Blog

The auction was this past Saturday, and each auction seems to bring out the out. in me the preceding week as the momentum builds towards the auction. It was one of those weeks, where each night had parts one and two, and I over-indulged a bit, finally crashing on Saturday after the auction. a close friend of mine was in town, of course, the only person who can get me out four nights in a row. No drinks this week, I swear!

The week started off Tuesday night at LCB Brasserie (formerly La Cote Basque), where the Wine Workshop kicked off its spring schedule with a near complete vertical of J.F. Mugnier’s Musigny, whose first vintage was 1985. We did not have the 1992 or 1987, and the 1986 was actually Vieilles Vignes, a fact that made a big difference at the end of the night. We had scheduled the event to coincide with the Burghound’s trip to NYC as he passed through on his way to Burgundy. For those of you that don’t know, Allen Meadows (aka the Burghound) has become the country’s, if not the world’s, leading expert on Burgundy over the past few years. His knowledge of the wines, the Domaines, and the people behind them is incredible, and any serious Burgundy collector or drinker should make an effort to subscribe.

Allen started off with a wealth of information to set the stage for the wines of Freddie. Mugnier, who has become one of the most collectible and respected producers in Burgundy over the past decade. Most of this paragraph is paraphrased from Allen, fyi. The vineyard of Musigny is 10.7 hectares (approximately 27 acres) and has three climats.: Les Grands Musigny, Les Petits Musigny (which is 100% owned by Comte de Vogue), and a tiny parcel in La Combe d’Orveaux that is actually Musigny and 100% owned by Jacques Prieur. Mugnier’s village Chambolle comes from regular Combe d’Orveaux fruit. Comte de Vogue is the twenty-foot elephant of the region, owning two-thirds of all property that is officially Musigny. Allen reasoned that Comte de Vogue should make the best Musigny every year because they have the luxury of declassifying sub-standard barrels. Roumier, Jadot, Leroy and Faiveley, who all make one to three barrels every year, have to work with what they have or make nothing at all. Allen cited two recent examples: Faiveley only made a half-barrel (12 and ½ cases) of its 2002 Musigny Allen almost felt guilty sampling it, as one bottle is 00667 of the world’s production, akin to drinking 2000 bottles of a First Growth in one sitting! There are only 40,000 bottles of Musigny made every year on average. Also, Roumier wanted to use a custom-made, oversized barrel for his 2002 Musigny, one about 150% of the size of a standard barrel, but this custom barrel was flawed and lent way to much char in the 02, potentially ruining a great Roumier. He still bottled, however. Mugnier owns 1.3 hectares (2 and ¾ acres), and the average age of the vines on the property is 50 years old. Allen went on to call Musigny one of the top three pieces of dirt in Burgundy, along with La Tache and Romanee Conti. We’re talking high-class cotton, he jested. The history of Mugnier is a short one, at least related to wine. His father was a Parisian banker, but his grandfather and great-grandfather were in the liqueur business and did well for the family. Freddie was an oil engineer until 1984, when he got bit by the wine bug and took a crash course in oenology in Dijon for six months. Six months later, he was getting ready to make his first vintage of Musigny. His holdings include Chambolle village (half of his village wine is declassified 1er and grand crus), Les Fuees, Les Amoreuses, a tiny 0.4 hectares of Bonnes Mares and the aforementioned Musigny. Freddie has always been modest and whip-smart, according to Allen, and will confess to this day that he had no idea what he was doing early on. His earlier vintages tend to be more masculine, and as time went on and Freddie gained more experience and wisdom, his wines became more and more feminine and elegant, like a classy Musigny should be. Early on he experimented with Vielles Vignes. cuvees between 1985 and 1989, which was his last one. Roumier has influenced him to use some stems. Allen made one last point, as he saw drool forming in the corners of all of our lips, which was that Mugnier is not for everyone. I think it is brilliant, but it is a connoisseurs. wine. Wines are designed to come to you, but you have to come to this, where elegance and internal genius can be appreciated.. Mugnier once told him, We don’t need winemakers. Everything we need comes from the vineyards, and all I need to do is not screw it up.. Allen continued to put his own two cents in and say that this culture of celebrating the winemaker is like putting the cart before the horse. Allen is clearly a terroir-ist. and bleeds Burgundy red.

