Blog

4×2=8. And on 4/28, some of New York’s finest collectors gathered at Marea for an evening of fine Bordeaux. I know that everyone in the world thinks that only the Chinese drink Bordeaux, but there are still a few Americans that appreciate a good claret, especially the older stuff. While China’s attention tends to drift away pre-1982, that’s where America’s deepest cellars start to focus.

There was also Champagne. I don’t think there is a proper meal that can go without it. We started with a 1976 Krug. Its nose was wafery with a light brulee glaze along with and nice wheat and a light toast. The palate was leaner than expected, possessing light cola and ginger ale flavors. Of course, any reference to New York’s finest collectors without a reference to Big Boy would constitute an incomplete grade, and he commented how 1976 isn’t even close to 1979 despite a few high profile wines having similar ratings. Its vanilla components came out with some foccacia, but it was merely very good, and excellence is usually the minimum that Krug will tolerate (92).

The 1988 Krug Clos du Mesnil, however, was up to the usual standards and delivered a profound experience. Its nose was obviously bigger, possessing great breed. I loved its toasty bread and nut aromas, both of which were soaked in oil. Its butter came out, and its palate was great. It was full and long, yet still balanced and deft, a whopper with just the right amount of cheese (96).

The very first vintage of Cristal Rose was next. For those of you that know what year that is, you would only know if you knew Big Boy, and the story about how he got the six bottles for twenty times the highest price ever. It’s a true story lol. The 1974 Cristal Rose had a dirty nose with earthy, dark chocolate aromas. Lady Agah noted, ‘strawberries and cream, soaked in liqueur.’ There was almost this dash of Chambord in it. The palate was big and rugged, also dirty, still with vim but also with some caterpillar boots and fur, too. Lady Agah’s early infantuation was soon over, and she observed ‘not much of a finish.’ Given the vintage, it was impressive, but it remained dirty from beginning to end. Sorry Rob, but it wasn’t worth $5k a bottle lol (91).

The 1926 Dom Perignon, however, was worth $5k and then some. It had a honeycomb nose, along with cream, light toast, vanilla sugar and ‘petrol’ per Gentleman Jim, ‘like an old Alsatian Riesling.’ It was also Montrachet-like and Wendy found ‘honeysuckle,’ while another found ‘honey’ as well. The palate took it up another notch with its rich and thick personality. It was lush, long and honeyed, dry yet creamy with caramel flavors. There was excellent viscosity in a wine-like way, with just a light touch of spritz to remind everyone that it was still Champagne. It was outstanding stuff, and clearly the Champagne to drink and finish first (96).

It was time for Bordeaux, and what better way to start that off than with a 1948 Cheval Blanc. The 1948 has outshone the 1947 on more than one occasion, although the 1947 still remains one of my personal all-time highlights. The problem is, that was 1999, New Year’s Eve to be precise. It has never been as good, while the 1948 has delivered at least three times that I can remember over the last ten years that were stupendous. Lady Agah found it ‘smoky and smokin’’ right away, like ‘barbecue potato chips.’ It was, most like Lays in particular lol. There was a rich, meaty style to the nose, and mint and menthol soon joined the party. The palate was rich and saucy, with a touch of slate and band-aid holding it back. There were grainy flavors and that signature old Cheval motor oil of the era. ‘Incense and game’ were also noted in this complex wine. It wasn’t the best bottle of this wine that I have ever had, but it was still outstanding (95).

The Cheval would be the only St. Emilion for the evening. In fact, the rest of the night would be all Pomerol. A 1950 Trotanoy brought by Jim and Wendy proved to be one of the wines of the night. It was a spectacular Nicolas bottle, and everything it should have been. It had a deep, incredible nose with aromas of plum, chocolate and white smoke. Its palate was classic; it was rich yet mature with flavors of cassis and plum. ‘Classic Nicolas, pure,’ remarked Rob. Everyone purred for this near-purrfect Pomerol (97).

