Blog

My second night in Hong Kong was devoted to Musigny, thanks to an anonymous and most generous benefactor. Yes, Burgundy is alive and well in Hong Kong, and I couldn’t think of a better terroir to prove that point. We started with a Champagne and a white before getting into the main event, the Champagne being a 1982 Salon. The Salon had a yeasty nose that was big, rich and bready. It was very fragrant, tangy yet complex. The palate was oily and meaty, almost beefy, big and citrusy with outstanding acidity. Tangy, zippy and gamy, the ’82 was rich and tasty with vanilla cream flavors. At the end of the night, the Salon was still strong, losing its bubbles but becoming decadently delicious and still great (95).

The 2004 Raveneau Chablis Montee de Tonnerre was very open, with a minty and anise-y centerpoint, while Kris observed ‘white lychee and pear.’ Round, minty and delicious, the palate had a nice, feminine side to its acidity. Someone noted ‘sweet and sour apple,’ and another its ‘fresh, good structure.’ Premier Cru Chablis’ are great values ”“ oops, put that cat back in the bag (93).

On to the Moose”¦we started with a flight of ‘young’ wines, its starting point being a pair of 1993s. A 1993 Drouhin Musigny was one of the best bottles of this I have had. I looked up two prior bottles and found that I rated them each 92 points, but this one was significantly better. Yeast was the first thing I noticed, but it quickly blew off into the classic underbrush of 1993. Black fruits, a great nut glaze and excellent sun-baked earth rounded out the nose. Richard admired ‘that ’93 tautness,’ and it was really driven by its mineral and earth qualities. It opened wonderfully and became more exotic with a stir-fried sweetness and actual fruit, holding its acidity for the entire evening. It all comes down to the bottle (94+).

The 1993 Jadot Musigny had more hay in the nose and a bit of stinky barn and green pepper. There were also band-aids there, and good ‘catbox.’ The Jadot had a lot of power, noticeably so after the Drouhin. Some baked bread came out as well as gamy, black flavors and a lot of t ‘n a. Hendra also observed ‘more power,’ and Kris liked its ‘fleshy side of Musigny.’ It had a long, earthy finish, and the tannins and acid of the vintage showed their stuff there, coming out even more in the belly. There was more wood here, integrated yet big, as well as more animal (93).

At first, Richard and I were admiring the 1990 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes and how it was one of the better bottles of this that we had both had. Hendra remarked how it was ‘always this way,’ but this bottle was not stewed or woodsy as others can be. It was zippy with Worcestershire aromas, a bit of celery salt and excellent t ‘n a. It had the best finish of the flight, and its acidity was noteworthy. It squared up a bit in the glass, however, and got more cedary, and the second impression was less than the first. Richard agreed. Its structure was still excellent, but this wine might continue to be a perplexing one for a while (93+).

The second flight began with a rare 1989 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes. It had a minty nose, very forward with its wild fruits, olives and forest aromas. The palate was rich and its acidity long, with that gamy ’89, rich, ripe style. Tasty and balanced, there were significant earth and iron flavors to go with some autumnal and forest floor ones. Kris said it ‘sparkled,’ and it was fresh on its feet, dancing in the mouth. It didn’t get any better in the glass, but it was on a couple of people’s ‘top three’ wines for the night (94).

The next wine was one of my two wines of the night, a 1988 Roumier Musigny. Richard noted ‘a little more substance and linearity.’ Its nose was deep personified, or winified, I suppose. There was great perfume and breed to its sexy and unraveling nose. There was cedar, forest and a pinch of menthol. Its flavors were also deep, just singing, rippling with minerals and acidity on its thick finish. There was actually fruit here for this ’88, which is not often the case in this tannic vintage, and there was enough fruit to stand up to the tannins. Red fruits emerged, and its woodsy complexity was just right, creeping in with time (96).

The 1985 Drouhin Musigny was again a better bottle than the last time I had this wine just three months ago. What’s up with Drouhin showing better in Hong Kong? Maybe it likes the humidity here. It was the most open of this flight, in ’85 fashion, sweet and gamy and full of Pinot fruit. Caramel kisses and damp earth rounded out its nutty nose. Paul agreed this was a better bottle than the one he had recently as well; in fact, I think it was the same bottle we shared in New York, or same batch. This bottle was in a perfect spot and still ascending (95).

We then took it way back in time with an outstanding 1952 Bichot Musigny. At first, it was a bit gassy in the nose, with a touch of toilet in there, but it opened quickly into wheat, grass and herbs. The palate was delicious and way ahead of the nose with its nutty, oily texture. It was also rich and chocolaty, possibly a bit adulterated but so good, who cares? There was this vanilla ice cream deliciousness, and one said he heard rumors that Bichot bought their Musigny from Vogue during this period. It kept flirting so much with outstanding, I finally gave it to it (95).

A 1952 Remoissenet Musigny had green fruit in a fresh way and a nutty nose. The palate was more milky with some red fruit there, and a sweet flash in a tree bark, cedar and herbal direction. It was simpler but still good (90).

Unfortunately, the last wine in this flight was an oxidized 1952 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes (DQ).

The next pair more than made up for it, beginning with a 1949 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny. It was many people’s wine of the night. Richard crowned it ‘amazing’ right away, and its nose was indubitably great, pungent and with aromas of olives, citrus, rich black and red fruits, cola and cream soda. The palate seemed rich for ’49 but was still elegant on its finish. There were great flavors of sweet plum and purple. There was more posture and style versus the ’47 that would follow, and it got more mentholated in the glass (96).

The 1947 C. Marey et Liger-Belair Musigny was ‘porty’ to one and ‘very sweet’ to another. It was definitely keeping with the hot style of 1947 with its sweetness, as 1947 was one of the hottest years ever on record in the 20th century in Burgundy, I believe. The nose was again great, full of sweet cream and touches of earth and citrus. The palate was lush and earthy, still zippy, concentrated with sweet purple flavors and great spice. It was so sweet that it seemed almost chapitalized, a bit negociant in personality. I am not sure if these were negociant bottles or not. While the ’49 was more demure and distinguished, one couldn’t help but like the ’47 and its skinny dipping personality (94).

It was a grand finale to a monumental evening of Musigny. The Roumier and ’49 Liger-Belair were on the top of most people’s lists, but the Bichot definitely got a lot of consideration, too. There were a few honorable mentions for the Mugnier and ’85 Drouhin as well.

It is good to see Burgundy alive and well in Hong Kong. Thursday night would be our first BYO dinner in HK, and I would have 35 notes before all was said and through, including many Burgundies, although Bordeaux did dominate the landscape provided by the 60 guests. About nine of the wines took me two hours to enjoy, and then the rest in a blitz at the end. Stay tuned!