On one fine weekend in a rare place somewhere between 25 and 75% finished, some of New York’s finest collectors gathered to celebrate the birthday of Jetski. While Jetski is not quite the veteran as other Vintage Tastings alumni such as Big Boy and The Mogul, he is definitely moving at the fastest speed at any collector I know, seemingly at every great wine event in New York City. It was only appropriate that his birthday celebration was the greatest wine weekend of the year.

We kicked things off with a rich, sweet and deep magnum of 1971 Krug Collection. The wine was open for business with delicious nutty flavors of caramel and white soda. It was outstanding stuff, definitely on its plateau, and a great way to kick off the weekend festivities (96M)..

The 1976 Krug was a touch ‘bitter’ per Lord Byron Jr. It was definitely acidic and dry with a long finish. While zippy, it was seriously lacking fruit. At this age, it could always be the bottle rather than the wine (93).

The 1982 Ramonet Batard Montrachet Magnum was wrapped in corn stalk and wheat in a good, grainy way. It was quite creamy and long, but LBJ found it ‘not perfect.’ He is in the Jetski camp of tough grading lol. The gang also added ‘gunpowder, bentonite and honey.’ Big Boy found it ’flat,’ but I thought it got better, but it never crossed the border to be outstanding. It got a little oakier in the glass, and a bit of Cheerios crept in (94M).

The 1992 Leflaive Batard Montrachet was a perfect bottle. It was in that ’92 sweet spot, literally. Fully mature while still fresh, with that extra kick of sugar, this outstanding bottle of ’92 Leflaive was in a perfect moment of maturity with so much honey and florality. It was ‘sensational’ honeysuckle city. It lifted in the glass and kept getting better (97).

A bit of a rarity, the 1962 Bouchard Corton Charlemange Magnum had a darker color but delivered an outstanding experience. It had rich caramel and waxy butterscotch aromas to it, and Jetski was digging it. This got more woodsy with time, and Big Boy loved its ‘salinity.’ It gained a coconutty edge, and we were all fans. At first I was in the 94 camp, but this rare magnum edged into outstanding territory in the end (95M).

And that was it for the whites. We had some Clos St. Jacques action next, starting with a rich and sweet 2009 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques. This was full of honey and sweet and ripe, showing the characteristic of the 2009 vintage in Burgundy very clearly. There was still tension to it despite its succulence. It was clearly a great Rousseau with rich, decadent, saucy red and purple fruit flavors (96+).

The 1996 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques was a little gassy and with a bit of a medicinal taste, like Robitussin. Was it me? No, this wine was medicinal city. There was nice concentration but…eh. I couldn’t drink it to be honest, was this just an off bottle/batch? It doesn’t correlate with other Rousseau ’96 experiences I have had (89?).

The 1986 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques had that classic ‘86 rusty, acid-y bite of the vintage. There were great red cherry flavors that smacked and flirted with me as the wine flirted with outstanding status. It almost made it (94).

We had an intruder in this Rousseau flight, but that was quite alright. Someone just came out and said that the 1971 Clair Dau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques (Tastevin bottling) was a ‘nice 93 point wine,’ and he was right lol. It sounds like something Big Boy would say, my most likely candidate to whom to attribute this magnificent quote. It was beefy, a touch of barn-y and possessed rich and saucy brown sugar flavors (93).

The 1985 Dujac Clos St. Denis was soooooo good. It was full of perfect game in its nose, not too mature, not too wild, just that kiss of crisp autumn wild game, everything in the right place. It had a sexy apricot kink to its brambly purple fruit. That ‘85 goodness shined throughout the glass, a fleshy and playful delicacy. There was a stalky goodness to the Dujac greatness (96).

A great match for the Dujac was the 1985 Ponsot Clos St. Denis Vieilles Vignes. This was a deeper, darker and delicious wine, much more brooding and concentrated. Someone called it a ‘grand vin.’ It was rich, decadent and saucy, and very popular at the table. I have to admit, it won me over, too. Its richness reeked Swiss bank accounts, and its darkness excited me. Not sure there has been a Ponsot like 1985 ever since, unfortunately (97).

As good as the Ponsot was, the 1985 Dujac Clos de la Roche took back the crown of Morey St. Denis where it rightfully belongs. This was better than each of the previous two wines. Is Clos de la Roche always better than Clos St. Denis? It was kaleidoscopic and almost psychedelic with its sweet fruits. Its spice cabinet was full, and the wine stimulated my senses while it played with my palate. I would do whatever it wanted lol. It had perfect balance and was in a perfect place, and so were we (98).

