Blog

You have probably heard of the New York Marathon, but last week New York saw a different kind of marathon take place courtesy of master organizers/puppeteers Doug Barzelay and Michael Rockefeller: the Romanee St. Vivant Marathon. In fact, the course was so long, I couldn.t even finish the last leg! But more of that later

It started off innocently enough on Thursday night at the Mark hotel. a close friend of mine and I were both a little green in the gills from the previous two nights, where we pummeled ourselves into oblivion with back-to-back doubleheaders. Well, here we were again, although on this night we were both spitting more often than not in order to survive the night and live to tell about it. Allen Meadows, aka the Burghound, was also there, telling us the biggest news in this commune of twenty-five acres and ten owners (and one absentee one) is how Drouhin will no longer be making RSV, as the one absentee owner (Poisot) has now started selling to Folin-Aberet (this spelling could be very wrong), who will debut his RSV with the 2004 vintage, which is being tended to by Dominique Mugneret. Now I could be mistaken, but I think that Jadot also got his fruit from Poisot, but I am unsure if he maintains that relationship or if we have seen the last of Jadot’s RSV as well. Allen is off in France in some cellar tasting as we speak, so I will have to fill you in on the exact details later.

It started off innocently enough on Thursday night at the Mark hotel. a close friend of mine and I were both a little green in the gills from the previous two nights, where we pummeled ourselves into oblivion with back-to-back doubleheaders. Well, here we were again, although on this night we were both spitting more often than not in order to survive the night and live to tell about it. Allen Meadows, aka the Burghound, was also there, telling us the biggest news in this commune of twenty-five acres and ten owners (and one absentee one) is how Drouhin will no longer be making RSV, as the one absentee owner (Poisot) has now started selling to Folin-Aberet (this spelling could be very wrong), who will debut his RSV with the 2004 vintage, which is being tended to by Dominique Mugneret. Now I could be mistaken, but I think that Jadot also got his fruit from Poisot, but I am unsure if he maintains that relationship or if we have seen the last of Jadot’s RSV as well. Allen is off in France in some cellar tasting as we speak, so I will have to fill you in on the exact details later.

We started off with a flight of three wines from 1980 and 1979. First up was the 1980 (I am not going to type out Romanee St. Vivant or RSV for every wine remember they are all Romanee St. Vivants!). After some initial confusion as to what the order was, we settled into the gorgeous nose that had a whiff of mint, menthol and delicate, sweet red cherry fruit with sexy, liqueur-like and candied rose sweetness as well. The 1980 had catnip on the nose but not the power of the La Tache that we had a couple nights before. The palate was still taut with mature flavors, some citric tension and a mild, dry finish. There were meat and menthol flavors as well, and the wine was a little meaner on the palate than the nose indicated, but it was pure and layered. as someone noted, with a nice dollop of minerals (92). The 1980 Arnoux had a weedy nose with some rotten vegetable, wood and allspice that was lacking the all.. There were light, minty, red fruits underneath. The structure was decent, but the flavors were all earth, citrus and tree, although someone noted lychee.. a close friend of mine picked up on its strawberry and sugar,. as the nose developed a little, but the palate was very dry and one-dimensional with its earth, tree and unpleasant marsh flavors (85). The 1979 Charles Noellat had a wild, unique and exotic nose with lots of floral, purple fruit and flower aromas and a touch of sap and jasmine, and almost a weird tea aroma. There was a quick detour into the forest, almost grassy but more artificial reminding me of taxicab air freshener. The palate was undrinkable, lacking fruit and very woody and dry (NR).

