Blog

I know I never got to writing up my last trip to HK in November, which included numerous great events and wines, so we will keep that in the vault for now. This past January, Hong Kong kicked off 2010 in fine fashion, not only on the sales floor, but also on the dinner table.

I actually missed my flight out to Hong Kong. I had planned my trip perfectly. The flight was 9:20AM, and the previous night I stayed up working with Samantha until 3am on the next HK catalog. Everyone else was already on their way. I slept about three hours, gathered my belongings and headed to the airport on schedule. If I could sleep shortly after take off, it would put me on HK time rather effectively, and some Ambien was in my pocket ready to assist. There was one small glitch; I forgot my passport. Yes, those three-hour nights of sleep after a night of work overload can cause small oversights. Fortunately, there was another flight at 2pm, and my plan was able to stay fairly on course, albeit delayed.

I arrived in Hong Kong around 6pm local time, and I had dinner plans with Hong Kong’s version of the Good Doctor. By the time I got out of the airport and freshened up, I was a bit late, so I missed the 1996 Salon. Something tells me it was still one of the best young Champagnes that I have ever had. Fortunately, I didn’t miss any other wines, as the lineup was fantastic. The Good Doctor definitely had the perfect remedies for any jet lag I might have been suffering. Not only were there great wines, but I was also treated to an incredible, home-cooked Shanghainese-style dinner, one of the best Chinese meals that I have ever had.

We started at the table with a 2004 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche. The Drouhin had a classy nose of sweet butter, yellow fruits, corn, minerals, wheat and caramel. The palate was beautiful, quite elegant for Montrachet, long and smooth. Master Vincent admired its ‘very long’ qualities, and there was nice grain on its finish. Wendy, the Angry Chick, was along for the ride and observed, ‘fresh lavender,’ and its palate got smokier in the glass (94).

The Good Doctor offered up some 1998 Cheval Blanc, and why not. He has over 50 cases of it. Have I mentioned how they like to drink it in Hong Kong? The nose on the Cheval was tight yet sexy, its great t ‘n a slowly unwinding in a seductive manner. It was feminine yet full, possessing lots of red fruits, peanut, wintergreen and ‘still very fresh tannins,’ per the Master. There was great spice in the nose, but the palate was still a baby, but what a baby. There was huge alcohol and acid here, with expressive and defined tannins. Vincent called it ‘a young frau.’ Flavors of rust, red fruits and a hint of licorice emerged, and while this wine was decanted over two hours prior, it tasted like it could have been decanted for twenty-four hours and still come across youthfully. It still maintained a heavenly elegance despite all of its power. This is definitely an undervalued Cheval at the moment (96).

Wendy brought along a perfect bottle of 1975 Petrus. Vincent told us, ‘along with La Mission and Haut Brion, Petrus harvested early before the rain,’ which accounted for why these three wines were so good in ’75. Wendy observed ‘leather,’ while the Good Doctor just found it ‘gorgeous.’ The nose was ripe and kinky, like meat in the sun in a good way. Its fruit dripped black and purple, and aromas of black olive rounded out its nose. The palate was enormous and endless; its finish said fifty more years to go. Its palate was deliciously gamy and full of royal purple flavors. There was enough t ‘n a here for the Dallas Cheerleaders, and its thick tannins formed a perfect truce with its wealth of fruit. I could not stop drinking it (97).

Where could we go from here? 1989 Haut Brion, now there’s a good idea. This wine has been popping itself open around me about once a month for the past six. I could get used to that. It is and will be one of the greatest wines ever made in Bordeaux. Period, paragraph. The nose screamed great; its smoky and charcoal-laced fruit was as black as midnight. While fat and voluminous, it was also perfumed, and its posture was perfect. This bottle had even more fruit than the one I had in Bordeaux; it was as good as this wine can get. The Good Doctor also knows his provenance and storage; it says a lot when a bottle in HK can be even better than a bottle in Bordeaux itself! Vincent was admiring its concentration. Its palate was cedary, thick, long, gritty and grainy, almost Pomerolesque in its fruit. I had a flash of 1989 Petrus. The 1989 is an explosive wine that destroys everything in the room without anyone even hearing a sound, and this bottle was no different and as good as I ever remember it being (99).