It was Bordeaux’s turn to tango, although that was a tough flight to follow. Enter 1961 Chateau Latour. This was a banging bottle of this wine, clearly 99 points I immediately pronounced. Big Boy thought it was at least 98+ territory, lol. This was a deep, dark and chocolaty claret. Its cassis oozed on out to the dance floor otherwise known as my palate. It was crazy good, and this Burgundy crowd was back in love with Bordeaux (99).

The 1959 Chateau Latour was next. It was more chocolaty and sweeter, also with more minty notes. It drank more like a bottle of ‘74 Heitz or Mouton than the usual Latour profile. It was a great wine but not the winner tonight. Big Boy thought it ‘flattened out’ a little. He would soon follow lol (97).

The 1952 Chateau Latour was a beautiful and classy wine. While ’52 was initially known as a hard, tannic vintage, it has been a nice spot for the last decade or two. Therein lies the greatness of Bordeaux. While Latour is known as a brooding, deep wine, this vintage showed us the elegant, softer side of this revered Chateau. Its fruit was fleshy with kisses of signature walnut (95).

The food was finished, or at least the dinner portion of it, and it was officially becoming party time. Jetski had disappeared for a bit, but he was forgiven as he re-emerged with a special bottle. It was the bottle of all bottles, and the 1971 DRC La Tache quickly put Burgundy back at the center of the conversation. This bottle was the real deal in every sense of the phrase. Spicy, saucy and sexy, it smelled and tasted like wine heaven. The red fruits, roses, menthol, tomato, spices…everything was right there and then some. I have been adoring this wine for over two decades, and I am pleased to report that everything is still as it was. It just doesn’t get any better (99).

We finished this incredible evening on an extremely high note, even if I rated a couple wines higher. It is not often that I get to have a wine that is 100 years old, and to have it when it is exactly 100 years old is even rarer. The centennial anniversary of the 1919 Jaboulet Hermitage was a magical experience. It had me running to Instagram to tell the world about it the next day lol. Its color was almost orange, certainly amber, and it had us expecting very little. After a minute in the glass, there was no doubting the greatness of this wine. It still had its signature Hermitage bacon and was full of garrigue. This fleshy, lip-smacking Hermitage showed why Hermitage is one of the great terroirs of the world. It was a real thrill. There is nothing more exciting than a great bottle of really old wine (98).

And that was night one. There was a bit of a barbecue/pool party the next day, and a bunch of wines were served and casually enjoyed as the kids frolicked around the property, which was now between 35 and 85% finished lol. But the afternoon was all about the meat, and Big Boy was holding court. I am a big fan of grilling, but I am just a casual griller. I like to use the grill, but I haven’t gotten serious about it. Too many kids and too many auctions. I have to confirm what you might have heard him saying about himself, that Big Boy is possibly the greatest griller of meat in the world. Like holy shit great. He loves grilling so much that he bought a meat company lol. It’s called Fleisher’s by the way, and per Big Boy, it’s the greatest meat in the world as well. I can’t disagree with him after that afternoon, and now you know.

The afternoon led into the evening, and before we knew it, our second official birthday celebration had begun.

We began with a fresh and perfect magnum of 1976 Dom Perignon. It was zippy and still so young, just starting to show some mature flavors. It was clean with a touch of vanilla soda to it (95M).

A 1992 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos popped out and had a sweet rainwater nose with lots of citrusy fruit and sweet corn kisses. Its palate was long, round and tender. It was in that perfect, mature spot with nice sunny hues and a touch of pineapple goodness. Banana crept in, and I was loving the exoticness of this Clos (96).

There was a 1969 Krug to send us off to the dinner table, and it was full of sweet, yellow cream with a splash of caramel. It was buttery and toasty. While full-bodied and brawny in that signature Krug way, it wasn’t quite outstanding (94).

We sat down to a powerful pair of mature White Burgundy at its finest. The 1986 Leflaive Batard Montrachet had that honeyed, buttery nose and oozed sexy with its mesquite kisses. Its palate was round and flavorful with lots of cedar hints and a rich and creamy finish. This was a great bottle of mature Chardonnay (96).