Next up was the 1972s and 71s, six wines in total. The 1972 Arnoux had lots of animal and what the French call, scent du merde,. with leather, citrus, hay, meat and chocolate all supporting underneath. The more you aired it, the better it got, with more of the earth and dry cherry fruit coming out. The palate was mature with citrus, earth and oat flavors, and a brown sugar sweetness. Ben called it a little sweaty but ok,. and the flavors got earthier in the glass (88). The 1972 Marey-Monge () had a sweeter, more masculine nose in a woody way. Robert said that all the 72 ‘s I have had are tired,. but a close friend of mine made a counterpoint that out of large format he has been exceptionally lucky. There was a lot of animal, roasted meat, charcoal, old wood and almost BBQ/jerky in the nose, while the flavors were more menthol and citrus, with lots of power and hidden length, but also overly earthy and a touch weird on the palate, lacking the layers one would hope (88). The 1972 Charles Noellat was a worthy follow-up to the 1979 with its disgusting nose of spinach and turpentine and rotten flavors. I wonder if this was ever good, Rob quipped (NR). A corked bottle of 1971 Arnoux followed (DQ). The 1971 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. was a touch cooked in the nose with its brown sugar and molasses but had some plummy fruit behind it. The fruit was indeed baked and port-like, and the palate was chocolaty and earthy, with the long acids of the vintage. a close friend of mine felt it was heavily chapitalized. and Geoffrey joked pasteurized,. i.e., cooked. I was unsure if the wine was like this or the bottle was affected, but I leaned towards the latter. There were some pleasant citrus and earth flavors and the structure of the vintage shone through, but the wine was not what it could have been (90+?). The 1971 Marey-Monge () was the finale to this disappointing flight. It was more mature than other wines I have had fromthis vintage from with a beefy, stewed nose and aromas of duck sauce, spice, flowers and baked bread. The palate was excellent with lots of intensity and tremendous expression on the finish. The bottle still seemed a touch advanced for the vintage with its browned flavors, though, accompanied by citrus, oat, leather and brown sugar. There was nice balance and texture here, but I couldn.t help but think this bottle had also been affected somewhere along the way in its thirty-four years (92+).

We jumped to the 1964 Remoissenet, every one’s favorite poster boy for chapitalization and authenticity jokes, and Rob immediately jumped in with it smells like it’s direct from Algeria,. which got a few laughs. The nose was a bit off-putting and very wound too wound with some bad earth, synthetic cleaner and a stemmy/branchy edge. There were good tannins but horsy flavors and bad cardboard to match. It barely avoided the dreaded NR. (not recommended) due to its structural and textural components (80). The next wine was also a 1964 Remoissenet bottling, but a Marey-Monge one this time. Geoffrey observed that it was very animal,. and there was lots of horse, wet hay, animal and some green blending into the earth. The palate had good spice and alcohol with lots of earth, tobacco and coffee grind flavors. It was a touch aggressive by Burgundian standards, and I could see it rubbing a lot of people more wrongly than me (90). Next up was the real deal, and the best wine of the night so far, a 1964 Marey-Monge () . Josh observed that it was hands down the best wine of the night so far, four or five points higher than the next.. It did have a gorgeous nose of balanced rose, cherry, citrus, nice spice and good leather aromas. The wine was long, balanced, firm, yet feminine. The palate was rich, long and creamy with light spice and soft tannins. It was a gorgeous wine (95). The next 1964, a Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux, . was 100% cooked, no doubts about it (DQ). Finally, we had a semi-drinkable Charles Noellat, the 1964. The nose was mild and pleasant with more dark, black fruits. It was simple and easy, an average wine that stood the test of time, at least. a close friend of mine said that in Chinese one would say nolah,. as in I don.t want it,. and I translated that into auction-speak, No Lot,. as in I don.t want to sell it.. It was better than the first two disasters (85).

The following flight was comprised of wines from 1961 and 1959. The first wine was completely maderized, a 1961 Moillard The 1961 Marey-Monge () had a deep, heavy nose full of plums and black fruits, with a pinch of brown sugar sweetness, earth, leather, chocolate, coffee and hay. The palate was also heavy and thick with a medium finish, nice balance and good flavors on the oat and sugar side (91) The next wine was the only magnum of the evening, and it seemed to make a difference. Experienced tasters and collectors know that magnums often deliver fresher and better experiences when drinking older wines. This magnum was a 1961 Drouhin, and it was very fresh. a close friend of mine observed that it smelled like a Chambolle or Musigny,. admiring its style. There was lots of feminine spine in the nose with a touch of citrus, beautiful perfume and spice, gorgeous cherry fruit and solid vitamins. The palate was fresh and full of vitamins, cherry, rose and dictionary (old book) flavors. Geoffrey cooed so elegant,. and that it was true to Drouhin’s style.. There were lots of oohs and aahs for this pure, graceful beauty (95) . The heat of the 1959 vintage manifested itself in the 1959 Marey-Monge () with its sweet, baked fruit. The wine was a touch stewed, and Rob was a bit sad, as he felt it should have been one of the wines of the night.. It had the game, spice, and chapitalized, silky, webbed fruit. a close friend of mine felt it was funky.. There were meat and leather flavors, and the wine was oaty on the palate, and Ben noted marshmallow.. It didn.t hold it together on the palate and the nose got mustier as well. a close friend of mine remarked how he was not a big fan of the 1959 vintage as they are fat and low in acid., and Rob concurred that they are dying off left and right.. I don.t think this was the best bottle of this wine, hence the question mark (87?). Ben through in his own two cents that hot vintages don.t hold,. including the 1964 vintage in his book, but thenAllen counterpointed 1923, 1928 and 1937. En garde! Allen also made a comment about how should make the best RSV every time because they have almost 50% of the land in the commune, giving them the luxury of being able to declassify more than other producers, which was the same comment he made about Vogue in Musigny earlier in the week. The 1959 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. had a gorgeous nose, just as I remembered it. It was youthful and fresh, delicate but still having an underlying backbone. There was cherry fruit, lots of dust, light leather and earth, and some meat and tobacco rounding out the nose. The t n a really came out. The palate was tasty, not over the top but still sweet, with good earth on the finish. The wine was balanced and pretty and had a moderate finish (93) . The 1959 Drouhin was a touch cooked in the nose, although a close friend of mine attributed it to the 59 vintage more than bottle variation. There were aromas of brown sugar, oatmeal, earth, and a touch of Asian BBQ/hoisin. The palate was earthy, sturdy and thick but a little clumsy, still very good but I thought the bottle was somewhat affected. A pinch of mint graced the palate as well (90+?). The 1959 Bouchard Aine had a minty and wintry nose with earth, air freshener, citrus, mineral and earth aromas. The palate was sturdy, heavy and thick with lots of earth and oat flavors. The palate was balanced, and the finish was good, on the oat and earth side as well, but not too much as in some of the other wines. Some people liked it, some people didn.t. There was a touch of baked flavors, but good ones, definitely the vintage in this case and not the bottle (91).

