The Billionaire’s Vinegar

Posted on | June 27, 2008

Subtitled: the mystery of the world’s most expensive bottle of wine.

This was a bottle of wine which was sold at auction some 25 years ago: Château Lafite 1787. Its authenticity is eventually brought into question. The bottle sold for just over $156,000 to the magazine publisher Malcolm Forbes, outbidding Wine Spectator publisher Marvin Shanken. To put this into context a case (12 bottles) of 1961 Petrus recently sold for $102,850 (Sotheby’s Aulden Cellars, 2008).

Billionaire’s Vinegar is a book you will enjoy reading; wine-lover or not but I don’t much care for the title of this book. Explicit oxymorons don’t work in my view and both ‘billionaire’ and ‘vinegar’ are harsh unattractive words with unpleasant connotations. Millionaire is altogether more pleasing and less extravagant sounding. Vinegar is ambiguous in this context. Clearly confusing.

Billionaire’s Vinegar concentrates on mostly old bottles of Château Lafite and Château d’Yquem which purport to have belonged to one of the founding fathers of modern America, Thomas Jefferson, a man who travelled the world learning about and enjoying fine wines wherever he went. A bottle of Château Lafite, engraved with his initials (Th. J) was sold at auction (Christie’s) in 1985 for the record price of $156,000 to the ‘billionaire’ publisher Malcolm Forbes. This book doesn’t tell us why he and others like him are motivated to purchase a wine for such a price when, apart from its dubious provenance, it would likely be undrinkable. Such was the heat (both literally and metaphorically) that the auctioneer, the person who staked his reputation on the validity of the lot, cooled his feet in a bucket of cold water, unseen by the roomful of bidders. No one stood up to gainsay the authenticity of the bottle then even if they doubted it. One wonders why not.

The book is balanced and well-researched. Wallace and others have been struck by similarities to another great forgery in the late 20th century, that of the Hitler Diaries. Forgers themselves are often more knowledgeable than the experts they fool. Much to everyone’s chagrin they make a mockery of valuers, historians, and connoisseurs. The world of fine wine at this level is rarefied. Hardy Rodenstock, who is described as being behind many apparently fake old bottles, has also conned most of the major wine critics and commentators at one time or another - Parker, Broadbent, Shanken, Sutcliffe, Robinson all included. Just as with the Hitler Diaries there are those who become caught up in the rush of excitement desiring to give the public what they want. A bottle of wine belonging to Thomas Jefferson is so significant it becomes impossible to deny. Objectivity gives way to fantasy which is not a totally unworthy sentiment when the only true reaction to a great bottle of wine is an emotional one. But in my view Christie’s auction house never possessed the negligent intentions that Rupert Murdoch lent to the publication of the Hitler Diaries. Murdoch never cared whether they were real or not.

Mr Wallace travelled the world to interview participants in this drama and has worked hard to assemble the proof or even lack of proof for authenticating the wine under review. It’s too bad his publishers didn’t give him the space to add an index and even a few appendices.

Wallace writes well and sympathetically. Some of the crueller anecdotes concerning well-known wine industry commentators are related as if they are the diagnosis of a benign, disinterested, clinical psychiatrist referring to his pschyopathic patient. A good novel is about characterisation, style, and evocation. Not totally dissimilar to a good wine. Content and plot are often secondary. Not here: but then this is no novel. Something one has to remind oneself of again and again. Indeed, characterising the protagonists in this book would be hard — they are bottles of wine. There are so few of them, and they are so expensive, that very few people will have had, or will ever have the opportunity to taste them. All very esoteric.

As one nears the end of the book it’s hard to feel any real sympathy for the aggrieved parties. So long as you need a scientist to carbon date your wine to prove its authenticity, you might as well drink Coke. The ultimate irony is that many of these Jefferson bottles which will rarely be drunk were portrayed as belonging to an historic and highly knowledgeable wine enthusiast who ended his days drinking table wine and enjoying it just as much. I suggest Messrs Koch and the others do the same.

Hardy Rodenstock, the man at the centre of the scandal, seems to have used most of his friends at one time or another for no other purpose than legitimising his wine collection. It is a truly sad picture of a person so intent upon becoming part of a world which he aspired to that he was prepared to sacrifice and even betray these friendships for a seat at the table. His talents, enthusiasm and knowledge were already enough for this and it reminds me of the lone yachtsman Donald Crowhurst who faked his passage around the world in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race - a single-handed round the world yacht race. To do so he had to fake his yacht’s position on a regular basis which he could only do by working back from a particular grid position on a chart. A mathematical exercise which would have daunted even a university professor. He had already accomplished more than most yachtsman do in a lifetime and broken several records before he slowly went out of his mind from the stress, loneliness and alienation he felt all those thousands of miles from home. Paradoxically the possibility that his forgery would lead him to win the race only increased his anxiety and shortly after his last log entry he jumped into the sea and was never seen again.

Hardy Rodenstock has a lot of explaining to do - mostly to his friends.

Review by Fabian Cobb

See this archived Forum post.

The Billionaire’s Vinegar
by Benjamin Wallace
Published by Crown Publishers, New York

Four in a row, night 2

Posted on | May 28, 2008

The second night of my recent four in a row found me at Veritas, home to one of the world’s greatest wine lists. It was a casual night and late start, so we only had three bottles between the four of us, most notably Jay, who had insisted we get together to research an article he was writing. I need to have these ‘three wine nights’ more often, as it makes for easier write-ups, even though it has taken me more than a week just to find the time to write this one up!

We started with a 1996 Joseph Drouhin Marquis de Laguiche, which performed in fine fashion. Despite a lot of opinion out there that there is a significant amount of prematurely oxidized white Burgundies in the market from about 1995 onwards, with a lot of different hypotheses why, I have to say that I have been fairly lucky in my drinking them over the past few years, although I do not drink as many whites as often as those more opinionated than I. I do know that the problem exists, more so with a combination of certain producers and certain vintages, but this bottle had no issues for sure. The Drouhin was spectacular, delivering everything it should have and then some. Smoky aromas of butter, corn and minerals graced its forward yet coiled nose, and the breed of Montrachet rippled through every inch of its core. One could easily lose one’s nose for minutes in its aromatics, its firm nose anchored by the great acidity of the 1996 vintage. The palate was delicious, still youthful but also seemingly in a great spot, still showing the vigor of youth along with hints of mature nuances, particularly in the smokiness and sweetness of its fruit flavors. It was lip-smackingly good (95+).

The second wine we plucked from the list was a 1998 J.F. Mugnier Musigny, one of the wines of this often overlooked vintage, as I hadn’t had it in a bit and was curious to check it out again. Its nose was reticent and full of breed, chunky in its personality, especially so given the vintage’s usual leaner characteristics, and I say that in the fondest way possible, as I like ‘98s and their lean, leathery personalities. The Mugnier, however, transcends the vintage, as it literally drips with fruit. Its nose unwound to reveal a deep core of dark fruits, leather, musk and that Musigny terroir. Light spice danced around its edges and came out more and more with time, flirting with cinnamon stick. Thick and dense in the mouth, the ’98 was as concentrated a young Musigny as I can remember tasting, completely natural and without the steroids but still as strong as any other. Its long finish reminded me that this was still Musigny, as its elegance regained control each time the wine went gently and lingering-ly down the hatch. Still an infant, this wine will easily last thirty years and then some (96).

