich nose with beautiful cedar aromas. The wine was fragrant and perfumed with a touch of benevolent green. It was long, pure, rich and classy, although the always controversial and opinionated Big Boy. RR thought that all 1990s are in a shell right now. and that the 1996 blows away the 1990.. The Latour was the wine of the night for me, and it will have a long future ahead of it (96).

We had a 1977 Fonseca, which was excellent, but I did expect more. It lacked the power I expected out of a 25-30 year-old port from this vintage (93). There was trouble to get into downtown at the Soho House, where our own rock star Wendy Agah was waiting, but everyone threw the towel in on me, and Wendy did not pick up her cell, so mercifully I stumbled home, ready to go to D.C. for a weekend with a close friend of mine, Robert Parker, and 12 of his ebob. followers that won a charity dinner with him. a close friend of mine and I were invited when two of the original bidders could not make it, and I was looking forward to my first dinner with the man/myth/legend himself. You.ll have to wait until next week for that one.

You have probably heard of the New York Marathon, but last week New York saw a different kind of marathon take place courtesy of master organizers/puppeteers Doug Barzelay and Michael Rockefeller: the Romanee St. Vivant Marathon. In fact, the course was so long, I couldn.t even finish the last leg! But more of that later

It started off innocently enough on Thursday night at the Mark hotel. a close friend of mine and I were both a little green in the gills from the previous two nights, where we pummeled ourselves into oblivion with back-to-back doubleheaders. Well, here we were again, although on this night we were both spitting more often than not in order to survive the night and live to tell about it. Allen Meadows, aka the Burghound, was also there, telling us the biggest news in this commune of twenty-five acres and ten owners (and one absentee one) is how Drouhin will no longer be making RSV, as the one absentee owner (Poisot) has now started selling to Folin-Aberet (this spelling could be very wrong), who will debut his RSV with the 2004 vintage, which is being tended to by Dominique Mugneret. Now I could be mistaken, but I think that Jadot also got his fruit from Poisot, but I am unsure if he maintains that relationship or if we have seen the last of Jadot’s RSV as well. Allen is off in France in some cellar tasting as we speak, so I will have to fill you in on the exact details later.

It started off innocently enough on Thursday night at the Mark hotel. a close friend of mine and I were both a little green in the gills from the previous two nights, where we pummeled ourselves into oblivion with back-to-back doubleheaders. Well, here we were again, although on this night we were both spitting more often than not in order to survive the night and live to tell about it. Allen Meadows, aka the Burghound, was also there, telling us the biggest news in this commune of twenty-five acres and ten owners (and one absentee one) is how Drouhin will no longer be making RSV, as the one absentee owner (Poisot) has now started selling to Folin-Aberet (this spelling could be very wrong), who will debut his RSV with the 2004 vintage, which is being tended to by Dominique Mugneret. Now I could be mistaken, but I think that Jadot also got his fruit from Poisot, but I am unsure if he maintains that relationship or if we have seen the last of Jadot’s RSV as well. Allen is off in France in some cellar tasting as we speak, so I will have to fill you in on the exact details later.

We started off with a flight of three wines from 1980 and 1979. First up was the 1980 (I am not going to type out Romanee St. Vivant or RSV for every wine remember they are all Romanee St. Vivants!). After some initial confusion as to what the order was, we settled into the gorgeous nose that had a whiff of mint, menthol and delicate, sweet red cherry fruit with sexy, liqueur-like and candied rose sweetness as well. The 1980 had catnip on the nose but not the power of the La Tache that we had a couple nights before. The palate was still taut with mature flavors, some citric tension and a mild, dry finish. There were meat and menthol flavors as well, and the wine was a little meaner on the palate than the nose indicated, but it was pure and layered. as someone noted, with a nice dollop of minerals (92). The 1980 Arnoux had a weedy nose with some rotten vegetable, wood and allspice that was lacking the all.. There were light, minty, red fruits underneath. The structure was decent, but the flavors were all earth, citrus and tree, although someone noted lychee.. a close friend of mine picked up on its strawberry and sugar,. as the nose developed a little, but the palate was very dry and one-dimensional with its earth, tree and unpleasant marsh flavors (85). The 1979 Charles Noellat had a wild, unique and exotic nose with lots of floral, purple fruit and flower aromas and a touch of sap and jasmine, and almost a weird tea aroma. There was a quick detour into the forest, almost grassy but more artificial reminding me of taxicab air freshener. The palate was undrinkable, lacking fruit and very woody and dry (NR).

Next up was the 1972s and 71s, six wines in total. The 1972 Arnoux had lots of animal and what the French call, scent du merde,. with leather, citrus, hay, meat and chocolate all supporting underneath. The more you aired it, the better it got, with more of the earth and dry cherry fruit coming out. The palate was mature with citrus, earth and oat flavors, and a brown sugar sweetness. Ben called it a little sweaty but ok,. and the flavors got earthier in the glass (88). The 1972 Marey-Monge () had a sweeter, more masculine nose in a woody way. Robert said that all the 72 ‘s I have had are tired,. but a close friend of mine made a counterpoint that out of large format he has been exceptionally lucky. There was a lot of animal, roasted meat, charcoal, old wood and almost BBQ/jerky in the nose, while the flavors were more menthol and citrus, with lots of power and hidden length, but also overly earthy and a touch weird on the palate, lacking the layers one would hope (88). The 1972 Charles Noellat was a worthy follow-up to the 1979 with its disgusting nose of spinach and turpentine and rotten flavors. I wonder if this was ever good, Rob quipped (NR). A corked bottle of 1971 Arnoux followed (DQ). The 1971 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. was a touch cooked in the nose with its brown sugar and molasses but had some plummy fruit behind it. The fruit was indeed baked and port-like, and the palate was chocolaty and earthy, with the long acids of the vintage. a close friend of mine felt it was heavily chapitalized. and Geoffrey joked pasteurized,. i.e., cooked. I was unsure if the wine was like this or the bottle was affected, but I leaned towards the latter. There were some pleasant citrus and earth flavors and the structure of the vintage shone through, but the wine was not what it could have been (90+?). The 1971 Marey-Monge () was the finale to this disappointing flight. It was more mature than other wines I have had fromthis vintage from with a beefy, stewed nose and aromas of duck sauce, spice, flowers and baked bread. The palate was excellent with lots of intensity and tremendous expression on the finish. The bottle still seemed a touch advanced for the vintage with its browned flavors, though, accompanied by citrus, oat, leather and brown sugar. There was nice balance and texture here, but I couldn.t help but think this bottle had also been affected somewhere along the way in its thirty-four years (92+).

We jumped to the 1964 Remoissenet, every one’s favorite poster boy for chapitalization and authenticity jokes, and Rob immediately jumped in with it smells like it’s direct from Algeria,. which got a few laughs. The nose was a bit off-putting and very wound too wound with some bad earth, synthetic cleaner and a stemmy/branchy edge. There were good tannins but horsy flavors and bad cardboard to match. It barely avoided the dreaded NR. (not recommended) due to its structural and textural components (80). The next wine was also a 1964 Remoissenet bottling, but a Marey-Monge one this time. Geoffrey observed that it was very animal,. and there was lots of horse, wet hay, animal and some green blending into the earth. The palate had good spice and alcohol with lots of earth, tobacco and coffee grind flavors. It was a touch aggressive by Burgundian standards, and I could see it rubbing a lot of people more wrongly than me (90). Next up was the real deal, and the best wine of the night so far, a 1964 Marey-Monge () . Josh observed that it was hands down the best wine of the night so far, four or five points higher than the next.. It did have a gorgeous nose of balanced rose, cherry, citrus, nice spice and good leather aromas. The wine was long, balanced, firm, yet feminine. The palate was rich, long and creamy with light spice and soft tannins. It was a gorgeous wine (95). The next 1964, a Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux, . was 100% cooked, no doubts about it (DQ). Finally, we had a semi-drinkable Charles Noellat, the 1964. The nose was mild and pleasant with more dark, black fruits. It was simple and easy, an average wine that stood the test of time, at least. a close friend of mine said that in Chinese one would say nolah,. as in I don.t want it,. and I translated that into auction-speak, No Lot,. as in I don.t want to sell it.. It was better than the first two disasters (85).