Big Boy hailed the 1986 Ramonet Montrachet as ‘absurd,’ as in great, and The Inspector thought it was ‘on fire.’ There was so much complexity with its mint, matchstick, corn, and caramel…wow. The Inspector continued that it was the ‘best white he’d had in a while.’ The potential score of the wine came up for discussion, and Jetski, in his usual fashion, thought it was ‘a little rich and ripe for 99 points, that would be a heavy hammer.’ I was only at 98 points already, of course, and we were on to the next lot (98).

An odd bottle of 1971 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses snuck in. It had an orange edge to its oily, black cherry fruit. It was rich and savory with a touch of tomato and a thick finish. There were nice, round straw and purple flavors (95).

Next up was a ‘solid’ 1971 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze. It was rich and round, but the palate was softer and easier than expected. It was still outstanding but not spectacular. There were nice forest and spice flavors and a touch of red tootsie pop. The acidity was solid, and so was the wine (96).

The 1971 Rousseau Chambertin didn’t measure up to the previous bottle of Beze, and the group collectively groaned. The Inspector questioned whether it was flawed or just ‘medicinal.’ In the end, he decided flawed. It was round and soft but not much more (92A).

There was supposed to be an entire flight of Vogue Musigny, including ’61, ’62, ’64, ’66 and ’71, but only the 1966 Comte de Vogue Musigny Vielles Vignes survived. Yikes. At least this bottle delivered some delicious dark yet still fresh fruit. It was nutty with nice spice, earth and wheat flavors as well. It was deep and heavy in a good way (94).

The magnum of 1985 DRC Richebourg had an intriguingly complex nose. It was exceptionally deep but tight out of magnum compared to a normal 750ml. It was rich and saucy on the palate with oily dark fruit and leather flavors. This was a rather full-bodied ’85, indubitably due to the magnum format (96M).

Big Boy hailed the 1978 DRC Richebourg as ‘exceptional,’ and it was hard to argue. There was insane acidity and menthol aromas in its nose. It was so aromatic, bursting with red fruits living in eucalyptus city. There were great tea elements on the minty finish of this superb wine (98).

The 1978 DRC La Tache was served thanks to Diamonds. It was a little cold, but it was still great. This beautiful La Tache slowly unfurled in the glass. Its signature menthol crept out to complement its zippy freshness. It might have been a point higher if it wasn’t served so cold (97).

It was time for some Bordeaux, and a good bottle of 1961 Petrus complied. It was chocolaty, chunky and ‘smoky.’ It was beautifully round and pretty with great aromatics, and its chocolaty flavors kept getting richer in the glass. While an outstanding bottle, it didn’t hit the highest notes this wine can reach (96).

The 1959 Petrus was quite stony and not as good as the ’61. It was all about the chocolate, Petrus plums and more stone. A recent bottle performed better; at this age, it all comes down to the bottle (94).

Jetski called an audible, and we went back to Burgundy and a particularly special duo, beginning with the 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares. This was one of the standouts at our 35 vintage retrospective in early 2019, second only to the 1978 in my opinion. This bottle didn’t disappoint, either. It was smoky, velvety, smooth and satiny. It had the backside of the vintage and the impeccable style of Roumier, just entering that plateau of drinkability (97).

A rarity of rarities was next, the 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares Vieilles Vignes. It was similar to the “regular” except it was deeper and more concentrated. Someone bickered about that ‘1988 dryness,’ but I was completely smitten. I was lost in the depths of this wine’s soul. So deep and so concentrated kept appearing in my notes. This was an epic, WOW wine (99).

We closed out the evening with another audible, a spectacular trio of La Mission that I greatly enjoyed, even though I proved incapable of note-taking at this point. Let’s just recap the three La Misses as hits, and the fact that La Mission might arguably be the most consistent, great Chateau of the 20th Century. Jetski pulled out another 1971 La Tache, see previous night’s note lol. It was another epic bottle and a definite ‘Happy Birthday to me’ moment, and the rest of us for that matter.

Happy Birthday and thank you Jetski. You have set a high bar, but I know you will be up for attempting to surpass it!

In Vino Veritas,
JK

Summer was full of birthday celebrations, and one of its finest and funnest was Lulu’s. (Yes, I know I made up a word). Now usually, these wine-fueled birthday celebrations can be a bit of a boys’ club, but Lulu happens to be the wife of the Mogul, and the Mogul is a gentleman, and he celebrates his wife’s birthday to the utmost. And if you’re the Mogul, and there is a celebration, there has to be a boatload – literally – of fine and rare wine. Lulu loves a good celebration herself, as she is from Brazil, and I like to roll deep with Brazilians as much as possible. They know how to celebrate life to the fullest!