We had just enough thirst left for one more wine, and after a couple of ‘young bucks,’ it was time to move into more familiar territory – old. A 1971 Roumier Morey St. Denis Clos de la Bussiere was reasonably priced on the list, and 1971 Burgs are a few of my favorite things, so we decided to give it a try, and were we glad we did. The wine’s aromatics jumped from the glass, possessing both the greatness of Roumier and the 1971 vintage. Autumnal aromas were inviting like football season, and meat dripped from its bones like parking lot cookouts. It had great citrus and wilted rose aromas to balance out its game and meat qualities, and its earth components were bordering on grand cru quality. It also reminded me of fresh rain hitting earth in need of water, and it was still vimful despite being a 37 year-old Morey St. Denis. Its flavors were consistently good, autumnal yet fresh, full of citrus, rose, game, bouillon and earth flavors. It possessed a sweet, chewy core that would hit anyone’s ‘wine spot.’ The wine just kept on singing in the glass until there was no more left, something that happened sooner than expected, but it was just that good, one of those ‘catnip’ wines that make everyone drinking it frisky and happy to the last drop. It had all the bright citricity of 1971 yet was decidedly and decadently mature. It was a real eye-opener and another testament to the greatness of Roumier (95).
Read more

Four in a Row

Posted on | May 20, 2008

Man, I don’t know where to begin…so many events that deserve recognition and commendation, especially from me since I was at all of them J. I guess we might as well get the bad news out of the way first. I can’t seem to find my La Paulee, Part IV notes, the grand finale. It is really bothering me. I gotta have them somewhere. I took 52 notes that night, and it was one of the all-time greatest wine nights ever, starting with the hotel suite pre-Paulee and old bottles of Roumier (and others) with Christoph (and others), all the way down to the La Paulee and its sheer insanity, then outside, around and upside down, only to end up back in the suite again 50 wines later. I was carrying those notes around for weeks, as it was going to be my next article, and somehow now I can’t find them. Aaaaarrrrggghhhh.

But that train cannot wait at the station my dear, but even moving on has so many possible directions. Happy Birthday celebrations for King Angry, PMJ and Hollywood Jef were all stupendous evenings of incredible, old wines. Bruce’s thunder-ific night of Soldera and 1979 Champagne? Or a night with Roberto Conterno at Del Posto?? I try some young wine too, you know. Two snapshots of the 2005 Burgundy vintage, one of all the DRCs and another with Clive, have given me lots to say about this indubitably great vintage. Bipin orchestrated a magical Sunday afternoon at Spago with 1978s, Burgundy again, of course. Important tastings of Meo-Camuzet (Bipin with Meo) and Jayer were significant and significantly delicious. Evenings benefiting the City of Hope and Mount Sinai were out of control wild and good, and for good causes, too. Brief journeys into Europe and Asia saw a few good bottles go down the hatch. But, of course, I can never forget Big Boy’s not one, but two spectacular VIP dinners celebrating his incredible sale just a couple of weeks ago. I can’t even go there. I have to catch my breath just thinking about them again. All I can say is that by the end of April, I have never seen anyone open up as much great wine over a shorter period of time than what Rob has already drunk in 2008. Actually not drunk, make that opened up and shared with many people, strangers and friends alike. He has redefined the wine world’s definition of ‘throwing it down.’

Was that good enough for you, Rob lol. Seriously, I am only mentioning the facts; I think it is safe to say that we all know that Rob’s ego doesn’t need any more encouragement. All those events I just mentioned are the biggest highlights of the past quarter. I wish I had them all ready to go; gotta figure something out there. Just…no…time… …which brings me to a mini four-part series, a recent four nights out in a row in the greater New York area. I decided to start with the last evening of the four first, just because. Every write-up can’t be twenty-five wines; otherwise, I never get to writing it up damnit.

Speaking of which, back to the evening at Blue Hill Stone Farms up in Tarrytown, a definite destination point for any foodie. All the produce is grown on location, and the meal was one of the year’s top five, food-wise for me, and I get around a little. It rests on the grounds of the Rockerfeller Estate, and I am not talking Jay-Z. The Barber family owns and operates the restaurant. We could thank rockin’ Roger for this memorable evening, both food and wine-wise. He has been threatening to do a dinner up there for the past two quarters and finally pulled one together. This is the third time I have been up there, all with Roger, and every time I am there I say to myself, ‘man, I have to come here more often!’ ‘Nuff said.
Read more

Big Boy does Vegas, Night Two

Posted on | April 23, 2008

The second night in Vegas was a smaller gathering at Guy Savoy. Rudy had to leave after dinner the night before, and Gil and Krissy were tied up at a big charity event, although they joined us later. Guy Savoy was in town but also at that same charity event; we would see him later as well. We were still hungry, and of course again thirsty, and on this night Big Boy carried the torch of fine wine all by himself.

We started with a gorgeous magnum of 1971 Dom Perignon. It had a vanilla sugared nose, baked brulee if you will, and was hazelnutty, toasty and fresh. Its palate was also fresh and zippy with hints of Dr. Brown’s celery soda. The palate was delicious; meaty, rich and fresh with great focus, a long finish and singular in its drive. It grew on me more and more, and hints of Asian orange blossom rounded out this immensely pleasurable Dom (95M).

A curiosity and veritable antiquity was next, a magnum of 1937 Geissman (Champagne). The color was incredible, and the nose was divine and full of complexities. Aromas of green dried apple fruit, spice and thinly carved white meat right out of the pan with a decadent sauce made up its undeniably great nose. The palate was delicious, make that absolutely delicious, full of caramel and apple flavors. Exotic musk and honey took over both the palate and the nose, and the Geissman became more and more wine-like with time in the glass without losing any of its deliciousness. What a treat, and what a find that only Rob could unearth (96M).

I had bought a couple of whites off the list, a pair of young Ramonet Batards. The 2002 Ramonet Batard Montrachet had a great nose full of huuuuge acid, alcohol and spice. Additional signature aromas of menthol, butter, corn and citrus all lined up accordingly. Its combination of white fruits and minerals galore cleared my sinuses. It tasted like mint city with its decadent white fruit tropicality, and its acidity was insane. Delicious, sweet, sexy and lush, this was a white wine easy to appreciate, and admire (95+).

The 1999 Ramonet Batard Montrachet was more shut down and square by comparison, even though the nose was unmistakably a sibling of the ’02. There was an almost cedar-like edge to the ’99, which also had ‘insane’ minerals and acidity. Shut down yet solid, slate flavors dominated this brute of a Batard (93).

Rob started paying attention again when his magnum of 1929 Mouton Rothschild was served. There must be something about ‘Vegas’ and ‘insane’ as I kept writing it all weekend in my notes. The ’29 had an insanely good nose full of menthol, old book, chocolate and super sexy citrus (there’s another frequent Vegas vocab word – super sexy lol). Plum, nut, more old book, cedar, wax, pencil – this nose had everything. Secondary aromas of garden, beef and Asian spices also joined the party. Rob keenly observed, ‘very Burgundian yet so Bordeaux.’ Soft cherry flavors were present on its milder palate, but the acidity was still there and hanging on. Someone observed, ‘finished basement’ in the wine, and I totally understood. Paul noted, ‘old bookshelf, ink and wood.’ I have always liked the ’29 Mouton, and while the palate may be starting to trail its aromatics, this was still very special (95M).

Can we get some Burgundy already? 1969 Rousseau Chambertin, that’s more like it. It is no secret that Rousseau made the wines of the vintage in ’69, wines that have transcended beyond the usual scope of the vintage into legendary status, and this bottle lived up to that fact. The Rousseau had an incredible nose full of iodine, that ’69 rust and the red fruit orgasmatron. It smelled so good, I wanted to wear it as cologne, and I never wear cologne. The Rousseau had additional, sumptuous aromas of beef bouillon, lit match, Versailles garden and a pinch of poivre sauce. Wow. Rob hailed it as ‘perfumed.’ It was so tasty, deliciously good nectar and full of rust, citrus, earth, bouillon, ‘sous bois’ and BBQ goodness flavors. This was sheer catnip. Here kitty kitty (97).

