Blog

The Doctor Is Still In

A recent stopover in LA had me dining with the one and only one of my fellow enthusiasts . I can safely say that reports of his demise are greatly exaggerated, and that there are still a few jewels left in the cellar. Quite a few. We were joined by the Burghound, always on the scent of the best Burgundies opened anywhere he is, Etienne de Montille, and another one of America’s most important collectors, one I would put in the Top Ten. as well. Cut was the location, Wolfang Puck’s hot new restaurant in the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. There were lots of pretty women, but wine was first and foremost on all of our collective minds.

We started with a true connoisseurs. delight, a pair of off-vintage Montrachets from two of its finest producers. The 1977 Lafon Montrachet might very well have been the last bottle of this on Earth. Its nose was still special, caramel creeping out at first followed by corn, wheat and pan-fried butter. The palate had old, yeasty flavors and a touch of tangy citrus. Earth and book flavors were on its finish. This was still a good drink at age thirty despite the fact that it came from one of the least collectible vintages of the last thirty years. Soft, tender and with a touch of wax, the Lafon was pleasant, still holding on. I believe it was Allen who remarked, quite remarkable, not a good vintage at all. I’m impressed. In the context of the vintage, it’s brilliant. It’s lovely wine but not a great wine.. Then a ratings debate ensued. Our anonymous friend felt it was flirting with four stars, I found it flirting with 90 points, but each of those ratings do not really justify the quality.. Allen gave us some vintage details: high acid, low ripeness, a lot of rain.. In the end, I decided to give it 90 points because of the context; however, I couldn.t argue with an assessment of a point of two less (90).

Unfortunately, the 1984 Ramonet Montrachet was corked (DQ).

Wolfgang came down to sit and drink with us for a few minutes. We were just starting to get into a pair of 1959 Burgundies. After a glass of Lafon, a Riesling and beef tangent and upon seeing the 1959, Wolfgang reminisced about when he was living in or near Dijon with his father in the mid-sixties, and he had a great 59 Burgundy and went out and spent all the money he had that week on a couple cases of fine 59 Burgundies and carefully nestled them in the cellar, away from the stash of house wine, which back at that time was a Gigondas, complete with the fancy. wire mesh around it that many Rhones used to have. So a few months later, Wolfgang finally had an occasion that was appropriate to open some of these rare wines. Significant friends were over, and Wolfgang wanted to share these 59 treasures. He went down to the basement to pull out some wine, and everything was gone!!! He confronted the only possible culprit, his father, who defended, What? I left all the good wine with the gold foil on it for you!.

That got a big laugh, but it was time to get serious with a 1959 Rousseau Chambertin. It had a brilliant nose; rich, hearty and beefy with saucy cherry fruit. Oil and nut also were present along with a touch of just right secret. garden aromas. Its leathery spice was exquisite, and it had great power and t n a. It was the total package aromatically. Its flavors had a touch of that 59 hot, sugared quality without the brown and oat, though. It had a gritty edge and a tannic, long finish. Its acids were also long and big. This was special stuff (96).

A 1959 Roumier Bonnes Mares was technically flawed. as Allen observed, a touch oxidized in the nose. It had a Worcestershire quality to its meaty, gamy, mentholy and spiny nose. It was rich and got richer and more complete with food and air. It gained in its beefy and spiny qualities and was quite drinkable despite its flaw (94+A).

A tangent developed about old Burgundies and how even if a Burgundy has a low 6 or 7cm ullage, as long as the color is great, the wine will still be delicious. Hundreds of experiences, our anonymous friend continued. If a Bordeaux is mid-shoulder, he countered, it means trouble. Geometric, perhaps?.

The next wine stopped time. It was one of the greatest wines of my life, a 1934 Roumier Musigny. Everyone at the table couldn.t stop thanking the Doctor over and over again. We were all suddenly groupies happy to be backstage. Spectacular stuff, my notes began. Whoa!. cried the Burghound. It then proceeded to get a woof, and then two more. Yes, it was an official three woof. wine from the Burghound. Before I knew it, Allen was humping my leg. Ok, ok, it was actually Wolfgang’s leg 🙂 The nose had the amazing sensuality of Musigny, and I could see here why release prices of this terroir are approaching $1000 a bottle for the 2005s. Taut red fruits were impeccably balanced with its incredibly rusty spine. The wine had a never-ending finish that never lost its femininity. Chocolate came out on its expansive finish. What a wine (99).