The first day started on “The Boat.” I am pretty sure I write about “The Boat” every summer, or every Fall when I finally catch up. If you like to drink wine, and you like to visit the Hamptons, you need to be on “The Boat.” Of course, you would have to be invited by the Mogul, and thankfully I was. The first day we motored out East into the Atlantic ocean, had some lunch and took a dip in the refreshing water. I didn’t take many notes, but I did jot down some scores. Here’s a brief recap:

I am going to use some executive privilege here and move on, because it was a busy two days. After the boat, we all went our separate ways and ended up at Tom Terrific’s place for a spectacular dinner. It was one of the best dinners I can remember. The food, the company and, of course, the wine. Every bottle was just spectacular. It was one of those nights where the wine heavens opened up, and there was Tom at the head of the big table in the sky lol.

We began with a rare bird, I mean bottle, it being the 1991 Chave Blanc. This was an outstanding bottle of white, on the mineral-driven side of what this wine can be. It was full-bodied and focused, just starting to come around. I like the kinky side of this wine, too, where there is enough fruit to fill a Whole Foods, but this wasn’t that. It was bordering on mean, in a good, spank me kind of way (96).

Next up was a rock star bottle of 1996 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. When they are on, they are definitely on. It was full of rich, buttered popcorn and a light, tertiary caramel note. It was so tasty and in that perfect spot, the one where the plateau is just beginning (97).

The 1978 Dujac Clos St. Denis was spectacular and immediately in the 98-point territory. It was rich, creamy and more than outstanding. JB noted ‘mint and eucalyptus,’ and I noted everything I would want in a mature Burgundy. The kaleidoscope of fruit flavors – that’s black, red and purple – cascaded so easily down my hatch. Light, teasing complexities of exotic nuts, mushrooms and forest foreplay got me even more excited. What a wine (98).

I can never get enough 1978 DRC La Tache and this bottle was no exception. It got oohs, aahs and wows from the crowd. This was full of garden, menthol and rose with some benevolent tea-like qualities about it. It had laser-like focus and great length. As good as it was, there was something ethereal about the Dujac that put it just a nose, or a palate, ahead (97+).

In contrast, the 1978 DRC Romanée St. Vivant was a touch simpler and a bit earthy by comparison. In any other context, it might have been more appreciated. It was a Jetski ‘94 points,’ and for once I agreed with his stingy, incredibly low scores (94).

Somehow, a 2001 Hubert Lignier Clos de la Roche showed up. I love the wine, and it was still flirting with me with its youthful and vimful personality. I just don’t love it served in between my 70s and 60s DRC lol. It was big and beefy, almost chunky and still a touch too young, especially after the two incredible ‘78s that preceded it. Deep purple resonated in its chorus (95).

I misspoke earlier, as the 1966 DRC La Tache didn’t deliver a perfect experience. This vintage is very up and down for me for LT. This one was full of deep, dark, chocolaty tootsie pop flavors, a bit funky and old. Tom cracked his staff three times on the floor, and the wine was gone (92A).

One of the year’s most anticipated events was finally here. Roberto Conterno was coming to New York City, the first time in two years due to his new Nervi project in Gattinara (great wines by the way). And we had 38 vintages of Monfortino, Barolo’s greatest wine, on tap and ready to go at Legacy Records. There are few people in the wine world as intensely passionate and amicably knowledgeable as Roberto Conterno. He is precise and confident in his expertise, as he should be. He is one of the wine world’s greatest winemakers.

I actually almost missed the event. I had just come back from Hong Kong, and I had to fly again to New York two or three days later, I can’t remember exactly. I do remember that I had to take a nap, but I neglected to turn on my alarm after setting it and collapsing late in the afternoon. Next think I know, it was 730pm; thank God I woke up! Sir Robert and Hamburger had been texting me like crazy. I was on the way!

I had arrived after the first flight and tried to catch up quickly. Vintage Tastings alums BJ, Diamonds, Wild Bill and Jetski were holding it down in the meantime. Everyone was given a Sensory glass to taste with. This is another one of Roberto’s pet projects; creating the perfect wine glass, and I have to say that he did it. The Sensory wine glass truly enhances the wine drinking experience. I did a study with Roberto at his winery in Piedmont the previous summer tasting his glass versus others. His glass delivered more aromas, more flavors and a better experience than all the rest. This is yet another testament to his passion and genius.