It was not a Vogue weekend, as a bottle of 1929 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes was maderized. Bummer (DQ).
Read more

Big Boy does Los Angeles

Posted on | April 13, 2008

I go to a lot of wine dinners, most of which no one ever reads about. Most of the legendary dinners that I have attended, you have read about, and what happened this past Thursday night in Los Angeles quickly became one of the all-time legendary nights for everyone in attendance, and there were some serious and experienced connoisseurs in the room. Allen Meadows, aka the Burghound, was there, and the next morning had this to say to Rob: ‘Seriously, I have attended a lot of really nice events over the years, but this one ranks in my top five ever, which is saying something,’ or as he put it to me, ‘Dude. That was AWESOME.’ Another said the next day, ‘the best Burg and Champ night ever…I am done, it’s over…no way could I drink more or better…’ Here’s one more comment for good measure, ‘You rewrote LA wine history last night.’ Big Boy had come to Los Angeles, and now all of Los Angeles wants to know when Big Boy is coming back.

Cocktail round began with a magnum of 1979 Krug Collection, a nice aperitif. It was tight as nails at first, slowly revealing signature vanilla cream, oil and nutty wood frames. Its nose got creamier and creamier, and I thought to myself, ‘Here is a Champagne that almost needs decanting.’ It got more and more buttery in the glass, and almost a pan-fried complexity a la Zeppoles with some powdered sugar. The palate was very zippy, citrusy, spiny, bright and long with nice grit and dust. Rippling with minerals, I couldn’t help but feel that this was a food Champagne, and one that needed much more time in the glass to open up and show even more (95+M).

The mag of Krug went rather quickly, so we popped an impromptu magnum of 1971 Dom Perignon Rose. Mr. Rosania always likes to travel with a few extra bottles just in case lol. The ’71 was in a great spot right now, round and rich with tasty strawberry fruit. It had good earth flavors and didn’t get dirty like some old Dom Roses can. It popped without being overly acidic, and it seemed to be entering that plateau of maturity where it will stay for a long time. It still had some zip and was long in its own regal way (95M).

We finally sat down to the first official flight. We waited for Rudy as long as we could, but there was a lot of drinking to do, and he was running an hour late as usual. All the Champagnes and wines were served blind, and I dropped a few hints as the guessing games went along throughout the night. I, of course, knew what was what, and Rob knew what he brought to LA but not what I selected for each flight.
Read more

Big Boy does Vegas

Posted on | April 12, 2008

For those of you who are curious, the catalog for Rob’s sale will be online on Friday and in the mail on Monday. The salesroom will be packed; make your reservations sooner rather than later if you plan on coming to this historic auction.

I interrupt my report on La Paulee and its final chapter (and its 53 tasting notes) to catch up on some of very special evenings that I have shared with Rob so far in 2008. Two of those nights happened in Las Vegas this past February.

We arrived at the Wynn’s at about 2AM, coming straight from the Mount Sinai charity event whose notes I seem to have lost grrrrrrrr, and we shared a celebratory toast with some 1989 Krug Clos du Mesnil. It was served about cellar temperature, cool but not cold, and it actually ended up being just right, as it allowed the flavors and nuances of this great Champagne really strut their stuff. Its nose was buttery, gamy and pungent at first, morphing into more of the classic vanilla cream of Krug, in oil form. Its butter qualities began to take on many shades; ie, it gave me the impression of different buttered things such as buttermilk biscuit, cheese Danish and even cinnamon roll! There was crazy complexity in this killer Krug. The palate was racy, fresh and lean with delicious corn oil flavors, a touch leaner than the nose indicated, but lively and oh so fresh. Rob called it ‘staggering.’ Its slaty finish was linear yet focused, and while the ’89 lacked a touch of fat in its middle at this stage, it had seductive oil flavors and was indubitably 5-star stuff (96).

That was our Thursday night, and Friday the setting would be Picasso’s, one of Vegas’ best restaurants, one where the chef, Julian Serrano, is actually in the kitchen on most nights. It was 2/8/08, and dinner was set for 8pm, so this officially became our lucky ‘888’ Happy Chinese New Year’s dinner. It was all the more appropriate with Rudy and his mother joining us, as well as ‘Mr. Wine Vegas’ Gil Schwartz, Patman and a few others.

I actually met up with Rudy early, who served me a glass of blind Champagne to begin before the others arrived. It had nice apply richness to its lush nose. Rudy also admired its lush and rich qualities, and it had a mildly pungent, citric character. There was a great stony edge to this long and minerally bubbly that reminded me of an older Dom, actually. ‘You’ll never guess it,’ Rudy insisted, but that’s not the point. It’s just to see if you like it,’ he smiled. There was a nice hint of lime to this NV Armand de Brignac Ace of Spades Champagne. Apparently, Rudy’s got all that Southern California had to offer. What else is new? He told me it was made in a ‘solera style like Jacques Selosses.’ Big Boy was next to arrive and caught a glass and also admired it, citing its ‘great cracked egg nose.’ Jigga what? (94).
Read more

La Paulee 2008, Part III

Posted on | April 11, 2008

Ok, where was I again? Sorry for the delay, but making four auctions simultaneously over these past couple of weeks has been a bit challenging. Let’s see, there are two single cellar sales, one in April and one in May, then there is the ‘regular’ May auction, and finally our first auction in Hong Kong, all totaling about $15 million in sales. I can honestly say that I can’t wait for you to see them all. Extraordinary stuff!

That’s right, I was still in San Francisco, halfway through my epic four-day journey through the great wines of Burgundy. There was actually a prelude to La Paulee 2008, Part III, an auction on Friday afternoon, and somehow I found myself there doing a little market research. Michael Mina’s was the familiar setting, and I was thirsty.

Kutch was on the scene and starting early with a 1979 Gosset Vintage Champagne. Its nose was yeasty, toasty and nutty with hints of game, nutmeg and dry caramel. There was great sweetness present, balanced well by a lemony streak. It was starting to become wine-like in character, with tangy apple butter flavors and still light spritz, as well as good acidity. Good show (93).

I countered with a 1979 Billecart Salmon Cuvee Nicolas Francois, again off the incredible Champagne list at Mina’s. The Billecart was more pungent, with prominent grass and hay edges, and a baked granulated sugar core behind them. Long toast, rich seltzer and hay flavors all came out on its desert-like finish. Its youthful character and searing acidity were impressive, although I felt it was short a few nuances of outstanding status, at least at this stage (94+).

A 1998 Roumier Bonnes Mares was a pleasant segue to the reds with its sappy nose of sweet raspberry fruit. Its nose was also oily to a degree and had that whiff of Roumier interior, ie, expensive wood. The palate was rich yet soft, still sappy, solid overall with its deep, caressing fruit. It was a very enjoyable wine, and it made me think that the ‘98s are starting to blossom at age ten (93).

There was actually another Champagne, a 1961 Gosset, courtesy of Big Boy this time. Things were a bit chaotic and random; there really wasn’t any method to our madness on this busy afternoon. One could see the same style of Gosset expressed in the ’79. Rich, bready, smooth and toasty with buttery vanilla sugar and spice flavors, the ’61 was long and delicious (95).

