My first major event of 2005 was in Las Vegas two weekends ago at Picasso, where wine consultant extraordinaire Gil Lempert-Schwartz assembled an esteemed panel of fifteen wine judges to participate in the European Grand Jury’s three city event, the other cities being Venice and Paris, I believe. Besides Gil and myself, some of the other judges included Larry Stone, Ursula Hermanski, Andrew padbury, Kevin Vogt, Archie McLaren and other distinguished wine professionals whose names elude me as I write this. There were ten producers and thirty wines to be tasted blind from three different vintages: 1985, 1990 and 2001. Each vintage was knowingly tasted separately, and most of the wines were Bordeaux, Chateau Montelena and Sassicaia being the international diplomats. The tasting was conducted under the auspices of a legal entity, in this case a top jurist, who ensured that the order of the wines, as well as identity was not divulged until after the tasting was completed. Results were tabulated and sent to Europe immediately for analysis and final tabulation by the Grand Jury Europeen,. Gil explained, a tabulation which will be released soon to the public. For now, the results from Vegas will have to do. Gil had warmed a few of us up with a wine dinner at Picasso the night before, a dinner that ran a little late, so when we had to be back at Picasso the next day at 11AM, there were a few groggy looks around the table. Once the tasting started, however, everyone got down to business, and the room became deafly silent. At the end of the tasting, everyone turned in their scores (a 100-point rating system was used), and the average scores were compiled. Three hours were allotted for the event, and the earliest that anyone finished was about an hour and forty-five minutes, with it taking me two hours exactly to evaluate, approximately four minutes per wine. I can safely say after the fact that it was a tough crowd when it came to the ratings, and a fascinating exercise as well to see the group’s s average scores versus my own. I look forward to getting the results from the two other cities and updating all of you when I do.

First up was the flight of 1985s. All wines were served in the same order, although people were supposed to begin their flights with different wines. I was supposed to start on wine #8, but that fact eluded me in the introduction, so I tasted in traditional 1-10 order each flight. The first wine had a lighter nose, still with some character of cedar, olives and light alcohol. It definitely gave a Left Bank impression with its pinch to the nose. There was a grape grappa edge trying to push out that was still somehow suppressed. The palate was fairly straightforward and had a touch of heat from the alcohol and mild cedar flavors. There was not a lot of definition beyond that. Although the nose got better, the palate got worse and lost definition. I found the wine to be average it was the Sociando Mallet (84/88.4). My score is followed by the group score, fyi, and remember that none of the wines were revealed to the tasters until after the three flights were tasted by all. I was very surprised that the group scored this wine that highly, to be honest, especially given the average scores of other wines to come! The second wine was much more open and fleshy in the nose, but in a very pungent and animalistic way. It had a meaty edge, a meat with a funky marinade that needed to be cooked quickly (pungent). The animal edge flirted with the root vegetable side but did not eat it, so to speak. The aromas were leathery and dark, and a splash of cement emerged. The palate was rich and fleshy with good plum, olive and earth flavors, with nice texture. There was just a hint of pown to the overall palate, but I liked its unique character and funky personality. In fact, it was my wine of the flight, and it was La Conseillante (93+/84.7). Again, I was stunned to find such a large discrepancy here. To me, this was clearly the most open, ripe and expressive wine of the flight. It had character and was loud where others were shy and quiet. I guess that’s what happens when you ping a New Yorker to a civilized wine tasting. PS I used the half-point here to account for my usual plus + ,. as I felt since average scores were being taken the plus + factor could not be accounted for without the half-point. The third wine from the 1985 vintage had some old wood in the nose and pinches of nut, cedar, mahogany, black fruits and cassis. There was a touch of forest to its nose with its woody and leafy edges. The old wood merged into a little caramel and got better and more complex in the nose. The palate was again simple and straightforward, mild yet classically Left Bank. Flavors of cedar, dust and earth were decent, but the wine left an unexciting impression overall, and its nose hinted at much more than the palate delivered it was Mouton Rothschild (89/90.2). Next up was a wine that was very wound in the nose with more alcohol and anise, although it was subtle and refined as well. The nose left a delicate and fine impression overall. There was a tingle. quality to its spiny nature as some fruit tried to escape, but the palate put the wine right back into the jails of its tannic and alcoholic systems. Although neither its t. nor a. was overtly dominating, those were its standout characteristics on its palate. The balanced and refined qualities were very good despite that fact for this bottle of Latour (90/90.3). The fifth wine had a similar edge to the fourth initially with its alcohol and anise, but there was much more vigor and character here, led by cedar, smoke and slate. The palate was spicier with better definition and length, nice balance and a sneakily long finish. There was good t n a on the palate with cedar, mineral and slate flavors, and nice length. It was an excellent wine and classically Left Bank, Haut pion to be specific (93/89.4). The sixth wine struck me as a cross between #2 and #5 (La Conseillante and Haut pion), with its plummy and stony fruit. There was a ripe sweetness to its plums, with vanilla, anise, and stone supplements, andnice pungency. The wine was actually ripe on the palate but maintained its stony side. There were flavors of earth, unsweetened cocoa powder, cedar and plums, skins and all. There was a shred missing in the middle, but I though that might change in the future for the Ausone (90+/86.5). The lucky seventh wine was a big left turn and seemed Caliesque right off the bat. There was sweet, chunky fruit of sun-dried cassis, caramel, leather and sprinkles of earth, chocolate and stone. The nose was meaty and full of cherry sherry. It seemed a little oxidized, but I still liked it and found while it was perhaps a bottle whose maturity had been accelerated, I could still appreciate and enjoy the wine. Others wrote it off immediately. I enjoyed its reductive. edge and the big t n a on the palate, its cream soda flavors and very dry finish, and so did others in that minority. It was Chateau Montelena (92?/82.5). We were back to Bordeaux with the eighth wine, which had a milder nose and a touch of out-of-place oak. The wine was a little mildewy, to be frank. There were cedar, nut and olives behind that, and the flavors were very nutty, the most so far that day, with a light glaze but not much. The nose and palate was best summed up as eh. for this potentially off bottle of Lafite (83?/88.7). The next wine had a dirty nose with an earthy, soil-like quality. There was plump fruit behind that on the plum and cassis side, but only if you could get behind it, which I could see a lot of people not doing. There was good lingering alcohol, but the palate was a bit offensive in its dirtiness, but the wine still had great structure. It was one of the better overall wines in the flight, I thought, and its finish was most superior, but the flavors in this particular bottle were disturbing, especially since it was another disappointing bottle of 1985 Sassicaia (91+?/83.7). I swear that there are more disappointing bottles of this wine out there than there are good ones. Three questionmarks in a row? Since this was Vegas, I was hoping I might win something for that, but no luck there. The last wine from 1985 had cedar, oak, vanilla, olive, mineral and some steak in its nose, which was impure in its wood qualities. The flavors of old oak were simple and lacking character, uninspiring but decent in an average way. It was Chateau Margaux (84/89.6). Yikes! I was glad to be done with the 1985s, which overall were very disappointing and not in a friendly stage that many of the seconds, thirds and fourths have been. Only Haut Bion, La Conseillante, and the Montelena, despite being slightly oxidized, had that extra level of excellence, although Sassicaia sometimes does but not this time. On to the 90’s