The 2006 was so rich and sweet and amazing in the glass. The 2005got blown off by BJ, who called it ‘a waste of time.’ I missed comments on the 2004, but I got all excited about the 2002, a truly unexpected ‘wow’ wine. It was great and gritty and such a champion of the vintage, which was a quite difficult one in Europe in general. The 2001 drank a bit dry, but it was still outstanding. The 2000 had all the richness I wanted, with lots of dark cherry and charcoal flavors. Surprisingly, it was better than the ’01! BJ ranked the flight ’02, ’04, ’00 finding the ’02 ‘ready to drink,’ and someone else seconded his ’02 emotion. We were all already in Nebbiolo sync.

The next flight had us again hitting many high notes. The 1999 was so tight; it was a brute and a beast of a wine. Deep, rich, dry and long, BJ still thought it would be ‘one of the wines’ for Monfortino eventually. There were a lot of raw materials here, but it wasn’t as showy as some of the other vintages. It was a bit shut down but still oh so there. The 1998 was also rich and showing a touch of earthiness. There was a great smack to its sweetness and tar flavors. This was another wow Monfortino, so tasty. BJ was quickly becoming my muse for the evening, calling it ‘acid driven.’ The 1997 was ‘reduced with a lot of fruit’ per Diamonds. It was more reserved than I expected yet riper on the palate with round fruits and roasted tannins. It seemed like it was ready to go and be drunk up in general. Diamonds found it ‘awesome.’ The 1996 was ‘benchmark Monfortino.’ This was classic and wound, with a finish that went as far as sound and light could travel. What a wine! Pittsy found the 1995 ‘resiny,’ and I found it a touch musky and fleshy. Roberto advised us that seven to ten-thousand bottles of Monfortino are made every year. The 1993 had more licorice and anise to it. It opened up into a rich, Burgundian wine. Pittsy found it ‘like a 1990,’ continuing the Burgundy thought process.

We had a couple of hiccups in the next flight, but none with the rockstar 1990. BJ called it a ‘monster’ in the most complimentary fashion. It was oily, rich and dark with tremendous structure. Someone called it a ‘Moby Dick of a wine.’ This brooding beast was a classic with great balance, zip, tar and leather. Sadly, the 1988 was oxidized and got the Italian boot from our night accordingly. I never see the 1987 vintage for Monfortino, which was nice and pleasant. It was a touch figgy with some citrus and beef flavors. It was tasty and ‘drinking now.’ The 1985 was a bit shy despite being more pheromonal. It had lots of desert action, avoiding the gamy qualities of some of the lesser vintages. Someone commented that it ‘should be as good as the ’90,’ but felt it wasn’t. I liked it. The 1982 was sadly corked. Roberto Conterno noted that the 1979 was ‘difficult to find because it was so approachable, so everyone drank it.’ There was an incredible, nutty nose here. It was just starting to show its maturity, and it was pretty delicious even though its palate was on the more elegant side. It was citrusy and ‘soulful’ per Pittsy, and BJ noted ‘bouillon.’

Roberto shared with us how his family purchased the vineyards in Francia in 1974, and that the 1978 was the first vintage of Monfortino with Francia fruit in it. The 1978 had incredible density and richness. Diamonds joked that it ‘had some potential,’ a testament to its age-ability and youthful vigor. It had that great ’78 body and decadence. Its finish lifted the wine up, up and away. Roberto noted that he could always recognize the 1974 vintage due to its acidity. He added that ‘the acidity was now OK, but 20 years ago, it was impossible to drink.’ It was definitely very tangy and redolent with its citrus. This was a great ’74 with a tangy finish. The legendary 1971 was next and it didn’t disappoint. I thought the ’96, ’90, and ‘71 were siblings, all with amazing length and acid. The ‘71 was rich, leathery and long. BJ thought it was ‘super resolved,’ and Roberto thought it was ‘perfect, so why wait?’ It was very easy to drink despite still being so young, and ‘brilliant’ came from the crowd. The 1970 was DQ’d, meaning it was either corked or oxidized, but I didn’t write which one. The 1969 was quite pleasant with a little fresh, farm-iness and hay thing happening. There was a citrusy tang and something a little cocaine-ish to its palate. It was bright with lots of acidity and freshness. Maybe it was a touch lighter, but BJ and I liked the ‘lift’ the acidity gave it. The 1968 also had some farm action, but more on the horse side of things. There was great structure and tannins, and I thought it was right on the money for drinking as well. The sweet spot for Monfortino really bgins at age 40! Everyone was ooh-ing and aah-ing about the ’68 and ‘young again,’ ‘dead on’ and ‘gets better’ all came from the crowd.

