Blog

Ok, I know, I know. I am a bit backed up with my notes in 2006. I know it doesn’t do anyone any good for me to tell you how many notes I have taken, how many wines I have tasted in the first five months of this year, etc. Sorry, but I keep getting busier and busier, and it is the one thing I have had to sacrifice. I tried to have someone take my written notes and type them out, but it took me just as much time translating and double checking as it did writing them in the first place! So, I am going to the audiotape now, and after each event I am going to ‘write’ the event on tape to be then typed out. I hope to be able to catch up and maintain a brisker pace on my reporting duties from here on out. I am still taking notes for all my events and dinners – that you can be assured of! It might be a very newsworthy summer if I can get in a rhythm. One author’s note: I have added ‘M’ to a rating when out of magnum and will do so with ‘J’ or ‘I’ for jeroboam, imperial, etc.

I know I haven’t finished my State of Bordeaux article – that is next, I promise, but after writing about Bordeaux for a while, I had to change gears back to Burgundy for a second, and what better way to do that than to share my notes from Daniel Johnnes’ La Paulee weekend.

Daniel Johnnes did his annual ‘La Paulee’ weekend with a twist this year. Instead of the usual format, he started with a dinner at Daniel, his new home in New York, followed by a Rolling Stones concert for many and then a trip to Aspen for some skiing and more drinking, where the actual La Paulee technically occurred. This year’s La Paulee was a bit more civilized than usual due to its remote location, as a select group of connoisseurs made the trip to Aspen. Daniel, being the gentleman that he is, gave New York a taste before the show hit the road with’The Rock Stars of Burgundy at Daniel,’ as we were joined by Christoph Roumier, Dominique Lafon, Jean-Marc Roulot, Jean-Pierre de Smet of l’Arlot and Pierre Meurgey of Champy, all close friends of Daniel who had brought the wines from their personal cellars for all to try.

We began with a 1992 Roulot Meusault ‘Perrieres’ served out of magnum, and it had a fabulous nose, very smoky with yellow fruits, straw and dust, a touch tropical but also with a touch of vegetable rot, slight but there nonetheless. The palate was full of butter, cream and minerals, and the wine still possessed excellent acidity, a nice mouthfeel and great minerals for a 1992, more vigor than most ’92s, which was probably a combination of format, vintage and vineyard. There was also a touch of that rot/root veggie on the palate, but overall the wine was very nice. The rot wasn’t that bad, and the wine held well. It was more aggressive than the ensuing Lafon with its wild edges but qualitatively equivalent (93M).

The 1992 Lafon Meursault ‘Genevrieres’ had a cleaner nose, though a bit pungent, anisy and waxy with touches of spearmint and honey. The alcohol and acidity sparkled on the palate as there was nice crack and pop to the wine. Racy, spicy yet balanced, the wine smoothed out but maintained its pungent, rocky character (93).

Next up was a real treat, a 1989 Roulot Meursault ‘Charmes’ served out of Jeroboam, the only one he made! The wine had a very deep and intense nose with some aggressive edges that evened out with some air. ‘A little sulfur in nose,’ Brian keenly observed. Some questioned ‘corked?’ but Roulot said he didn’t think so. There was butter and sweet fruit in a very kinky way. ‘I wouldn’t guess an ’89 if served blind,’ Michael observed. I think it was a kiss corked but not enough to make a difference. The acidity was far superior to that of 1992, and its flavors were taut, needing more time. After some food, the wine became more caramelized, and I decided it was definitely corked, but the quality underneath was quite extraordinary with lots of vim and vigor and tremendous potential (94A+&J).

The 1983 Champy Corton Charlemagne had a very exotic, banana cream pie nose. Smooth, a bit oily in its flavor but not in its texture, the wine was not bad but not good and musky in a Mark Gastineau way, and a bit of morning mouth didn’t help. The fact that it was 23 years old and still drinkable was its best quality (84).

The 1991 Champy Clos Vougeot had a fresh, bright nose with vitamins, some soap (?), a little must and nice red fruits, a pleasant overall impression. The palate was also pleasant but a diluted a bit, smooth and easy with a bit of bitter earth on its finish and some light leather vim along with a kiss of citrus (87).