One pass-through on the noses led me to write about 1990, Clearly the superior vintage to 1985.. The first wine had a jump up. in intensity and character right off the bat, with a much more intense peed to its tannins and alcohol. The nose was deep and intense with a hint of sear,. I put. There were great cedar, cassis and plum aromas, which I found to be A+. with pure and clean fruit. It got riper in the glass and pointed in that Caliesque direction, and I was sure it was the same wine as the seventh wine in the last flight, which it was. The palate was meaty and minerally with a long, dry finish for this Chateau Montelena (93/90.9). The second wine had a pinch of wintergreen and more noticeable red fruits mixed in with the black, and a splash of ice cream soda, earth and tobacco. A big worchestshire sauce edge came in that carried over to the palate, with its A1 edge to its steak flavors and lots of cedar and minerals behind it. There was nice, fat, black fruit on the palate for the Sociando Mallet (93/91.2), which showed much better than its 1985 counterpart. The third wine was another excellent one, with a more pungent and gamy nose that reminded me of the second wine in the first flight, which it was. The wine was very fleshy and animalistic, although there was an extra edge of cinnamon complete with roll to go with its funky, forward and fleshy fruit. There was a pinch of olive, too. There was great peed here and rich and meaty fruit on the palate, which took a little more coaxing to hit its stride, but it did and was an incredibly tasty La Conseillante (94/87.2). I thought when the score was revealed later. It was not a Pomerol crowd, for sure. Fortunately, I do not have that problem. The fourth wine was my wine of the flight, and my note started off with the universally accepted Mmmmmm.. The nose was deep and inviting, with great cassis, cedar, mineral and smoke aromas, and great nuts too. There’s a bad joke to be made there, but I digress. The palate was consistent with the nose and had a long, fine finish. This wine was clearly a thoroughped, and the finish exploded in one’s mouth after it went down the hatch, lingering. It was Haut pion (95/90.7), which was quickly asserting itself as wine of the day. 90.7? Come on guys! Tough crowd, tough crowd. The following wine had a sweet, meaty nose that was rich and seductive, full of fatty fruits with plum, mocha, game and nuts. There were olives on the palate and a flash of heat to the finish, which was fine and medium-long. It was a fastball of an Ausone (93+/88.3). Our sixth wine in the 1990 flight was pungent in a different direction, in the green, dirty earth and housecleaner way (sounds delicious, no?) It was intense, but eight out of ten people would find it unpleasant. I saw the peed, but I wasn.t sure I still respected it. The aromas carried over to the palate. The body was pretty, but man was that face rough on this Mouton (88/89.1). Next up was a wine with a classy nose, less opulent but long with a good center of anise, alcohol, plum and minerals. The nose flirted with a cinnamonesque spice, which manifested itself into pure nutmeg on the palate, with a medium body, nice texture and a pleasant minerality to its finish. It wasn.t incredibly complex, but it was still a very good 1990 Sassicaia (90/91.6). Three wines to go, and the first of this last trio was a wine with an exotic edge of citrus fruits merging onto the plum and cassis highway here, with nice, subtle minerals and alcohol. The nuts and cedar started to flex on the palate, which was all cedar and nuts, two-dimensional but very good, but not a heavyweight. It was Chateau Margaux (91/90.8). Time to sell or palate fatigue? The next wine was another shy nose, fine and pure but coy. There were light edges of cedar, leather, mineral, chocolate, tannins, alcohol and smoke. The finsh was very long and dry and continued to sneak up on my palate. There were pure and refined flavors thatwere consistent with the nose in this excellent bottle of 1990 Latour (93/91.6). The final wine of the flight was corked, although one could find traces of cinnamon, cedar, minerals and smoke behind it, but the wine was unpure. The corked quality masked the palate, and normally I would DQ this wine, but since we were obligated to score the wine, I gave this bottle of Lafite (86/89.6). That average made me scratch my head again.

The weekend continued Friday night at Mix, Alain Ducasse’s restaurant/nightclub atop of The Hotel at Mandalay Bay. Yes, it is half nightclub, which Ducasse-ophiles probably have a tough time envisioning. Welcome to Vegas. It was a BYOB magnum affair put together by Gil, and it was a nice lineup of wines to cap off the day. First up was a 2000 Weinbach Gewurztraminer Cuvee Laurence. The nose was exotic, – classic Gewurz and very pure and lacking the aggressive, woodsy edge that can plague many a Gewurz. There was lychee and pineapple with pinches of petrol and citrus. The palate was lush and incredibly sweet, too much so for a non VT wine, and there was also a chalky awkwardness to go with light minerals and slate on the finish. The nose was much better than the palate. I respected it but just did not like it that much (88). The 1996 D.Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs had a great nose full of those 1996 screechy acids, with lots of minerals and rose petals as well. There were also stones, wound cherry fruit, alcohol and a touch of pick, smoke and firewood. The alcohol and acids were the dominant characteristics in the nose, though make no mistake about it. The palate was pretty, still wound with nice flavors of stones and minerals. The acid kicked in on the length, and its vitaminy and rosy fruit flavors emerged, and what acids, indeed (91). Next up was my 1995 E. Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, which was a big wine with lots of meat and alcohol in the nose. There was a touch of sulfur and gas at first, but with some extra swirling, the wine rounded out well. The wine was very intense, with a balance between modern and classic winemaking styles. There were aromas of crushed black and purple fruits, vitamins, minerals, iodine, iron, rose, game and Asian spice. The nose was big, intense and spicy. The palate was very rusty and earthy by comparison, very shy on the fruit but not on the structure and balance. There were long acids and plum and smoke flavors (94). We had a domestic Pinot next, a custom wine bottled for Archie McLaren’s birthday personally by Jim Clendenen. It was a 1990 vintage, and I believe it was from La Bauge au Dessus fruit, but for now we will call it the 1990 Au Bon Climat Pinot Noir Archie’s Cuvee.. The nose was great with more vanilla, cream and oak spice along with sexy black cherry fruit. There was lots of spice and soda, and the wine almost crosses the oak line but not quite. The palate was rich and spicy with lots of expressive tannins and good grip, but the fruit started to show pown flavors. The wine got more gamy and was definitely flirting with necrophiliac territory and was just holding on (90). The 1998 Ornellaia was a modern left turn with rich vanilla, cream and black fruits, and a touch of yeast and natural gas. There was a distinctive cardboard edge, which is usually a negative, but strangely enough in this case it was a positive, so I adjusted my descriptor to be Christmas day cardboard. There were nice dusty flavors (desert action) to its meaty palate with black fruits, leather and earth. However, this was definitely a wine that was more winemaking than terroir. Blair picked up on sesame.. (93+) We took a trip up to Bordeaux next, starting with the 1985 Haut Bailly. It had a nice nose of cedar, light cassis, nut, meat and carob with an earthy and semi-spicy palate (or was that that damn peppercorn bison actually, it was). The palate was a touch musty, and the Graves factor really came out on the palate. There was tobacco on the finish, but the wine was still short of being very good (88). The 1982 Clos Fourtet also had a nice nose with some meaty, St. Emilion Cab Franc, violety fruit with nice spice and dust, alcohol, earth and plain yogurt. The palate was rich and full of olive flavors, medium rich, with a mid-palate that is lacking a little but still OK. The wine was nice and has definitely entered the fully mature zone (90). The last wine of the weekend for us was a gorgeous magnum of 1974 Mondavi Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon. It was a bottle from a case acquired by Sid Cross directly from Robert Mondavi, so we knew the provenance was great! The wine was very fresh with great spice and alcohol up front, along with cedar, pungent fruit, anise, mineral and lots of heat. The palate was meaty but a lot softer than the nose would lead one to believe but still plush, round and smooth with a dusty finish. The Mondavi was a wine that was right Thurr.. (93)

