Blog

Howdy. It’s been a while, I know. It has been a busy busy Fall season, with a major amount of travel time, even more so than usual. It got so bad, I finally had to make a deal with my significant other. Two weeks a month max on the road, and the two weeks I am home, only three nights a week out. Fair deal!

A 2004 Louis Latour Chevalier Montrachet Les Demoiselles was classically 2004. It was buttery and smooth, showing more citrus, rainwater and balance. ‘Solid’ summed it up (92).

The wines of Domaine Leflaive are amongst the best and most ageworthy in all of white Burgundy, and the next pair showed why. The 1999 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was big and smoky, with toasted kernels and a drop of honey. This was a powerful wine that was big and smoky. It was clearly in a better bracket (95).

We two-stepped to Tuscany with a 1997 Solaia. There were herbs and spices almost a la Chartreuse, and this was clearly a different category from that of Piedmont. It got more herbal and a bit confused in the glass (93).

The 2002 Mugnier Musigny was an excellent counterpoint to the 2003s, although The Rainmaker prefaced this wine by saying he thought 2001 was a better Red Burgundy vintage. Hmmmm. The nose of the Mugnier had lots of bread and sour cherry, along with honeyed fruit, cream and pheromones. This was a tender and creamy wine, showing lots of soft porn love. It also got better in the glass, stopping right on the border of outstanding (94+).

The 1990 Leoville Las Cases has long been one of my favorite wines; in fact, it is probably the best overall quality-to-value ratio in the vintage. I will never forget how Las Cases convincingly won a blind tasting of 15 wines and 60 people in Hong Kong with most top wines. Deep chocolate was the first quality that came to mind in the LLC. It was rich and creamy, possessing loads of cassis and great allspice. There was this Christmas goodness to the Las Cases, call it trees, pudding and/or warmth. This was a rich, classic and outstanding wine (96).

The 1990 Montrose was a step behind, although it had its own unique gait. Its redder fruits had a touch of wild herbs to them as its nose figured itself out in a post-teenager, pre-adult fashion. Vanilla bean and cream pie came out on the palate of this honey bunny of a wine. Delicious, ripe and creamy, this bottle of Montrose was a definite Thumper (95).

The last of our ’90s was a 1990 Beausejour Duffau, and it was much more disappointing than the last two occasions I had it. This bottle was round, soft and easy, but uncomplicated (91).

The last wine was a 2000 L’Angelus, which was a big, big, red, red wine. I needed a fork to scrape this sucker off my tongue. There was a lot of wheat, black, grits and grit to the wine, but I didn’t have a lot left in me, so I reserve my right to amend my (93+).

The first wine had a nice, fresh nose with white, crystallized fruits, minerals and smoky twists of citrus. Its palate was soft and tried a little tenderness to make up for that initial kiss of morning mouth on its finish. Nobody shot JR, because he noted ‘sweet tropical orchard and peach nectar,’ and he decided it had to be a hot vintage. It was, as in a 2006 Jadot Batard Montrachet. It got more honeyed and sweet in the glass, showing even more nectar. It rounded out and ultimately felt softer than I wanted it to be (90).

The second wine wasn’t undrinkable, but it wasn’t perfect. I am not sure if it was premox, as it was a 1992 Sauzet Batard Montrachet, which was supposedly pre premox, so to speak. With almost 55 wines tasted over these four days alone, I will let it rest in peace, at least for this bottle (DQ).

The fifth white and final wine in this flight was out of magnum. It was very sweet, almost Sauvignon Blanc-ish. It had a lot of ‘stone fruits,’ a little pungency and a grassy, smooth finish. Clean, light and refreshing kept coming up in my notes for this 2005 Remoissenet Montrachet. Honeysuckle crept in (91M).