The 1978 Lafon Volnay ‘Santenots du Milieu’ was very earthy and animaly, possessing the barnyard with out too much barn. Fleshy and a good stinky, the wine had a touch of horse sweat and saddle, nice citrus, nice pungency and great minerals behind all that. We were then informed that there were only 35 bottles left in the cellar! This complex wine had roses, a good stink and that brown, gamy mature quality, a tea-like edge in a good way. The palate was delicious, smooth and with red, brown and citric flavors, nice vitamins, nice earth, nice balance – just plain nice&and tasty (93).

The 1990 l’Arlot Nuits St. Geroges ‘Clos des Forets’ had a nose full of pungent intensity and meaty fruit, red, black and beefy fruit. There were secondary complexities of brick and cinnamon, and lots of t and a. There was no sight of Allen and hence no ‘1990 disease’ issues, ha ha. The palate was sturdy, hearty, full and long, with nice earth and black cherry flavors. I was very impressed by this very tasty and fulfilling, muscular Nuits St. Georges (93).
The 1991 l’Arlot Romanee St. Vivant, served from magnum, also had a very intense nose, with lots of smokehouse, citrus, vitamins and healthy wood. Cinnamon crept in. The palate was lean but tasty and vigorous with flavor and character, more leather and cedar than fruit, but I still liked it yet preferred the NSG (92M).

Ahhhh, some Roumier. The 1991 Roumier Ruchottes Chambertin had the most intensity of any of the 1991s, possessing great vigor and long spice, intense musk, earth, leather and great t ‘n a. The palate had stupendous acidity and great spice flavors. The wine was excellent, bordering on outstanding, and won the vigor award for the night (94).

The grand finale of the evening was an incredibly rare magnum of 1985 Roumier Musigny. The wine had a very gamy, earthy and musky nose with great animal, rose, t ‘n a and rainwater aromas. The palate was soft, plush, long and tasty with good earth and mineral flavors and excellent definition. Round and delicious, the Musigny had great dust, earth and vitamin flavors, along with beef, citrus and spice as well (95M).

That should have been enough fun for one night, but there was an after party&at Veritas. Uh oh.

First up was a 1991 Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses,’ which had a lovely nose that was soft and delicate yet firm and aromatic. There were lots of brimstone and brick and beautiful, perfect, dark, plummy fruit. A touch of vitamins, a kiss of stems, that caress of Roumier&I officially made myself horny. The palate was full of vitamins, acidity, earth, stems and vigor. Long, stylish and smooth, Lafon remarked that it was ‘a big wine for Amoureuses’ (94).

The 1999 Raveneau Chablis ‘Les Clos’ had a nice nose and served as an excellent palate cleanser. Strong, minerally and rippling with character, there were aromas of smoke, nuts, white earth and that Chablis kink and verve. Brian found it ‘a little short on the palate,’ and it was, but it was decidedly in hibernation. It had a minerally palate and nice expression therefore, and secondary flavors of rainwater, hidden citrus and light anise, but it definitely wasn’t one of the great ‘Les Clos’ (92).

We temporarily continued with the palate cleansing with a 2002 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet. It had a very tropical and buttery nose, real exotic with its pineapple, mango and buttered, spiced yellow fruits. Some anonymous burgophiles were bashing a ‘lack of character,’ and the wine was atypically soft and easy at first, but it gained rather quickly and expanded to excellence with its stony, defined finish (93).

It was back to the reds with a magnum of 1986 Richebourg, which had a fabulous nose out of magnum with that great ’86 rusty verve, that racy, lean, iron, stem and cedar spice. The wine was very sturdy with lots of vigor in the nose, but the palate was very smooth, still very good but not past that (91M).

A 1996 Fourrier Griottes Chambertin V.V. was intense and full of character, masculine with its big, hearty style. It had a big, rich nose with a touch of gas, but the earth balanced it. The palate was rich, long and vitaminy, full of tannins and dark purple fruits. There was lots of potential here (92+).

We changed gears with a 1988 Chave Hermitage out of magnum. It was another fabulous nose; sexy, musky, aromatic and ripe yet so Hermitage with its bacon, menthol and spice. It also had an excellent palate, excellent acidity, great spice and great length. It was a tremendous wine out of magnum and absolutely delicious, although this wine might be a point or two less out of bottle by now (94M).