There were six wines in the last flight, beginning with the 1955 Charles Noellat. There was a drop of cat’s pee, leather and mineral with some strawberry fruit, earth and baked bread edges. The palate was out of balance with lots of citrus and spice on the back end, but the fruit had this moldy flavor. The finish was long, but it got worse quickly. If I had waited longer to score this wine, it probably would have kept declining in points as it already had in my notebook (85) . The 1953 Arnoux I did not like at all, but I wasn.t sure if it was my glass since Geoffrey was digging it. I switched glasses, but the wine was still very angular with weird wood aromas and a palate that could be best described as being ick. (NR) . The 1953 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. had a pretty nose, with sweet, spiny fruit and great balance of ego and id. There was gorgeous rose, book, spice, mineral and t n a in the nose, and a gorgeous palate to match with sweet fruit and a good finish with nice slate, minerals and length. There was a tasty drop of orange, jellied, citrus fruit. Geoffrey called it one of the benchmark vintages for Louis Latour,. and the wine was beautiful; in fact, I think it is a great decade for Latour RSV on the whole (94). The 1953 Comte d’Orthez was exotic and controversial, and a lot weren.t sure it was Burgundy. It was a bit Rhonish, but decent whatever it was (89). The 1953 Bouchard Aine was corked (DQ) , leaving us with the 1948 Charles Noellat Richebourg as the grand finale&uh-oh. Actually, the 1948 was very good, redeeming a shred of dignity for Charles, although it was again out there in its style. This time it had a stinky, pretzel nose with a bit of mustard too, I swear! It was a hot dog of a nose, beefy and meaty, earthy, and actually tasty in an earthy, bookwormy way (90) . a close friend of mine and I had a few drinks afterwards at the Peninsula, but there was no trouble to get into mercifully on this brutally cold night.

The next day started with a light lunch at Per Se, where we had the 1986 and 1987 ‘s to warm up. The 1986 had lots of alcohol, iodine, iron and rust in the nose with gamy red fruits behind it. The nose was stony and screechy with the alcohol taking charge, and tangy and sexy fruit behind it. The palate was very wound with lots of expression to the tannins on the palate, which was also dry and citric. The fruit was drying out a bit, and Ben noted that it was not a great vintage very rustic.. There were lots of brick and rust there, and the palate had very little fruit left with time in the glass and became overly dry, citric and acidic despite its pretty nose (87). The 1987 was more mushroomy in the nose and more approachable with some beef broth, fading red fruits and autumnal leaf and floor in its nose. There were more purple and black fruit expressions there as well and decent minerals. The palate was not as exciting, still with weight and some length but a touch beefy, citric and minerally (87) .