Roberto shared with us that he ‘would always pick the 1967’ because it was always so delicious and drinkable. That must be why I never see it lol. The 1967 was so rich with loads of brown sugar. It seemed a little advanced and a touch cooked, but it had such great power and acidity. This is certainly the best kept secret in aged Monfortino! The 1964 was no slouch. It was more elegant and dry, on the citrusy side. It was outstanding stuff. Roberto began to discuss what separated his Monfortino from others, pointing out that it was a selection of fruit, fermentation at higher temperatures, and it had more years of aging before release. The 1961 is a known great vintage, and it was clearly in line with the other greats of ’96, ’90, and ’71 so far. It was terrifically rich and beefy, a real wow wine. It doesn’t get much better for Italian wine. I also thought the 1958 was brilliant with a smooth, great taste, loads of spice and an elegant finish. It had some celery soda goodness. The color on the 1955 was a little tea-like and cloudy but it had rich flesh. It was a bit faded with orange-y notes and lighter than the spectacular bottle I drank with BJ last year. It still wasn’t bad, but it was definitely affected. The 1952 was cheesy, elegant, nutty and rich, and I was liking it. BJ, Pittsy and Jetski all agreed. The 1949 was off and we moved quickly to the 1947, which was ‘a little deeper’ with a bit of veggie to it. Roberto thought that the ’47 was the ‘wine for him.’ Even though it had the color of tea, it wasn’t cloudy at all. It was nutty, fresh and pure, and still great thirty minutes later. We would soon find out that this is about as great as old Barolo can be.

I liked the 1945 which was round but not young. It was expressive and clean with an orange rind quality that made it drink a bit like a Sercial Madeira. ‘Butter’ came from the crowd. The 1943 was a little more oxidized but eventually became beautiful. The 1941 was Fino city in the unpleasant sherry way, and the 1937 and 1934 suffered similar problems. Barolos at this age are highly risky, and we were learning first hand. There was a similar oxidized sherry quality to the 1929, but it was more like a fino in an appropriately great and aged way. There was great sweetness and acidity here that supported this oxidized expression of Nebbiolo.

It was a most memorable evening with the always memorable Roberto Conterno. His Barolo Monfortino is without question one of the greatest wines in the world.

Summer in New York City is host to some of its greatest wine collectors’ birthdays. Three of them, well one technically from LA, celebrated together late June at Per Se. Wild Bill, the Curious Gourmet and Hollywood Jef were all turning 61, so they decided to celebrate with a great lineup of wines from 1961. But first, we had to have some Coche, of course.

A 2001 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres had a smoky nose with a buttery, rich spice and a diamond-like shine. It was definitely rich stuff, but it thinned a bit in the middle, and the Hedonist thought it was ‘aging more rapidly’ than it should. The wine had solid acidity, but it wasn’t an elite Coche. There was hearty fruit, but it lacked the expected and usual extra dimension (93?).

We quickly righted our course with the 2002 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres, which was a great example of Perrieres. It was in line with the ’02 Coche Corton Charlemagne I’d had the Saturday night prior. Is that snobby or factual lol. There was so much spice and minerality on the nose with the palate still super tight and fresh. It was laser-like and oh so good. There was fresh, endless acidity, making this an elegant and stylish wine that closed out with tremendous length and stoniness (96).

The 2005 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was super fat and much chunkier like some 2005s can be. At first, this lacked the definition of the 2002, but it had loads of brawn and weight. It was rich, sweet, and ‘unctuous’ per the Curious Gourmet. It got better and better, becoming slightly zippier in the glass, continuing to blossom. Jetski agreed, and in the end it was slightly better than the ’02 with all that emerging definition (96+).

We pivoted quickly into the red zone with a 1961 DRC Grands Echezeaux. This was a bit maderized with that tangy, tomato zing. The palate was gamy and I initially DQ’ed the wine, but it got better, in a dirty bouillon way (93).

Staying on theme, next up was a Wolfgang bottle of 1961 DRC Richebourg. This had a great nose that was young and fresh with tomato, citrus and rose—so much sweet rose. There was a pinch of Worcestershire, which gave it a gamy edge, and made it a bit brothy in a good way. This wine was all about richness but was slightly less pure than what was to follow (95).