A 1979 Romanee Conti came out, an absolute steal off the list at $2100 I might add. Thanks to that most generous guest – who was that masked man? The most serious of my fellow wine geeks quickly hovered around like bees to honey. My notes started out, ‘whoa&yeah&hell yeah, only what RC can be.’ True, it was better out of a close friend of mine’s Methusalem last year (98 or 99 points, I believe), but I was not complaining! The wine still had great spine and verve out of bottle and tremendous aromas and flavors of earth, cedar, citrus and rose. Traces of tea, cherry and stem joined the party. The wine had medium-weight but long length with great tobacco and cedar flavors along with a razor-like precision (96).

It was back to reality with a very good 1989 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses.’ The nose was deep and full of mint chocolate, and by now I started to feel like it was time to put it on a pillow and tuck myself in. Meaty, saucy and rich yet smooth, there was a touch of game to its beefy palate, which was a bit monolithic, but it did have a tough act to follow and still had some nice vim to it (92).

A 1990 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Amoureuses’ followed, and it was more seductive and sexy with its gorgeous perfume and fruit. It was also meaty with some band aid, a caramel glaze and a bit of Christmas cheer to it! Meaty yet smooth and with good acidity, the 1990 still had the femininity of Amoureuses. Don kicked in some wisdom that ‘Drouhin made great ’90s’ (94).

A 1985 Pol Roger Cuvee Winston Churchill was just what the doctor ordered and outstanding, just enough gas to get me out the door and get me home on this wintry, January night (95).

Two or three nights later, I can’t remember to be honest, a whole new crowd had gathered at the Little Nell in Aspen, with a few diehards making the trip out from New York, myself included. Friday night was the organized dinner featuring more wines from the cellars of Daniel’s five fabulous ‘rock stars.’

We started with a 1993 Roulot Meursault ‘Perrieres’ out of magnum, which seemed to be in a sweet spot with its lovely butter, smoke and mineral trifecta and a tasty, root vegetable edge. Very aromatic in its acidity and mineral components, the palate was also full of zesty acidity as well as good slate flavors and a kiss of citrus. It held nicely with excellent sparkle and white earth and fruit flavors (94M).

The 1993 Roulot Meursault ‘Charmes’ was a touch more buttery with excellent caramel aromas and a long and wide impression. The nose had nice bread crust (hard ones) aromas and got a bit spiny with time, and more bread emerged as the wine got broader in the nose with a benevolent streak of really good wood. The palate was round and dusty, flavorful and smooth but definitely on a plateau (92).

The 1993 Champy Savigny les Beaune ‘La Dominaude’ was about the oldest Savigny I’ve ever had, and it had a nice vitamin and earth pungency to it, along with a meaty edge and a pungent spice. There was some bright bing cherry to it, but the palate was soft with some nice cedar on the finish, but not a lot of fruit (87).

The 1990 Champy Clos Vougeot was aromatic and perfumed, with piercing t ‘n a and a lot of alcohol, baked bread and earth. Deep and possessing a lot of intensity, the Clos Vougeot was toasty, long, meaty, earthy and hearty, altogether an excellent wine (93).

The 1989 L’Arlot Nuits St. Georges ‘Clos des Forets St. Georges’ Jeffrey likened to ‘vine ripened strawberries,’ and it totally was. There were also some vitamins, musk, iron and good intensity, a lot of alcohol and vigor. Very muscular, with a bruising style, I liked it a lot. It was rich, meaty, tasty – excellent again! Its nice verve and vigor complemented its thick wood flavors that were just right (94).

For the second night in a row, I preferred the Nuits to the RSV, this time being the 1993 L’Arlot Romanee St. Vivant. It was very pungent and stinky with lots of cat piss and pungent earth, but tough to get past the cat piss. The palate was pungent with less cat piss, more minerals along with rose, gardenia, garden, lemon and lime but not as complex or intense as I would expect (90).

The 1993 Roumier Ruchottes Chambertin was served out of magnum and had a fabulous nose, displaying the best qualities of the ’93 vintage: great verve and vigor, volcanic earth, vitamins, forest, and kisses of nut. It also had deep, dark, black cherry fruit and almost black roses in it. There was stemmy, stern spice on the palate, excellent length, nice balance, excellent acidity – it was another excellent wine. Its flavors were hearty, sturdy and earthy as ’93s tend to be. It didn’t hold as well as I hoped, which was the only negative thing I could say about the wine, but it had been opened about three hours (93M).