The next day started with a light lunch at Per Se, where we had the 1986 and 1987 ‘s to warm up. The 1986 had lots of alcohol, iodine, iron and rust in the nose with gamy red fruits behind it. The nose was stony and screechy with the alcohol taking charge, and tangy and sexy fruit behind it. The palate was very wound with lots of expression to the tannins on the palate, which was also dry and citric. The fruit was drying out a bit, and Ben noted that it was not a great vintage very rustic.. There were lots of brick and rust there, and the palate had very little fruit left with time in the glass and became overly dry, citric and acidic despite its pretty nose (87). The 1987 was more mushroomy in the nose and more approachable with some beef broth, fading red fruits and autumnal leaf and floor in its nose. There were more purple and black fruit expressions there as well and decent minerals. The palate was not as exciting, still with weight and some length but a touch beefy, citric and minerally (87) .

The first wine had a fresh and vibrant nose full of crushed red fruits, violet, stems, minerals, velvet, earth and wood. The wine was very clear, and the vitamins really came out along with its violety, cassisy and plummy fruit. The palate was so young and had good components and nice clarity, with a lightly spicy finish and nice feminine length to its acid. The fruit was almost impossible to evaluate at first but started to open like a young flower. Ben got stems out of it too, thinking it was maybe . The wine was clean, vibrant and fresh it was the 2001 Drouhin (93). The second wine was milder on the fruit side in the nose with more brick, subtle wood and fireplace action. The nose was also clean and clear, a characteristic of the 2001 vintage. It had an Asian spice, tea and fortune cookie trio with a unique tree-like edge. Its sweetness was in its earth more than the fruit. The palate had a grappa-like flavor to it and long expressive tannins with what I like to call the bitterness of youth,. but it was still stylish, as Daniel Johnnes agreed. It was a heavy wine that needed to resolve a lot of things, and Doug found it simple and not well-knit,. and another observed less intensity over time.. It was the 2001 Domaine de l.Arlot (89+). The next wine had more intense breed and depth in its nose, with cinnamon edges and great spice. There were minerals, judicious wood and a touch of pine. The fruit was on the purple side and had a smokehouse edge and also that grappa edge. The palate was fine, long, and excellent; the fruit was purple but shut down. The tannins were refined and expressive, and it was Doug’s and Josh’s favorite of the flight, and it was the 2001 Hudelot-Noellat (93). It was a long way from Charles. We were back to the foresty side with the fourth wine in this flight, with a wood floor supporting brick, earth and stem. The fruit was buried in the nose besides a touch of plum. It had a milder nose than the first three wines, and the flavors werealso quieter and shut down. There was some leather and earth on the finish and this splash of grappa (again!). The wine seemed lean on the fruit, and Tim Kopec called it not very serious soda pop and a drying finish.. Daniel observed more oak tannins,. as opposed to natural ones for the 2001 JJ Confuron (87). The next wine had a deep nose with layered fruit but a bit of aggressive wood. You could smell the thickness, but the wood had this THC component that mellowed with aeration, but still a bit off-putting. The mineral and t n a aspects were more expressive and pronounced, suggesting great structure, but the weird flavor carried over to the palate which bothered me. The wine had me confused by its confused palate, but maybe it was me as it was Allen’s favorite of the flight, and it was the 2001 (90+?). I am a big fan of the 2001 .s, so I was a bit perplexed here. The last wine of this flight had a staggeringly different nose than the rest in that it was much warmer and seemingly advanced for its age by comparison to the rest of the wines in the flight it wasn.t that it was advanced, it was that it was open and had great fruit expression red, black and purple, the entire fruit rainbow. There were nice chocolate edges in its wood, along with orange citrus, brick and smoke. There was actual fruit in the mouth for a change and great length and style to its length. There were also flavors of stone, iron, meat, vanilla, vitamins and an A+ finish. There were a lot of Leroy guesses, and it was. Tim said that the Leroy was the best to enjoy now, but the others needed time (95) . Tim also appreciated the common theme amongst the wines (the vintage) and liked all the wines except the Confuron; he also observed that the and Leroy were the biggest, with the Leroy being the most complete but the Hudelot being the most elegant.