There was one wine left on this magical beginning to this month’s HK venture, my 1996 La Tache. This bottle delivered an outstanding experience, more so than the bottle I had about six months ago at Bipin’s weekend. It had that ‘wow’ factor, even after some stiff competition from Bordeaux. This was more like the 1996 La Tache I remembered, with more meat on its bones. There was lots of winter in its nose, like cedar in a frozen forest. Mint and layers of penetrating t ‘n a rounded out its cavernous nose. The acid of 1996 was shining brightly here, and flavors of mint and menthol lined up like soldiers for its forceful palate. It was rich, saucy, hearty and long, and its fruit has finally fattened out just enough for it to be ‘next level,’ although I could see the monstrosity of its acid not being for everyone. Vincent observed ‘milky’ characteristics, part of its green tannin flavors, which were delicious in a foresty way. I vascillated between 96 and 97 points until the last drop, so let’s call it (96+).

It was a good start to the week in HK, but it was just beginning. Lunch the next day with Vincent provided an interesting head-to-head match-up of 1994 Sassicaia versus 2001 Lafite. The 1994 Sassicaia was ‘very Bordeaux-like’ per Gil, but the ‘olive hints at Italian.’ There was green bean in its nose, and a tangy undercurrant as well. Gil continued on to call it ‘olive juice.’ The palate was gamy and tangy with flavors of citrus, olive and stewed fruit flavors. Its tannins were dry, and its aftertaste full of oak, too much of it, in fact. The nose was better than the palate, and it was a bit sour (87).

The 2001 Lafite Rothschild had a gorgeous nose, with classic aromas of cedar, cassis, pencil and sweet, open fruit. There was much more volume here, and Alex found it ‘voluptuous.’ The palate was round and coy, its hidden acidity slowly emerging. Its tannins, too, were on the dry side and hints of oak, soy and salt led to a fish ‘n chips impression. Pretty and polished, long and with nice citrus twists, the Lafite was an excellent wine (93).

That very same night had us hosting sixty people for an evening of 1990 Left Bank Bordeaux. We didn’t tell anyone in advance that it would be blind; there were fifteen wines served, and at the end we tallied everyone’s top five wines (5 points for first, 1 point for fifth). The results were fascinating.

Now before I begin, I will actually revert back to November and include one event where I was hosted by one of my favorite tasting groups in Hong Kong, the AlcoholiHKs. This group of young financial wizards is always a lot of fun to be around and epitomize passion for the grape, although you don’t want to find yourself alone with Jerome after midnight. Trust me. The evening that they hosted for me in December served as a pre-cursor for our own event, and about eight of us gathered at the Hong Kong Country Club for a quartet of 1990 clarets.

The wines were served single blind, meaning we all knew the lineup but not the order. After evaluating the wines over a period of time, I was able to identify each of the four correctly, thankfully. Once in a while I get something right!

The 1990 Margaux had a deep, elegant nose with a hint of cinnamon. The nose also had cassis fruit and grilled nuts and meats. Deeper and deeper the nose went, down an Alice in Wonderland hole of elegance. Rich and delicious in the mouth, the Margaux didn’t lose any of its elegance on the palate, and its smooth and satiny style set the stage for flavors of purple fruits, nuts, grapes, musk, minerals and slate. The wine smacked on its finish (95).

The 1990 La Mission Haut Brion was more pungent with a hint of wheat grass at first. Hints of windex, nuts and animal rounded out its furry nose. The palate was full of gravel and alcohol with lots of dirty purple and charcoal flavors. It was clearly the lightest of the four, but it had excellent acidity to its finish. Gritty, grainy and gravelly, the La Miss also had a hint of green bean flavors (93).