From one of the forgotten vintages that I have had a lot of luck with, the 1983 Roumier Bonnes Mares had a gorgeous nose, full of sweet cherry fruit. Nutty, wide open, saucy, fat, lush, and with great musk and spice, the Roumier was ‘outstanding for a 1983,’ Jeffrey observed. The wine had a kiss of wood that was great. The palate was long with nice grit and cedar definition on the finish. Jeffrey continued that it ‘might not be a 30-40-50 year vintage, but a damn good nose.’ I still found the palate delicious with earth and dirt flavors (95).

We changed gears with some whites to end, both of which had a sweeter edge to them. The 1983 Roulot Meursault ‘Luchets’ was served out of magnum, and it had a rich, honeyed, sweet, almost nectar-like nose with tons of butter, orange and apricot. I’ve got to give Daniel credit for serving this last. It also had some peel to it, and the palate was very hearty and vigorous, more so than I expected. Rich and creamy, toasty and with nice acidity, this exotic 1983 was just right for what it was (94M). The 1986 Lafon Meursault Charmes was a little fruity in the nose, waxy, anisy and buttery, although it was also a little corked with some noticeable VA. It had some butter and corn flavors, very fresh as it did come from Lafon’s cellar, of course, but I thought that this bottle might have been topped off as it was a little weird (89?).

A mystery wine was served, and it was a 1949 Remoissenet Grands Echezeaux. It had a pungent nose and seemed half Algerian. It was not 100% 1949, or even 50%, and had a lot of cat box and bret, icky in mouth (DQ).

Another wine was served courtesy of one of the guests, a 1990 La Tache, and three bottles were needed to make the rounds! There was a lot of t ‘n a, but this bottle was a woody one. The palate was big and rich with awesome structure but marred a touch by its wood, which completely took over nose. Even Jeffrey said ‘it just doesn’t sing.’ The structure and length were excellent, but its flavors were ‘oooof’ (95+?).

An after party of sorts happened again, and it started with an awesome and delicious 1979 La Tache. Sorry, those are my notes (96).

Wilf strong armed me into opening my La Paulee red wine, a 1990 Roumier Musigny, as he was not coming to the lunch tomorrow. He invited to me to his ’50th’ birthday celebration the following evening in kind. Christoph gave it an ‘I love it!’ It was full of red and orange fruit, vitamins, minerals and stems. Pungent, fleshy and chunky, the Musigny had a vimful, razor-like finish, one with great earth and finesse (96).

There was one more wine left, a 1996 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, which had me feeling guilty about drinking it as it was so, so young. It had amazing extraction for a ’96 that was atypical. Wilf commented how it was ‘amazing how he hides the oak.’ It had a kiss of gas. It was such a baby, an infant. Rich and full, it was all front and mid as its back side was buried, its acidity struggling to come out but there, lingering in the belly with a citric twist (95+).

Good night, Gracie.

Many spent the next morning skiing down the slopes of Aspen, but not I, for skiing has never been a strong suit of mine. I have only done it four or five times, I confess, and I am a warm weather person and the type of guy who would be staying at the cabin in front of a warm fireplace with a&but I digress. We had to go to the top of the mountain to have lunch at the lodge, and Greg and I hopped a ski lift up, up and away into the Aspen sky.

Upon arriving, the festivities were already in full swing, and a table by the entrance was already full of opened bottles, most noticeably a slew of older Lafon Meursault Charmes brought to us by none other than Randy Lewis of Lewis Cellars! Nice job, Randy. You can always tell who the most serious winemakers in California are by the amount of Burgundy in their cellar, so Randy immediately got voted into my ‘Top Ten’ poll for the week!

I tasted the 1978 Lafon Mersault ‘Charmes’ first. It had a very honeyed and nutty nose, with caramel everywhere, also bready and earthy and still with firm acidity. The wine was still quite rich and had a bready palate, mature yet with vim and good acidity. A nice, dusty citrus kiss graced the finish of this excellent wine (93).

A 1976 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was next, and it was also toasty and nutty, with more kernel to it, and lots of citrus and bright flavors. Smooth, long and with more integrated acidity, the 1976 was tasty and better balanced with less butter and caramel than the 1978, and I preferred it slightly (94).