Next up were the 1999s, and this flight gave me the thought again that almost all young Burgundies should have a + next to their scores because they almost all get better with time. The first wine had an intense nose with more tannins, alcohol and weight that was noticeable right away compared to the 2001s. There was a lot of crushed action fruits, minerals, stones, brick and leather. The fruit was black and purple. I must be in a grappa mood because I noted it again. The palate was shut down, spicy from mid to back, long and hot but not layered, or perhaps completely shut down as many 99s are right now on the palate for this 1999 Drouhin (90+). The next wine had a deep nose as well that you really had to dig at to get to its alcohol, rust, grappa, red rose fruit, mineral, vitamin, spice and iron. The flavors were very meaty and expressive with thick, dark fruit, and nice flesh and texture to the front palate, which is tough to get this early in a 1999. It had a great finish that was long and stylish with good grape tannin expression and length, and toned, muscle-y fruit that gets better in the nose. The palate did crawl back into a shell with some time in the glass. It was the 1999 Domain de l.Arlot (93). The next wine was a cherry bomb in the nose, sweeter, more playful and delicate with its beautiful sweet cherry fruit, and some nice tension of citrus, minerals and acid behind it. The wine was pure and more 2001 in style than 1999 because it was so clean. There were great smoke, brick and cedar supporting aromas and nice spice and heat to the palate, which held well on this surprising 1999 Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. (94). I wish we had some more Louis Latour this afternoon, and you won.t hear me say that too often. The fourth wine of this flight had more vanilla, oak and caramel in the nose; it was very modern but still intoxicating. There was a bruised meat character with great earth and complex black fruits, lemon tea cake and even a drop of honey. Thepalate was spicy, still feminine with good balance; long, silky and acid-laden on the finish (in a subtle and soft way). The 1999 Jadot made up for its initially modern impression quite well (93) The 1999 Potel was corked, although Allen called it off,. not corked, but either way it was a (DQ). The sixth wine in what was to be the longest flight of the night had a pure nose. The t n a were wound and dusty, with nice citrus to go with the mélange of dark fruits and drop of vanilla extract. There were some light traces of cedar, or more like mahogany. The alcohol was a little forward on the palate flavor-wise, and although the palate was not as hot as the others, the flavors of this 1999 Hudelot-Noellat were locked up right now and not allowed any visitors (90). The oak was much more noticeable in the seventh wine, and not in a judicious way but more in a bubble gum, floozy kind of way. The wine seemed like a California ringer. The palate was much better with spiny flavors and gritty t n a on the finish, along with nice mineral, citrus and cedar flavors in this 1999 Cathiard (91). The first sign of green reared its ugly head in the next wine, and it was unpleasant with the weeds and rotten vegetable action. The palate was better but very uninspiring and just a hair above average. Doug said it had premier cru weight,. and it was the 1999 Arnoux (86) . I have to say that of all the wines I had this weekend, there is not one producer who I came out more disappointed with than Robert Arnoux. The following wine had a seductive nose, unique yet shy, with a complex spice rack of a nose cinnamon, nutmeg, vanilla bean and others. There was a touch of sweet caramel to its purplish fruit. There were vanilla, caramel, cinnamon and cedar flavors and very dry tannins to this very good 1999 JJ Confuron (92). Geoffrey picked up on a sea air/salt flavor. in wine #9, and I saw exactly what he was saying. There was kinky, fleshy and edgy fruit there as well, and the palate was long, dry and fine with great violet flavors and tannin expressions. It was at least a head above the rest so far, and it should have been since it was the 1999 (95). The 1999 Leroy, last in this flight, was either an off bottle or an incredibly disappointing wine. The nose was more modern and New World in style, and the palate was unpleasantly oaky and tasted manipulated. It was average at best, and someone said it was more 1999 than RSV (85). Tim threw out the 2001 is better than 1999 gauntlet after this flight, and time will certainly tell.

The 1998s were next. The first wine had intense pitch to its nose you could see why some say good things about 1998. Thee nose was expressive with lots of citrus, wound red fruits, brick, fireplace, rose, mineral and leather aromas. The palate was moderately leathery and spicy and lingered well with nice citrus twists. It certainly had a nice approachability to it but still the tension of the earth, which is what makes 1998 a good vintage to enjoy now. This first wine was the 1998 Drouhin (92). The next wine had a similar expression with its pitch but more jasmine, tea, earth and forest action, with a splash of freshwater. The palate was shut down in the front and middle, but its backside had heat and length, so this 1998 Domaine de l.Arlot could develop (89). The third wine had much more violet and animal aromas, showing a touch of the wild side with a pinch of green. The palate was big and chunky with a spicy, hot, square finish. It was still very good but had a lot of wood flavors without being oaky. Geoffrey noted a stemmy thing. in this Hudelot-Noellat (91+). The next wine had the green part of floral in its nose, as in no buds yet. There was dandelion and grass, but behind that some meat, petrol, mineral and almost sulfur. The palate was decent at best, both one-dimensional and still vegetal. Surprise, surprise, it was the Arnoux (83). The following wine was the wine of this flight, I thought, despite its very shy and shut down nose. The palate, however, was very tasty with brick, cedar, cinnamon and mineral flavors. It was very balanced and had nice length. It was a beautiful wine with its plush, leathery finish, and it was the JJ Confuron (93). The sixth wine of this flight had a great nose with lots going on and a fabulously plummy and rocky dichotomy with beautiful, pure fruit and lovely earth, leather, tobacco and ash aromas as well. The palate was very timid comparatively and overly dry at this stage without as much depthas the nose promised. The finish showed promise, though, for this Jekyll and Hyde 1998, which will most likely be better served by time (90+). Well, the flights were starting to get predictable, and the last wine was Leroy again. The sommelier Paul Roberts, whose discretion was used in the ordering of the flights, said that he felt that he couldn.t serve the and Leroy earlier in the flights as they would mask the following wines, but I disagree. In blind tastings, a random order is always best, and quality always stands out and pretenders will not, no matter what the order. Anyway, the Leroy had a gamy, animalistic nose with lots of garden, earth and forest action. It was a Flash Greendon. of a wine, with lots of brick and acid on the palate, and more green and earth as well (87) . The 1998s on the whole did seem to get softer in the glass more quickly than I expected.