The Pomerol procession pushed onwards with a 1953 Latour a Pomerol. This was much more ceramic in its nose, with a heavy mesquite edge. It had a much lighter nose than the Trotanoy but was still classic in its own way, and more reflective of its vintage. Clean and light in the mouth as well, the L a P had secondary cinnamon flavors; otherwise, the palate followed the nose’s lead (93).

A 1955 Vieux Chateau Certan was exotic and kinky with loads of sweet fruit. It was almost tropical, I wanted to say apricot and mango. It was like there was a shot of Yquem in this overripe red. The palate was lush and creamy, with hints of orange rind on its finish. It was tasty and friendly, perhaps not a perfect bottle, but a fun one (93).

The next flight was a Lafleur family feud. The first was the 1964 Lafleur, which had a fabulous nose, a veritable fruit symphony of black, purple and even red, certainly black cherry. Its nose was so seductive; it was like a kiss, cream and raspberry beret all in one, performed by Prince, of course. The palate was round and pretty, but a step back from the nose. It was long with a nice frame, and it had more concentration and chocolate flavors than its younger sibling that followed (94).

The 1966 Lafleur had a sweet core in its nose, bordered by slate. It felt lighter in the nose, and it was. It palate was pleasant and long, with a bit of dust and zip to its finish. It was a grainier Lafleur, still holding onto its excellent status, but perhaps not for long (93).

We had a palate cleansing, mini-flight of two Champagnes, both from 1929. The 1929 Heidseick Dry Monopole was ‘honeyed city’ in the nose. Its round, apply personality was mature, and its caramel on a stick most definitely got my attention. The palate didn’t have any more bubbles, but it was rich, round and lush, quite wine-like and ‘heaven’ per one of its sippers. The wine was delicious, rich and delicious (95).

The 1929 Louis Roederer should have been the better bubbly, but this bottle was ‘not as crisp’ although it was still creamy and oily, just not as great or a great bottle. It had a yeasty finish but was clearly affected (92A).

We still had four wines to go, and all of them were from either 1989 or 1990. Since they were Pomerols, my money was on the 1989s. I have had 1989 Petrus versus 1990 Petrus on six or eight occasions, and the 1989 has always won. Now that’s not to take away from the 1990, which is certainly a great wine. It’s just not the 1989. As Big Boy summed up, ‘In 100 years, the 1989 Petrus will be one of the five greatest wines ever made. It’s flawless, their greatest since 1961 by a longshot.’ He then proceeded to tell another great story, which I think made the evening score Big Boy 5, Rest of Us 0. JG quipped, ‘Remind me to tell my story first next time!’ I guess this is about the worst intro one can have for a 1990 Petrus, but we did taste that first, against a 1990 Lafleur, which I’ll get to in a moment. The ’90 had a big nose, bigger than I last remember it, with a lot of pop to it, and some smoke and kernel to go along with it. The wine was absolutely delicious, the essence of Petrus and the best 1990 of this that I have ever had. Chocolaty and chunky, it had character from start to finish. Thick as a brick (96+).

The 1990 Lafleur was another bottle that showed better than any others I have ever had. It was much tighter and had a lot more character than previous bottles. I have always found this to be a bit of a floozy of a Lafleur; now don’t get me wrong, there is always a time and a place for a floozy, just not every night lol. This wine was snapping back at me, in a good way, and its palate was wound yet minty and spicy. It was thick, long and sweaty, with great earth, slate and chocolate flavors developing. Its finish lingered, and its peacock showed me its tail (96).

The 1989 Lafleur was unfortunately an off bottle, and at this point in the evening, that was too much to overcome to even attempt to salvage a decent note for it (DQ).

The 1989 Petrus didn’t need much written about it, since it was consistent with every other time, still a cut above the rest. ‘All hail the King’ sufficed for my notes. If anyone was wondering what the two best brands are in the entire world of wine, Petrus is one of them, and is the other (99).

The most amazing thing about this evening was that the lineup of wines came together that morning, which is what we call ‘Spontaneous Combustion.’