The 1973 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was very sweet in its musky and caramel-laden nose, which was deeper, more brooding and rounder than the previous two vintages despite being older, also having more apple aromas. The palate was round, smooth, rich, nutty and very sexy – wait a second, that sounds like my ideal woman! Tasty and with good acidity, the 1973 had the best of both the 1976’s and 1978’s worlds (95).

Lastly for this spectacular cocktail round of Meursaults, the 1971 Lafon Meursault ‘Charmes’ was exotic with a smoky and buttery nose with a kiss of orangy maturity. ‘Time to drink,’ Christoph Roumier wisely observed. The nose was very buttery and creamy with a touch of caramel immersed in a veil of white smoke. The palate was tasty with an integrated, buttery finish, a little mature for one female guest but just right for this Goldilocks (94).

I finally assumed the position and sat down to a 1990 Paul Pernot Puligny Montrachet ‘Les Folatieres,’ which had a beautiful nose, fresh and bright, with great toast, nut and kernel, balanced with buttery and minerally fruit. This was a tasty wine all around, with nice minerals to its finish, a light sparkle and a satiny smooth impression (93).

It was time to take it up a notch with a 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault ‘Perrieres.’ Wow – the Coche lept from the glass with its signature kernel, nut and toast. Very long and regal, it had great ‘pop’ to it, long and massive yet with buried alcohol and acidity. A touch of root vegetable rounded out its complex and crackling nose. The wine was absolutely delicious, sparkling, popping and singing. Long yet balanced, thick yet light on its feet, the 1996 Perrieres from Coche was outstanding wine, toasty, lush and with enough great acidity to make any chemist proud (96).

What better way to follow up the Perrieres but with a 1996 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne? The Charly was more high-pitched in nose, a bit musty at first, but thankfully that blew off with a little air to reveal a razor of a nose, crackling with wheat, rye, grain and acidity even more serious than the Perrieres. It elicited another ‘wow’ from me, as it was so balanced and harmonized on palate. Long, elegant and smooth, there was a small lack of air/cork controversy, but after stirring it up this ‘Cocha Cola’ left 9 out of 10 tasters in awe. There was a dirty, white earthiness to it, and Daniel was still not liking nose despite his own infatuation with the palate. The acidity rapped to me, ‘I ain’t no joke’ (97).

The 1997 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne had a tough act to follow. While it did have a similar style to the ’96, it was more forward. Very aromatic, with more musk and citrus, the 1997 had the Coche signature there but was milder on the kernel and nuttiness. Still very tasty, of course, the acidity had some pop, but this was a more medium-bodied vintage for not only Coche, but all of White Burgundy, of course, although some food did bring out its acidity more and more to the point of excellence (93).

It was time to pick up the pace. A 2000 Ramonet Chevalier Montrachet had a very lean nose but was still regal with its anise, mineral and overall breed. Corny yellow fruit graced its smooth and easy palate, and I wondered a bit whether this wine was hibernating (92).

The 2002 Jean-Marc Pillot Chassagne Montrachet ‘Les Vergers, Clos St. Marc’ (Monopole within Vergers) had some youthful, tropical fruit, with lots of apricot, banana and mango in its exotic profile. Smooth, with nice length and dried minerals, light butter, this was a solid wine, albeit a little different than the usual standard (91).

The 2003 Champy Corton Charlemagne was rich, tropical, tasty and easy – wait a second, that sounds like another one of my ideal&Ok, sorry, I know, I know, I can’t help myself sometimes, wink wink (90).

The 2001 Roulot Meursault ‘Perrieres’ was a beauty yet a baby, full of minerals, very regal, bred incredibly well. It had an absolutely fabulous palate, which was pure, stony, minerally and possessing such purity. The wine was indubitably excellent, and my only question was whether it will put on weight and improve or not (93+).

The 1993 Coche-Dury Meursault ‘Rougeots’ was served out of magnum and had a super, smoking nose that was very vibrant and minerally. It was again signature Coche, and as Donna keenly observed, ‘you could never mistake it for anything else.’ Tasty, toasty and minerally, the wine was long and still very ‘right there,’ and the magnum factor certainly helped define its youthful edge more, I’m sure (93M).

Ok, it was the middle of January and we were on top of Aspen mountain – enough with the whites already! Greg broke the ice with a 1993 Dujac Charmes Chambertin, which was vibrant, smoky and fresh in the nose with aromas of stems and black cherries. Stewed plums, vitamins and musk also permeated through the nose, where one could see the influence of stems. Dujac did make amazing 1993’s, but the palate here was on the smooth and tender side, seemingly more mature than the nose led me to believe but still possessing nice earth and stem flavors (92).