The following flight was comprised of wines from 1961 and 1959. The first wine was completely maderized, a 1961 Moillard The 1961 Marey-Monge () had a deep, heavy nose full of plums and black fruits, with a pinch of brown sugar sweetness, earth, leather, chocolate, coffee and hay. The palate was also heavy and thick with a medium finish, nice balance and good flavors on the oat and sugar side (91) The next wine was the only magnum of the evening, and it seemed to make a difference. Experienced tasters and collectors know that magnums often deliver fresher and better experiences when drinking older wines. This magnum was a 1961 Drouhin, and it was very fresh. a close friend of mine observed that it smelled like a Chambolle or Musigny,. admiring its style. There was lots of feminine spine in the nose with a touch of citrus, beautiful perfume and spice, gorgeous cherry fruit and solid vitamins. The palate was fresh and full of vitamins, cherry, rose and dictionary (old book) flavors. Geoffrey cooed so elegant,. and that it was true to Drouhin’s style.. There were lots of oohs and aahs for this pure, graceful beauty (95) . The heat of the 1959 vintage manifested itself in the 1959 Marey-Monge () with its sweet, baked fruit. The wine was a touch stewed, and Rob was a bit sad, as he felt it should have been one of the wines of the night.. It had the game, spice, and chapitalized, silky, webbed fruit. a close friend of mine felt it was funky.. There were meat and leather flavors, and the wine was oaty on the palate, and Ben noted marshmallow.. It didn.t hold it together on the palate and the nose got mustier as well. a close friend of mine remarked how he was not a big fan of the 1959 vintage as they are fat and low in acid., and Rob concurred that they are dying off left and right.. I don.t think this was the best bottle of this wine, hence the question mark (87?). Ben through in his own two cents that hot vintages don.t hold,. including the 1964 vintage in his book, but thenAllen counterpointed 1923, 1928 and 1937. En garde! Allen also made a comment about how should make the best RSV every time because they have almost 50% of the land in the commune, giving them the luxury of being able to declassify more than other producers, which was the same comment he made about Vogue in Musigny earlier in the week. The 1959 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. had a gorgeous nose, just as I remembered it. It was youthful and fresh, delicate but still having an underlying backbone. There was cherry fruit, lots of dust, light leather and earth, and some meat and tobacco rounding out the nose. The t n a really came out. The palate was tasty, not over the top but still sweet, with good earth on the finish. The wine was balanced and pretty and had a moderate finish (93) . The 1959 Drouhin was a touch cooked in the nose, although a close friend of mine attributed it to the 59 vintage more than bottle variation. There were aromas of brown sugar, oatmeal, earth, and a touch of Asian BBQ/hoisin. The palate was earthy, sturdy and thick but a little clumsy, still very good but I thought the bottle was somewhat affected. A pinch of mint graced the palate as well (90+?). The 1959 Bouchard Aine had a minty and wintry nose with earth, air freshener, citrus, mineral and earth aromas. The palate was sturdy, heavy and thick with lots of earth and oat flavors. The palate was balanced, and the finish was good, on the oat and earth side as well, but not too much as in some of the other wines. Some people liked it, some people didn.t. There was a touch of baked flavors, but good ones, definitely the vintage in this case and not the bottle (91).

There were six wines in the last flight, beginning with the 1955 Charles Noellat. There was a drop of cat’s pee, leather and mineral with some strawberry fruit, earth and baked bread edges. The palate was out of balance with lots of citrus and spice on the back end, but the fruit had this moldy flavor. The finish was long, but it got worse quickly. If I had waited longer to score this wine, it probably would have kept declining in points as it already had in my notebook (85) . The 1953 Arnoux I did not like at all, but I wasn.t sure if it was my glass since Geoffrey was digging it. I switched glasses, but the wine was still very angular with weird wood aromas and a palate that could be best described as being ick. (NR) . The 1953 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. had a pretty nose, with sweet, spiny fruit and great balance of ego and id. There was gorgeous rose, book, spice, mineral and t n a in the nose, and a gorgeous palate to match with sweet fruit and a good finish with nice slate, minerals and length. There was a tasty drop of orange, jellied, citrus fruit. Geoffrey called it one of the benchmark vintages for Louis Latour,. and the wine was beautiful; in fact, I think it is a great decade for Latour RSV on the whole (94). The 1953 Comte d’Orthez was exotic and controversial, and a lot weren.t sure it was Burgundy. It was a bit Rhonish, but decent whatever it was (89). The 1953 Bouchard Aine was corked (DQ) , leaving us with the 1948 Charles Noellat Richebourg as the grand finale&uh-oh. Actually, the 1948 was very good, redeeming a shred of dignity for Charles, although it was again out there in its style. This time it had a stinky, pretzel nose with a bit of mustard too, I swear! It was a hot dog of a nose, beefy and meaty, earthy, and actually tasty in an earthy, bookwormy way (90) . a close friend of mine and I had a few drinks afterwards at the Peninsula, but there was no trouble to get into mercifully on this brutally cold night.

The next day started with a light lunch at Per Se, where we had the 1986 and 1987 ‘s to warm up. The 1986 had lots of alcohol, iodine, iron and rust in the nose with gamy red fruits behind it. The nose was stony and screechy with the alcohol taking charge, and tangy and sexy fruit behind it. The palate was very wound with lots of expression to the tannins on the palate, which was also dry and citric. The fruit was drying out a bit, and Ben noted that it was not a great vintage very rustic.. There were lots of brick and rust there, and the palate had very little fruit left with time in the glass and became overly dry, citric and acidic despite its pretty nose (87). The 1987 was more mushroomy in the nose and more approachable with some beef broth, fading red fruits and autumnal leaf and floor in its nose. There were more purple and black fruit expressions there as well and decent minerals. The palate was not as exciting, still with weight and some length but a touch beefy, citric and minerally (87) .

The next day started with a light lunch at Per Se, where we had the 1986 and 1987 ‘s to warm up. The 1986 had lots of alcohol, iodine, iron and rust in the nose with gamy red fruits behind it. The nose was stony and screechy with the alcohol taking charge, and tangy and sexy fruit behind it. The palate was very wound with lots of expression to the tannins on the palate, which was also dry and citric. The fruit was drying out a bit, and Ben noted that it was not a great vintage very rustic.. There were lots of brick and rust there, and the palate had very little fruit left with time in the glass and became overly dry, citric and acidic despite its pretty nose (87). The 1987 was more mushroomy in the nose and more approachable with some beef broth, fading red fruits and autumnal leaf and floor in its nose. There were more purple and black fruit expressions there as well and decent minerals. The palate was not as exciting, still with weight and some length but a touch beefy, citric and minerally (87) .

The first wine had a fresh and vibrant nose full of crushed red fruits, violet, stems, minerals, velvet, earth and wood. The wine was very clear, and the vitamins really came out along with its violety, cassisy and plummy fruit. The palate was so young and had good components and nice clarity, with a lightly spicy finish and nice feminine length to its acid. The fruit was almost impossible to evaluate at first but started to open like a young flower. Ben got stems out of it too, thinking it was maybe . The wine was clean, vibrant and fresh it was the 2001 Drouhin (93). The second wine was milder on the fruit side in the nose with more brick, subtle wood and fireplace action. The nose was also clean and clear, a characteristic of the 2001 vintage. It had an Asian spice, tea and fortune cookie trio with a unique tree-like edge. Its sweetness was in its earth more than the fruit. The palate had a grappa-like flavor to it and long expressive tannins with what I like to call the bitterness of youth,. but it was still stylish, as Daniel Johnnes agreed. It was a heavy wine that needed to resolve a lot of things, and Doug found it simple and not well-knit,. and another observed less intensity over time.. It was the 2001 Domaine de l.Arlot (89+). The next wine had more intense breed and depth in its nose, with cinnamon edges and great spice. There were minerals, judicious wood and a touch of pine. The fruit was on the purple side and had a smokehouse edge and also that grappa edge. The palate was fine, long, and excellent; the fruit was purple but shut down. The tannins were refined and expressive, and it was Doug’s and Josh’s favorite of the flight, and it was the 2001 Hudelot-Noellat (93). It was a long way from Charles. We were back to the foresty side with the fourth wine in this flight, with a wood floor supporting brick, earth and stem. The fruit was buried in the nose besides a touch of plum. It had a milder nose than the first three wines, and the flavors werealso quieter and shut down. There was some leather and earth on the finish and this splash of grappa (again!). The wine seemed lean on the fruit, and Tim Kopec called it not very serious soda pop and a drying finish.. Daniel observed more oak tannins,. as opposed to natural ones for the 2001 JJ Confuron (87). The next wine had a deep nose with layered fruit but a bit of aggressive wood. You could smell the thickness, but the wood had this THC component that mellowed with aeration, but still a bit off-putting. The mineral and t n a aspects were more expressive and pronounced, suggesting great structure, but the weird flavor carried over to the palate which bothered me. The wine had me confused by its confused palate, but maybe it was me as it was Allen’s favorite of the flight, and it was the 2001 (90+?). I am a big fan of the 2001 .s, so I was a bit perplexed here. The last wine of this flight had a staggeringly different nose than the rest in that it was much warmer and seemingly advanced for its age by comparison to the rest of the wines in the flight it wasn.t that it was advanced, it was that it was open and had great fruit expression red, black and purple, the entire fruit rainbow. There were nice chocolate edges in its wood, along with orange citrus, brick and smoke. There was actual fruit in the mouth for a change and great length and style to its length. There were also flavors of stone, iron, meat, vanilla, vitamins and an A+ finish. There were a lot of Leroy guesses, and it was. Tim said that the Leroy was the best to enjoy now, but the others needed time (95) . Tim also appreciated the common theme amongst the wines (the vintage) and liked all the wines except the Confuron; he also observed that the and Leroy were the biggest, with the Leroy being the most complete but the Hudelot being the most elegant.