The 1990 Haut Brion had the deepest nose of the four wines. There was thick, sweet, sappy fruit, and the nose had a good stink emerging from the streets of its smoky city. Gamy and chunky in both the nose and the mouth, the HB was rich, long and delicious. Its flavors were peanutty with a hint of kinky, and there was ample supporting slate. The HB had the most power of our quartet (96).

The 1990 Latour was fabulous. This was the second knockout bottle of this wine I had had within the month. Its sweet nose was inviting and open, more showy than any other wine. Its trio of musk, cedar and cassis was pure nose candy, and fresh, honey-roasted walnuts rounded out its sexy aromatics. It was so delicious, classic and the freshest palate of them all, showing lots of tasty pencil flavors. There was also great cedar to the palate, which was less ripe than the nose led me to expect, and the 1990 Latour was the best balanced of the four wines, providing an equal ratio of fruit and finish (97).

Now back to January, the 28th to be exact, and the fifteen wines and forty-five bottles we had assembled. Gil was in charge of the order of wines served, and the only one who knew which wine was what. I played along. At the end, we tallied everyone’s top five wines and revealed the identity of each wine from the least favorite wine of the night to its most popular, which is always fun.

The first wine had a clean nose with hints of green olive and bean, gamy in that direction. Its fruit was meaty, and its aromas were rich and hearty with nice spice. Cedar and minerals emerged from underneath, as did traces of leather. It was very open compared to the second wine, and while its fruit had some richness, its body was lighter in style. The wine with which it was served knocked it back a bit. Peter of the AlcoholiHKs nailed the wine ”“ it was the 1990 Gruaud Larose (93).

The second wine had ‘very dry tannins,’ and ‘ginger flowers’ in its nose per Vincent. The nose was very shy at first, possessing faint peanut. This wine was all about what I call ‘backside’ elements ”“ leather, cedar and minerals. The acidity was superb, and the wine was very long on the palate; it kept coming out more and more with time in the glass. Classy, long and minerally, this was still young and possessed very fresh tannins. Vincent and I were convinced it was the Chateau Margaux, but it was the 1990 Ducru Beaucaillou. It was impressive, but its subtle style did not stand out for many on this night (95).

The next flight was three wines, and the first was very chocolaty in its nose, more like cocoa powder. There were bigger and blacker fruits, and supporting smoke and dust. Additional aromas of cedar, carob, almost soy and a little hoisin rounded out the nose. The palate was concentrated, big and beefy with a thick finish, and excellent balance and acidity. This plump 1990 Pichon Lalande was quite pleasing and an excellent wine. For it to get 79 points from the world’s most regarded critic of Bordeaux is a bit confusing; there must be a batch of this wine that is not on par with the rest? I was surprised to see a second consistent note posted recently in June of 2009. Things that make you go hmmmmmm (93).

The next wine was a lot greener, closer to the Gruaud in style, but with less flesh and more peanut. It was lighter in its nose with some sweet plum and prune. The Good Doctor defended its length, and it did gain in the glass a bit. Vincent was suspecting this was the Lalande; he was only a wine late, and I completely saw his reasoning. Flavors of olive and game rounded out this 1990 Palmer (92).

The third wine of this second flight was deeper in its nose and possessed more oak. Cedar blended in, but its oak was still noticeable. The wine was long and gritty, cedary and leathery but marred by the oak. There were lots of forest flavors as well, but the fact of the oak remained. The Good Doctor didn’t like its flavor, and it was his least favorite wine so far. It was very dry, long and closed, and while there was good acid here, there was no fruit up front on its palate. I was stunned to learn later that this was the 1990 Margaux. Based on my experience two months prior, this showing was not consistent. I know bottle and variation are dirty words in Bordeaux when used together”¦more things that make you go hmmmmmmm (92?).