Fellow Wine Lover,

I wanted to start 2005 off with a bang, so here is my seventeen page opus covering the Top 100+ Wines of the Century event last October. I hope you enjoy reading the notes and that it offers everyone the opportunity to experience the event somewhat themselves.

Writeup of 2006 Event

Writeup of 2005 Event

Writeup of 2004 Event

Acker, Merrall & Condit Presents:

The Top 100/All Star Weekend

An extraordinary Weekend – October 20 to October 22, 2006 in New York City

TOP 100 WINES OF THE CENTURY III

OCTOBER 20-22ND, 2006

The top wines, tasted with meals at three of New York’s finest restaurants:

Per Se, Daniel and Cru

Reservations will be taken on a first-come, first-served basis and are strictly limited

$17,500 per person

Year III is finally upon us, and we have assembled another once-in-a-lifetime assortment of the 20th Century’s finest and rarest wines for a culinary celebration unmatched anywhere in the world. The first two years each sold out so do not hesitate to make your reservation; we will be limited to 35 pours maximum, served from either two bottles or a magnum. Due to popular demand we have limited the actual number of wines a bit this year’s actual total will be somewhere around 85 wines, but the ‘Top 100’ concept remains the same, and we have tried to outdo last year’s selections accordingly! Shared pours are available for an extra $500 per person per meal. Reservations will be accepted on a first come, first served basis and only confirmed upon payment. There will be no refunds for this event unless the event is sold out, and we are able to find a replacement. Wines subject to change, and changes, if any, will be minor.

FRIDAY NIGHT, OCTOBER 20TH
PER SE

6:30 Champagne reception, 7pm Sit Down
1976 Salon out of magnums
1996, 1995, 1992, 1990 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne
1993, 1990, 1985 Meo-Camuzet Richebourg
1969, 1966, 1964, 1962 Rousseau Chambertin
1949, 1947, 1945 Calon Segur all out of magnum
1929 Haut Brion, La Mission Haut Brion, Latour, Mouton Rothschild
1971, 1969, 1966 La Mouline
1969, 1967, 1966, 1963 Penfolds Grange
1921 Huet Vouvray

SATURDAY NIGHT, OCTOBER 21ST
DANIEL

6:30 Champagne reception, 7pm Sit Down
1947 Pommery out of Jeroboam
1985, 1982, 1978, 1970 Montrachet
1993 Drouhin, Mugnier, Roumier and Vogue Musignys
1949 Clos des Lambrays, La Tache (magnum), Rousseau Chambertin (magnum), Vogue Musigny (magnum)
1928 Latour, Montrose, Mouton Rothschild, Palmer
1959, 1955, 1953, 1952 La Mission all out of magnum
1994, 1970, 1968 Vega Sicilia Unico
1998, 1995, 1990 Chave Cuvee Cathelin
1945 Graham’s out of magnum

SUNDAY LUNCH, OCTOBER 22ND
CRU

12 Noon Champagne reception, 12:30pm Sit Down
1959 Dom Perignon ‘Oenoetheque’
1996, 1990, 1989, 1985 Raveneau ‘Les Clos’
1999, 1996, 1993, 1990 La Tache
1959, 1955, 1953, 1952 Romanee Conti
1949, 1948, 1947 Vieux Chateau Certan
1921 Cheval Blanc, L’Eglise Clinet, Lafleur, Petrus all out of magnum
1966, 1964, 1959, 1952 Jaboulet ‘La Chapelle’
1958, 1952, 1947, 1945 G. Conterno ‘Monfortino Riserva’
1959 d’Yquem

$17,500 per person

All the best in 2005 – time to get live!

A recent purchase of a case of 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares brought together one of the finest cartels of Burgundy collectors known to man this past Tuesday at Montrachet in New York City. I say cartel in good fun, as Doug likes to remind me that it’s only a group of friends.. The lawyer in him knows the difference! There was one unfortunate absence due to a cold, but a friend of one of the group’s filled in, making it six of us, or seven if you count the omnipresent Daniel Johnnes, omnipresent at least when it comes to great Burgundy events.

We warmed up with a couple of interesting whites, a 1993 Roumier Corton Charlemagne and a 1988 Ramonet Chassagne Montrachet Caillerets.. The Roumier was very toasty and perfumed in the nose with good butter, kernel and mineral aromas. The nose was fresh and had light citrus edges, a splash of anise and a healthy dose of vanilla. Daniel brought up the previous evening’s 1993 Marc Colin Montrachet as a fabulous example of the vintage, as Doug was there the prior night as well, proving the age-old adage that there is no such thing as too much Montrachet. The Corton Charlemagne was a pretty wine, round and plateau-ing, with a medium body. Its citrus flavors were starting to sour a little, and there were traces of light minerals and yeast on the finish. With time, its finish got toastier and smokier, and the wine did gain in the glass, flirting with a very good score but ultimately falling a hair short (89). The Ramonet’s nose seemed very mature with a lot of bread and caramel, a pinch of mint and an overall yeasty character. I was remarking how much good luck I have had with the 1988 whites in general as of late, and Doug 2 (there were two Dougs there) concurred, calling many superb.. Unfortunately, this wasn.t one of them! There was a medicinal edge that blended into this wild, waxy and foresty wine. The flavors were much more disjointed, and Ben called it very dry and more apple cider.. The palate was a severe letdown from the nose and showed tart and musty flavors (84).