Next up were the 1999s, and this flight gave me the thought again that almost all young Burgundies should have a + next to their scores because they almost all get better with time. The first wine had an intense nose with more tannins, alcohol and weight that was noticeable right away compared to the 2001s. There was a lot of crushed action fruits, minerals, stones, brick and leather. The fruit was black and purple. I must be in a grappa mood because I noted it again. The palate was shut down, spicy from mid to back, long and hot but not layered, or perhaps completely shut down as many 99s are right now on the palate for this 1999 Drouhin (90+). The next wine had a deep nose as well that you really had to dig at to get to its alcohol, rust, grappa, red rose fruit, mineral, vitamin, spice and iron. The flavors were very meaty and expressive with thick, dark fruit, and nice flesh and texture to the front palate, which is tough to get this early in a 1999. It had a great finish that was long and stylish with good grape tannin expression and length, and toned, muscle-y fruit that gets better in the nose. The palate did crawl back into a shell with some time in the glass. It was the 1999 Domain de l.Arlot (93). The next wine was a cherry bomb in the nose, sweeter, more playful and delicate with its beautiful sweet cherry fruit, and some nice tension of citrus, minerals and acid behind it. The wine was pure and more 2001 in style than 1999 because it was so clean. There were great smoke, brick and cedar supporting aromas and nice spice and heat to the palate, which held well on this surprising 1999 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. (94). I wish we had some more Louis Latour this afternoon, and you won.t hear me say that too often. The fourth wine of this flight had more vanilla, oak and caramel in the nose; it was very modern but still intoxicating. There was a bruised meat character with great earth and complex black fruits, lemon tea cake and even a drop of honey. Thepalate was spicy, still feminine with good balance; long, silky and acid-laden on the finish (in a subtle and soft way). The 1999 Jadot made up for its initially modern impression quite well (93) The 1999 Potel was corked, although Allen called it off,. not corked, but either way it was a (DQ). The sixth wine in what was to be the longest flight of the night had a pure nose. The t n a were wound and dusty, with nice citrus to go with the mélange of dark fruits and drop of vanilla extract. There were some light traces of cedar, or more like mahogany. The alcohol was a little forward on the palate flavor-wise, and although the palate was not as hot as the others, the flavors of this 1999 Hudelot-Noellat were locked up right now and not allowed any visitors (90). The oak was much more noticeable in the seventh wine, and not in a judicious way but more in a bubble gum, floozy kind of way. The wine seemed like a California ringer. The palate was much better with spiny flavors and gritty t n a on the finish, along with nice mineral, citrus and cedar flavors in this 1999 Cathiard (91). The first sign of green reared its ugly head in the next wine, and it was unpleasant with the weeds and rotten vegetable action. The palate was better but very uninspiring and just a hair above average. Doug said it had premier cru weight,. and it was the 1999 Arnoux (86) . I have to say that of all the wines I had this weekend, there is not one producer who I came out more disappointed with than Robert Arnoux. The following wine had a seductive nose, unique yet shy, with a complex spice rack of a nose cinnamon, nutmeg, vanilla bean and others. There was a touch of sweet caramel to its purplish fruit. There were vanilla, caramel, cinnamon and cedar flavors and very dry tannins to this very good 1999 JJ Confuron (92). Geoffrey picked up on a sea air/salt flavor. in wine #9, and I saw exactly what he was saying. There was kinky, fleshy and edgy fruit there as well, and the palate was long, dry and fine with great violet flavors and tannin expressions. It was at least a head above the rest so far, and it should have been since it was the 1999 (95). The 1999 Leroy, last in this flight, was either an off bottle or an incredibly disappointing wine. The nose was more modern and New World in style, and the palate was unpleasantly oaky and tasted manipulated. It was average at best, and someone said it was more 1999 than RSV (85). Tim threw out the 2001 is better than 1999 gauntlet after this flight, and time will certainly tell.

The 1998s were next. The first wine had intense pitch to its nose you could see why some say good things about 1998. Thee nose was expressive with lots of citrus, wound red fruits, brick, fireplace, rose, mineral and leather aromas. The palate was moderately leathery and spicy and lingered well with nice citrus twists. It certainly had a nice approachability to it but still the tension of the earth, which is what makes 1998 a good vintage to enjoy now. This first wine was the 1998 Drouhin (92). The next wine had a similar expression with its pitch but more jasmine, tea, earth and forest action, with a splash of freshwater. The palate was shut down in the front and middle, but its backside had heat and length, so this 1998 Domaine de l.Arlot could develop (89). The third wine had much more violet and animal aromas, showing a touch of the wild side with a pinch of green. The palate was big and chunky with a spicy, hot, square finish. It was still very good but had a lot of wood flavors without being oaky. Geoffrey noted a stemmy thing. in this Hudelot-Noellat (91+). The next wine had the green part of floral in its nose, as in no buds yet. There was dandelion and grass, but behind that some meat, petrol, mineral and almost sulfur. The palate was decent at best, both one-dimensional and still vegetal. Surprise, surprise, it was the Arnoux (83). The following wine was the wine of this flight, I thought, despite its very shy and shut down nose. The palate, however, was very tasty with brick, cedar, cinnamon and mineral flavors. It was very balanced and had nice length. It was a beautiful wine with its plush, leathery finish, and it was the JJ Confuron (93). The sixth wine of this flight had a great nose with lots going on and a fabulously plummy and rocky dichotomy with beautiful, pure fruit and lovely earth, leather, tobacco and ash aromas as well. The palate was very timid comparatively and overly dry at this stage without as much depthas the nose promised. The finish showed promise, though, for this Jekyll and Hyde 1998, which will most likely be better served by time (90+). Well, the flights were starting to get predictable, and the last wine was Leroy again. The sommelier Paul Roberts, whose discretion was used in the ordering of the flights, said that he felt that he couldn.t serve the and Leroy earlier in the flights as they would mask the following wines, but I disagree. In blind tastings, a random order is always best, and quality always stands out and pretenders will not, no matter what the order. Anyway, the Leroy had a gamy, animalistic nose with lots of garden, earth and forest action. It was a Flash Greendon. of a wine, with lots of brick and acid on the palate, and more green and earth as well (87) . The 1998s on the whole did seem to get softer in the glass more quickly than I expected.

The 1995s were the only flight served out of vintage order, and I am still not sure why. As I mentioned in last week’s reviews, more people seem to be giving up on the 1995 vintage in Burgundy than democracy in Iraq (yes, I’m really proud of that line), and this flight showed a little bit of why that is. The first wine had a stony, briny and alcoholic nose with lots of dust but not a lot of fruit. The palate was one-dimensional and simple with anise and citrus flavors, lacking depth in this 1995 Drouhin (86). A milky nose marked the second wine, which was so distinctive I could pour it on my morning cereal. There was some spice behind it, and more fruit here as well, with earth and leather behind it. There were some chocolate shavings on the palate and a leathery finish, with dry, cedary flavors as well in this 1995 Domaine de l.Arlot (89). The third wine had a stemmy nose with leather and cedar (sensing a trend?). The palate was the same, dry and citric and lacking excitement, but this 1995 Jadot was still above average (88). The next wine had more vanilla, wood, cola, anise, rust and good t n a in its nose. The palate had spine and rusty and citric flavors with good intensity and balanced fruit, balanced at least by this vintage’s standards. The palate got very mentholy and pepperminty, but it was still very good in this 1995 Hudelot-Noellat (91). We passed the halfway point in this flight of eight with the next wine, which had a pleasant nose with some cinnamon, firewood, rust, cedar, minerals and that dry citric edge that is in almost every wine from this vintage. Indeed, the vintage came through more than the terroir in this flight. The palate was very one-dimensional with oak and leather flavors and no depth or concentration beyond that, and it was the 1995 JJ Confuron, which was quickly establishing itself as a hit or miss wine each vintage (85). Ben j oked that the next wine must be Ramonet with all the spearmint and menthol,. which I saw along with anise, leather and earth of course. There were rust and cinnamon flavors on the palate, along with lots of mint and cedar finally a decent Arnoux (90), and it is ironically the vintage where most other wines were not as good. That could not be said for the seventh wine of the flight, whose nose actually had fruit! There was dusty, cherry fruit with lighter leather and earth, as well as sweet tobacco and a splash of cocoa powder and milk. The palate was stony and spiny with a leathery and cedary intensity consistent with the vintage. This bottle of 1995 was certainly the best of the flight and rock solid (93). The last wine had a better nose versus the rest of the flight as well, with violets, plums, and dark soda. The palate was ok but not great with herbal notes of citrus and leather. There was not a lot of length or drive here, and the palate was very mentholy, but the wine was good&for $100 a bottle or less maybe! Those who know prices know that is not the case for the 1995 Leroy (90). In sum, someone said that this flight was marked by dried, tannic finishes that make me suspicious whether they will ever come into balance..