We started with a flight of four wines, 2001 back through 1998. Allen said that Mugnier was his personal favorite when it came to Musigny, and explained further that the problem with Roumier is that he doesn’t make enough! The 2001 Mugnier Musigny was young yet pure, with lots of alcohol in the nose but sweet, crystal-clear fruit to match. There was red and black cherry fruit, musky and kinky spice in the nose, and a close friend of mine was all over its transparency.. The wine did have beautiful clarity in the nose. On the palate, what I call the bitterness of youth. enveloped the wine with its wood, alcohol and mineral components. The fruit was not ready to be fully experienced, although it got saucier in the nose. It will certainly be a great wine, and probably climb the point ladder (93). A close friend of mine was complimenting the approachability and drinkability of the 2000 Mugnier Musigny when Allen shared that Freddie felt his 2000 was better than his 1999, although Allen was careful to make clear that he was unsure whether he agreed. The nose was seductive, noticeably lighter in weight but gorgeously perfumed and elegant. There was some delicate sweetness and a combination of red fruits and sweet spice, along with a touch of leather. The palate was rusty and taut but balanced and long. The wine was still young but much more approachable than the 2001. My friend Don, who has one of the greatest collections of Burgundy in the world, told me recently that when he is in the mood for something young, he usually opens a 2000 (in general, not specifically Mugnier) (92). The 1999 Mugnier Musigny was actually lost in translation in our warehouse, but with only thirty minutes until the event started, we called up Robert Bohr of Cru, seeking an emergency replacement. He had four bottles on hand thankfully, another reason why Cru is the best restaurant in New York City today! The bottle came just in time and was a little unsettled to some due to the quick trip, but the nose was still deep and intense, although one had to dig a little. There was a meaty core with some fig, animaland more pronounced leather wrapped around it, and earth wrapped around the leather. The fruit was more on the black and plummy side. The finish was huge with lots of t n a but shut down on the fruit side. The flavors were vitamin and cola, and while one could not discount the density and length of the wine, it would be a waste to open one for at least another five years (94+). The 1998 Mugnier Musigny has been a personal favorite of Allen’s since release, and a close friend of mine was also right there in his admiration. The nose was divine and had impeccable balance of fruit and spice. The fruit was warm and inviting and had great spice and stone accompanying it. The nose was wound up yet still inviting, in a stage of divine schizophrenia. The flavors were pure – cherry, soda, oat and earth, and the finish was very fine and long (95). Allen chipped in a few comments after flight one. The orchestrated fruit is the brilliance of Musigny with its kaleidoscopic expression and its layered personality, like an onion, as Shrek said. Each sip reveals something else, like each layer of that onionI hate vintage charts look at 1993 and 1998Mugnier uses 25% new oak.. I want to add my own observation about tasting and evaluating young Burgundy: a majority of wines have the potential to score higher, as tasting young Burgundy is more difficult than any other wine, and the great wines often need ten to fifteen years to start to show their fruit. Always keep that in mind. I gave the 1999 a + as I thought it was clear that it would go up in score and had the most potential in this flight, although the same could be said for the 2001.