Next up was a 1995 Roumier Musigny. Ahhhhhhhhh. The nose was very complex as there was a lot happening in it, but it was a little chaotic as it was moving in so many directions at once. There was a (positive) stemmy, stalky and almost bready edge to the wine with a splash of wild cherry liqueur. The wine had gamy tendencies and a pinch of medicine blurring into its olive aromas. There was an exotic and fleshy character that was also stewed with some benevolent vegetable edges. The palate was absolutely fabulous with flavors of bloody mary (see Truly), taut cherry, earth and mineral. The wine was smooth and long with a good, fine finish. The 1995 was delicious at this stage, but I could see its shyness at the same time, that innocence of youth. A lot of iodine came out on the palate in the glass (94). Ben had a funny line that wasn.t related to the Musigny, but I figured I would share it anyway: Owning a vineyard in California’s become like owning an airplane..

We had two wines in the next flight. The first was a very rare 1966 Gouges Nuits St. Georges Les St. Georges.. It had a dark, deep nose full of meaty, gamy fruit, bacon, earth and some back of the barnyard. Jim commented that he felt like I’m out in the forest scampering about being chased down by some truffle-seeking pigs.. It was actually a great analogy! The wine was indubitably dirty and stinky, but many Burg lovers like that. The palate was rich, meaty and long with lots of alcohol and dirt on the finish, a bit too much earth and dirt for me, though. Dwight found just a pinch of maderization that others were less sensitive too (90). The Gouges was accompanied by a gorgeous bottle of 1972 Ponsot Clos de la Roche. Ben started off sharing a comment that was shared with him by the current Ponsot, which was that when the father was making the wine, which he was for 1972, he drank seven bottles of Cremant de Bourgogne a day! Hiccup. The nose showed more youth than age, with the alcohol sneaking to the foreground in a subtle manner, accompanied by beautiful leather and black cherry aromas. The palate was rich and saucy with a touch of Tabasco to its heat. It was a beautiful and sturdy palate, at full maturity but still not fading, holding and with excellence. It had the stems, spice, minerals and a touch of benevolent tomato (93).

We started with a 1978 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee Les Brulees. with two other wines to accompany the entrée. The nose was fabulous and incredibly youthful. Dwight accurately observed how the 78 smelled like Grand Cru but tastes like Premier Cru.. The fruit in the nose was creamy, rich and full of purple and black fruits, vanilla wafer, and white meat, with great earth and a sprinkle of chocolate. The tannins and alcohol were still vigorously buried. The palate was initially meaty, rich and long, far from light. as Dwight said, but I definitely saw the less filling. factor of the Premier Cru sandwiched in between the two Grand Crus. It did not expand in the glass, either, all combining for excellence but short of outstanding (94). The 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares, the reason we were all together in the first place, finally made an appearance. Doug 2 called it nice and raunchy.. The nose was exotic, gamy, earthy and horsy. There was still sweet fruit there, a brown sugared sweetness. There were also nice rose and vitamin aromas, with a pinch of citric tension. The palate had nice richness, meat and a long, fine finish but was still gamy and horsy and got more confused in the glass. The alcohol held, and the citrus factor crept up the ladder, as did the game. Someone likened it to Macon bacon.. (94) The 1969 Faiveley Musigny had a sugared nose with oat, hay, nutmeg and a gingerbread sweet quality to its fruit, which I found atypical of the rustic 69 vintage. There was also a locker room quality to its nose, yes locker room. Both the nose and palate had a lot of character, but the palate was more about the earth, band-aid, tomato and worchestshire. The wine gained in the glass a little without elevating and started to fade sooner rather than later (91).

At this point, things were starting to digress a bit as the topic started changing to our second favorite topic, but there were still two wines left, the first being a 1953 Leroy La Romanee, a recently re-released one. It was consistent with the bottle I had prior. The nose was sweet and baked, with crushed grape, plum, nut, vanilla, tea and Asian spice. The fruit was mature, and the palate had good leather, was long and fine. There was lots of brown sweetness there (93+). The 1945 Noellat Richebourg was completely maderized (DQ). See you next week.

So you thought I wasn’t going to come back with more notes this week, did you?

This week saw me laying low for a few days in the early part of the week. As the week closed in on yet another weekend, and an auction weekend at that, sobriety seemed like a losing battle, so I began to surrender Thursday night at Caviarteria, with what started as an innocent evening of Dom Perignon.

DOM PERIGNON

The venue was Caviarteria, a New York staple which had just moved to Lexington and 72nd street. Since the move was after we scheduled the event, we had to figure out a way to make the space work, which was more like a Cafeteria than the usual, comfortable dinner setting. Since we were celebrating Dom Perignon, I figured let’s throw out the standard dinner format and just make it a cocktail party, with the cocktails being sixteen vintages of Dom Perignon back to 1949. The format worked very well, with everyone having a great time in a relaxed, standup, bar-like setting. It really felt like we were all in some speakeasy, gathered together on a rainy night in a top secret location. Caviarteria was up to the task with a non-stop assortment of 25 different hors d’oeuvres to go with the Champagnes, and we were off and running with the 1996.