The first wine of the following flight motivated me to write Yes, 1996 is in the house.. One of the cleanest and highest acid vintages of all time was at the plate, ready to take its swings in this home run derby of wine. The first wine had the racy, screechy and spiny nose that is so indicative of the vintage, with lots of tannins and alcohol and a wound personality. The citrus, leather and cedar were there, with great acid, of course, enough to keep one’s interest piqued. There were stony and cherry flavors in this very good 1996 Domaine de l.Arlot (92). The next wine had a great nose of crushed cherry and red fruits, stones, acid and alcohol, with nice citrus and anise as well. The palate was surprisingly one-dimensional, lacking acid, length and depth, however, in this 1996 Drouhin (87). The third wine in this flight had a horsy nose with the earth, shit, and shit in the earth too. There were traces of carob, but the flavors were sweaty with lots of earth and animal, and as a result the 1996 Cathiard was not my cup of tea, so to speak (87). The next wine had a pretty nose with gorgeous, sexy fruit perfectly balanced between its cherry and citrus components, with nice supporting aromas of stones, minerals, herbs and cigar. The palate was very citrusy and a bit too tangy, with earth, unsweetened BBQ and mesquite flavors. It was a tale of two wines, written by the 1996 Hudelot-Noellat (90+). A nice yet very shy nose characterized the following wine, which had some rose, citrus, polished t n a, minerals and ice palace to its nose. The palate was full of stems, iron and rose with nice length. The 1996 Jadot was a pretty wine (93). The 1996 Arnoux was a touch horsy in the nose, make that more than a touch with the shit, earth and hay in there. Maye I should use merde. it sounds so much more distinguished, non? Anyway the palate was much better with deep, plummy, purple fruit and a nice finish, delicate yet meaty (91). The next wine was very wound up in the nose with lots of dust, earth, positive cardboard, minerals and coffee grinds with the filter (wet paper). There was also tobacco, rose and leaf. The palate was simple and easy shut down? There were citrus and cedar flavors, but no oomph in this 1996 JJ Confuron (89). It was at this stage that I had a quick chat with Ed about how I was a little disappointed with the 1996 vintage here so far, to which he replied, Yeah, but look at the producers we are dealing with,. to which I agreed that Romanee St. Vivant did not have as many great winemakers playing with its grapes. The next wine, almost on cue, was corked. It was the 1996 Dominique Laurent (DQ). The next wine was obviously the 1996 , as I wrote here we go again with a and Leroy finale.. The nose was full of iron, stems, menthol, rose and cedar. The palate was long and dusty, fine with long acids. It was still shut down a bit on its dusty and minerally palate (93+). The 1996 Leroy made up for the disasters of 1999, 1998 and 1995 quickly. It had a nice nose with meaty, cigar-laced fruit. There were additional aromas of plum, raspberry, blackberry, currant, red meat, smoke, toast, cream and carob. The palate was rich and fleshy actual wine here,. I wrote (94).

It was on to the 1993s, the vintage of the decade for many at the moment, and after tasting 44 of the 76 wines on tap for the afternoon, a brief nap might have been in order. This was work! The first wine of the 1993 flight had a nice nose with a great balance between fruit and finish. There was black cherry, pure earth and a drop of sugar. The palate had a lot of 1993 characteristics without the layers, though. There were lots of earth and tannin flavors, and a touch of bothersome cardboard in the 1993 Domaine de l.Arlot (89). The next wine had a sexy, dusty nose with aromas of coffee, red fruit, cedar and earth. The palate had the mild citrus, solid earth and a balanced finish. It was elegant and refined, lighter in body but still very good and Geoffrey’s favorite of the first four wines. It was the 1993 Drouhin (92). The following wine had a minty, mentholy style, with a wintry character and nice flesh to its red strawberry fruit. There was a lot of menthol on the palate with nice length, good earth, sawdust and 2×4 flavors (ask me about that one later). There was flesh and zip here, and it was the 1993 Arnoux (93). Someone remarked that Arnoux’s entire reputation was made off this one vintage. The next wine had a touch more coffee and tea, bread and cake as well, with a drop of A1 it was kinky stuff. The palate was yeasty and funky (a good funky, like play that music white boy). There was plenty of earth and animal on the palate to this 1993 Hudelot-Noellat (90). Brian was disappointed with this wine, and Geoffrey said that the property was not making good wine at the time, but I did not mind it as much. There was more cherry and earth in the nose to the fifth wine, with good tension that carried over to the palate. The palate had a milky, creamy texture and citric peel flavors, although Ben said with food I could see it,. although someone else admired its purity and balance.. It was a very good 1993 JJ Confuron (92). The next wine had anexotic nose with lots of vanilla, barn, hay, meat (bird), light leather, light earth, black cherry and cotton. There were bigger acids here with a long, long finish. I saw a lot more potential here. There were flavors of earth, citrus and dark fruits. It was a touch modern, but I wrote, you know what I don.t care it is expressive!. It was the 1993 Jadot (94). There was pretty cherry fruit and tobacco in the next wine, with some rainwater, almost lavender bath action. The palate had lavender flavors and intense citrus on the finish, but it was a touch too sour but still very good with decent character. It was the 1993 Leroy, which given the reputation of the 1993 Leroys had to be considered a disappointing bottle (90). The last wine was a little horsy and earthy at first but blew off into lots of nice menthol and red cherry fruit. It was very gamy on the palate with good character and game, citrus and earth flavors, although Ed thought it was a touch advanced. It was an excellent 1993 (94).

On to the 1991s. The first wine had rose and wood in its nose, not cedar or mahogany but I couldn.t quite put my finger on it. There was a lot of t n a and varnish in the nose, lending itself to an artificial edge. a close friend of mine called it tutti frutti. fruit, and it was. Simple and easy, the 1991 Domaine de l.Arlot was definitely a 2AM phone call (88). The next bottle was definitely flawed, maderized/cooked, and too bad it was, as it was the 1991 (DQ). The next wine had a nose with tension, stress, agony and joy all there. It was complicated. It had minerals, tannins, alcohol, acid, citrus and rose in the nose. There was a big finish with acid, citrus, pine, earth, leather and band-aids. It was an excellent 1991 JJ Confuron, the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the afternoon, although Leroy could lay claim to that as well (93). The next wine had a very shy nose there was not a lot there except style. The palate was straightforward and easy in this 1991 Hudelot-Noellat (89). The last wine of the flight was the only one that Ed liked. It had a complex, chocolaty nose with nice earth and game aromas and flavors. There was a long, meaty finish and a garden of complexity in this 1991 Leroy (92). Ann Colgin noted that you want to drink these wines,. alluding to the fact that many of the younger wines were, well, young and not that drinkable.

The 1990s were next, and it was a disappointing flight. I joked that the 1990s always show worse in Allen’s company and that he scares them since he is not a big fan. The first wine had game, leather and rose in the nose; it was kinder and softer as in maturity. It was fleshy although austere on the palate with lots of earth and interior flavors on the finish. It was the 1990 Drouhin (90). The second wine had nice tannins in the nose, with leather, earth and tobacco as well it was an autumnal nose with some broth and bouillon to match. It was a touch stewed on the palate; smooth, easy yet simple. It was a 1990 Jadot (88). The next wine had figgy fruit in the nose, gamy and mature with tea, broth and earth. The palate was the same very figgy, with an accompanying austere, bitter flavor in this Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. (89). The next wine had bouillon in the nose with nice leather and rose to go with its locker room impression. It was an easy palate, but browned and affected with a leathery finish definitely an off bottle of 1990 (DQ). The 1990 Arnoux was also maderized (DQ). The JJ Confuron was better with rose and citrus, brand new leather, spice and earth. The palate was gamy and dusty (90)VINTAGE TASTINGS – Romanee St. Vivant Marathon. Yes my notes were waning, but the show had to go on. The next wine had a horsy, gamy, sweaty nose, but its fruit was red with lots of vitamins and citrus. The palate was better still a bit stewed and gamy for this Hudelot-Noellat (92). The last wine in the 1990 flight was very herbal, with lots of eucalyptus in the nose and awkward wood. The palate was similar and not complex, and it was a disappointing bottle of 1990 Leroy (85).

There were three flights left but mercifully only nine wines. The first 1989 wine had a lovely, pretty nose with red fruits, game, delicate citrus, musk and nice alcohol. The palate, however, was austere with vitamins, plums and must in this 1989 Drouhin (89) . The 1989 had lit match and some bad ass in the nose, but the palate was leathery and dry, sturdy, long and solid (91). The 1989 Leroy had a shy nose and not a lot there but a solid palate with nice citrus flavors and an expressive finish. Geoffrey called it the freshest. (92). The 1988 Arnoux was excellent; lots of vitamins, musk, leather, earth and rose in the nose. The palate was also excellent with citrus, dust, musk and earth; it was a rock solid 1988 (93). The 1988 Leroy was decent but lacking and uninspiring to take further notes at this stage (89). The 1988 Hudelot-Noellat had loads of vitamins, spine, spice and leather and a nice meaty and leathery palate (92). I spoke about the 1988s and 1989s and said I preferred the 1988s, of which every one did not seem to be a fan; in fact, I was slightly crucified by a few. I have always had a soft spot for 1988s despite the abundance of tannins and dry finishes that rub many the wrong way; so be it. The 1988 was corked, by the way (DQ). The flight of 1985s was comprised of Arnoux, Hudelot-Noellat and , and either I had nothing left or the flight sucked probably a combination of the two.