A 2005 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet was very forward and buttery, yet still reticent, and my first significant 2005 white Burg. Still minerally and dusty, it had nice citrus flavors and retained its buttery qualities on the palate, yet it remained clean and light on its feet, perhaps a function of its youth. One could still see that this was serious wine despite its pre-adolescence, as it had a big, brooding nature and white fruit flavors (94).

The last wine on this afternoon was a magnum of 1993 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. A deep, concentrated nose unveiled great spice and a rich sexgasm of citrus and red fruits. It was atypically sweet for a ’93, so decadent yet still so firm. Andy, who treated us to this magnum, admired its ‘velvet’ qualities. While the wine was not tight, per se, it still gave me a coiled impression. Its rust and spice flavors were great, and the wine was delicious, long, balanced and firm (96M).

And that was my Friday afternoon on day three of La Paulee. Friday night would prove to be legendary.
Read more

La Paulee 2008, Part II

Posted on | March 11, 2008

Thursday night saw the official beginning to La Paulee weekend, and we celebrated the great whites of Dominique Lafon and more reds from Eric Rousseau. Michael Mina was again the place, closed down for this historic event.

We began with a trio of Genevrieres, and the 2001 Lafon Meursault Genevrieres was clean and fresh with great citrus, dust and spice in its nose, along with excellent minerality and citricity. It had that beefy 2001 edge but was still cut. The palate was round and softer than I expected, still pleasant but easy. There was good hidden acidity here (91).

The 2000 Lafon Meursault Genevrieres had a touch of mildew or mold in the nose, that back alley edge to which I often refer. There was some corn, yeast and citrus behind that, and the palate was clean, but again simple. Mark concurred. There was a touch of tea-like quality and mild acidity in this disappointing 2000 (89).

The 1999 Lafon Meursault Genevrieres had ‘high acid’ per Eddie. It was the biggest nose of the three, showing citrus and fir spice, almost cedar, and snow-capped white fruits. The palate was beefy and more concentrated, longer, big and brawny yet still round (93).

A fascinating duo of Montrachet was next, beginning with a 1997 Lafon Montrachet. The ’97 had a touch of toast to its nose, followed by butter, kindling, corn and sweet musk. Clean and elegant, there was still substance in that sensuous 1997 way. The palate was polished, clean and buttery with excellent spice on its finish. The wine was absolutely delicious, and the nose stayed spicy and vibrant. Wilf hailed it as ‘great,’ and it was (95).

The 1996 Lafon Montrachet was unfortunately a touch oxidized, showing a yeasty, tropical, funky and creamy personality, still enjoyable but a bit on the tutti-frutti side. The palate was confused, stewed in its fruit and flavors, gamy and softer than it should have been. It still had body, and its acidity came out more and more in the glass, and a touch of candle wax flavors rounded out this affected wine (92A).

When discussing the hot topic of premature oxidation of white Burgundies, Wilf shared with me an ominous yet candid prediction, one that I hope does not come true. He said that reds might come under the gun as well, because ‘the genotype is the same, but the phenotype has not been expressed yet. In ten or fifteen years, we might be talking about the premature oxidation in some reds. The silicon treatment of the cork, combined with less SO2 (will lead to) premature oxidation, (whether white or red).’

On that note, we moved on to the reds and a flight of Clos St. Jacques, beginning with the 1988 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques. The nose was nutty and deep, oily and rich, beefy and hearty, and with a touch of maple syrup goodness. It had tasty, good fruit, but still ‘hard tannins,’ per Eric. Its red cherry flavors were delicious, and it was rock solid despite ‘a touch of vegetal,’ per Todd. Eddie wasn’t minding it, which is about as good a compliment that you will get out of him for a Premier Cru lol. Mark was looking for more complexity, but I liked the wine a lot and its lumber flavors and personality (93).

The 1983 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Clos St. Jacques had a minty, intense nose that was very rusty and still vibrant. In the mouth, there were tasty strawberry and earth flavors to go with lots of acidity and its overall minty personality. Most preferred the ’83 to the ’88, but I found them both excellent and qualitatively equal despite their stylistic differences (93).
Read more

La Paulee 2008, Part One

Posted on | March 11, 2008

I have been slow to stay current with the wealth of incredible wines that I have tasted during the first two months of 2008…my sincerest apologies. The notes are there, but time is not always my friend. Of all the great wines that I have tasted, and of all the great wine events that I have attended and conducted, there are very few that have equaled what I just experienced at La Paulee in San Francisco this past week. Over the course of four nights, I took notes for 138 wines, all incredibly rare vintage Burgundies (except for some Champagnes), and there were quite a few I missed since I seemed to turn into a pumpkin every night around 2AM. What’s a working guy to do?

This is the fourth consecutive year that I have attended and written up La Paulee, and for those of you that do not know what the event is, it is a celebration of Burgundy orchestrated by Burgundy lover extraordinaire Daniel Johnnes, who by day is the wine director for all of Daniel Boulud’s culinary empire, in addition to a quality importer of select wines.

La Paulee culminates every year with a BYO extravaganza where over 400 people come with their good stuff, and plenty of it. There is also always a VIP winemaker dinner Thursday night, this year’s featuring Eric Rousseau and Dominique Lafon, and also a Saturday walkabout afternoon tasting where some of Burgundy’s greatest producers pour some of their newest releases. This year’s vintage happened to be 2005…talk about a bonus! This year also saw an incredible Friday night BYO party hosted by Wilf and Eddie, but the week quietly kicked off Wednesday night with a small get-together at Michael Mina’s, my home away from home in San Francisco. Eric Rousseau was the guest of honor, and Wilf, Don and Rudy were some of the guests, so I just had that feeling that there would be some serious ‘honoring’ done before the night was over.

We started with a mag of 1990 Dom Perignon Rose, a bubbly that has shown exquisitely but also perplexingly. This magnum was more on the perplexing side with its hay and barn aromas, still very fresh and sound, but slow to uncoil its rose and strawberry sides. It was definitively earthy and gamy, also big, long and tangy in the mouth with a dusty finish. In the end, it stayed on the horsy side of the fence, and I have had better magnums within the past couple months. Bottle variation rears its head (93+M).
Read more

2006 Right Bank and More

Posted on | February 15, 2008

A majority of the wines tasted during my December trip in Bordeaux were wines from the 2006 vintage, a vintage that the Bordelais have gone out of their way to defend and promote, and also out of their way to price. 2006 is a bit of a watershed vintage as far as the economics of wine go, as unlike 2005, 2006 is not the ‘vintage of the century’ that seems to come along every five to ten years, but merely an average-to-good vintage which has a few wines that exceed those boundaries. Prices, however, are not that far behind 2005 despite the fact that 2006 has been lukewarmly received by the media and collectors alike, and for this reason, a new line has been drawn in the sand for those that want to drink Bordeaux. If you want to cross that line, all it takes is money.

Fortunately, we did not have to pay to visit some of the Right Bank’s most esteemed properties and taste their newest releases. Although my trip did not begin in the Right Bank, I have decided to continue my chronologically-deficient story of said trip with all my notes from the Right Bank. There is something thrilling and exciting about tasting Right Bank wines, a function of both scarcity and style, and none more thrilling than the wines of Christian Moueix. If there is any consensus about 2006, it is the fact that Mother Nature smiled more on the Right Bank.

Christian and his family are much more than Chateau Petrus, although that is the only wine for which he seems to get credit. His newest acquisition, Chateau Belair in St. Emilion, has him very excited. He pointed out to us that Belair was the first St. Emilion to chateau-bottle back in 1802, and that in the 19th century, it was actually at the top of the St. Emilion hierarchy. Keep an eye on this estate over the next decade.