The next flight was again four wines, from 1997 through 1994. The 1997 Mugnier Musigny was wild and open with meaty and gamy edges. There was a touch of sulfur, animal, and almost milky aromas, with wet stones and minerals to match. The palate was rich and alcoholic, a touch unbalanced with the alcohol, and much denser fruit-wise than any wine in the first flight. Despite its intensity and heavy finish, there was still balance and long, dry tannins (93). I should note that Doug, a reknowned Burgundy aficionado from New York, did not care for it. The 1996 Mugnier Musigny had a shy nose, but was regal at the same time. There were hints of peppermint, dark chocolate, leather, slate and musk. The palate was exquisitely balanced, long and pure-bred. The palate was also shy with its citric tension. The wine showed its beautiful body, but a close friend of mine made the point that the 1997 was better for a 97 than the 1996 was for a wine from 96 (93+). The 1995 Mugnier Musigny, a vintage which more people seem to be giving up on than democracy in Iraq, showed a touch of funk in the nose, again pepperminty a la the 1996, also flirting with cinnamon and eucalyptus. The nose was rusty and leathery in general its layers were certainly of brick origin. The palate was very dry and long with great vitamins, earth, brick and unsweetened sun-dried cherry flavors. Although Freddie claims he blew it. with this vintage and the fact that Allen felt the 1995 is one-dimensional, I found some merit in the wine, and if some fruit ever develops (which does seem unlikely), it could increase in score. I could see why some would find it overly dry (a flaw of the vintage in general it seems) and lacking layers of fruit, but I found it to be very good right now, not turned off by its overly dry personality (something it shares with the 1988 vintage, which I often find myself liking more than others as well) (92). A touch of pungent, leathery fruit marked the 1994 Mugnier Musigny, whose nose was also musky, taut and citric with sprinkles of vitamins, but light overall. The wine was simple on the palate and did not have a lot there it was ok, average at best. Rob remarked that it doesn’t have the Musigny going on.. Stay away from 1994 Burgundies is the JK recommendation, as I have yet to have one I really enjoyed, come to think of it (85). Allen shared some wisdom, of course, noting that this would probably be the least successful flight of the night, since he does not like the 1994 or 1995 that much and has never been as enthused with the 1996 as he has wanted to be. He told us that 1994 was actually shaping up to be the vintage of the century until September arrived, when it started to rain and never stopped. As a result, the phenolic ripeness never occurred. There are 1 in 100 wines that you will actually enjoy. It is my least favorite vintage of the decade.. I knew I hadn’t had a good one! 1995, he continued, was problematic as a lot of people picked too soon due to the hot weather, and there was also rot. The wines were explosive from cask but eighteen months later shut down and have never reopened. The late pickers in 1995 were much more successful, he continued, and the triage (sorting) table was much more important. There was that if it’s really hot, it must be great. stigma with the vintage early on amongst critics, he went on, which sent him off on this tangent about schools of wine criticism. He categorized critics as either adjectivists, which he personally rejects, or structuralists, whom he considers himself, who are more concerned with how the wine is going to age. The balance between acid, tannins and density is what is most important flavors will come later, the same point that a close friend of mine made in Vegas two weeks prior. Great minds think alike! Allen also made the clear distinction that extraction is not a synonym with density. Count me in the middle somewhere, but on that structuralist side if it was an election (I’m saying, I like my adjectives, too!) I do agree with Allen in that there is not enough concern with how wines are going to develop. 99 point ratings are flying all over the place for wines with unproven track records. Wines made in more restrained and elegant styles are under-rated because they don’t hit critics over the head with their extracted ways, more so in Burgundy than any other region. The world’s greatest wines are ones that last thirty years or more and develop, which doesn’t mean a wine can’t be great for its first five or ten years. However, too many people are looking at wine in the here and now. They need to drink more old wine! Back to our regular programmingthe only problem with 1996 was that the crop was superabundant. It was one of the cleanest crops ever, with big, fat berries and high liquid-to-solid ratios. As a result, it was hard to make a dense 1996, but the detail of the wines is incredible. 1997 was a very hot vintage as well, a la 1947 and 1959. There is a big debate over the phenolic ripeness of the vintage, as in whether or not it was achieved since it was too hot, and some wines do have a greenness to them as a result. Allen gave us an example of why hot vintages are not always great: The vine is a living organism, and it will not risk its own life for the sake of its babies (grapes). If overly stressed, the vine will shut down.. He then rattled off every major, great vintage of the 20th century that was not a hot vintage: 1993, 1969, 1961, 1952, 1949, 1945, 1937, 1929, 1921 and I might have missed a few.