The 1996 Dom Perignon had a very fresh nose (of course) full of stones, taut citrus, dust and pinches of anise and minerals. There was an intense, taut center flirting with pungency but not really pungent, more like intensity. Man, do I love the 1996s – the zip, zest and zoom of the vintage are tremendous and better than 1990 in my opinion. Bernard agreed with that opinion, calling the balance and acidity a notch above.. The 1996 had great acidity, and flavors of citrus, anise, bread, stones, minerals and raindrops. There were additional flavors of limestone and seltzer on the finish. Dan picked up on its “straw” flavors, and it got stonier with time. The 1996 had an unmatched verve for the evening (96). The 1995 Dom Perignon had a milder nose by comparison but was still very nice. There was a delicate freshness on the bready side with mild citrus and a quiet calm and balance to the nose. The palate was very stony and a bit more unbalanced by comparison to the 1996 in regard to the bread flavors upfront and alcohol on the finish. The 1995 was more medium-bodied but solid, and it went very well with the smoked trout, which balanced it out on the palate tremendously. The 1995 was very smooth, more ready, approachable and rounder than the 1996. Justin remarked that the 1995 was better balanced. It doesn’t have the stuffing of the 1996, but it’s more my style.. (94) The 1993 Dom Perignon followed and was a bit funky. It lacked the purity of fruit of the 95 and 96, with more earthy, weedy and bready aromas that seemed stale by comparison. There was a little more mature honey as well, but that aroma was secondary. Justin called it really light with a clover bordering on stale bread crumbs.. We concurred that it was funky, but not a good funky, more like a white guy funky. There was no front palate, and the backside was ok but had a touch of musty flavors. There was some structure but it was a one-dimensional wine, and it got disturbingly celeric on the palate (83). The 1990 Dom Perignon had a nose full of white chocolate initially, so much so that finding another descriptor was difficult. Those aromas carried over to the palate, which was also bready, (white) meaty and earthy with some straw and tobacco behind it. Justin thought the bubbles seemed finer. and also mentioned that he thought Champagne was the hardest beverage for which to do tasting notes (95). We followed the 1990 with the 1990 Rose Dom Perignon for comparison. I have never been a big Rose fan, except when they are very old, and the 1990 showed me once again why. The wine was a lot drier on the nose and the palate. It had the Rose, dry cherry and floral edge to the nose but was still bone-chillingly dry. Justin stood up for Roses in general and how much he loved them, although he did concede that they can be a bit treacherous.. A drop of honey squeezed its way onto the palate, but again it was big, forceful and so dry not my style yet, but I respected it. In fifty years, it will indubitably be great (93+).

Bernard started to lick his lips over the fact that we were entering the junction between Champagne and wine, where Champagne starts to morph into more of its wine-like characteristics, and the 1988 Dom Perignon backed up exactly about what he was talking. The 88 had a sexier, muskier nose with forward bread components and a glazed sweetness in a honeyed, toffee style. There was a peanutty side to its musk, Thai style. Given the small age difference between the 1988 and 1990, the 1988 seemed a lot more mature than the 1990. The palate had a great bread, nut and honey three-way happening, which led me to think how a sexy nose should always lead to a three-way on the palate. The palate was actually brawnier than I expected, with a very bready finish. Dan liked its overripe, Bacchanalean fruit.. (94). The 1985 Dom Perignon had a spinier nose than the 1988, with a touch of that honeyed maturity as well as some oat and straw aromas. Nicole observed that there was so much going on in the nose.. The wine was very well-balanced and got breadier in a sweet, cinnamon-raisin way. The body was more medium than full but still had good character although it lacked tertiary depths. This bottle was the first Oenotheque. bottling, DP’s version of RD. (93). The other Oenotheque bottlings were 1983, 1978, 1976, 1966 and 1964. The 1985 Rose Dom Perignon was more approachable than the 1990 and had some warmth and open, sweet fruit, showing some similar characteristics to the regular cuvee and representing the vintage consistently. There was maraschino, honey, glazed donut, grain and stone aromas, and the palate was rich, meaty and round, showing great texture and length. I guess twenty years is what I need to enjoy my Rose Champagnes! (95). The 1983’s Dom Perignon nose was so honeyed and full of crème brulee that it gave a sinful impression. There was a touch of seltzer and minerals, but the 1983 was definitely living in plateau city. To me, this vintage signified crossing that bridge that Bernard alluded to earlier. Bernard was impressed with the freshness of the 1983. The palate had a woodsy edge but was still very smooth and caressing, with good seltzer vim to the finish. I concluded, In a great spot right now.. (93)

The 1970’s were next, with 1978, 1976 and 1971 on tap, so to speak. The 1978 Dom Perignon was another nice nose that was classy and more about the bread than the honey. There was a grilled vegetable edge (not in the negative sense), and we got into an eggplant versus zucchini debate. There was a lightly burnt toast edge, and it got a little musky but more perfumed. The 1978 was smooth, lovely and still fresh (91). The 1976 Dom Perignon had the mildest and least expressive nose of the night. Justin chipped in very Chardonnay, and I found a splash of cinnamon. The 1976 was mild, although it did seem younger than its age, although in that young and confused way. The palate was light and yeasty with not a lot of definition. It was good not great, fresh but lacking levels of character (87). The 1971 Dom Perignon was the first bottle with a noticeable gold color, and was the only non-Oenotheque bottling between 1983 and 1964. It has an herbal edge in the beginning that integrated into its complex bread aromas. There was some lime there as well, with some delicious vanilla ice cream soda flavors. The 1971 was great very smooth with mature malted flavors (95).

Now came the oldies: 1966, 1964, 1959 and 1949. Dan noted about the 1966 Dom Perignon , it still has acidity but is Sauternes-like at the same time!. He was absolutely right on with that comment, as I got the honey, musk, apricot and leather with touches of wild herbs and forest. Sabrina pegged this mint/basil thing, and there was a touch of rye as well. It was smooth, supple and delicious, with a golden raisin edge, and a nice lingering quality. Bernard commented that it was so much more wine than Champagne, almost like a White Burgundy. You can see the evolution.. He also explained that on average, Dom Perignon is 55% Chardonnay and 45% Pinot Noir, although the 1996 was 50/50 (95). The 1964 Dom Perignon was a touch pinchy and weedy at first, but the bread, butter and honey came and joined the party shortly. No bubbles but great White Burgundy, Bernard insisted. There were citrus, dust and straw edges and a touch of the cat’s meow (pee) that crept out in the glass. It was still excellent, but definitely better a decade prior when it blew me away after being re-released, or perhaps that was just this bottle (94). The 1959 Dom Perignon was severely oxidized and undrinkable (DQ), and the 1949 was a touch oxidized but not as bad as the 1959, more so in that benevolent, British way. Bernard called it vin santo. and there was that fino style to this bottle, which was still drinkable but not perfect. It did have good texture still (90+?).

The idiot that I am, a few of us ended up hopping around downtown to a few different places, drinking vodka until 2:30AM. One fight was thankfully averted that was definitely not my fault, and needless to say that I got off to a slow start Friday.

12 ANGRY MEN

So Friday night we were at Triomphe for the monthly meeting of my only official tasting group, the 12 Angry Men. Without getting into too many details about our ire and rage, I can safely say that it is a bit challenging to keep a group of guys together in a tasting group and maintain a positive experience every month, but so far so good. Despite a lot of behind-the-scenes drama, we have managed to stick together for nine months, including evenings of 1950s Bordeaux, La Mission, the Best Rhone You.ve Ever Had, ABC’s, All Star Italians, Unico, Pre-1961 Bordeaux, La Tache, and this month, which was an Old World vs. New World, double-blind tasting orchestrated by Mike. I will get you all caught up on the previous eight events shortly, I promise! There have been some truly spectacular events, although this month was a little more low-key but as enjoyable as any.