The 1961 DRC La Tache had even more power on the nose, with more garden vibes and incredible freshness. There was citrus and a touch of good dirtiness. This was very fresh, pure, and the cleanest of the three with gorgeous elegance. To Hollywood Jef, this was the pinnacle of the ‘61s, ‘good, better, and best’ (96).

We moved on to Bordeaux with a 1961 Chateau Gruaud Larose, which had a classy nose. There was great cedar, nut and cassis with nice flesh and a bit of clay to the palate. This was a solid wine with great balance, length and grit to the finish. It was an outstanding start for this outstanding vintage in Bordeaux (95).

The 1961 Chateau Margaux had a nose full of caramel and carob. There was a nice, wheaty sweetness and the palate was smooth, soft, tender and easy. Jetski can be a tough grader in his eternal quest to drive down prices for his buying pleasure and gave it an 88. So JK Jr. of him lol. I was into the nice flavors and the nice nose of this nice, excellent wine (93).

The 1961 Chateau Figeac had sweet, red currant fruits and was smooth and balanced. It was a touch creamy, with a little curds ‘n whey thing going on. It lacked the depth of the previous two wines (92).

The 1961 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a very nice nose and was full of elegance. This was stuffed with carob and was smooth and classy. I have never been a huge lover of this vintage for Mouton, preferring the 1959 by far. Though it was very good, it was 93 points at best, and really only a 92 (92).

The Holy Man thought ‘you could put the 1961 Chateau Palmer in a DRC flight.’ This had a smooth nose, with nice richness and great concentration with some good stink. It was rich and saucy with lots of goodness and was deemed ‘delicious’ by Wild Bill (96).

The 1961 Chateau Trotanoy was so rich and concentrated with a coffee thickness to it. It was creamy, long and zippy with chocolate sex and caramel goodness, too. This was a spectacular bottle, and another tribute to the fabulousness also known as ’61 Pomerols. Wow wine (98).

The 1961 Chateau Ausone was a nice wine, full of rich gingerbread and red fruits, but it was no match for the Trotanoy. It was creamy but the palate was light, smooth and easy with a touch of wintergreen. It was just a little simpler than the rest and ended up in the Mouton category (92).

The 1961 Cheval Blanc was ripe and sweet with some of that motor oil richness. It had that rich, creamy coconutty quality that older Chevals often have and a touch of leather. It had some initial concentration, but it fell off. I have had better bottles (92).

The 1961 Petrus was the best wine of the flight, but not the best ’61 Petrus I’d ever tried. It was recorked by Wine Guard in 1991. It had garden freshness and a watered-down chocolatey nose. This was classic Petrus with its rich denseness but not the super wine it should be, on the level of the Trot, etc. I guess that’s what happens when some random person recorks, who the heck is Wine Guard anyway (95).

We interrupted our ’61 programming with a bottle from ‘59. The 1959 Petrus was toffee city and dripping in richness. This was an original cork and damn delicious accordingly. There were great wheat and caramel flavors. This was a rich, decadent wine, and it mellowed into sweet honey (96).

There was a grand finale waiting in the wings, beginning with a 1961 Chateau Latour that also had wheaty fruit and nice creaminess. There was a bit of nutty, honeyed goodness, but it was softer than usual. It still had nice weight, but it felt a bit oaky. More butter emerged, and it was soupy, zippy, and brothy, more like some chunky soup. While still outstanding, again it was a wine where I have had numerous better bottles (95).

Next up was a truly spectacular 1961 La Mission Haut Brion, my WOTN. It was rich, decadent and creamy with loads of gravel and a thick, chocolatey, honeyed finish. There was loads of zip and zoom to its out of this world palate. Now this was a perfect bottle (99).

The 1961 Chateau Haut Brion was similar to the La Miss in its aroma profile, but it was not as complicated. The wine was a little dry with some wheat and light caramel and buttery tones (95).

We closed with a sweetie, and 1967 Chateau d’Yquem which had a long finish to send us off. It was full of dry caramel and candlewax flavors (96).

Thanks to the Hedonist, all of us got a free gynecology lesson with dessert. I think guys are supposed to get those when they turn 61 lol. There were lots of questions and laughs, and I’m not sure if our group of merry men left with more questions than answers. We might need a second lesson for 62s for 62s next summer!

In Vino Veritas,
JK