The 1995s were the only flight served out of vintage order, and I am still not sure why. As I mentioned in last week’s reviews, more people seem to be giving up on the 1995 vintage in Burgundy than democracy in Iraq (yes, I’m really proud of that line), and this flight showed a little bit of why that is. The first wine had a stony, briny and alcoholic nose with lots of dust but not a lot of fruit. The palate was one-dimensional and simple with anise and citrus flavors, lacking depth in this 1995 Drouhin (86). A milky nose marked the second wine, which was so distinctive I could pour it on my morning cereal. There was some spice behind it, and more fruit here as well, with earth and leather behind it. There were some chocolate shavings on the palate and a leathery finish, with dry, cedary flavors as well in this 1995 Domaine de l.Arlot (89). The third wine had a stemmy nose with leather and cedar (sensing a trend?). The palate was the same, dry and citric and lacking excitement, but this 1995 Jadot was still above average (88). The next wine had more vanilla, wood, cola, anise, rust and good t n a in its nose. The palate had spine and rusty and citric flavors with good intensity and balanced fruit, balanced at least by this vintage’s standards. The palate got very mentholy and pepperminty, but it was still very good in this 1995 Hudelot-Noellat (91). We passed the halfway point in this flight of eight with the next wine, which had a pleasant nose with some cinnamon, firewood, rust, cedar, minerals and that dry citric edge that is in almost every wine from this vintage. Indeed, the vintage came through more than the terroir in this flight. The palate was very one-dimensional with oak and leather flavors and no depth or concentration beyond that, and it was the 1995 JJ Confuron, which was quickly establishing itself as a hit or miss wine each vintage (85). Ben j oked that the next wine must be Ramonet with all the spearmint and menthol,. which I saw along with anise, leather and earth of course. There were rust and cinnamon flavors on the palate, along with lots of mint and cedar finally a decent Arnoux (90), and it is ironically the vintage where most other wines were not as good. That could not be said for the seventh wine of the flight, whose nose actually had fruit! There was dusty, cherry fruit with lighter leather and earth, as well as sweet tobacco and a splash of cocoa powder and milk. The palate was stony and spiny with a leathery and cedary intensity consistent with the vintage. This bottle of 1995 was certainly the best of the flight and rock solid (93). The last wine had a better nose versus the rest of the flight as well, with violets, plums, and dark soda. The palate was ok but not great with herbal notes of citrus and leather. There was not a lot of length or drive here, and the palate was very mentholy, but the wine was good&for $100 a bottle or less maybe! Those who know prices know that is not the case for the 1995 Leroy (90). In sum, someone said that this flight was marked by dried, tannic finishes that make me suspicious whether they will ever come into balance..

