All 3 wines showed very nicely the other night at Kali. A relatively new restaurant in LA.
The 90 Krug disappeared quickly as Krug often does.
The nicest surprise was the 1991 Mugneret Gibourg Echezeaux. I haven’t been the biggest fan of this board darling but this one was one fine wine.
The 67 Conterno was very pleasant if a bit past peak.
1967 Giacomo Conterno Barolo- Italy, Piedmont, Langhe, Barolo (2/3/2017)
Stood upright for 1 month then double decanted for sediment. Lots of chunky sediment. Maybe 1/6 of the bottom. Initially thin and with some VA.
By dinner time 2 hours later, this really improves. There is a surprising amount of acidity present along some saline salted plum. A lot of spice. There is just barely enough fruit where I would consider this to be drinking well. Probably on a decline now but still very enjoyable.
1990 Krug Champagne Vintage Brut- France, Champagne (2/3/2017)
Deep yellow in color. Very rich on the palate with plenty of mousse and acidity. Rich fruit with a hint of caramel. I agree with previous notes that this is at peak or just slightly past it. Still very delicious and enjoyable.
1991 Domaine Georges Mugneret/Mugneret-Gibourg Echezeaux- France, Burgundy, Côte de Nuits, Echezeaux Grand Cru (2/3/2017)
Probably the best MG I have ever had. Very bright toned red cherry. Some meat and earth notes. A bit herbal. Very balanced on the palate. This is probably on a nice long plateau of deliciousness.
Glad you liked the 91 MG Ech and hope you end up coming all the way around on MG. They’re nice people and to my view great winemakers as well. I’m a big fan of the 91 vintage (though at this point it seems everyone is) and I think Ech is a little underrated in the right hands too (like MG and Rouget).
We recently opened a 90 Krug. Our bottles are rather perfectly at peak - YMMV but this lot has always been more youthful than other notes we’ve seen. I think it’s time for a mag!!
Agree with Shannon. I’ve always found the 90 Krug much better in magnum than in bottles. I’ll bring a mag to the Zachy’s byob night at Paulee, so anyone that’s there, come on over and try it.
I think the bottle of 90 Krug you had shows some of the bottle variation I’ve experienced with it. The best bottles of 90 Krug I’ve had are best described as “jarring” to drink. The best bottles are frightfully intense, and showing lots of acidity. The last 2 I had were pristine, and taste like they need another 25-30 years to reach peak. The color you note has been consistent with bottles that I would absolutely agree with you are drinking well now.
Cool note on the 67. I have the 64 a few years back, and it was ethereal. Almost no color, but the texture was like Grands Echezeaux and the nuance and complexity was other worldly.
MG is a producer I tend to like on the younger side. I was just talking with a friend about this. Especially in the higher tone years, the wines show too much acid, and it masks the texture.
Ken, the first bottle was decanted 2 hours prior to dinner and dinner lasted about 2 hours. By the end of dinner it was a pleasant drink but the trajectory didn’t seem to be headed upwards.
The second bottle I decanted at 12 and took a taste around halftime so that was beyond the 4 hour mark. It was slightly worse than the first bottle at that point. As Charlie mentioned, the acidity was even more prominent with less supporting fruit.
Thanks for the notes. I had a '67 Conterno Barolo last week and it was the WOTN. It had lots of spice but it still had plenty of fruit. Just kept getting better in the glass. It was paired perfectly with gnocchi and truffles. Another person at the table had the same wine a few months prior and he said it was not as good as this bottle. As for '90 Krug, I don’t recall every having a great 750, but the Mags I have had have almost all been outstanding.
I am glad you asked! The '96 DP Oeno is the '08 disgorgement. It was fine, a bit to limey for my palate. I prefer the original release. The '66 Gevrey showed a lot of caramel notes, probably saw some chapetilization during vinification to offset the weak vintage. The '04 Richebourg and Chambertin had a bit of greenness to them (lady bugs in red wines?) and played second fiddle to the '03 Chambertin which really shined despite the vintage. The '97 La Turque was good, but I don’t think it will be a great wine. The '00 Latour was the best ‘made’ wine of the night and earned 2nd place after the Conterno. If it had 50 years of age on it like the Conterno, it would have bested it. The nose was outstanding and the palate was just a step behind the nose, but not closed at all. Thankfully it was paired with the meat course and it was very enjoyable.
Sad to hear that about the '96 Oeno Jon-- I had a few fairly great bottles a few months ago. But, I definitely see that it could be on the downslope. I’ve had surprisingly good experiences with some '03s recently and am enjoying them in spite of the vintage now. A little surprised to hear that the '04 Richebourg showed green. From things I’ve heard DRC did pretty well overcoming the vintage and I know others have been really pleased with those wines.