A 1989 Groffier Bonnes Mares had a musty, vegetable nose that seemed a bit off. The palate was much better with the hearty, vitaminy ’89 style and big-time citrus flavors, but still a musty finish. I have always found Groffier’s wines to be very wild and wooly, hit or miss with a few more misses than hits, to be frank (90A?).

The 1998 Roumier Bonnes Mares had a sexy, reserved nose, musky, earthy and stemmy with sweet, cherry fruit looking over those shoulders. Lengthy, brooding, regal, deep and balanced, the palate was defined by peanut and light iron more than anything else at this stage, also by a bit of leather, but this wine was more closed and a bit shut down on the palate, but with lots of potential (92+).

The 1999 Roumier Bonnes Mares got an immediate ‘ooh la la’ from Christoph himself, proud papa that he was at that moment. The nose was very musky and sexy with great breed, brooding with its earth, stems, peanut, vitamins and minerals but also with its dank, dark black cherry, rose and blacker fruits. The 1999 was also very shut down on palate but reeked of a lot more potential and will indubitably merit a higher score eventually (95+).

A jeroboam (that’s three liters for Burgundies) of 2000 Dujac Bonnes Mares made its way over to us. Its nose was full of cinnamon, leather and lots of musky, fragrant fruit. The 2000 was more forward as the vintage is prone to be, with a purple, floral edge, and the wine overall was smooth, tasty, balanced and nice (91J).

The 1992 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee was an interesting wine. Musky, earthy and classic Jayer in its meaty, dark nose, there was also some menthol and earth there. The palate was tasty and smooth with a touch of beef stew but by Jayer’s standards seemed timid (90).

A 1991 Romanee St. Vivant had a nice, edgy, pungent nose with a pinch of vitamins and stems. The palate had rose flavors and nice intensity, also cedar and a vimful, acidic finish, although Ben called it ‘strength without elegance’ (93).

The next wine was probably the rarest wine of the afternoon, at least, and it was a 1990 Drouhin Vosne Romanee ‘Petits Monts.’ Doug informed me that only 50 cases were made and that I may never see it again. It had an unbelievable nose, so perfectly Burgundian – the musk, the spice, the leather, the earth, the meaty fruit, the edge. Just flat out beautiful, it had pure, delicate fruit, finesse and was a gorgeous wine. It might have been at its best, but it was beautiful and the elegant wine lover’s wine (95).

The 1993 Georges Mugneret Clos Vougeot was super spicy and vimful and also had an absolutely fabulous nose with great stems, tension and structure, and red fruits to match. Long, tasty, stemmy and with great spine, the 1993 had a lot to say and a long ways to go (95).

The 2001 Roumier Chambolle Musigny ‘Les Cras’ was a bit gamy at first but blew off into a beautiful, classic, medium-weight Burgundy (91).

Someone generously brought a 1943 La Tache which was unfortunately a touch maderized but still very fleshy, meaty, stinky and wild. The palate was gamy, smooth and stewed, still flavorful and with good texture and sound in many regards but affected. Roumier was loving the experience (92A).

The 1934 Clos des Lambrays had a great nose, very pungent with a lot of brown sugar, earth, soy, bing cherry and citric vigor. The palate had those mature, earth and brown sugar flavors (93).

A 2002 Lafon Volnay Champans was excellent, possessing great character and balance, a nice mix of taut fruit and subtle earth, along with vitamins and purple forest flavors (93).

There were a couple more notes that got lost in translation, a mag of 1999 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin ‘Clos St. Jacques’ and a 1 989 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. Sorry, I’ll get to them again sooner or later.

It was Saturday night and time for the unofficial grand finale with one of the best hosts known to winekind, Mr. Wilf Jaeger, who was celebrating his ’50th birthday,’ although I later found out that this was one of many celebrations over the course of this year, or many years, but you’ll have to ask Wilf for the dirtiest of details. It ended up being a most incredible meal, and I was very grateful for the invite.

A little bubbly got us going, a rare and unusal 1953 Philipponat ‘Clos des Goissets,’ their tete de cuvee. Smooth, soft and mature, it had lots of toast, nut and earth with light caramel flavors and not a lot of fizz left, but still a nice impression (92).