The auction was this past Saturday, and each auction seems to bring out the out. in me the preceding week as the momentum builds towards the auction. It was one of those weeks, where each night had parts one and two, and I over-indulged a bit, finally crashing on Saturday after the auction. a close friend of mine was in town, of course, the only person who can get me out four nights in a row. No drinks this week, I swear!

The week started off Tuesday night at LCB Brasserie (formerly La Cote Basque), where the Wine Workshop kicked off its spring schedule with a near complete vertical of J.F. Mugnier’s Musigny, whose first vintage was 1985. We did not have the 1992 or 1987, and the 1986 was actually Vieilles Vignes, a fact that made a big difference at the end of the night. We had scheduled the event to coincide with the Burghound’s trip to NYC as he passed through on his way to Burgundy. For those of you that don’t know, Allen Meadows (aka the Burghound) has become the country’s, if not the world’s, leading expert on Burgundy over the past few years. His knowledge of the wines, the Domaines, and the people behind them is incredible, and any serious Burgundy collector or drinker should make an effort to subscribe.

Allen started off with a wealth of information to set the stage for the wines of Freddie. Mugnier, who has become one of the most collectible and respected producers in Burgundy over the past decade. Most of this paragraph is paraphrased from Allen, fyi. The vineyard of Musigny is 10.7 hectares (approximately 27 acres) and has three climats.: Les Grands Musigny, Les Petits Musigny (which is 100% owned by Comte de Vogue), and a tiny parcel in La Combe d’Orveaux that is actually Musigny and 100% owned by Jacques Prieur. Mugnier’s village Chambolle comes from regular Combe d’Orveaux fruit. Comte de Vogue is the twenty-foot elephant of the region, owning two-thirds of all property that is officially Musigny. Allen reasoned that Comte de Vogue should make the best Musigny every year because they have the luxury of declassifying sub-standard barrels. Roumier, Jadot, Leroy and Faiveley, who all make one to three barrels every year, have to work with what they have or make nothing at all. Allen cited two recent examples: Faiveley only made a half-barrel (12 and ½ cases) of its 2002 Musigny Allen almost felt guilty sampling it, as one bottle is 00667 of the world’s production, akin to drinking 2000 bottles of a First Growth in one sitting! There are only 40,000 bottles of Musigny made every year on average. Also, Roumier wanted to use a custom-made, oversized barrel for his 2002 Musigny, one about 150% of the size of a standard barrel, but this custom barrel was flawed and lent way to much char in the 02, potentially ruining a great Roumier. He still bottled, however. Mugnier owns 1.3 hectares (2 and ¾ acres), and the average age of the vines on the property is 50 years old. Allen went on to call Musigny one of the top three pieces of dirt in Burgundy, along with La Tache and Romanee Conti. We’re talking high-class cotton, he jested. The history of Mugnier is a short one, at least related to wine. His father was a Parisian banker, but his grandfather and great-grandfather were in the liqueur business and did well for the family. Freddie was an oil engineer until 1984, when he got bit by the wine bug and took a crash course in oenology in Dijon for six months. Six months later, he was getting ready to make his first vintage of Musigny. His holdings include Chambolle village (half of his village wine is declassified 1er and grand crus), Les Fuees, Les Amoreuses, a tiny 0.4 hectares of Bonnes Mares and the aforementioned Musigny. Freddie has always been modest and whip-smart, according to Allen, and will confess to this day that he had no idea what he was doing early on. His earlier vintages tend to be more masculine, and as time went on and Freddie gained more experience and wisdom, his wines became more and more feminine and elegant, like a classy Musigny should be. Early on he experimented with Vielles Vignes. cuvees between 1985 and 1989, which was his last one. Roumier has influenced him to use some stems. Allen made one last point, as he saw drool forming in the corners of all of our lips, which was that Mugnier is not for everyone. I think it is brilliant, but it is a connoisseurs. wine. Wines are designed to come to you, but you have to come to this, where elegance and internal genius can be appreciated.. Mugnier once told him, We don’t need winemakers. Everything we need comes from the vineyards, and all I need to do is not screw it up.. Allen continued to put his own two cents in and say that this culture of celebrating the winemaker is like putting the cart before the horse. Allen is clearly a terroir-ist. and bleeds Burgundy red.

We started with a flight of four wines, 2001 back through 1998. Allen said that Mugnier was his personal favorite when it came to Musigny, and explained further that the problem with Roumier is that he doesn’t make enough! The 2001 Mugnier Musigny was young yet pure, with lots of alcohol in the nose but sweet, crystal-clear fruit to match. There was red and black cherry fruit, musky and kinky spice in the nose, and a close friend of mine was all over its transparency.. The wine did have beautiful clarity in the nose. On the palate, what I call the bitterness of youth. enveloped the wine with its wood, alcohol and mineral components. The fruit was not ready to be fully experienced, although it got saucier in the nose. It will certainly be a great wine, and probably climb the point ladder (93). A close friend of mine was complimenting the approachability and drinkability of the 2000 Mugnier Musigny when Allen shared that Freddie felt his 2000 was better than his 1999, although Allen was careful to make clear that he was unsure whether he agreed. The nose was seductive, noticeably lighter in weight but gorgeously perfumed and elegant. There was some delicate sweetness and a combination of red fruits and sweet spice, along with a touch of leather. The palate was rusty and taut but balanced and long. The wine was still young but much more approachable than the 2001. My friend Don, who has one of the greatest collections of Burgundy in the world, told me recently that when he is in the mood for something young, he usually opens a 2000 (in general, not specifically Mugnier) (92). The 1999 Mugnier Musigny was actually lost in translation in our warehouse, but with only thirty minutes until the event started, we called up Robert Bohr of Cru, seeking an emergency replacement. He had four bottles on hand thankfully, another reason why Cru is the best restaurant in New York City today! The bottle came just in time and was a little unsettled to some due to the quick trip, but the nose was still deep and intense, although one had to dig a little. There was a meaty core with some fig, animaland more pronounced leather wrapped around it, and earth wrapped around the leather. The fruit was more on the black and plummy side. The finish was huge with lots of t n a but shut down on the fruit side. The flavors were vitamin and cola, and while one could not discount the density and length of the wine, it would be a waste to open one for at least another five years (94+). The 1998 Mugnier Musigny has been a personal favorite of Allen’s since release, and a close friend of mine was also right there in his admiration. The nose was divine and had impeccable balance of fruit and spice. The fruit was warm and inviting and had great spice and stone accompanying it. The nose was wound up yet still inviting, in a stage of divine schizophrenia. The flavors were pure – cherry, soda, oat and earth, and the finish was very fine and long (95). Allen chipped in a few comments after flight one. The orchestrated fruit is the brilliance of Musigny with its kaleidoscopic expression and its layered personality, like an onion, as Shrek said. Each sip reveals something else, like each layer of that onionI hate vintage charts look at 1993 and 1998Mugnier uses 25% new oak.. I want to add my own observation about tasting and evaluating young Burgundy: a majority of wines have the potential to score higher, as tasting young Burgundy is more difficult than any other wine, and the great wines often need ten to fifteen years to start to show their fruit. Always keep that in mind. I gave the 1999 a + as I thought it was clear that it would go up in score and had the most potential in this flight, although the same could be said for the 2001.