There were eleven 2006 wines to taste through from the Moueix portfolio; see, I do taste young wines on occasion! We got right to work, beginning with the 2006 Les Songes de Madelaine, which had a lovely nose of cherry fruit and oil, great freshness (of course), and a cut grass impression. The palate was simple but nice (87).

Seeing a rating like 87 points is probably a kiss of death to most collectors, but I would not have a problem drinking this bottle of wine over the course of a nice evening. That is the one disadvantage of the numbers game; sometimes it doesn’t capture the intrinsic, simple pleasure of enjoyment despite the quantifiable, relative difference to the greatest of the great.

Next up was the actual 2006 Magdelaine, a wine that has continued to impress me each of the last three years that I have been tasting in Bordeaux. There was more plum and black fruits to go with that same cherry oil. Its nose was deeper, nuttier and dustier, and its palate had a chalky, spicy finish that somehow wasn’t hot at the same time despite its youth. Very good, indeed (90).

Last of our three St. Emilions was the 2006 Belair, which had a fatter nose and more vanilla to go with cassis and musk. Also fresh (also of course), its palate had a touch missing in the middle, though nice red flavors and a dry finish (89).

The first Pomerol on our agenda was the 2006 La Grave, which had a plummy and aromatic nose, also nutty with a nice, lingering, subtle spice. There were round, rich, plum flavors; also chocolate ones with nice, light grit on its finish (90).

The 2006 Chateau Latour a Pomerol had a more classic nose with great earth and chocolate aromas to go with its core of plum. Its palate was slaty and spiny, a noticeable step up in structure from every previous wine. The palate also had nice fruit to go with its long finish. This had to be the best Latour a Pomerol in years (92).

The 2006 Chateau Certan Marzelle had a figgy, gamy nose with plum behind those qualities. The palate was also gamy, solid with a chalky, dry finish (90).

The first thing I wrote about the 2006 Chateau La Fleur Petrus was ‘breed here.’ Its tannins and alcohol were most noticeable, along with aromas of fireplace, brick and a touch of almost St. Emilion-ish red fruits. Its flavors of mocha were dry and spicy, very long with nice earth, garden and plum flavors (93).

The 2006 Chateau Providence had a more open and gamy nose like the Marzelle, figgy to go with the usual plummy. However, it lacked fruit and mid-palate in the mouth (88).
Read more

Happy 90th Birthday Thierry!

Posted on | February 5, 2008

One of the other highlights of my week in Bordeaux and Paris with Bipin this past December was a glorious celebration of Chateau Figeac’s Thierry Manoncourt’s 90th birthday. Thierry is one of the most inspirational people that I have ever met in this crazy world of wine, still quick as a whip and very much in charge over at Chateau Figeac. He exudes grace, class and charm and is one of the people that has made Bordeaux great. It is outrageous to me that Figeac has never achieved ‘official’ Premier Grand Cru Classe status in St. Emilion, and while I will not get into the particulars of those politics, I will say that there is no doubt that Chateau Figeac is not only one of Bordeaux’s elite wines, but also the world’s, and this tasting surely proved that fact.

The lunch was held in Paris at Taillevent, and every wine was served out of magnums that came directly from Figeac’s personal cellars, except the final flight of younger wines was served out of bottles, which still came from Thierry’s sizeable stash, of course. None of the magnums had been reconditioned at any point in time, always music to my ears.

The guest list was a who’s who of wine critics, including (in alphabetical order) Michel Bettane, Michael Broadbent, Clive Coates, Neal Martin, David Peppercorn, Jancis Robinson, Steven Spurrier, James Suckling and Serena Sutcliffe, amongst others.

We started with a flight of four, beginning with the 1983 Figeac. Green olives jumped out of the glass immediately in a waify yet aromatic style. There were lots of wintergreen aromas along with meaty, olivy fruit. A touch of vegetable bouillon added complexity to its creamy, forward nose, which also had this ‘wet street’ element to it. The palate had red fruit, citrus and additional olive flavors, possessing nice grit on its round, earthy finish. That wet street I was picking up on in the nose others felt might have been a touch of mustiness, or cork. Wolfgang was not a big fan of the 1983. Soft, tender and pretty, I was happy to drink it (91M).

The 1982 was a bit controversial, and ultimately decided to be an affected bottle. It had a much nuttier, beefier style, with more whiffs of caramel and pine to go with its dark core of sweet, black fruits. It had a rich, heady style, black in its personality. James Suckling observed, ‘decadent sous bois and mushroom.’ The palate was rich and beefy with great balance and an excellent minerality. Its acidity lingered, but it became a bit pruny in time, a touch stewed. It was quite interesting to me that a bottle that had perfect provenance, never leaving the cellars until now, could have a stewed impression, which means that heat or poor storage isn’t always the source of that deficiency (94M-A).

The 1975 was ‘very balsamic, almost Nebbiolo-like,’ per James. I must say it was a pleasure to sit next to James and hear firsthand many of his astute comments. Most importantly, we were having fun and really enjoying the event. I like my wines dry, but not those I have to taste with! The 1975 had purple fruits and seemed open for a 1975 by its usual standards. It had this sweet perfume about it, a confectioner’s edge, and kisses of signature olive. It was sexy sweet in the nose. I was also impressed by its sweetness in the mouth and its mélange of red, purple and black fruit flavors. Tender and balanced, there was also a foresty complexity here. This was very pure, getting more complex in the nose, and I admired its roundness both in the nose and in the mouth. Soft yet rusty, it had less tannins than I expected but still nice vim (92M).

The 1971 stole the show in this flight, which was nice to see since that is my year! There were fabulous aromatics of olive, dust, chocolate, minerals and red and purple mature fruits. The nose was like a majestic, dancing Cobra, ever changing and never static. The palate was round, lush and tender, possessing dusty and citrusy flavors on its finish. Sweet strawberry flavors dominated along with Spanish green olives from the best possible vineyard, olives soaked in olive oil (95M).

Neal Martin, of eRobertparker fame, was asked to speak about this first flight and shared the following comments. ‘Figeac was the first chateau I ever wrote about. The ’83 was pleasant but did not have the depth of others. (Usually), the 1982 is one of the greatest ‘82s in Bordeaux and better than Cheval this past October (when he had both head-to-head). The ’75 had a conservative nose yet a traditional palate (and notes of) wild mint and fennel. The ’71, I loved it, its controlled opulence, mushrooms, cooked meats…fleshy, absolutely fantastic.’

The next flight began with the 1970, which James found both ‘Burgundy and Rhonish,’ and it was totally a blend of the two! It was very aromatic with lots of sweet cherry, that signature olive, a touch of candle wax, a splash of cassis, a drop of rainwater and a kiss of mahogany. Age 38 years, shake, stir and serve lol. The ’70 was softer on the palate than I had hoped, showing more citrus and cedar personalities. There was still nice grit here and a touch of tobacco. James found it ‘a touch volatile’ (92M).

Steven Spurrier was immediately in love with the 1964. Like the 1982, it had a nuttier, beefier style, but also this exotic szechuan peanut sweetness to go with its ocean of sweet, plummy fruit. The palate had a cleaner, fresher and zippier personality than the nose, possessing great citrus, slate, cherry and old book flavors; in fact, I wrote ‘great’ before each of those characteristics in my original notes! There were also nice stem and stalk flavors, and even a kiss of green bean. The acidity was superb, and the wine kept gaining in the glass. Its finish was so clean and fresh, concurred with by James who added ‘so pure’ (96M).

The 1961 had an oily, sexy nose, deep purple in its fruit, bordered by black. Nuts and vitamins were dancing all over, and there was also a touch of fig, in the best way (as opposed to a sign of maderization). The ’61 was much more purple in its personality than any other wine so far. The palate had nice cedar and minerality, resulting in a long, stylish, gritty yet elegant wine. It continued to get figgier and plummier in the glass (93M).