The first wine of the following flight motivated me to write Yes, 1996 is in the house.. One of the cleanest and highest acid vintages of all time was at the plate, ready to take its swings in this home run derby of wine. The first wine had the racy, screechy and spiny nose that is so indicative of the vintage, with lots of tannins and alcohol and a wound personality. The citrus, leather and cedar were there, with great acid, of course, enough to keep one’s interest piqued. There were stony and cherry flavors in this very good 1996 Domaine de l.Arlot (92). The next wine had a great nose of crushed cherry and red fruits, stones, acid and alcohol, with nice citrus and anise as well. The palate was surprisingly one-dimensional, lacking acid, length and depth, however, in this 1996 Drouhin (87). The third wine in this flight had a horsy nose with the earth, shit, and shit in the earth too. There were traces of carob, but the flavors were sweaty with lots of earth and animal, and as a result the 1996 Cathiard was not my cup of tea, so to speak (87). The next wine had a pretty nose with gorgeous, sexy fruit perfectly balanced between its cherry and citrus components, with nice supporting aromas of stones, minerals, herbs and cigar. The palate was very citrusy and a bit too tangy, with earth, unsweetened BBQ and mesquite flavors. It was a tale of two wines, written by the 1996 Hudelot-Noellat (90+). A nice yet very shy nose characterized the following wine, which had some rose, citrus, polished t n a, minerals and ice palace to its nose. The palate was full of stems, iron and rose with nice length. The 1996 Jadot was a pretty wine (93). The 1996 Arnoux was a touch horsy in the nose, make that more than a touch with the shit, earth and hay in there. Maye I should use merde. it sounds so much more distinguished, non? Anyway the palate was much better with deep, plummy, purple fruit and a nice finish, delicate yet meaty (91). The next wine was very wound up in the nose with lots of dust, earth, positive cardboard, minerals and coffee grinds with the filter (wet paper). There was also tobacco, rose and leaf. The palate was simple and easy shut down? There were citrus and cedar flavors, but no oomph in this 1996 JJ Confuron (89). It was at this stage that I had a quick chat with Ed about how I was a little disappointed with the 1996 vintage here so far, to which he replied, Yeah, but look at the producers we are dealing with,. to which I agreed that Romanee St. Vivant did not have as many great winemakers playing with its grapes. The next wine, almost on cue, was corked. It was the 1996 Dominique Laurent (DQ). The next wine was obviously the 1996 , as I wrote here we go again with a and Leroy finale.. The nose was full of iron, stems, menthol, rose and cedar. The palate was long and dusty, fine with long acids. It was still shut down a bit on its dusty and minerally palate (93+). The 1996 Leroy made up for the disasters of 1999, 1998 and 1995 quickly. It had a nice nose with meaty, cigar-laced fruit. There were additional aromas of plum, raspberry, blackberry, currant, red meat, smoke, toast, cream and carob. The palate was rich and fleshy actual wine here,. I wrote (94).

It was on to the 1993s, the vintage of the decade for many at the moment, and after tasting 44 of the 76 wines on tap for the afternoon, a brief nap might have been in order. This was work! The first wine of the 1993 flight had a nice nose with a great balance between fruit and finish. There was black cherry, pure earth and a drop of sugar. The palate had a lot of 1993 characteristics without the layers, though. There were lots of earth and tannin flavors, and a touch of bothersome cardboard in the 1993 Domaine de l.Arlot (89). The next wine had a sexy, dusty nose with aromas of coffee, red fruit, cedar and earth. The palate had the mild citrus, solid earth and a balanced finish. It was elegant and refined, lighter in body but still very good and Geoffrey’s favorite of the first four wines. It was the 1993 Drouhin (92). The following wine had a minty, mentholy style, with a wintry character and nice flesh to its red strawberry fruit. There was a lot of menthol on the palate with nice length, good earth, sawdust and 2×4 flavors (ask me about that one later). There was flesh and zip here, and it was the 1993 Arnoux (93). Someone remarked that Arnoux’s entire reputation was made off this one vintage. The next wine had a touch more coffee and tea, bread and cake as well, with a drop of A1 it was kinky stuff. The palate was yeasty and funky (a good funky, like play that music white boy). There was plenty of earth and animal on the palate to this 1993 Hudelot-Noellat (90). Brian was disappointed with this wine, and Geoffrey said that the property was not making good wine at the time, but I did not mind it as much. There was more cherry and earth in the nose to the fifth wine, with good tension that carried over to the palate. The palate had a milky, creamy texture and citric peel flavors, although Ben said with food I could see it,. although someone else admired its purity and balance.. It was a very good 1993 JJ Confuron (92). The next wine had anexotic nose with lots of vanilla, barn, hay, meat (bird), light leather, light earth, black cherry and cotton. There were bigger acids here with a long, long finish. I saw a lot more potential here. There were flavors of earth, citrus and dark fruits. It was a touch modern, but I wrote, you know what I don.t care it is expressive!. It was the 1993 Jadot (94). There was pretty cherry fruit and tobacco in the next wine, with some rainwater, almost lavender bath action. The palate had lavender flavors and intense citrus on the finish, but it was a touch too sour but still very good with decent character. It was the 1993 Leroy, which given the reputation of the 1993 Leroys had to be considered a disappointing bottle (90). The last wine was a little horsy and earthy at first but blew off into lots of nice menthol and red cherry fruit. It was very gamy on the palate with good character and game, citrus and earth flavors, although Ed thought it was a touch advanced. It was an excellent 1993 (94).