The next flight was again four wines, from 1997 through 1994. The 1997 Mugnier Musigny was wild and open with meaty and gamy edges. There was a touch of sulfur, animal, and almost milky aromas, with wet stones and minerals to match. The palate was rich and alcoholic, a touch unbalanced with the alcohol, and much denser fruit-wise than any wine in the first flight. Despite its intensity and heavy finish, there was still balance and long, dry tannins (93). I should note that Doug, a reknowned Burgundy aficionado from New York, did not care for it. The 1996 Mugnier Musigny had a shy nose, but was regal at the same time. There were hints of peppermint, dark chocolate, leather, slate and musk. The palate was exquisitely balanced, long and pure-bred. The palate was also shy with its citric tension. The wine showed its beautiful body, but a close friend of mine made the point that the 1997 was better for a 97 than the 1996 was for a wine from 96 (93+). The 1995 Mugnier Musigny, a vintage which more people seem to be giving up on than democracy in Iraq, showed a touch of funk in the nose, again pepperminty a la the 1996, also flirting with cinnamon and eucalyptus. The nose was rusty and leathery in general its layers were certainly of brick origin. The palate was very dry and long with great vitamins, earth, brick and unsweetened sun-dried cherry flavors. Although Freddie claims he blew it. with this vintage and the fact that Allen felt the 1995 is one-dimensional, I found some merit in the wine, and if some fruit ever develops (which does seem unlikely), it could increase in score. I could see why some would find it overly dry (a flaw of the vintage in general it seems) and lacking layers of fruit, but I found it to be very good right now, not turned off by its overly dry personality (something it shares with the 1988 vintage, which I often find myself liking more than others as well) (92). A touch of pungent, leathery fruit marked the 1994 Mugnier Musigny, whose nose was also musky, taut and citric with sprinkles of vitamins, but light overall. The wine was simple on the palate and did not have a lot there it was ok, average at best. Rob remarked that it doesn’t have the Musigny going on.. Stay away from 1994 Burgundies is the JK recommendation, as I have yet to have one I really enjoyed, come to think of it (85). Allen shared some wisdom, of course, noting that this would probably be the least successful flight of the night, since he does not like the 1994 or 1995 that much and has never been as enthused with the 1996 as he has wanted to be. He told us that 1994 was actually shaping up to be the vintage of the century until September arrived, when it started to rain and never stopped. As a result, the phenolic ripeness never occurred. There are 1 in 100 wines that you will actually enjoy. It is my least favorite vintage of the decade.. I knew I hadn’t had a good one! 1995, he continued, was problematic as a lot of people picked too soon due to the hot weather, and there was also rot. The wines were explosive from cask but eighteen months later shut down and have never reopened. The late pickers in 1995 were much more successful, he continued, and the triage (sorting) table was much more important. There was that if it’s really hot, it must be great. stigma with the vintage early on amongst critics, he went on, which sent him off on this tangent about schools of wine criticism. He categorized critics as either adjectivists, which he personally rejects, or structuralists, whom he considers himself, who are more concerned with how the wine is going to age. The balance between acid, tannins and density is what is most important flavors will come later, the same point that a close friend of mine made in Vegas two weeks prior. Great minds think alike! Allen also made the clear distinction that extraction is not a synonym with density. Count me in the middle somewhere, but on that structuralist side if it was an election (I’m saying, I like my adjectives, too!) I do agree with Allen in that there is not enough concern with how wines are going to develop. 99 point ratings are flying all over the place for wines with unproven track records. Wines made in more restrained and elegant styles are under-rated because they don’t hit critics over the head with their extracted ways, more so in Burgundy than any other region. The world’s greatest wines are ones that last thirty years or more and develop, which doesn’t mean a wine can’t be great for its first five or ten years. However, too many people are looking at wine in the here and now. They need to drink more old wine! Back to our regular programmingthe only problem with 1996 was that the crop was superabundant. It was one of the cleanest crops ever, with big, fat berries and high liquid-to-solid ratios. As a result, it was hard to make a dense 1996, but the detail of the wines is incredible. 1997 was a very hot vintage as well, a la 1947 and 1959. There is a big debate over the phenolic ripeness of the vintage, as in whether or not it was achieved since it was too hot, and some wines do have a greenness to them as a result. Allen gave us an example of why hot vintages are not always great: The vine is a living organism, and it will not risk its own life for the sake of its babies (grapes). If overly stressed, the vine will shut down.. He then rattled off every major, great vintage of the 20th century that was not a hot vintage: 1993, 1969, 1961, 1952, 1949, 1945, 1937, 1929, 1921 and I might have missed a few.

The third flight was here, and three wines were there for our evaluation: 1993, 1991 and 1990, a nice trio to evaluate together for any great producer in Burgundy. My note for the 1993 Mugnier Musigny started, Oh baby, as its nose was super-intense, with power and finesse, as well as meat, black fruits, vitamins, minerals, t n a, leather, earth, saddle, musk, spice and animal fur. The palate was great long and chock full of vitamins, taut and wound by comparison to its expressive nose, with a touch of citric tension. The intensity in the nose doesn’t wane and someone called it precise.. (95+) The 1991 Mugnier Musigny had a pure nose with great t n a. It was very penetrating and long with great Asian spice to it. The palate, however, was very tight and unyielding too wound for me at the moment. There was some secondary rose/floral spice that developed in the nose. The palate was long, but very dry, so much so that I am not sure the fruit will ever get there (91). The bottle of 1990 Mugnier Musigny we had was very controversial, and certainly not consistent with the one we had in Vegas a couple weeks prior. a close friend of mine and Rob found it stewed, although others called it delicious.. The nose was shy and removed, with anise, milk, leather and alcohol, and the palate was long and clumsy. Based on the bottle I had two weeks ago, I had to disqualify it (DQ). Time for some Burghound analysis: both Allen and Freddie feel that the 1993 is the best he ever made. 1993 is for Burgundy lovers, while 1990 is for wine lovers.. Why? 1993 is all about terroir, and the wines have a transparency that exists that you cannot find in those from 1990. 1991 is almost a combination of 1993 and 1990, Allen continued, calling the best 1991s better than the best 1990s, because Mother Nature didn’t let one overcrop in 1991. 1991’s biggest problem was that many wines are too austere, something we saw in the Mugnier. Allen also commented, Style is not content, and content is not style, although I can’t recall the context of the comment about content. Say that five times quickly.

There were two flights left, and two wines in each flight, but I will review them all in a final paragraph. The 1989 Mugnier Musigny had a forward, gamy, plummy and minty nose, but its mintiness was more Crest and manufactured than natural with its thick and heavy accents. The nose was a bit wild and crazy with lots of forest floor. The palate was pretty with a light sturdiness, leathery and on the drier side with its mid-to-light finish. It is holding on to being very good and most likely will decline sooner rather than later (90). The 1988 Mugnier Musigny had a milky nose with red fruits, eucalyptus, leather and a touch of rust. The palate was rich with lots of vitamins, citrus and t n a. It was brawny and sturdy but just short of three-dimensional call it two and a half. The palate was rusty and long. a close friend of mine liked it a lot as well (92). The 1986 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes was extraordinary, especially given the context of the vintage, and it was a perfect example of a wine needing time to be fully and properly evaluated. The nose was amazing and the nose of the night for sure, as it was both youthful and mature heaven scent, if you will. There were intense aromas of rose, vitamin and mineral. The wine was hot, hot, hot as in sexy and not alcohol! The palate was meaty and rich with loads of iron and iodine, leather, earth and spice. The wine was incredibly youthful still with long acids and cinnamon. according to Bob. Allen called it high-toned with clove. and none of the harshness. of the 1986 vintage.. He also explained that Freddie himself confided that he lucked out when he made this wine, as he was still learning the ropes (96). The 1985 Mugnier Musigny was corked. Bummer (DQ). Allen shared that the 1986 was the most interesting aromatically and shows that even in an average vintage that the best terroirs and producers can transcend the vintage.. In sum, he said that despite the evolution of the winemaking style, you can still comment on the fact that it is Musigny. The wines don’t shout, they’re not showy and they are refined.. It was a most enjoyable and educational evening but it wasn’t over. Allen, a close friend of mine, Andy, Rob, Doug and I headed over to Atelier, which is the restaurant in the Ritz Carlton on Central Park South, a restaurant that has a great list of Burgundy and other wines as well. No notes were taken, but wines were consumed, and some pretty special ones at that, so what follows are reflections of the rest of that night. It is tough to remember anything besides the glorious, last bottle there of 1952 Richebourg that we had, which was spectacular. It had everything one could want fabulously complex aromas of saucy, sexy and meaty fruit laced with menthol and minerals. The wine was still incredibly fresh, layered in the nose like one of Allen’s onions. The texture on the palate was incredible: thick, meaty and layered as well. It was a rose garden of a wine the rose garden at Versailles, that is. Incredible, incredible wine (98). We actually started with a 1990 Dujac Clos St. Denis, which was close to outstanding but a little musty and wound. It needed more time, both in the glass and in the bottle. It was very minerally and rocky, but still class in the glass, of course, since it was from one of the top six producers in Burgundy (, Rousseau, Roumier, Vogue, and Jayer are the others, fyi) (94+). We also had a corked 1999 Roumier Musigny (it was also the last bottle) (DQ), and a pair of 1980 ‘s: La Tache Richebourg. We had the La Tache first, which was still fresh, alive and kicking with lots of power and alcohol and a mentholated palate. It was intense and excellent, bordering on outstanding but lacking the depth of fruit I require to give it that badge of honor (94). The Richebourg should have been had first, and while it was still very good, it did not stand up to the power of the La Tache (91). Time for bed.