The 1959 was the last wine in this lumber flight, and Wolfgang observed how it had ‘some of the qualities of 1971.’ Steven found the ’59 to be ‘beautiful wine, almost Burgundian, but doesn’t have the reserve, acidity and tannins of ’64.’ The ’59 was very aromatic, Asian in style with its jasmine qualities, with a pinch of black pepper and almost a kiss of madarin orange, a quality that James found to be ‘sultana raisin.’ The palate was round and long with excellent acidity and a flash of heat. Its flavors were grapier, almost port-like and ‘chewy,’ per James. There was also nice grit to this outstanding 1959 (95M).

James spoke about this flight, praising ‘the unique character of Figeac, hand-made like Burgundy, and it is exciting to find wine like that in Bordeaux amidst the big companies and modern winemakers. Comparing the ’64, ’61 and ’59 is like asking if you like blondes, brunettes or redheads. The ’61 is almost a combination of the two with tannins less large.’

It was then shared with us how Thierry has degrees in agriculture and engineering, and back in the ‘50s and ‘60s, there was little universal knowledge in those regards (ie, a lot of winging it), and that some winemakers didn’t even know the difference between yeast and bacteria!

The third flight on this afternoon was led off by the 1955, which had a nutty, chocolaty nose full of dates, sous bois, earth and tobacco. It gave a meaty, thick impression, as did its palate with more chocolate flavors and lots of minerals to go with its long finish and very vibrant acidity. David Peppercorn called 1955 ‘the forgotten year,’ in general (95M).

The 1953 had more animal and hay in its nose to go with the nutty style that this decade seemed to share for Figeac. There was definite beef to the nose, glazed with some sweet and sweaty marinade. The alcohol and acidity slowly penetrated my nasal cavities, and a hint of olive re-ermerged. The palate was tender yet solid, with purple and black hues and flavors of old book, citrus, animal and a touch of yeast on the finish of this charming Figeac (93M).
Read more

Saturday Night in the City

Posted on | January 15, 2008

This past Saturday night saw me back from the frying pan we had cookin’ in Hotlanta yet right into the fire of New York City, where I had a small gathering with a significant client and how to manage his cellar better in 2008.

The most important details to work out were what to drink, and the wine list at Veritas is always a good place to begin. Both being the Champagne lovers that we are, 1990 Cristal was the aperitif of choice. I have been drinking a lot of Cristal recently, which is always a sign of a good holiday season. The 1990 was gorgeous, although a touch sweet. It had lots of yellow fruits, golden raisins and a spoonful of sugar that was right on the border of acceptable but didn’t cross it. An overall toasty and nutty personality encased this tasty and hedonistic bubbly, which still retained the hallmark Cristal elegance. Rich, warm, approachable yet still fresh and ascending, I found this to be another excellent Cristal but felt more impressed by recent ‘89s and ‘96s (95).

1983 Roumier Musigny? Sure, why not? The wine was so forward from the word go, revealing waves of sweet and open fruit. There was the full spectrum of black, red and purple; all the elements of a wine rainbow. What impressed me most here was the sweetness and perfume, and the chewy quality of the aromatics. It was another top ’83 that was drinking beautifully. It was definitely fully mature, as all qualities of its finish had melted away and integrated completely into its wealth of fruit. Also sweet on the palate, and fleshy to match without being heavy, this was a ‘love me tender’ wine that still had a lot to say although certainly at its best. Mark concurred that while it was on the border of 5-star territory (95-6 points), it did not have the staying power to merit that status. I guess the Moose could have used some Wine-agra lol (94).

We plucked a half-bottle of 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. to go with the last course, and it was a staggering experience and one of the better Ponsot memories to go on file. The wine was so thick and oily in the nose; it was like concentrate of Burgundy. There were amazing dank and fresh aromas at the same time. The Ponsot was saucy and meaty yet fresh and full of plum, cassis and black cherry fruit, all thick and dripping in that concentrated fashion. Still fresh and racy, ‘full of vim and vigor’ as Mark added, it was an eye-opening bottle – make that half-bottle, which made it all the more impressive. I do not remember having a bottle of Burgundy that was both this concentrated yet still retained a classic style beyond that fact. It is certainly one of the wines of the vintage along with the Meo Richebourg and Henri Jayer wines (take your personal pick or two) (97).

We somehow got pulled over at the bar on our way out, where Mark insisted on buying a 1985 Grivot Richebourg. I was starting to stumble at this point, and I had already missed the first half of the Giants-Patriots game, so I didn’t exactly give this wine an ocean of time. Mark later told me that it opened up after I left, but its impression right away was not an impressive one. It seemed a bit lost in the glass, not displaying much except the remnants of a healthy use of oak, and an overall beefy personality without the sauce or sides. While I found it to be confused and one-dimensional, ‘Mark noted its underlying power and floral qualities,’ putting it in 4-star territory (93-4 points). Either the wine had too much toast for me, or I was toast, and my rating is giving it the side of the coin where benefit of the doubt lies (90).

New York, New York, it’s a heckuva place…

FIN

JK

Eddie’s Holiday Truffle Party

Posted on | January 2, 2008

I had just arrived from Paris only three hours before Eddie’s Christmas party at Del Posto’s. After freshening up a bit, I jumped right back into the frying pan after a week in Bordeaux and Paris where I spent at least six hours a day eating. I do not understand why all French people are not fat. I’ll try to get to writing up that week next.

We were actually in the gorgeous basement of Del Posto’s, a private room that I have never been to before. Many familiar facelifts were in attendance such as Dr. Conti, Big Boy, Bad Boy Bruce, King Angry, Big Mike, Robert Bohr, Raj Parr, Patman, Tom, Evan and the co-hosts from the house, Joe and Mario. It was a joyous occasion and much generosity was on display.

I was actually a half-hour late, and by the time I arrived, it was already a bit chaotic, not in a bad way, but chaotic in the fact that bottles were open all over the place. I quickly tried to get my bearings and headed for the Champagne table. Forgive the short notes, but it was a bit of a party and a bit of rapid-fire Jeopardy as well.

A jero of 1989 Cristal was first, and it was singing out of jero. Fresh, racy, zippy and practically sizzling, the ’89 was a great way to start the afternoon. Corn, straw, butter and minerals were all present in this ‘underrated monster’ of a Champagne, per Bruce. The acidity was extraordinary (96+J).

A gorgeous magnum of 1971 Dom Perignon was next, and it was about as good as it gets. Clean and so fresh, it was balanced, still young, yet just starting to show some traces of mature flavors. Bread, seltzer, minerals, light toast and nuts were all in harmony in this exquisite Champagne (95M).

A rarely seen 1971 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne was next. I should say that all of the Champagnes, I believe, were courtesy of King Angry and Bad Boy Bruce. Big Boy probably had one or two in there, though. The Taittinger was insanely good, ‘blowing away’ the Dom according to the King. It was intense, zippy, and hedonistically full of decadently delicious butter and butterscotch flavors. Taittinger’s Comtes de Champagne still seems to be under the radar when it comes to the luxury cuvees of Champagne, but it definitely belongs in any top ten list (97).

A 1971 Pol Roger Blanc de Chardonnay was on its last legs, lacking much petillance or complexity. Perhaps if it was tasted first, it would have given a better impression (87).

A controversial magnum of 1978 Ponsot Clos de la Roche was the first wine I tasted. It was beefy, earthy and tasty with a long, dry finish, typical of my memories of this wine, but Robert was convinced that there was some Rhone wine in there, possibly done by the house, possibly done by a stranger. Regardless, I found the wine to be deserving of excellent status (93M).