The 1989 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres was aromatic with a touch of that ‘must’ that sparked controversy earlier in the afternoon. It also had the butter, corn, citrus and minerals. It was obviously mature yet still fresh, though, with some anise and sparkle. The palate was very tasty – mature, round and smooth with flavors of white earth, minerals and light butter. Jean-Marc Roulot commented that 1989 was a low acid year but that this seemed to have more acid than most memories. It still seemed to me to be entering a plateau of maturity, and secondary white smoke flavors emerged (94).

The 1973 Ramonet Batard Montrachet came out ‘a little too cold,’ Carmel observed keenly, but once it warmed up it was candied and caramely. Its mature nose smelled closer to something from the 50’s than 70’s, a bit stewed with corn and vinegar and some cooked fruit, the kind to make candy, though. Musk, lanolin and oil rounded out the nose. The initial flavors were not pleasant: old morning mouth, rancid butter and butterscotch candy with out sweetness. A little vanilla developed and more caramel emerged in its flavors, which got significantly better as the wine kept improving in the glass, smoothing out and also becoming more vigorous at the same time. My score went from the low-80s, practically disqualified to the upper 80s, although I thought the bottle might have had some issues. Wilf summed it up well when he said, ‘Old wine, eh?’ (89A).

A 1996 Montrachet had am amazing nose, so precise and penetrating yet also elegant. Once past the alcohol and acidity in that nose, one discovered minerals, butter anise and smoke. The palate was long, refined, elegant and steely, its acidity very deep and lingering, not in your face but there. It was outstanding for sure, but not more than that for me, although Eric hailed it the ‘Greatest Montrachet ever,’ a sentiment he echoed at my ‘Top 100’ event this past Fall (96).

The 1964 Pousse d’Or Volnay ‘Caillerets’ was a real treat. It had a fabulous nose that was sexy, musky, bright and vimful, with amazing alcohol and acidity still. It also had gorgeous fruit, a rose, plum and cherry mélange supplemented with vitamins and earth. Carmel called it ‘perfect.’ It amazing nose was so good that it smelled good enough to put on the back of my neck and go to the bar. The palate was delicious with great verve, unbelievable acidity and bright cherry, vitamin and earth flavors. Wow (96).

Its counterpart, a 1964 Pousse d’Or Pommard ‘Jarolieres,’ was more meaty and pungent in the nose, still with a similar vitamin and fruit mélange, though more pungent and oily. Wilf and Christoph thought they both might still be improving, and the Pommard also had great character, brawnier and clumsier on the palate but still with nice citric vim and good earth flavors on its finish (93).

We were in for another treat, another one of those wines that does not exist, a 1947 Drouhin Chambertin, and it was a ‘fucking amazing’ bottle, someone muttered in glee. OK, it was me. It had an intense, deep nose full of meaty, chunky fruit, loaded with iron and minerals. It was also a killer on the palate with huge and massive concentration and a long, long finish. The only negative thing I can say about it is that after the next wine, it seemed lesser (96+).

&which brings me to our next wine, a 1929 Drouhin Chambertin. I doubt I will have either of these wines ever again, and if I do that they will not be as in good condition! The 1929 was more elegant with its smooth and round nose and gorgeous aromas of cherry ice cream, mahogany amd light iron. The palate was rich, round, mature and sweet; heavy and with great acidity, amazing and still so intense..let’s just call it ridiculous. It was definitely the wine of the weekend (98+).

While that could have been the grand finale, we had two wines left, the first being a rare 1956 La Tache. Wilf and I had shared this bottle together a couple months prior, but not from his cellar, which he brought tonight. This bottle had a nice nose with good intensity and an earthy mask. This bottle proved very tasty and balanced, with excellent alcohol and acidity and great earth flavors. Its intensity was retained in its nose, and it had long, lingering acidity. Now I understood what Wilf was talking about two months ago (93).

It was a sledgehammer to go as the last wine was a 1993 H. Jayer Vosne Romanee ‘Cros Parantoux’ out of magnum. It had a humongous nose with a deep, dark, chunky edge. A bit of gas needed to blow off, and then the wine revealed deep, dark purple fruits and a mountainous quality. The palate was mountainous as well, shattering in its enormity, so meaty and thick that I ran out of things to say except ‘Thank you, Wilf, and here’s to many more’ (97).