The third flight led off with a wine that had a big, warm nose fill of sweet, purple cassis. There was great musk and spice, excellent nut, and an almost creamy impression. The palate was rich, hearty and long with outstanding acid and outstanding tannins. Its finish was huge, really big, the biggest so far by a long shot. It had a tidalwave of a finish. The Good Doctor observed, ‘almond,’ and I added extract. This was a great showing for the 1990 Leoville Las Cases, and ultimately my wine of the night (96+).

It was paired with a wine that was much less impressive. This next wine was very green in the nose with lots of bell pepper. Its palate was lighter with chalky green flavors, as well as wet hay ones and a horsey and gamy personality. I guessed Montrose or Mouton. It was the latter, and this 1990 Mouton Rothschild seemed more mature than the average 1990 on this night, and disappointing overall (89).

The first wine of the fourth flight had a waxy nose which was deep and big. Aromas of game, spice and a touch of freshly painted wood were present. The palate was rich, saucy and smoky. I then wrote how almost every wine served on this night had a great finish, but this one was a bit bigger than most. Rich, fresh and balanced, this 1990 Haut Brion was fairly consistent with the bottle I had had two months prior (95+).

As was the 1990 La Mission Haut Brion that followed. The La Miss had lots of coffee in its nose, along with green bean and minerals. Hints of hoisin and peanut rounded it out. Long and dry, it was coy at first, expanding a bit later on (93).

The 1990 Lynch Bages was all about the coffee as well, more grinds than fresh brew. There was a powdery edge to the nose, and hints of animal and green bean lingered. The palate was rich, but the finish was softer, especially once I considered what it was later on. There was a touch of a synthetic quality to its flavors, and it was exotic in its cinnamon and cedar (93).

Bottle variation reared its head again with the eleventh wine served on its night. The first bottle had a rubber tire nose. There was cassis and fruit behind that, along with asparagus and animal. The flavors were all asparagus, and the finish was out of balance. ‘Tarry and leathery’ came from Vincent. He continued, ‘its earthiness is on the Northern side.’ This first bottle of 1990 Pichon Baron was barely (90). The second bottle I tasted was spectacular; there was a thick ocean of deep fruit along with smoke, charcoal, gravel and rich tobacco flavors (95). It just goes to show you that it always comes down to the bottle, and while wines are more consistent than they are not, there is variation.

The wine that was paired with the Baron was quite pungent, possessing glue in its nose at first. Brooding fruit and lurking oak peered out from the shadows of this behemoth’s nose. There were lots of peanut flavors and sweet cassis fruit, and this wine had excellent length and balance, gaining and expanding in the glass. It was a 1990 Latour, and while not as good as my two recent experiences, it was still outstanding (95).

The last flight was upon us, and my notes were a bit briefer. We had to start gathering everyone’s votes and then tally them, so I rushed through this flight a bit more than the others. The first wine was a classic and great. It was all about the cedar, supported by morning cereal, yeast and even a hint of coconut. Its palate had excellent citric tension, and it was nice to see a good show for the ‘house’ wine, so to speak, as this was the 1990 Chateau Lafite Rothschild (95).

The second to last wine of the night would ultimately become the group’s wine of the night. The nose was open and exotic, full of blackberry fruit in its nose. The palate was rich and saucy, with coffee grind and earth flavors and a meaty and dense personality. It was a Dr. Jekyll bottle of 1990 Montrose, which can often be green and unpleasant, but this was obviously one of the ‘good’ bottles that received so many accolades (95).

The last wine would be a disappointing 1990 Cos d’Estournel. It was sweet and almost cough syrupy, very different from my memories of this wine. It was very cherry and too sweet (91?).