A brief synopsis as to how the group works: Each month someone has to host and take everyone out to dinner, whether it be at a restaurant or in their home. The host picks the theme and sets the table accordingly with the three (or more) bottles that he is bringing, and then everyone else brings a bottle (or two) as well. One little thing the host has veto rights on any BYOB, which has certainly caused a few ruffled feathers. Believe me, it sounds a lot simpler than it ends up being!

So this month, Mike put us up to the test in this double-blind tasting where no one knew what anyone else was bringing except for Mike. Every flight featured at least one wine from each world, and we played lots of guessing games as Mike pulled our puppet strings all night. The games began with two whites. The first white had a very oaky nose that seemed buttery, but the oak was too dominant at first to tell. There was a pinch of mineral and corn and a touch of exotic, artificial flower, and the wine certainly seemed over-manipulated. Ray was the first to call out Cali Chard. The wine had a big palate with a lot of alcohol it was a bruiser of a palate, in fact, considering the streak of alcohol on the finish. Some comments were a little too much wood. and heat on finish.. The wine was a little clumsy and tough to drink, actually. Bob had a tough time getting focus. from the wine. Rob was digging the nose, and the wine did develop some secondary custard aromas. You had to be somewhat impressed with its enormity, but not necessarily with the drinking experience (90). It was the 1994 Peter Michael Point Rouge. Yikes! Maybe drink in the first 3-5 years? The second wine I immediately called out Leflaive and it was, the 1995 Pucelles in fact. It had that signature Leflaive style: a very toasty nose with great kernel, corn, butter and minerals. The wine was gritty and youthful with a long, stylish finish although a bit shy in the middle. There was a whiff of rubber (positive) and the acids were strong, suggesting the wine still needs time to widen out (93+).

The second flight was comprised of three wines. The first was so Nebbiolo the tar, spice, alcohol, leather, roses, earth, old book, tobacco and varnish exploded out of the glass. It was incredibly wound up and complex. The palate was great as well with intense length, structure and acids, and matching flavors to the aromas. It was clear this was a very special wine, and it turned out to be my wine of the night. I guessed Giacosa or Sandrone, and it was the 1985 Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva Dom Perignon . Amazing wine (97). The next wine had a Jammy Pinot nose , and if you thought too hard you could see both Old and New World characteristics, but if it was Old World it was certainly a more modern style. A little Kistler-ish, I thought, but it was not. The nose was jammy, smoky and oaky, with gas in the back. as Rob put it. There were also cherry aromas with a touch of vitamin and game, but the fruit is over. as Jim A. put it. The palate lacked depth and was definitely past its prime (87). It was a 1989 Williams Seylem Pinot Noir Olivet Lane. not a bad showing for an 89, I suppose. The third wine Ray quicky and incorrectly guessed Dugat, and the Old or New World debate ensued. The nose had some beefy, woody overtones it was very meaty and intense with a little pinch of barn around the edges. It was certainly intense for a Burgundy alcohol-wise, and Bob accurately assessed that the acidity makes it Old World.. The wine was from Leroy, which made the intensity and alcohol factors make sense, and it was a 1992 Vosne Romanee Les Beauxmonts. For a 1992, it was fabulous, blowing away the weedy memory I had of a 1992 Vogue Musigny the month prior. Ray said that Leroy made great 1992s and that they were all spectacular right now (92)

The third flight was obviously a Bordeaux/Cali Cab flight according to most, although two of the wines were international ringers, including the first. That first wine had a very intense, tangy nose with some BBQ edges, very smoky with some herbs. The nose was meaty in a deli meats way (sparked by a Jim H. analogy) and then Jim A. found it indeed very brisket.. The palate was great with a lot of sweet soy characteristics and good leather, wet earth and semi-sweet chocolate flavors. When someone guessed Spanish. after a dozen erroneous guesses, it all came together as that leathery, meaty, kinky Tempranillo edge became obvious. It was a 1952 Cune Vina Real. Rioja Gran Reserva (94). The second wine struck me as having a Latour. nose the pencil, walnut and meaty black fruits. There was decent cassis there but behind the mineral and slate side. The palate was stony and stalky with a huge finish and lots of length, and all the flavors were stone and slate by then. There was a quick flash of violet on the palate, but that’s about it. I was sure the wine was 66 Latour, but it was 66 Palmer. At least I got the vintage right! It was a wine that still seemed young, especially given its age, but I did not get as much out of it as others (93) The third wine Gorky jumped to the front with aromas of cockroaches, which got some laughs and a lot of I wouldn’t knows.. He explained the memory of going to Thailand and seeing people cook them and eat them on the streets, and this wine reminded him of that smell. Jim A. confirmed the same experience. Yum. I got the sidewalk/cement thing, and there was a lot of brooding complexity behind it. The palate was enormous with mountainous alcoholic fruit, a little too much in that direction. It was a New World wine in an Old World style, I concluded, like an old, classic Cali Cabernet. Some fruit came out, but not a lot; the flavors were so minerally they flirted with musty. I found more must than the mint and eucalyptus. that others found. Well, the wine was 1966 Latour (Ray actually guessed 1970 Latour), and we concluded that it wasn’t the best of bottles. I should have known by that Sotheby’s sticker on the back just kidding, (92+?). The fourth wine in this flight of five was super intense. The nose was very kinky, meaty and chocolaty, with inky, melted black fruits on hot asphalt. There was stony balance to the fruit, like a spine. The flavors were full of chocolate, minerals and meat; the wine was thick and heavy and had to be a great Cali Cab. It reminded me of Pride’s style, and I thought it was a mid 1990’s Pride Reserve Cab. It was 1978 Montelena. Wow! With time, the wine got a little oakier and more herbal in the glass without crossing the line of indecency, showing more of its age (95). The last wine was perplexing it smelled like an old Burgundy, but why would that be in this flight? Chris pegged some old Dr. Brown celery flavors.. I found some nice citric tension, good old strawberry fruit, and Jim A. got some orange peel.. Ray insisted the strawberry component was an artificial one, implying the wine was impure. There was also a little ice cream to the sweet, soft flavors. It has a unique, exotic spice as well. It was the 1975 Musar (92). I was thinking Musar for a second, but never said anything so Ray was all over me with the positive, reinforcing Yeah sures.. I told you it was the 12 Angry Men, right?