The third flight was here, and three wines were there for our evaluation: 1993, 1991 and 1990, a nice trio to evaluate together for any great producer in Burgundy. My note for the 1993 Mugnier Musigny started, Oh baby, as its nose was super-intense, with power and finesse, as well as meat, black fruits, vitamins, minerals, t n a, leather, earth, saddle, musk, spice and animal fur. The palate was great long and chock full of vitamins, taut and wound by comparison to its expressive nose, with a touch of citric tension. The intensity in the nose doesn’t wane and someone called it precise.. (95+) The 1991 Mugnier Musigny had a pure nose with great t n a. It was very penetrating and long with great Asian spice to it. The palate, however, was very tight and unyielding too wound for me at the moment. There was some secondary rose/floral spice that developed in the nose. The palate was long, but very dry, so much so that I am not sure the fruit will ever get there (91). The bottle of 1990 Mugnier Musigny we had was very controversial, and certainly not consistent with the one we had in Vegas a couple weeks prior. a close friend of mine and Rob found it stewed, although others called it delicious.. The nose was shy and removed, with anise, milk, leather and alcohol, and the palate was long and clumsy. Based on the bottle I had two weeks ago, I had to disqualify it (DQ). Time for some Burghound analysis: both Allen and Freddie feel that the 1993 is the best he ever made. 1993 is for Burgundy lovers, while 1990 is for wine lovers.. Why? 1993 is all about terroir, and the wines have a transparency that exists that you cannot find in those from 1990. 1991 is almost a combination of 1993 and 1990, Allen continued, calling the best 1991s better than the best 1990s, because Mother Nature didn’t let one overcrop in 1991. 1991’s biggest problem was that many wines are too austere, something we saw in the Mugnier. Allen also commented, Style is not content, and content is not style, although I can’t recall the context of the comment about content. Say that five times quickly.

There were two flights left, and two wines in each flight, but I will review them all in a final paragraph. The 1989 Mugnier Musigny had a forward, gamy, plummy and minty nose, but its mintiness was more Crest and manufactured than natural with its thick and heavy accents. The nose was a bit wild and crazy with lots of forest floor. The palate was pretty with a light sturdiness, leathery and on the drier side with its mid-to-light finish. It is holding on to being very good and most likely will decline sooner rather than later (90). The 1988 Mugnier Musigny had a milky nose with red fruits, eucalyptus, leather and a touch of rust. The palate was rich with lots of vitamins, citrus and t n a. It was brawny and sturdy but just short of three-dimensional call it two and a half. The palate was rusty and long. a close friend of mine liked it a lot as well (92). The 1986 Mugnier Musigny Vieilles Vignes was extraordinary, especially given the context of the vintage, and it was a perfect example of a wine needing time to be fully and properly evaluated. The nose was amazing and the nose of the night for sure, as it was both youthful and mature heaven scent, if you will. There were intense aromas of rose, vitamin and mineral. The wine was hot, hot, hot as in sexy and not alcohol! The palate was meaty and rich with loads of iron and iodine, leather, earth and spice. The wine was incredibly youthful still with long acids and cinnamon. according to Bob. Allen called it high-toned with clove. and none of the harshness. of the 1986 vintage.. He also explained that Freddie himself confided that he lucked out when he made this wine, as he was still learning the ropes (96). The 1985 Mugnier Musigny was corked. Bummer (DQ). Allen shared that the 1986 was the most interesting aromatically and shows that even in an average vintage that the best terroirs and producers can transcend the vintage.. In sum, he said that despite the evolution of the winemaking style, you can still comment on the fact that it is Musigny. The wines don’t shout, they’re not showy and they are