I had a lunch with my wife in restaurant Ledoyen, to try some recipes (with Salon 1982) for a dinner to come. Two days later I arrive in the restaurant by 4:45 pm to open the bottles, and I see a great activity around there. A company making events with wines is there to receive probably 200 people who will attend conferences and then taste wine and have a dinner with wines including Pichon Lalande. Upstairs, I see a smaller meeting which will be prepared after I have opened my wines, but which will allow me, as I know well the organisers, to taste some First Growths of 1998, and I have ranked so : first Margaux 1998 as the sensual charm of Margaux is already visible, then Mouton-Rothschild 1998, as its complexity is already pleasant, then Lafite-Rothschild 1998 as it is still tight, and the last is Latour 1998, probably the best wine in the future, with a nice nose, but completely closed at this phase of its evolution.
To make a reciprocity (limited) I let the famous sommelier who will lead the event smell the Pétrus 1934 and the Margaux 1934 and he is extremely happy and admires the levels in the bottles, which are at the basis of the neck, with original corks which have played their role.
The opening of the bottles is made with an incredible speed as I have no problem of cork and no problem of smell. I am amazed to see how the original cork of the Margaux 1934 is so lively and perfect. As everything is so quick, I decide to go to the restaurant Astrance, which will receive in a few days its third star, but the restaurant is not yet on duty, as it is too early. I have phoned them the day after, but I would have preferred to shake hands to congratulate them.
I explain how to enjoy the dinner to people who have a very broad spectrum of different levels of knowledge of wine, and we go and sit at the lovely table.
The menu made by Christian Le Squer is absolutely great and full of sensibility.
Saveurs" terre et rivière" / Noix de Saint-Jacques à l'écume de mer / Truffe en croque au sel, onctueuse quenelle de foie gras / Blanc de turbot de ligne juste braisé, pommes rattes truffées / Feuilleté brioché de truffes noires en gros morceaux / Noisettes de chevreuil, fruits et légumes d'hiver / Stilton / Brochette Mangue et Ananas.
The Champagne Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Demi Sec circa 1960 is totally a surprise to me and as it is opened only now. I expected a champagne with a significant evolution as through the glass of the bottle I had seen a browner colour. But when my glass is poured, I see a rosé champagne. And in mouth, it is absolutely obvious that it is a rosé. How is it possible to have made a confusion of labels, I have difficulties to understand. But the fact is there. The wine has probably 50 years of age. The bubble is still lively, and everyone is surprised to see the length of the champagne. What is amazing is that with the beetroot, the combination is highly exciting, and with the eel, it is stellar. After the plate is gone, we have in mouth a lovely taste of champagne which never ends.
The seashells are raw, and with a little citrus and an incredibly iodic preparation. And it is absolutely proper to excite the Krug 1988. Having gained in maturity, this champagne is of a great stature, much easier to understand than the Veuve Clicquot.
The nose of the Meursault Jean François Coche-Dury 1990 should be kept in a museum, to show to future generations what a perfect smell of a Meursault is. The Corton-Charlemagne Bouchard Père & Fils 1997 appears much younger, very great, but predictable. The table will hesitate between the two wines. My preference goes to the 1990 as it has already begun to evolve, gaining a lovely and expressive maturity. The Meursault with the truffle is diabolic.
It was a good choice that we have made to put the Château Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape red 1992 at this moment of the dinner, as I wanted to exclude a competition with the Musigny as there would have been a loser. And I do not like that. A man who attended the dinner will in a near future create a wine shop. When he saw the year of the Rayas, he told me that he was afraid that the wine would be weak. But there is a completely different situation if a wine is put in a competition or when a wine is free to perform in a gastronomic experience. And the Rayas with the turbot was exactly what should be made. Very Rayas, with a moderate power, it was delicious and helped by the fish.
Think of luxury. Imagine that you sit at a very elegant table. In the glass on your right, there is Pétrus 1934. On your left, Margaux 1934. In front of you a big truffle in a pastry, and a waiter comes gently with a knife to cut the pastry, and to free the demoniac smell of the truffle. Is there something more decadent?
The Pétrus is very Pétrus, and catches completely the atmosphere of the truffle. The Pétrus becomes a truffle. The Margaux is very Margaux, full of a sensual charm, and breaks my heart. It is very difficult to choose which one we prefer as they are so different. Of course the Pétrus will win, due to its rarity, but both wines are perfect, at the top of their possible performance. By no mean we would have said : these wines should have been drunk earlier, as they were fully lively, at the top of their maturity. And with incredible lengths corresponding to the endless smell of the truffle.
It took less that one tenth of a second. The smell of the Musigny vieilles vignes Comte Georges de Voguë 1951 killed me. This is the absolute perfection of Burgundy. And it should be time to forget any classification of the years, as 1951 is a miserable year, but this Musigny is a knight. The meat of the roe-deer is tender and the wine plays with it. A spectacular Musigny, belonging to the best that I have drunk.
The Loubens 1940, a Sainte Croix du Mont, performs always better than what people would expect, and with a Stilton it is a delight.
The Climens 1943 belongs to Sauternes who have lost their sugar on the path. I accept completely such a situation, as it is one evolution which exists, and I find in it specific charms. With mango, it is a delight. The wine has a great length, a real complexity, not very understandable for all my guests.
The votes are fully interesting. All of us, ten people, we have to vote for only 4 wines among the ten. 9 wines out of 10 will get a vote. This makes me proud. Only 3 wines got votes as first, as the Pétrus 1934 got five votes of first. Then the Musigny got three votes as first and the Margaux 1934 got 2 votes as first.
The vote of the consensus would be : Pétrus 1934, Musigny vieilles vignes Comte Georges de Voguë 1951, Champagne Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Demi Sec vers années 60, Château Margaux 1934
My vote was : Musigny vieilles vignes Comte Georges de Voguë 1951, Champagne Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Demi Sec vers années 60, Pétrus 1934, Château Climens 1943.
Every combination was perfect, so it is difficult to choose one. I think that the agreement of the beetroot and the eel with the rosé Veuve Clicquot is something completely exciting, and the Pétrus 1934 capturing the truffle is great too.
The service was perfect, the chef had simplified his recipes to create these magic combinations. This was a great gastronomic moment, with a rare Pétrus 1934.
I had brought with me a wine in case one of the bottles would not be proper. It was Pétrus 1953, and I had exposed it. Despite all the attempts to persuade me, I resisted and had the cruelty to not open it. Next time, who knows?