The first red served was bright with lots of vitamins. It had this marijuana, exotic herbal thing happening. I thought this was a village wine, but it was actually a Grand Cru. Oops. It was all downhill from here. One piece of advice: whenever you guess correctly one thing blind, take the rest of the night off. This 2002 Mongeard-Mugneret Grands Echezeaux was soft, but it had good acidity. JR noted ‘a little dill, herbaceousness.’ Spell check on aisle 3 please. Someone guessed 2008, and M found ‘nice spice.’ Spice and cinnamon joined the party. Too bad the party was already closed (90).

This next flight was two of a kind, and while the first reminded me of 1997, it was actually a 2007 Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux. There were dirty, round red fruits along with hints of vitamin to this simple but nice wine. Velvet and velour tricked out the room, and acid and more spice emerged. There was this exotic banana thing happening, but it got a little oaky, and then it got better again. I am a big fan of drinking ’07s now, although this felt like it needed more time. JR found it ‘a tad over acidic’ (92).

We were on to the next pair, and the first had that ripe, round, green bamboo of 1997, and it sure was a 1997 Rousseau Charmes Chambertin. This was an open and ripe wine, complicated and brothy. Someone found its nose ‘sexy.’ It had great red fruit and honey bear flavors, along with some apple (93).

The next wine was also a 1990, and it also had that good stink and wow factor. It was a touch gamey, but so aromatic and honeyed. There was more animal here, along with some wet hay and a drop of good urine. Lemony flavors played well into its high pitch and nerve, and its leathery flavors also complemented. ‘Dill pickle’ and salt licorice rounded out this 1990 Rousseau Ruchottes Chambertin Clos des Ruchottes, which made me come up with a new verb. What are you doing tonight? Oh, I’m Chamberting, you know you know baby (93).

The night was all about 1959, except the magnum of 1988 Dom Perignon Rose. Its nose spoke of good herbs, showing more fraise than strawberry. Lots of citrus and orange peel rounded out this aromatic bubbly, which had lots of grass and hay. Good flesh, nice richness and good minerality summed up our aperitif (94M).

The 1959 E. Brocard Corton that followed was great except for that same edge of cardboard. In fact, it was corked. However, despite that handicap, it still showed deeper black and purple fruit and a much riper (and better) palate. There was some good thickness to its thighs, and its acid was strong. Someone noted, ‘great weight’ (93A).

The next wine was a pleasant surprise, a 1959 Rene Couly Chinon Clos de l’Olive, Its nose was very dark with lots of violet and black fruits, as well as this dash of pot pourri. Its great aromatics were met by a very dry finish that had thick, expressive tannins. Black olives emerged in full force. I deduced the vineyards were surrounded by olive trees. I am assuming I am right. Great spice and pretty fruit described this marriage perfectly (92).

The 1959 Pichon Baron took a little time to warmup, but oh did it ever. This was classic Pauillac on the irony side, stony with lots of rocks in its nose. It came across very young and fresh, with a touch of ashtray in there. The Fisher King found it ‘more lively’ and with ‘so much acid.’ Its palate was all about the purple with some light tannin expression. It continued to get stronger in the glass, emitting pencil, nut, cedar and ‘cherry.’ Better and better appeared again and again in my notes (94).

If this were a game of chess, there would be four logical moves. Thankfully, two of them were played. The 1959 Mouton Rothschild was very minty, possessing that classic, old Mouton menthol. There was also ripe cassis to this sexy nose, along with thick cement and cedar qualities. Chocolate, cream and forest flavors abounded in this delicious wine. There was great balance to this toffee and coffee orgy, and ‘eucalyptus, classic mint (and) lead pencil’ came from the crowd (95).

The 1959 Latour came, saw and conquered. Its brooding, black fruit was bursting out of its shirt and pants with great t ‘n a. Its round and tasty palate was full and long. The tannic display was impressive. While thick, long and strong, it somehow remained elegant. ‘Gorgeous (and) finish of a lifetime’ came from the crowd (97).

There was a dry, wheaty, cardboard nose to the 1959 Damoy Chambertin Clos de Beze. It felt lighter and browner than the Ponelle, but it got better in the glass. Toasty and minerally, its acid really rocked out with its peacock out, but I still liked the Ponelle better, even if this could go farther down the road (93).