We took everyone’s top five votes, five points being awarded to first place, and one point being awarded to fifth place. Here were the results:

1) Montrose (101 votes)
2) La Mission (97 votes)
3) Haut Brion (76 votes)
4) Lynch Bages (75 votes)
5) Lafite (62 votes)
6) Las Cases (56 votes)
7) Margaux (55 votes)
8) Mouton (53 votes)
8) Pichon Lalande (53 votes)
9) Pichon Baron (46 votes)
10) Latour (39 votes)
11) Cos (34 votes)
12) Ducru (27 votes)
13) Palmer (24 votes)
14) Gruaud Larose (13 votes)

So, what to make of all this data? First of all, I should say that often in these types of tastings, the wines at the end of the tasting get more unintentional favoritism. Their impressions are more recent, the earlier wines have been consumed and are long gone, etc. There is also a pack mentality that happens, i.e., the quality of wines tend to converge a bit more than when served non-blind. Lesser wines get more benefits of the doubt, as the mind sends subliminal messages ”“ ‘but what if this is the Margaux?’ And the opposite happens for the better wines, ‘but what if this is Gruaud Larose, that couldn’t be my favorite.’ The real surprises for me were the La Mission and Lynch Bages in the group’s top five. Both were excellent wines but did not stand out for me as much as the group. I was also surprised how high the Mouton scored given its green personality, a personality consistent with other experiences of the wine. Certainly, the Pichon Baron might have snuck into the top five if that one bottle wasn’t as off as it was. I am not surprised that the Ducru didn’t show well even though I really liked it, although it would be interesting to know what would have happened if it was in the last flight rather than the first. Cos was disappointing, as I am a fan of the 1990 and the estate in general since 1982. The biggest disappointment had to be the Chateau Latour; while I found it better than most, I was stunned to see it in the bottom third. After having this wine on two occasions within the previous two months, I was convinced that Latour would win and that it is the Left Bank wine of the vintage; it was that good both times prior. These tastings are always fun because they consistently show that just when you think you know all the answers, someone changed the questions.

The next day was Friday, the day of the auction, and we were joined by renowned and respected importer Martine Saunier, who joined us to help celebrate the sale of her personal collection of Henri Jayer. What better way to celebrate than sample seven of Henri’s wines over lunch at Restaurant Petrus in the Island Shangri-La.

The 1988 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee was an excellent beginning and about as impressive a 20-year old AC wine as I have ever had. Its sweetness and perfume were so balanced, and its deep purple nose accompanied by delightful aromas of game, leather and violet. This was a deep and expansive wine. Martine reminded us that 1988 was ‘a very hot vintage’ and ‘extra tannic.’ The palate had flavors of ‘rose hips’ per Wendy, vitamins, leather and ‘cranberry’ per Gil. Its acidity was impressive, and great caraway flavors developed. Wendy admired its ‘soft, floral Grand Cru nose,’ and hints of cedar rounded out its finish. This was a drinker’s Burgundy, for sure (93).

The 1989 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux had a deep chocolaty nose that was tight and full of t ‘n a. Aromas of black fruits and cola were also present. The palate was big, brawny and muscular, full of spice. It was earthy and long, but I must confess that the charm of the previous wine was so divine, that it almost stole the Cros’ show. The palate was thick and cedary, rich and close to outstanding, very foresty in its flavors. It was clearly the ‘better’ wine with a longer future, but I would rather drink the ’88 today. The Cros got a ‘wow’ from Gil, along with ‘caramel’ (94+).

The next flight was a trio of Echezeaux, beginning with a 1991 Georges et Henri Jayer Echezeaux. Martine told us that the Georges bottling is the same as the exclusively Henri bottling, and since the market pays much higher prices when Georges’ name isn’t on the bottle, the smart money is on Georges. This ’91 was singing in the nose, which was a deep, dark, purple forest. There was incredible sweetness and spice. Cassis, currant, blackberry, cranberry and so much musk were all there. Its signature style of rose hips, vitamins, citrus spice box and mahogany let you know this was all Jayer. The palate was rich, sensual and balanced, so classy, silky and sexy that it felt like drinking negligee. It was absolutely gorgeous (95).