On to the 1991s. The first wine had rose and wood in its nose, not cedar or mahogany but I couldn.t quite put my finger on it. There was a lot of t n a and varnish in the nose, lending itself to an artificial edge. a close friend of mine called it tutti frutti. fruit, and it was. Simple and easy, the 1991 Domaine de l.Arlot was definitely a 2AM phone call (88). The next bottle was definitely flawed, maderized/cooked, and too bad it was, as it was the 1991 (DQ). The next wine had a nose with tension, stress, agony and joy all there. It was complicated. It had minerals, tannins, alcohol, acid, citrus and rose in the nose. There was a big finish with acid, citrus, pine, earth, leather and band-aids. It was an excellent 1991 JJ Confuron, the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the afternoon, although Leroy could lay claim to that as well (93). The next wine had a very shy nose there was not a lot there except style. The palate was straightforward and easy in this 1991 Hudelot-Noellat (89). The last wine of the flight was the only one that Ed liked. It had a complex, chocolaty nose with nice earth and game aromas and flavors. There was a long, meaty finish and a garden of complexity in this 1991 Leroy (92). Ann Colgin noted that you want to drink these wines,. alluding to the fact that many of the younger wines were, well, young and not that drinkable.

The 1990s were next, and it was a disappointing flight. I joked that the 1990s always show worse in Allen’s company and that he scares them since he is not a big fan. The first wine had game, leather and rose in the nose; it was kinder and softer as in maturity. It was fleshy although austere on the palate with lots of earth and interior flavors on the finish. It was the 1990 Drouhin (90). The second wine had nice tannins in the nose, with leather, earth and tobacco as well it was an autumnal nose with some broth and bouillon to match. It was a touch stewed on the palate; smooth, easy yet simple. It was a 1990 Jadot (88). The next wine had figgy fruit in the nose, gamy and mature with tea, broth and earth. The palate was the same very figgy, with an accompanying austere, bitter flavor in this Louis Latour Les Quartres Journaux. (89). The next wine had bouillon in the nose with nice leather and rose to go with its locker room impression. It was an easy palate, but browned and affected with a leathery finish definitely an off bottle of 1990 (DQ). The 1990 Arnoux was also maderized (DQ). The JJ Confuron was better with rose and citrus, brand new leather, spice and earth. The palate was gamy and dusty (90)VINTAGE TASTINGS – Romanee St. Vivant Marathon. Yes my notes were waning, but the show had to go on. The next wine had a horsy, gamy, sweaty nose, but its fruit was red with lots of vitamins and citrus. The palate was better still a bit stewed and gamy for this Hudelot-Noellat (92). The last wine in the 1990 flight was very herbal, with lots of eucalyptus in the nose and awkward wood. The palate was similar and not complex, and it was a disappointing bottle of 1990 Leroy (85).

There were three flights left but mercifully only nine wines. The first 1989 wine had a lovely, pretty nose with red fruits, game, delicate citrus, musk and nice alcohol. The palate, however, was austere with vitamins, plums and must in this 1989 Drouhin (89) . The 1989 had lit match and some bad ass in the nose, but the palate was leathery and dry, sturdy, long and solid (91). The 1989 Leroy had a shy nose and not a lot there but a solid palate with nice citrus flavors and an expressive finish. Geoffrey called it the freshest. (92). The 1988 Arnoux was excellent; lots of vitamins, musk, leather, earth and rose in the nose. The palate was also excellent with citrus, dust, musk and earth; it was a rock solid 1988 (93). The 1988 Leroy was decent but lacking and uninspiring to take further notes at this stage (89). The 1988 Hudelot-Noellat had loads of vitamins, spine, spice and leather and a nice meaty and leathery palate (92). I spoke about the 1988s and 1989s and said I preferred the 1988s, of which every one did not seem to be a fan; in fact, I was slightly crucified by a few. I have always had a soft spot for 1988s despite the abundance of tannins and dry finishes that rub many the wrong way; so be it. The 1988 was corked, by the way (DQ). The flight of 1985s was comprised of Arnoux, Hudelot-Noellat and , and either I had nothing left or the flight sucked probably a combination of the two.