refined.. It was a most enjoyable and educational evening but it wasn’t over. Allen, a close friend of mine, Andy, Rob, Doug and I headed over to Atelier, which is the restaurant in the Ritz Carlton on Central Park South, a restaurant that has a great list of Burgundy and other wines as well. No notes were taken, but wines were consumed, and some pretty special ones at that, so what follows are reflections of the rest of that night. It is tough to remember anything besides the glorious, last bottle there of 1952 Richebourg that we had, which was spectacular. It had everything one could want fabulously complex aromas of saucy, sexy and meaty fruit laced with menthol and minerals. The wine was still incredibly fresh, layered in the nose like one of Allen’s onions. The texture on the palate was incredible: thick, meaty and layered as well. It was a rose garden of a wine the rose garden at Versailles, that is. Incredible, incredible wine (98). We actually started with a 1990 Dujac Clos St. Denis, which was close to outstanding but a little musty and wound. It needed more time, both in the glass and in the bottle. It was very minerally and rocky, but still class in the glass, of course, since it was from one of the top six producers in Burgundy (, Rousseau, Roumier, Vogue, and Jayer are the others, fyi) (94+). We also had a corked 1999 Roumier Musigny (it was also the last bottle) (DQ), and a pair of 1980 ‘s: La Tache Richebourg. We had the La Tache first, which was still fresh, alive and kicking with lots of power and alcohol and a mentholated palate. It was intense and excellent, bordering on outstanding but lacking the depth of fruit I require to give it that badge of honor (94). The Richebourg should have been had first, and while it was still very good, it did not stand up to the power of the La Tache (91). Time for bed.

The next night was dinner at Nobu, courtesy of Big Boy, who treated all of us (including a close friend of mine and Patman) to dinner and Champagne Champagne as in 1961 Krug, 1969 1975 Dom Perignon, and 1985 Krug. All the Champagnes were original bottlings, and unfortunately the mag of 1969 was shot (DQ). The 1975 DP was a little tired as well, perhaps past its prime or just an affected bottle (86). The 1961 Krug was gorgeous, pure, refined and still fresh (94). The same could be said for the 1985, except you had to add the fact that the 85 was massive by comparison, with incredible power and intensity (96+). I look forward to having it another hundred or so times over the next couple of decades. I should also note that Krug Collection (late-released) bottles of 1961 would probably score higher than original releases. The after-party on this night was at Cru, where I tried to get the blind game in motion and put one of my fellow enthusiasts on the spot, since he has been guessing too many wines correctly when we taste blind together. So I plucked a magnum of 1983 Rousseau Chambertin off the list, it was served blind, and what did a close friend of mine guess? Yup, the 1983 Rousseau Chambertin. Ok, I give up. The wine, by the way, was gorgeous, beautifully mature, distinctively Rousseau, gentle and soft, caressing and smooth. It was as if someone poured rose petals into the glass while one was walking barefoot on Holy Land. Who says 1983s can’t be great? The magnum helped, I’m sure, but it was an excellent wine, although at its peak and not layered to be a fifty year wine, I think. Hopefully, I am wrong (93). Andy ended up stumping a close friend of mine by serving him Premier Cru wine. Now why didn’t I think of that? The 1993 Comte Armand Pommard Clos des Epeneaux was big and clumsy, lacking a center although packing a wallop of a finish, laced with too much oak for my taste (86). Andy also pulled out a 1949 Remoissenet Richebourgstrong>, I think, which was mature and tasty in that I.ve been chapitalized kind of way, as in maybe I’m Richebourg and maybe I’m 1949 but damned if you will ever know (90). That was it for this night. Tomorrow was the beginning of Doug and Michael’s two-day Romanee St. Vivant extravaganza, but you’ll have to wait until next week to read all about that one.