Ok, we were halfway there, and three flights remained. We had another Red Bordeaux/Cali flight to work our way through, although the wines seemed much younger by comparison to the previous flight. The first wine had a meaty and inky nose with chunky, melted chocolaty qualities. There was good structure and alcohol behind the fruit. The palate was huge with loads of asphalt flavors, tannins and alcohol the wine was absolutely enormous Gorky agreed there was serious stuffing.. There was a splash of bacon there and great breed and length. It was a great showing for the 1989 La Fleur de Gay (95). The next wine got the bomb. sound from Rob after he took a whiff tough to put into words other than the sound of an explosion being recreated by a human voice box. I found the nose modern, but a little milder than Rob and on the shy side with some plum and red cherry fruit. Bob now exclaimed, These are all monster wines.. I found it more reserved with charcoal flavors, but don’t get me wrong, it was still intense, in a ribs. kind of way. When it was revelaed to be 1999 Pavie, someone who shall remain nameless cried Impostor Bordeaux!. Well, we all know that story already. (93) The next wine had some stink and diaper in the nose, but also some more positive steak and earth with a pinch of barn. The flavors were a little on the medicinal and herbal side, St. Emilion-ish with the wintergreen thing. The wine had very good balance and length, but it was a bit disappointing to find it to be a 1990 Pichon Baron (90?). I was also reminded how poorly a 1989 Pichon Baron showed at our 1989 Blind Bordeaux tasting earlier in the year either off bottles or perhaps some off batches out there? The fourth wine in this flight was a monster, for sure. It had an amazing nose thick, syrupy and meaty; chunky and chocolaty; ink, cassis and ripe blue fruits on both nose and palate supplemented by nice minerals. It was massive on the palate; long, pure and balanced in an elephant in a tutu kind of way. There was great chalk and length to thefinish, and the wine was heavy but maintained its balance all the way through, with great expression by the tannins on the finish. It was the 1995 Pride Reserve Cabernet out of magnum, and Rob said that this wine is always softer out of magnum, something that he could not explain (96+). The fifth wine of this flight had another great cult Cali nose with nice perfume and musk blue fruits again, with more red and purple as well. Great caramel rounded out the wine, which had a palate that was a bit lopsided with the alcohol on the finish. There was some meat and tar there but the wine seemed a little confused on the palate right now, and not as great as when I had it side by side with an 82 Latour a few years back when it stood toe to toe with that wine. There’s always that chance of bottle variation (94). After being assaulted by the Pride and Abreu, the final wine of this flight seemed shy by comparison. The nose was wound with some oak blots. Some thought this was Syrah due to a little bacon and charcoal here. The finish was long, fine and dusty but this wine clearly lacked the stuffing of the previous two (91). When we discovered it was the 1994 Insignia, a few of us agreed that this was a very poor and atypical showing for this wine.

It was this fifth flight where I started to wane a little on my notes. The first wine had an open nose with a mesquite edge and a fields of wheat thing, with great earth and leather. It had a good stink like no comment, and a worstechire (someone teach me how to spell that please) splash. The palate was still intense despite some age with an older, gamy, earthy Provencal palate, and Chateauneuf was suspected by many. Flavors were a bit dirty, and there was still a boatload of alcohol on the palate. It was the 1981 Chateau de Beaucastel (92). Next up was a superb wine that most were convinced was a Guigal La La wine. There was so much menthol, bacon and violety fruit it had to be! The palate was meaty, fine and long with great purity. It was the 1982 Chave Hermitage and a great showing (95). Last up in this flight was the 1982 Grange, which showed itself to be very oaky and creamy with lots of eucalyptus. The wine was not Chris. style, who said that he had never drunk a glass of Grange in his life he has tasted plenty but never found the desire to drink it. The wine had some maple flavors and good length, but it did not show as well as other memories I have of this wine (93).

The last flight I barely took any notes, so here are my recollections. The flight consisted of 1997 Hill of Grace (93), 1998 Hill of Grace (95), 1999 Chave Hermitage (95) and a 2001 Il Borro (93) by the Salvatore Ferragamo family. The Hill of Grace and Chave pairing was sheer genius in retrospective and really bought the HOG’s my respect for the first time. The 1998 was more intense than the 1997, although both had the silky, smooth style and lots of roasted earth flavors (similar to Hermitage), along with vitamins and minerals. The wines were very fine and stylish, although they sucked. to Rob as I suppose they weren’t Big Boy enough for him. The 1999 Chave Hermitage was great again (see last week’s notes), and the 2001 Il Borro actually fit in and held its own in this flight. I can’t tell you a thing about the wine except the Ferragamo family thing. It was about 1AM, and with a 6AM wakeup call for the auction tomorrow, there were no after parties tonight.

SATURDAY AUCTION LUNCH

Every auction we do a lunch where we feature assorted, random wines from the cellars from the sale. Eleven hours after last night’s dinner finished, it was time to start drinking again. For the first time, I decided to take some notes during the lunch.

First up was the 1974 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva, which had a nice nose with good forward fruit (by Italian standards), a little mesquite and intense and pungent leather, earth and smoke aromas. Rob found the palate a little dried out, and he was right. It was on the dry side and probably starting to pass its peak. There was still a load of alcohol on the palate, but the citric flavors were a little too tangy on the finish (91). The 1991 Jean Gros Richebourg had that fabulous Burgundy stink to the nose, with a bacony, Cote-Rotie. edge Rob observed, definitely in that vitamin section of the aroma wheel. Rob then also got an 83 Cheval impression out of the wine due to its wintergreen characteristics. The wine was medium-bodied with a touch of benevolent barnyard on its gamy palate. It was an excellent Burgundy that is probably peaking now (93). The 1998 Rousseau Clos de Beze had something to say as well, showing lots of ripe strawberry fruit on its nose in a surprisingly forward way. There was good musk and spice and decent earth there as well. The wine had good flavors and good balance although those flavors leaned a little on the youthful, earthier side (92). The 1996 Cheval Blanc was a pretty, tasty Cheval that was on the lighter side by Cheval standards with good, fine tannins and a touch of stalk and earth to its palate. There were pinches of wintergreen and nice creamy cherry fruit throughout, with good earth on the finish (90). The 1997 Casanova di Neri Cerretalto Brunello di Montalcino had a great nose with a nice mix of Old and New World just right, in fact. It had a Piedmont edge with its leather and tar, with very meaty, dark fruit and spice. The finish was long and fine (95). The 1985 Biondi-Santi Brunello di Montalcino Riserva paled by comparison. The nose was mild and light with some tobacco, tar, earth and a pinch of caramel but very light and lacking. The palate had little to no flavor definition despite decent length (87). The 1996 Vogue Chambolle Musigny Premier Cru had a nice, pungent nose with that 1996 intensity and taut, meaty, vitaminy fruit. It was in a good spot right now with excellent balance and length (93). The 1995 Beaucastel Chateauneuf was a monster wine, full of dark black fruits, light pepper, a touch of garrigue, stones and huge alcohol. Drinking the wine was infanticide, and it had way too much alcohol now; it needs time to widen out or about a week in a decanter (93+). The 2001 Behrens & Hitchcock Ode to Picasso. Red was delicious. It was inky, thick, syrupy and chunky on the nose and palate. The wine was a hedonistic Cali Cab-styled wine but still maintained a classy personality and showed some restraint as well (94). The 1998 Araujo Cabernet Eisele Vineyard. was also a nice drink, showing lots of minerals in the nose with sweet fruit of cassis, pencil and exotic nuts. The wine had good fruit for a 1998 with no sign of green and a medium body and style. It’s a great buy to drink now (92). Last on the lunch menu was the 1992 Dominus, which was a little weedy in the nose with a touch of carob, meat, sugar snap peas, cassis and nut. It had grit and dust to the finish and was also very good, but less enjoyable perhaps than the Araujo right now (92).