The next night was dinner at Nobu, courtesy of Big Boy, who treated all of us (including a close friend of mine and Patman) to dinner and Champagne Champagne as in 1961 Krug, 1969 1975 Dom Perignon, and 1985 Krug. All the Champagnes were original bottlings, and unfortunately the mag of 1969 was shot (DQ). The 1975 DP was a little tired as well, perhaps past its prime or just an affected bottle (86). The 1961 Krug was gorgeous, pure, refined and still fresh (94). The same could be said for the 1985, except you had to add the fact that the 85 was massive by comparison, with incredible power and intensity (96+). I look forward to having it another hundred or so times over the next couple of decades. I should also note that Krug Collection (late-released) bottles of 1961 would probably score higher than original releases. The after-party on this night was at Cru, where I tried to get the blind game in motion and put one of my fellow enthusiasts on the spot, since he has been guessing too many wines correctly when we taste blind together. So I plucked a magnum of 1983 Rousseau Chambertin off the list, it was served blind, and what did a close friend of mine guess? Yup, the 1983 Rousseau Chambertin. Ok, I give up. The wine, by the way, was gorgeous, beautifully mature, distinctively Rousseau, gentle and soft, caressing and smooth. It was as if someone poured rose petals into the glass while one was walking barefoot on Holy Land. Who says 1983s can’t be great? The magnum helped, I’m sure, but it was an excellent wine, although at its peak and not layered to be a fifty year wine, I think. Hopefully, I am wrong (93). Andy ended up stumping a close friend of mine by serving him Premier Cru wine. Now why didn’t I think of that? The 1993 Comte Armand Pommard Clos des Epeneaux was big and clumsy, lacking a center although packing a wallop of a finish, laced with too much oak for my taste (86). Andy also pulled out a 1949 Remoissenet Richebourgstrong>, I think, which was mature and tasty in that I.ve been chapitalized kind of way, as in maybe I’m Richebourg and maybe I’m 1949 but damned if you will ever know (90). That was it for this night. Tomorrow was the beginning of Doug and Michael’s two-day Romanee St. Vivant extravaganza, but you’ll have to wait until next week to read all about that one.

I found myself in Las Vegas again the second official weekend in January for a weekend planned months in advance. The weekend started out as a close friend of mine's 12 Angry Men. tasting but also blossomed into a perestroika of sorts, when the following night became big Dave's Burgwhore event, a tasting group from Los Angeles that I have covered in issues past of Vintage Tastings, a group of which a close friend of mine is also a member. Since the event was on the road, both groups got about half their members to attend, making for a nice number of twelve guests the first night and fourteen the next. Playing the role of the Sharks this weekend were 12 Angry Manners: big boy. RR, JJ, Peter, guest Patman, who gobbled up various substances the entire weekend as if they were those dots in that video game, myself of course, and a close friend of mine. Playing the role of the Jets were the Burgwhores and the real. Jef Levy, big Dave, Kvetch. aka Matt, another JJ (Johnny J), guest Rock n Roll Steve, and guest Dee from Utah, joined on the second night by Tom and Tony of the Burgwhores as well. a close friend of mine, as always, had the most complex role, being a member of both the Sharks and the Jets, playing both lead roles in a love story of tragic Shakespearean proportions. It is very difficult to love oneself as well as a close friend of mine is capable when it comes to fine wines.

A few of us gathered together one night early on Thursday: RR, Patman, a close friend of mine and myself. RR and Patman were at the Blackjack tables before I could even get my bags into my room, and after I was able to catch up on the minimum work necessary for me to do and have a good conscious, let's call it three hours, I went downstairs to join them. Now I hate Blackjack, especially after losing $300 in ten minutes the weekend prior when I somehow ended up in the Venetian at 1AM with no poker tables in sight. Yes, I am a poker guy, and as far as my cards are concerned, there is only one game: Texas Hold Em. I quickly convinced RR and Patman to join me at the Poker tables as we waited for a close friend of mine's arrival at around 8PM, right before our reservation at Julian Serrano's Picasso, the very same restaurant that Gil had taken me one week prior to the day. We had the white truffle menu and started off with a couple of bottles of Champagne, of course, which is a close friend of mine's favorite beverage with white Truffles, and I cannot say he is wrong. First up was a 1964 Pol Roger Extra Dry, which a close friend of mine called the classic Pol Roger style lean and muscular, to which Patman quipped, kinda like Rob. Rob replied with a big smile and a gentle rub of his stomach. The nose was on the mature side, possibly past its prime by a couple of years with its nose of sherry, cream soda, lanolin, baked honey, bread and musk. The palate also had the cream soda thing happening, with additional flavors of white chocolate and a lightly slaty and gritty finish. I must admit, the white truffle and egg dish really made the Champagne start to sing, fattened it up and brought out more vanilla, toast and firmness to the finish. It actually brought my score up a couple of points, which food rarely does perhaps the food awakened some of my dormant senses from all the travel and cigarette smoke in the poker room, cigarette smoke to which I was oblivious since I ended up $700. a close friend of mine summed up the Pol Roger as beautiful and still lots of life & another razor sharp 64...(93) Next up was a 1973 Dom Perignon Oenotheque. (i.e., DP's version of a recently disgorged and released bottle of Champagne directly from their cellars). a close friend of mine again quickly set the game in motion, calling it a Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne of a DP. The nose was toasty and chocolaty with lots of earth, a touch of weeds that faded in and out, honey and toast. The bubbly was very fresh with a long, sturdy, fine finish. The acids were amazingly fresh and long. There was a touch of weediness to its flavors at first, but Patman saw more crème brulee... The flavors developed into bread, fresh soda and even a touch of coffee. This weedy flavor bothered me at first, but the food again expanded the wine in the glass as layers of burnt honey and fresh nectarines, (RR) emerged. Pat called it Yquem-like...(95) I had brought a 1983 Rayas for fun, and it had a fabulous nose at first in that way that only Rayas can: classic, with great, ripe, sweet strawberry-rhubarb fruit and great tension between that and the earth, rust, iron and stone aromas. It had that extra edge of Chateauneuf/Provencal spice as well. There was lots of alcohol on the palate in a sadistic, good way. Its flavors were very rusty and earthy with kirsch fruit flavors. Wild herbs came in, prompting Rob to note its medicinal. side. The wine did not hold in the glass for more than 30-45 minutes, however, and started to disintegrate from the inside out. In retrospective, we probably should NOT have decanted this wine, but for that first half-hour it was flirting with an outstanding score, it ended up being excellent flirting with a very good score (93). I had also brought out a 1984 Henschke Hill of Grace, which was incredibly disappointing. The nose was way too American oaky bordering on gross, and the wine tasted sickly and gross, oaky and weedy & yick. I hope that 1984 is a bad vintage in Australia, and that when I do the vertical of HOG in April that we have a much better showingof Henschke's older HOGs. I had to give it the dreaded (NR) score, i.e., Not Recommended. We hit the poker tables again, this time at the Bellagio (we were at the Palms before), and we stepped up to the no limit/high rollers section, where we saw Celine Dion's husband playing the night away at another table. Now there is a guy whose table I want to be at, I thought. Visions of tens of thousands of cash danced in my head as I thought about how I could get over to that table, especially since I was playing well again and up another few hundred when it all came crashing down on one hand where I rode three aces to the grave and lost it all to someone who was obviously a member of the Chinese mafia. It was there that I learned lesson #1 of my weekend in Vegas: play sober.

The next day was busy, busy, busy for me in my hotel room (work-related don.t have such dirty thoughts!), and I did not have time to play as I was still recovering in the fact that I was now down $1000 after being up close to $1500. The night quickly descended upon us, and it was time for an Angry Men celebration at Mix, Alain Ducasse's newest restaurant/nightclub (that's right slash nightclub) atop The Hotel at Mandalay Bay. Apparently they put $20 million into the joint, and it showed. The view was spectacular, looking out over Vegas like a lite-brite set for grown-ups. Just a reminder as to how us Angry Men work: each month, one of the members hosts an event at a restaurant or in their home and treats all the guests to dinner. The host also sets the theme and sets the table with three bottles minimum, and then each of the guests are required to bring a bottle as well. One last little detail: the host has veto rights on any bottles that guests want to bring. OK, back to our story. a close friend of mine set the stage with a magnum of the great 1990 Dom Perignon Rose. What a baby/monster/rock star of a Champagne,. my notes started. This bubbly was super-intense, so young. Matt noted, or was he looking at those two girls in the corner? The magnum factor really makes a difference in Champagne as well as wine, and I HIGHLY recommend magnums for collecting and aging in the cellar. The DP Rose was incredibly fresh and wound up like a 100 mph fastball, and the finish was even faster (clocked at an impressive 180 mph by my radar gun of a tongue), and its never-ending acids begged for more cellaring. Sorry, Charlie not this night. This will be an all-time great Champagne, especially out of magnum. It was racy, spiny and fresh on the palate (96).