I quickly hopped on over to the magnum of 1971 Ponsot Clos de la Roche. This Ponsot was full of the citrusy tang of 1971, offering lemon hints to its core of tangy cherry and vitamin flavors. Tender, balanced, satiny and long, I thought it was a great wine (95M).

We finally sat down, and in honor of the truffles, many of us brought Italian wines. We began with a magnum of 1971 Gaja Sori San Lorenzo, by way of the Golden Cellar, actually. The wine was a beauty, possessing great cherry fruit and tender dust, earth and leather complements, but this was a wine that was fully mature, on a plateau and all about its fruit. It caressed the palate with grace and style (95M).

A glass from a magnum of 1966 Perrier Jouet was thrust in front of my face, another fresh and racy bubbly with oaky ‘coconut’ flavors per Raj. It was solid, although the oak was a hair too much (93+M).

A magnum of 1964 Cantina Mascarello followed the Gaja in fine fashion, showing the classic tar, leather and chocolate side of Piedmont. The palate was soft and dry, possessing excellent leather flavors and a dry, sandpapery finish (93M).

The 1961 Cantina Mascarello magnum that followed was a bit different in its personality, as this older sibling had an incredibly oily personality, sweeter and thicker in its profile and giving off lots of caramel, molasses and nut aromas and flavors (94M).

It was at this point that I got up from my table and went to the ‘house’ table, where dozens of wines were sitting for the sampling. I began with a magnum of 1964 Roumier Bonnes Mares, always a good place to start anything wine related. This was another controversial magnum as it was atypically sweet for Roumier, almost a bit chapitalized, but I did find some of the classic garden and earth that old Roumiers are prone to have (93M).

Unfortunately, a magnum of 1964 Vogue Musigny was oxidized (DQ).

A magnum of 1959 La Mission Haut Brion was outstanding. Chocolaty, earthy and gravelly, it was everything it was supposed to be. Its fruit was front and center, chewy like Charleston. Still young and big out of a magnum, here was a wine that could age another fifty years, in magnum format, at least (96M).

The next wine was one of the stars of the night for me, although Eddie was a bit disappointed with it. The magnum of 1971 DRC Romanee Conti was extraordinary to me. I should note that Eddie had it right away when opened, but two hours later when I finally came across it, I thought it was phenomenal. It had all the complexities of great old RC – earth, garden, hay, animal, bouillon, citrus, rose and menthol were all in abundance. Its fruit and mouthfeel were rich, and its acidity superb (97M).

A magnum of 1982 Gaja Sori Tilden was pleasant, long, dry and earthy but a touch on the dry side (92M).

The parade of Taittingers continued with a glorious 1966 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne that Ray or Bruce brought over to me. I had had this wine last New Year’s Eve, and it, too, was outstanding but much more mature than this bottle. This bottle was a ‘wow’ wine, incredibly fresh and long and full of that golden Blanc de Blancs complexity and that signature butterscotch quality I find in the great Taittingers. It was another superb bubbly, and more than an adequate palate cleanser (97).

I was still at the ‘house’ table, furiously trying to taste everything before returning to my table. A magnum of 1985 Bartolo Mascarello continued the tradition of the Cantina (run by his father). The Bartolo was long and dusty but not overly complex and got lost in the crowd (91M).

The 1990 Giacosa Barolo Falleto Riserva, however, stood out in the crowd, as always. ‘Ridiculous,’ was how my note began. It was a huge wine, as always, with enough t ‘n a for the entire Rockettes. It was also beefy and leathery, as always, thick and juicy with oily, nutty, gamy and chocolaty flavors. It was one of the stars of the night, as always (96+).

The 1990 Giuseppe Mascarello (cousin of Bartolo) Barolo Monprivato stood toe to toe with the Giacosa, equally as great, oily and chocolaty as well, but possessing a touch more minerals and a shred less fat than the Giacosa. These will be two fascinating wines to track over time (96).

I finally made it back to my table, where my magnum of 1990 Sandrone Barolo Cannubi Boschis was able to answer the challenge set by the previous two Barolos. Much tighter and more coy out of magnum, I wished that I could leave it alone for a few hours; unfortunately, that was not possible! Very wound and slaty, the Sandrone screamed out the glass, revealing more of its whips and chains than flesh. Tar, leather and slate dominated the wine, and I felt like I was disturbing its peace by drinking it out of magnum. Oh well (95+M).

We time traveled back with a 1945 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino courtesy of Big Boy. Similar to other experiences that I have had with this wine, the color was pale and tea-like, looking more like a sherry than a wine. However, the wine was delicious, although admittedly a wine for necrophiliacs. Its chewy texture and marzipan complexities made for a tasty treat, although I could easily see many thinking this wine was over the hill (95).

The 1941 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino was a bit perplexing, as its color was significantly deeper and younger than the ’45. The wine was quite tasty, possessing trademark Nebbiolo flavors and excellent acidity, but I couldn’t help but wonder if this bottle was the real deal (93?).

The 1973 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne was solid as well, yet more racy and less hedonistic than its previous siblings, showing more straw and seltzer personalities (94).

There were a couple more bottles to be shared, an off bottle of 1970 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino (DQ) and a vitaminy 1970 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne that was the least inspiring of all the ‘Tatts’ but still very good. It just didn’t have the complexity of the others, as 1970s will do in the face of ‘66s, ‘71s and ‘73s (91).

By now I was in full party mode, and it was off to Roy’s for another holiday party. I was a bit whacked, to be frank, but still found time to enjoy a couple of great wines. Mags of 1990 Dom Perignon Rose were flowing and showing well. I have loved and been disappointed by this out of magnum, so it was good to see it back on track and even flashing some strawberry fruit to go with its monstrous acidity and racy bubbles. This is easily a 50-year Champagne out of magnum (96+M).

The last wine of the night was another special DRC out of magnum, a 1971 DRC Richebourg. It, too, was superlative, showing the rose, leather, game, iron, minerals and tender citrus that it should. More forward and caressing than the RC, it was still closer to its youth than it was its old age. It was singing a sweet song that was music to anyone’s lips that got to taste this nectar. I plan on drinking as many 1971 DRCs as I possibly can for the rest of my life (97M)!

The rest of the night was a bit of a blur, making up for the lack of holiday snow so far this winter, but a fun one, and a bit of a slow morning after.

FIN

JK

Bipin Cheval Weekend

Posted on | December 9, 2007

The stars were once again aligned for a spectacular weekend in Los Angeles, orchestrated by none other than Dr. Bipin Desai. While the BCS standings may have been on many people’s minds heading into early November, it was the BCW (Bipin Cheval Weekend) that was on the collective collectors’ minds of those fortunate enough to get a seat at this sold out event. Bipin has become renowned for his wondrous wine weekends that he holds periodically in Los Angeles, as well as Bordeaux, Paris and other parts of the globe occasionally. This weekend brought Bordeaux to Los Angeles, along with Pierre Lurton, managing director of Cheval Blanc and d’Yquem. He was on hand to guide us through 35 vintages of Cheval Blanc, St. Emilion’s most collectible wine, and this weekend would prove that claim to be deservedly so.

Most of the wines came directly from the Chateau, which is a rarity when it comes to older wines. In fact, demand has been so great in Bordeaux at the top Chateaux that one could say it is becoming a rarity for younger wines as well! But to find wines seventy years or so old from the Chateau is very rare and a testament to the library at Cheval Blanc. Even though Bipin had two bottles of every wine for this event, he told me that the demand for this event was one of the most extraordinary that he has ever seen, and he has done hundreds of these wine weekends. He actually had to turn people away, as much as that pained him.