AUCTION DINNER AT PUBLIC

Ok, it was time for one last hurrah for the weekend, a holiday dinner party that I hosted for the gang at Public, a great scene and restaurant on the Lower East Side in New York. After the auction, I had gotten a 90-minute massage for which I was asleep half the time; otherwise, I would have been dead for dinner. Speaking of dinner, I had kangaroo for the first time tasty little suckers. We kicked it off with three whites before dinner, the 1988 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet, the 1998 Pahlmeyer Chardonnay, and the 2002 D.R. Stephens Chardonnay. The Leflaive was another wine in a great spot right now. It had an awesome, honeyed nose with grilled hazelnuts, minerals and bread. The palate was wide and expressive with great corn flavors and minerals and still long acids. The flavors were mature and delicious with some wheat and wax on the finish it probably won’t get any better, but boy is it good now! (94) The 1998 Pahlmeyer had bright citrus aromas with some hay, musk and dust with an easy palate and light citrus and mineral flavors (89). The 2002 D.R. was a fruitier, more tropical expression of Chardonnay with a creamy, rich style still big but only a touch of that brawn of the finish. There were toasty, grainy flavors and a pat of butter (90). A recent barrel sample of Cabernet I had from this Estate in Napa was outstanding, though, so keep an eye out for this property.

Time for some Pinots. I figured Pinots with the Kangaroo, even though I had never had a marsupial before. The 2001 Claude Dugat Gevrey Chambertin Lavaux St. Jacques was a complicated wine. I got some weird fish oil quality at first, but it wasn’t the glass because it was the same glass I had the Leflaive in. Wendy got some tropical fruit edge that I saw as well. The nose was intense with a twist of chemical aromas as well, but it blew off into thick, black cherry and pomegranate fruit with a touch of vitamins and more than a touch of wood. The palate was intense, the finish was huge, and there was big oak without the oaky flavors. Will it ever balance out? (91+) The 1997 Dugat-Py Gevrey Chambertin Lavaux St. Jacques was unfortunately corked (DQ). The 1996 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques, on the other hand, was a great wine. Any day where one can have two bottles of Rousseau at two different meals and sell $1.5 million worth of wine in between is a good day in my book. The Clos St. Jacques monopole wines are one of the best kept secrets in Burgundy today. The 1996 had a fabulous nose full of taut, cherry fruit and vitamins with great spice, musk and earth. There was a beautiful balance of the fruit and the acids. The wine was great, pure and beautiful (94). The 1996 J. Roty Gevrey Chambertin Fontenys Jim noticed as being more extracted, which I translated also to be not as pure as the Rousseau. It had a big, modern edge with lots of vanilla, and it lacked definition and a centerpoint. It was big yet clumsy and seemed more man-made than natural (85).

We kept things moving with some Bordeaux and a Cali, beginning with a 1998 Clos Dubreuil. This St. Emilion was excellent, with a meaty (I think I was in a carnivorous mood this weekend with all the meaty adjectives) nose, thick with vanilla and aromas of structure deep alcohol and a brooding nature with a sexy, peanutty edge. There was buried alcohol that manifested strongly on the flavor profiles with lots of stone and acid to match. The wine was enormous on the palate. This actually could be an incredible wine one day, but for now let’s just call it excellent with lots of potential (93+). Next up was the 1999 Harlan Maiden, which had a grapy and cassisy nose, much more open in that Las Vegas way with fig, depth and style to its nose. The palate was rich with hot alcohol, sturdy and wound with a fine finish. The wine gained in power in the glass (93). The 2000 Pichon Baron ended this flight with a bang, with its sexy nose that was rich, inky and meaty but still perfumed a concoction, indeed, with rich cassis, chocolate, violet, coffee and blackberry aromas. It had a big, intense palate (94+). What was so interesting about this flight was the homogeneity between the Harlan and the Bordeaux, either a testament to the greatness of Harlan, the modernization of styles in Bordeaux, or a little of both.

Ok, there’s only nine more tasting notes bear with me, will ya? Now it was time for the Aussie/Syrah flight. We transitioned well with a 1998 Greenock Creek Cabernet Sauvignon Roennfeldt Road. that was intense, deep and brooding in the nose despite some flashy, chocolaty fruit. The wine was very meaty with a toffee and buttery rum quality. It had a supercharged palate with big, sweet, meaty fruit and leathery sidebars and a long, long, long finish. Jim caught some black licorice, good n. plenty style.. (95) The 1995 Araujo Syrah Eisele Vineyard was next, and Tim didn’t like it at first, and I could see why. The nose was very angular and wound with hints of alcohol and turpentine with very little signs of fruit. The palate was intense, though, with long charcoal, bacon and pepper flavors and enormous length (95). The 1992 Grange was Penfolds representative this evening and also had an intense nose with eucalyptus, vanilla wood, a touch of mint jelly and Krispy Kreme. The palate was also intense with meaty and earthy flavors and traces of American oak on the finish (94).

We had some throw-ins at the end to keep the party going, including a corked 1997 Delas Hermitage (DQ), a rich and complex 1999 Arrowood Cabernet Reserve Speciale (92+), a grapy, figgy, leathery and alcoholic 1999 Turley Zinfandel Juvenile. (90), as well as a pretty and classic 1996 Vieux Chateau Certan (90), a surprisingly smooth 1996 Smith Haut Lafitte (87) and a dried out and uninspiring 1996 Beausejour Becot (83) well as two more locations and lots of vodka for the rest of the night. I got home at 3:30AM. When will I ever learn?