The 1937 Roumier Musigny was no slouch, either. It also had an unbelievable nose, refined and du classe, as Allen put it, yet the 37 was much more decadent and ripe, like the vintage. Allen remarked on its velour.. The initial sweetness of the 37 bothered Etienne a bit, but its softness he admired. The power of the tannins was evident, and the oak showed more of itself here. Allen told us it was the power of the tannins of the vintage.. The power in the 37 stayed strong; lush, hearty and good woodsy. It was hailed as really good. and having good brett.. The 37 versus 34 debate was likened to more hits versus more home runs. Then 29 versus 28 debate was similarly called more spectacular versus better average. The 1937 Roumier really showed the difference between the vintages of 37 and 34 on an ultimate level (96).

I had a couple of other recent, quiet evenings with only one compadre and two wines, so I have decided to include those in this week’s article.

I had the pleasure of dining at Michael Mina while on my recent West Coast swing that saw me in multiple cities on three consecutive nights. If fine dining had a Final Four tournament, I think I would have Michael Mina winning the West Region, Grant Achatz from Alinea winning the Midwest, Gunther Seeger winning the South (even though he recently closed in Atlanta I hope he comes to NY as I saw him here recently) , and Shea Gallante winning the East in what many would consider the upset, except for those of us that already know better. From there, it’s anyone’s game!

Anyway, it was a 2002 night, beginning with a 2002 Ramonet Batard Montrachet, which had a fresh nose full of that Ramonet wax, mint, corn, butter and baked white fruits. It had a very rich and hedonistic nose with vanilla, white chocolate and oak kisses. Its minerality and acidity smelled great. Delicious, fat and rich, it was a mouth-filling wine, still lush and full of sweet corn and yellow fruit flavors despite its youth. Its acidity was under control while going down, yet still lingered in the belly. The 2002 had the texture, weight and dimension to improve but at age five it was a touch shy. It needs to mature a little and blossom (94+).

The 2002 Roumier Bonnes Mares was in a similar position. It had intoxicating aromatics of stems, vitamins, cinnamon and purple fruits. It had its eyes wide shut with its royal fruit, spice and structure components. Its flavors of cherry juice and dust made for a sweet dense core with amazing spice box to it. A pinch of citrus and a hollandaise sauce made with dill instead of tarragon added to its complexity; those came from the wine, by the way. Violet, cherry, blueberry, bright fruit. my friend waxed. Stems, leather, earth and spice were still packed into this long and distinguished wine. Its acidity exploded after some lamb. Raj called it dense. and velvety, but again I felt this wine needs some more time before it is truly outstanding (94+).

There is little doubt in my mind that these will be outstanding wines (ie, 95 points and up) ; however, I just couldn.t give it to them on this evening. I like my wine old, and these infants still need to age in the bottle and blossom into the butterflies they will be. Yes, another ratings debate, I know. Don.t you know it’s the chicken not the egg that matters?

Another top secret get together in New York City turned into a veritable celebrity death match when my 1999 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva squared off against my friend’s 1988 Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape. It was pocket 9s versus pocket 8s, and the 9s held up after the flop, turn and river, aka the scallops, risotto and rack of lamb.

The Monfortino had a gorgeous nose; a good time to drink before it shuts down, was observed. It had the tar, anise, licorice and t n. a, but also deep, chunky black fruits. The palate was thick and tight, very dry and leathery with the tannins of a boa constrictor preying on my tongue. The fruit was a bit lean in the mouth but fattened. A touch of citrus peel, anise, spice and dust rounded out this classic (95+).

The Rayas had a sweet nose that was a mix of garden and kirsch. It had a hearty yet nice balance of fruit and finish. Cherry and cola flavors were up front; rust and pop on the finish both explosively and flavor-wise. Brick and fireplace grew into the nose. My friend felt this bottle was showing a little older than it should have, but it seemed good, as well as ready, to go to me (94).

See I don’t only drink Burgundy!