As usual, it was Friday night, and I had just stepped off a plane in time for dinner. I smelled all the wines first for each flight. I was feeling a bit under the weather, though the wines of Cheval Blanc quickly brought good feelings back.

We started with the 1988, whose nose was fabulous, again, since the last time I had had this wine was with Pierre himself at Cheval Blanc. This bottle also had great aromas of sweet red fruits, green and black olives, cherry, nut and a touch of cola. The palate was red and rusty with nice tannins and alcohol. The 1988 is in a great spot right now, and Michael Twelfthtree, famous Australian winemaker, was also loving it, and James Suckling admired, its ‘really fresh quality and licorice’ (93).

The 1985 was a bit milky in the nose, with lots of bell pepper up front. There was earth and beef behind it and very subtle red fruits. It opened up more to reveal brooding and deep t n’a. The palate was really big, chunky and muscular, with black olive and black fruit flavors. It was a big wine by Cheval standards, and although James found it a bit off, I found that in time, it found itself in the glass. It was massive compared to the 1988 (95).

The 1979 was similar to the ’85 with its upfront bell pepper and touches of milk, earth and beef. There was also a pinch of szechuan; ’79 seemed like the ‘85’s little brother, possessing less overall of everything. It got greener in the glass and revealed wintergreen flavors. It lacked length, but was still very good. Pierre admired the ’79, citing that ‘acidity is the backbone of wine’ (90).

Pierre also noted that the 1978 was picked rather late, on October 8th. There were lots of green olives in the nose, and again that touch of bell pepper, but the green olive was the dominant trait herein. It was musky and more aromatic in the gamy direction, and also more forward with its earth components, a bit toasty with lots of campfire qualities. Fleshy, rich and very tasty in the mouth, it possessed light rose and a kiss of green olive and mint (92).

The 1975 evoked Gil, aka Mr. Wine Vegas, to call this, ‘the bell pepper flight.’ The ‘75 had more wintry and waxy fruits to go with its green olive, and it also had some animal, complete with fur. The palate was rusty but also a bit musty with hot tannins and flavors that were a bit dried out. Pierre remarked, ‘In general, there were unbalanced wines in 1975, and a big wall of tannins in most’ (88?).

The 1971, my birth year, was very pungent and olive-y. It was the most open of the flight, wintry and minty in its personality, but also possessing red fruits, almost red citrus fruits. It was round and soft with a nice hint of sweetness to its fruit, yet still rusty.
Subdued yet forward and expressive, Gil and I preferred the 1971 to the 1970 that followed. Gil observed, ‘Cali weed and rose petals in the nose.’ Pierre also preferred the 1971 to the 1970 (92+).

Bipin preferred the 1970, whose plummy, nutty, figgy and gamy qualities set it apart from the rest of the flight. There was just a touch of menthol and cedar in its singular nose. The palate had nice richness and more plum flavors, meatier in style, and its acidity took over in the glass. Francois Audouze, our Parisian representative, hailed the 1970 as best of flight, followed by the 1988, 1971, 1985 and 1978, in that order (90).
Read more

2000 Bordeaux

Posted on | December 3, 2007

I had been trying to do a 2000 horizontal for the first six months of 2007, and since I was unable to coordinate with my usual drinking buddies, I decided to make this a public event and conduct it through the Wine Workshop. Picholine was the setting, and eighteen of the vintage’s finest wines were assembled for us to taste where this vintage was in 2007. I guess you could say that I finally got to scratch my seven-year itch.

We started with the St. Estephes and the 2000 Calon Segur. The Calon was long and refined in its nose, possessing great t ‘n a and nice peanut aromas. Sweet and sturdy, it was an outstanding nose with its perfume, cassis and minerals. Wendy noted ‘chocolate chip cookie dough.’ The palate had lots of acidity, and the wine was finish forward at first, rounding out yet still spiny in general. Wendy also admired its’ sweetness,’ and the Calon was tasty but a bit muted in the mouth overall (93).

The 2000 Cos d’Estournel was outstanding. If there is one Chateau in the Left Bank knocking on the door of First Growth Status, it would be Cos, which has achieved almost unparalleled success beginning with its great 1982 vintage. The nose on the Cos was wound with lots of cedar and peanut aromas, and Wendy admired its ‘spicy’ edge. There was great pinch and minerality along with ‘fantastic pungency.’ From now on, unless I say otherwise, all quotes are from Wendy. She certainly knows how to share her opinion and is usually spot on. More peanut, along with violet and exotic deep fruits graced its nose and palate. The Cos was incredibly refined, enough so that it would make an oil executive’s heart sing, and it had a long, regal finish (95).

The 2000 Montrose was ‘massive.’ There was certainly more t ‘n a here than in the previous two, and the wine had loads of spice and spine, as well as a nutty edge. The style of St. Estephe shone through all three wines in this first flight, as they all had this similar style underneath it all. Mike found the Montrose a bit ‘angular and sharp,’ while also noting that the Cos was ‘well-connected.’ The Montrose was spiny and long but a bit brutish at the young age of seven (93+).

At this point, Brian asked me of what year did 2000 remind me, and I immediately responded 1982 – the soft, elegant and refined acidity was a dead ringer for me, and I had just done an ’82 retrospective three months prior. Mike added that 2000 was ‘1982 at its best,’ obviously preferring 2000 overall.

It was on to St. Julien and the 2000 Gruaud Larose. The Gruaud was a curious fellow, at first revealing lots of stinky, animal and barnyard action. Behind that, there was peanut, cassis, perfume and lots of pencil. The palate was gamy and meaty, very tasty despite that touch of animal still there, and you know who chipped in with ‘green tea.’ The Gruaud kept improving in the glass (94).

The 2000 Leoville Barton was atypically subtle and wound at first. After some serious coaxing, aromas of brick, fireplace, cedar, coffee, cassis and deep roasted nuts all emerged. Its long and robust nose became very classic and full of spine, and it was easily the most concentrated wine so far. ‘Is it Cali?’ Wendy joked, but then she admitted that it only walked the line. The palate was also very concentrated and long, possessing spine and more noticeable alcohol but still tasty. The more wines that I had, the more I thought about 1982. Wendy admired its ‘fantastic length.’ The Barton got sweeter in the glass and definitely had that Napa Valley Grill to it but was still outstanding (95).

The 2000 Leoville Las Cases was unfortunately corked. Duuuuude, bummer (DQ).

We snuck a 2000 Pichon Lalande into this flight of St. Juliens, and it was a 2000 Pichon Lalande, which had an elegant, sexy nose, so elegant with its flash of cassis perfume, nut, cinnamon, mineral and Asian spice aromas. Stu observed ‘licorice and anise’ while Wendy was on the ‘truffle’ train. The Pichon had pop to it, and Stu was smacking his lips accordingly. The Pichon absolutely exploded in the mouth; don’t try to take this wine through airport security, it was that explosive, which is unusual by Pichon’s usual standards. This was special stuff, and Mike chipped in ‘good green pepper’ (96).

The third flight was all First Growths: the few, the proud, and the increasingly wealthier. The 2000 Haut Brion was sweet, smoky and spicy. Aromas of cinnamon, sweet perfume and cassis were present in its bready and nutty nose. The palate was long, balanced and elegant, quite regal and fine. Wendy was all over its ‘walnuts,’ while Mike keenly observed its ‘smoked wood and hickory.’ There was great gravel to this outstanding wine, and tremendous definition and pop to its finish (96).

The 2