The 1990 Henri Jayer Echezeaux had a lot going on in its nose. It was heavy and thick, beefy, brothy and foresty, with that citrus pitch and spice. It was like a forest sledgehammer, so thick and sweet, displaying that purple signature style. The palate was rich with endless acidity that was still somehow reined in. The palate was so rich, so saucy, so concentrated, so spectacular. It also had that cedary, foresty edge to its flavors. If the 1991 was a girlfriend, the 1990 was a bodyguard (97).

The 1989 Henri Jayer Echezeaux was more gamy and a little figgy, more exotic than the other Ech’s. It was very forward with a little tutti frutti there. Gil found ‘yogurt’ in the nose. The palate was big and hearty but both ‘89s showed some squareness, and that grainy, cola-flavored personality was also consistent for both (93).

Martine told us how ’89 had nice weather and was a good wine, but the 1990 was forceful and amazing. It was ten years before the 1990’s came out of their seclusion. 1991 was a shadow year, lost in the shadow of 1990, but she thought it was sensational from the beginning. In fact, she bought more 1991 than 1990! She hailed its perfect balance, and said that Lalou Bize-Leroy likened it to 1959, a vintage that was always good from the very start.

The 1982 Henri Jayer Echezeaux was open and milky, redder in its fruit profile and rusty. 1982 was ‘a big harvest, so people that made too much wine didn’t make great wines.’ The palate was rich and full of decadent strawberry fruit, bright, saucy and long. Hints of wheat and lavender rounded out this exotic wine, which was a testament to how masterful Henri was in the so-called ‘off’ vintages. Martine would later say, ‘he never made a bad bottle’ (95).

We finished with a 1982 Henri Jayer Richebourg, of which there was only a barrel or two every year. The Riche had aromas of forest, boullion cubes, spice and mahogany. It was rich, concentrated, thick and long, with lots of leather, cedar and dust in the mouth. Flavors of red fruits, tomato, garden, stalk and more cedar undressed themselves layer after layer on its hearty palate. The 1982 Jayer Richebourg was like a strip-show for the mouth, complete with the bill (96).

The auction saw fireworks out of the glass and on the sales floor. Numerous wines were sampled and consumed during the auction, and two stood out for me above all the rest. Wendy had brought a 1955 Dom Perignon which was in perfect condition. It was just delicious. The nose had straw, hay, vanilla, cream, caramel, rain, wheat, crackers, musk”¦there was a lot going on. It was rich and tasty, very saucy and still with a lot of pop to it. There was great balance, a youthful personality but mature flavors. It was everything one could want in a vintage Champagne (97).

I had brought a magnum of 1996 Latour to share with a few people, and it was outstanding and bordering on that next level, as usual. Out of magnum it was a bit tight, but it was the typical brooding beast that young Latour can be. All the elements were there ”“ black fruits, walnuts, minerals, earth. It felt mountainous in the mouth but was still graceful and stylish in its presence. This will be an all-time great Latour (96+).

The auction was a tremendous success, posting over 99% sold and over $7.6 million on the gross. On Sunday night, we celebrated with a few close friends and decided to make Martine drink Bordeaux. She was in Hong Kong, after all.

The 1996 Dom Perignon Rose was consistent with all my previous experiences. Very dry, citrusy and tangy, it has the potential to blossom, but it is a bit mean at the moment. I do not think it is in the elite category of DP Roses, and I would rather have many, many other 1996s before this, at least for now (93).