The first flight was a flight of 1993 Musignys, starting with the 1993 Comte de Vogue Musigny, Vieilles Vignes. The nose was great, wound and intense with rose, vitamin and wood aromas, but not wood like too oaky just to be clear, more like a wood/tannin aroma. There was beautiful, saucy, cherry fruit that poked its head out from behind, still in reserve, and a firm presence of t n a in the nose. On the palate were flavors of vitamins, perfume and leather, all beautiful yet shy, with a touch of animal as well. The nose widened out in a saucy direction, and the finish also expanded. a close friend of mine also noted its woody nature, especially after being compared to the Mugnier later in the flight (95). The 1993 Mugnier Musigny had a more expressive nose, where the freshness of the alcohol jumped out, still integrated underneath the fruit, however. There was a spicy edge to the nose with its crushed red fruits, vitamins and leather, combined with a pinch more game/wild animal fur action. The palate was thicker, with more meat on its bones it seemed than the Vogue, and good grip, earth and leather flavors to the finish. a close friend of mine found the Mugnier the most pure, like a laser beam...(95) The 1993 Roumier Musigny stood out to me by comparison, as the pitch in its nose was much higher than the previous two. There was something brighter and more expressive unfound in the Vogue or Mugnier. There was a lot going on in the nose, a veritable symphony of Burgundian bliss. First off, there was an animal, leather, wood and vitamin quadrafecta (damn I shoulda bet that before dinner!), accompanied by musky fruit aromas of rose, cherry and redcurrants a veritable bright, red fruit salad. It was then that a friend of mine blessed us with his wisest statement of the weekend, Young Burgundy is all about the balance and texture forget about flavors...There was a youthful, interior/varnish quality here as well (a positive), and the finish destroyed, make that defeated in battle as a close friend of mine corrected me, the finish of the first two Mooses. There was massive length and power here, and the nose got more and more complex and had an amazing, exotic quality marked by its stems, which were singing in full chorus. It is the only wine here tonight that uses 100% stems,. a close friend of mine advised (97+).

The second flight featured three wines from 1985, starting with an outstanding 1985 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. It had a warm, sweet, fat nose with edges of animal, vitamin, stewed cherry, musk and a light sprinkle of brown sugar. The tannins and alcohol were fabulously silky, as well as long and penetrating. The nose was as good as its gets at close to age twenty. The palate was great as well, with taut fruit and flavors of game, animal and leather. The finish was long with great earth on it, and a close friend of mine admired the fact that it was so perfumed and balanced... He went on to call Rousseau the Musigny of Gevrey the only one to make perfumed, elegant and stylish Gevrey... (95) The next wine was a 1985 Bouchard Mazis Chambertin, Hospices de Beaune, Cuvee Madame Collignon. It was supposed to be Leroy, but big Dave didn't read the fine print on the label. The Bouchard was a disappointment. a close friend of mine noted that it was almost New World, it's so extracted... There was a touch of must to the nose but that almost New World. intensity behind that. The nose was heavy and more on the leather, olive and wood side. There was a touch of plum to the fruit in its fat, wide nose, along with vitamins and soy. The wine was brawny on the palate but without spine, as a close friend of mine agreed. It got woodier and woodier with time bordering on sickly, and after a little time it was tolerable at best despite a few deliciouses at the table (85). The third wine of the flight was the 1985 Chezeaux Griotte Chambertin. The nose was kinky, milky and gamy with nice fruit. There was some citric tension and more wild game and spice. The nose was a touch sugary but not overboard. The palate was on the drier side and very large, barely reined in. Some complained of over-extraction. and claimed it was a Parker wine, but I liked it nonetheless and found it to be excellent. a close friend of mine gave it a low 88 points and called it unbalanced but I did not mind its heat, alcohol and spice and found it tasty (93).

On to the 1978s. First up was a 1978 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. The nose was similar to the 1985 as the signature style of Rousseau shined through, but there was more brown sugar and mature sweetness to the fruit, along with the vitamins, game and leather, of course. The nose was musky, meaty, edgy and almost soupy with some bouillon character. However, the palate was extremely acidic and way out of balance in that regard, with lots of citric flavors. Will it ever balance out? I doubt it, as the fruit seemed too mature for the acid levels (90+?). The regular 1978 Rousseau Chambertin was far from regular. The nose was seductive and sweet, silky and gamy with pretty, beautiful, soft and caressing tendencies. There was some brown to the fruit, not negatively, and great earth, hay and musk to go with it. The palate was outstanding, balanced and stony with great citrus flavors. The wine was very tasty, a lip-smacking experience, although Matt found it all stewed tomatoes and acid, the same recipe that got him through junior year of college, I joked a close friend of mine agreed with me and its greatness, however (95). I was perplexed by the bottle of 1978 Henri Jayer Echezeaux we had, finding it lacking the extra depths and greatness that this vintage of Jayer usually delivers. I feel very strongly that the 1978 Jayers are some of the greatest Burgundies ever made, and this did not come close, so I DQ'd it (DQ).

Two jeroboams (three liters for Burgundy) were the grand finale courtesy of Rob and a close friend of mine, and since they were both 1971 wines, I can safely use the word grand... First up was the 1971 La Tache, one of my all-time favorite wines. The nose was incredibly young out of three-liter, so much so that I might have guessed 1990 or 1993 if served blind! It was wound without the t n a part of being wound. The fruit was dark, deep and dank with aromas of vitamins, leather, iron, earth, Asian spice and menthol. The palate was full of peppermint, rose, minerals and slate. The wine was so smooth and polished, with incredible amounts in reserve, most likely that three-liter factor. Looking forward and comparing it to the Romanee-Conti, a close friend of mine observed not as much finish, but so much more fruit right now... The spice on the palate was awesome, and the wine got more and more exotic and pronounced. The 1971 La Tache was incredible again, delivering as always (98). The 1971 Romanee Conti had as incredible a texture as I have ever experienced in a wine this old a close friend of mine noted its seductive tea and beet root qualities. The layers of spice, vanilla, forest and mint were mind-boggling, and the concentration and texture seemed infinitely long, with rich acids lingering like call girls at casinos. a close friend of mine felt the La Tache was more mature, but the RC was the better wine... It was indeed younger, and I saw the potential here for more long-term greatness, but for this night I preferred the La Tache. There was no doubt that the finish, length and acid were superior in the RC, but the flavors of the La Tache were so divine comparatively at this stage (97+).

Oh yeah, there is one tasting note from the after-party at Tabu: 12 bottles of 1989 Krug tasted with consistent notes.

Saturday was the Burgwhores. night, featuring a tremendous assortment of 1990s. Unfortunately, my notes have been misplaced, so I will try to put together a paragraph of observations based on my memories of the evening. We dined at Boa in Caesar.s, whose food was fabulous, by the way. First up was an encore performance of the first Angry Man flight, Musignys from Vogue, Mugnier and Roumier, this time 1990s, of course. There has been much speculation about the 1990 Vogue Musigny and how inconsistent it has been out of bottle and how many less-than-outstanding batches of it are around, but this bottle of it was the best that I have ever had (and a close friend of mine concurred) and showed that this can, indeed, be an outstanding wine. There was a wealth of fruit and length, and it was outstanding. The Mugnier was pure and excellent bordering on outstanding, and the Roumier, although a touch more modern in style than the other two, was also outstanding with a size and weight unmatched by the previous two. The Vogue stole this flight, however. All the wines were served blind, fyi, and the rest of the flights were served Noah's Ark style, two by two. I can.t remember everything, but there were a lot of Leroys for starters. The 1990 Leroy of the night was the Chambertin, which was ironically forgotten to have been served at the dinner (yet opened at the club afterwards) and was the only Leroy that I would call outstanding, although many of the wines bordered on being outstanding as well. The Leroys were typically flirting with modernity and more wood, yet still reined it in just enough to allow one to taste and appreciate the Burgundy in them. Perhaps with time, these giant wines, which can come across a bit brutish, will ascend the point scale and expand even more. All of the Leroy wines were indubitably excellent, and if the fruit can keep up with the tannins and length, they will outlive many of their classmates from this vintage, and other vintages as well, I presume. The RSV and Clos de la Roche stood out a little more than the Latricieres Chambertin. There might have been one or two more. There were four 1990's: Grands Echezeaux, Romanee St. Vivant, Richebourg and La Tache. The first two were solid wines and representative of the Conti style and on the very good/excellent border, the Richebourg a step up of course, and the La Tache was incredible so young, tight and long with just hints and flashes of its greatness, and endless layers of complexity. It had the best length of the night by far and was right there for wine of the night. There was also a fleshy, gamy and chewy Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux that had sweeter and more expressive fruit than most wines this evening, and as a result it also flirted with an outstanding score; a pretty Dujac Charmes Chambertin that was classic Dujac all the way although lacking the depth of the other three Dujac Grand Crus (in general the other three were not served that night); a disappointing Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. (bad bottle as good ones of this are spectacular); and many people's wine of the night, the great, always outstanding and divine, 1990 Rousseau Chambertin. Sorry I lost my notes, but hopefully you will at least get a snapshot of the night. I almost forgot we had two surprises at the end, a head-to-head showing of 1982 vs 1986 Mouton. This night, the 1986 won,not by a knockout, but by a unanimous decision. The 1982 was very closed and could have been a bottle that is lesser than others, but when the bell sounds, you have to jusge what's in the ring.

We headed over to Pure, one of the hottest new clubs in Vegas, where we partied in the VIP section (thanks to Rob) all night long & literally. Tasting notes from that session are strictly off the record.

It was a very spontaneous and special selection of Champagnes sampled this Saturday and Sunday. I hope you enjoy this catalog and these three special collections as much as I have over the years!