We actually did serve a couple of Burgundies first. We didn’t want Martine to start getting the shakes lol. A 1961 Clos de Tart smelled great. There was lots of rust, bright citrus and intense t ‘n a. Hints of violets, rose petals and game rounded out its complex nose. It had long acidity on the palate, as good ’61 Burgs are prone to have. I was discussing recently with Wilf, and he thinks it might be considered the best of the decade before all is said and done. 1961 always seemed lost in the shadows of ’61 Bordeaux and ’62 Burgs, but I must agree that the ones I have had of late are fantastic. This was no exception, and its brick flavors, pinches of Worcestershire and strawberry/rhubarb action all added up nicely. Gil noted, ‘a little VA, but who cares.’ A hint of vanilla ice cream and creamy root beer floated its way into the equation, and this wine was tasty and possessed great rusticity. The thing I liked most about the bottle was the Acker sticker on the back 🙂 (94).

A 1955 Clos de Tart Vandermeulen bottling was a bit controversial. Martine noted ‘coffee’ right away, and that it was ‘not pure.’ It tasted very chocolaty and fruity, and definitely not 100% pure. The question became, when and where did the doctor operate, and the relativity theory of its authenticity came into play. If it was real, i.e., actually released by Vandermeulen, but it was so doctored, was it still real? That kind of stuff. It was quite fruity and young, a little Syrah-ish, definitely more New World than old, and tough to drink next to the 1961 (88?)

We played a game of bottle variation with two bottles of 1926 Cos d’Estournel, secured from the auction the previous day, actually. The first had a gorgeous nose, classic with its great cedar, cobwebs, smoke and positive hints of vanilla, lemon and rubber. It had a divine perfume without being perfumed, if that makes sense. I loved its dust and spice in the mouth, and it was far superior to the second bottle (94). The second bottle was not as perfumed; ironically, its color was younger even though it was from the same batch. The nose was a bit more closed, purpler and danker, although Gil was in its camp at first. I thought it was shy, and perhaps a hint off (90?). If winos were football players, the above is what we would call, ‘Any Given Sunday.’

Horace brought a bottle of 1948 Haut Brion he picked up at a great price at one of our auctions. It was very dry in the nose with lots of charcoal, straw, smoke, citrus and a pinch of penetrating horseradish. The palate was citrusy and tangy, with nice definition of its tannins. There was this bamboo jungle edge that emerged in the nose, and the palate became rich, bordering on saucy, but kept in bounds by its ceramic framework. It was long, elegant and poignant, and an excellent, old HB (94).

Vincent brought a bottle of 1962 Lafite Rothschild, one that we weren’t even sure was a 1962 until a thorough investigation of the cork. The vintage was illegible on the torn label, and the cork was eroded/faded to the point where it was very difficult to see the vintage, but ultimately I found the brand. Sometimes corks can fade or erode and be difficult to read, even when the wine is 100% legit, as this Lafite was. There was a kiss of cardboard in the nose, but behind it was a wealth of fresh fruit, along with carob, chocolate and pencil. Gil noted, ‘a little bandage.’ The palate was pretty as all heck, delicious with beautiful balance and natural, mature flavors that still came across fresh. Its silky, velvety mouthfeel caressed my palate gracefully (95).

The 1947 Vieux Chateau Certan stole the show, however. It had a deep, special nose, a veritable ocean of plummy sex. Alex observed, ‘jasmine,’ and found it ‘pure.’ Hints of garden and tree bark complemented the nose, but it was all about the Pomerol fruit. The palate was rich, saucy and concentrated, pure decadence. Its pure fruit flavors of plum and cassis were mature in their complexity yet youthful in their personality, just as it ought to be. It was lush and long but integrated, with its tannins and alcohol melted into its wealth of fruit. Wow (98).

There was one last wine to this amazing week in Hong Kong, and that was a 1962 Magdelaine, reconditioned at the Chateau in 1991. This was a ‘good’ reconditioned bottle, one that still retained the original personality of the wine. The nose was sweet and sexy with lots of red fruits, wintergreen and nice pitch and spice. The palate was similar, and while the wine still had that reconditioned polish, it was an excellent bottle of wine (93).

What a week. Great food, great friends and great wines. That’s what life is all about. I returned to New York, where I was reminded right away that we still know how to drink here in NYC. Stay tuned.