I am in my house in the South.

I have just received my new jet ski, so it was an occasion to celebrate that.

I invite two friends with my wife and we go to a small restaurant directly on a beach.

I think that to begin with Dom Pérignon would be a bad thing as our mouth is not prepared, so I order a Champagne Mumm Cordon Rouge.

After the week-end I spent with Moët & Chandon this champagne makes me a shock : no personality.

But slowly the Mumm broadens and becomes civilised. Not to jump to the ceiling, but drinkable.

The contrast is what I wanted : the Dom Pérignon 1998 shows immediately the huge difference. A loveable champagne. Not really drinkable at this age, but already very enjoyable. A very great length and a promising complexity.

I had brought with me Chateau Lafite-Rothschild 1981, just opened when I arrived, so having only 1.5 hours of breathing, a fill in the neck, and immediately a sensual smell that I would never expect from a 1981.

There is a seriousness which belongs to Lafite, but a very deep structure, a joy of life, an expansion in the mouth that surprised me as I did not expect as much from that wine. One would have told me that it was a 1986, I would not have been too surprised.

On a fish (loup or bar in French), it was purely delicious.

Wanting to be nice, the owner of the place offered me a marc de provence.

Almost as ugly as the ugliest grappa. Something which, when you drink it, makes holes in your shoes’ soles.

A very enjoyable dinner, with a surprising Lafite 81.

With my wife, we went a week ago to Marc Veyrat in Megève.

I will make a subject about this lunch, as we explored wines of the Rhone, some of them being magnificent.

Marc Veyrat is a genius. I was wondering if a new experience would make me as happy. I was.

Then, I drove to my house in the South of France, in a lovely place on the sea. For the week, no drop of wine was on my planning.

But friends announced that they would come to visit me, and we went to a small restaurant which is one the rare places installed directly on the strand. They have put tons of white sand, so the place has an atmosphere of a small Saint-Tropez, the prices in less and the top models in less. But the place is charming. The name : “Le Day” in Hyères, near the airport, on the beach.

Last year was their first installation and they had a good idea to have Dom Pérignon and Cristal Roederer for affordable prices. They had reopened the day before, so their cellar was nearly zero.

I asked them to go and buy wine as I would come back with friends. And they promised me that they would have nice fishes.

We began with a Cristal Roederer 1999. I must say that I was very disappointed by this champagne that I found too “dosé”. Much too sweet for me. I would be happy to receive comments : am I wrong ?

Fortunately, the waiter came with huge plates of urchins (offered), and with the sweet taste and iodine taste of the urchins, it went largely better. But, I was disappointed.

Then a Blanc de Blancs Domaine d’Ott 2003. I am always hesitant when Ott is concerned, because Ott is a “must” as Dom Pérignon is a must. So, I am always cautious. But I must say that I was bluffed by this wine which was extremely intense, deep and with a great personality. I had it on a Carpaccio of salmon. I have loved this wine.

Then on a sea bream, I had ordered a Bandol, Chateau Salettes red 2003. Very nice, but largely less convincing than the white. And after that, a Chateau Jasson red Cotes de Provence 2004 was promising, but largely too young for me.

Such a lunch on the beach with a little wind but much warm sun is a promise for Summer.

I enjoyed the Ott.

A nice day.

Dans les grands retaurants, il y a le chariot du pain, le chariot du beurre, le chariot des fromages, le chariot des infusions, le chariot des chocolats, le chariot des desserts. Je fais mieux, et avec le sourire, car j’apporte un nouveau chariot, le chariot de Marc Veyrat !!!

Ma fille cadette

Ma fille cadette nous invite à dîner. Je propose d’apporter des vins, mais je sens que des choix ont déjà été faits. Je limiterai mon apport à un liquoreux. Sur une approche radicalement personnelle de la gougère, où le moindre trou d’air est exclu, comme représentatif d’une expansion inutile, un champagne Ruinart 1999 est assez aimable mais n’est pas disert. Il parle peu à nos papilles. Le carpaccio de coquille Saint-Jacques à la Granny-smith et à la betterave est délicieux. Et son association à Laville-Haut-Brion 1987 est d’une belle justesse. J’ai peur de la betterave avec le vin, mais enveloppée dans une fine tranche de coquille, elle crée un accord très intellectuel mais aussi fort bon. Nous sommes dans la délicatesse pure. Le Laville franchit une étape de plus avec les gambas caramélisées au sucre de canne et cacao. L’excitation du vin est à son paroxysme. Il devient lourd en bouche, rayonnant. Un vin déjà marqué par un vieillissement réel, que la gamba accepte totalement et que ce sucré-salé excite et provoque. Par une délicate attention mon gendre avait cherché un vin de 1966, année du mariage de sa belle-mère et moi, car cela fera dans quelques jours quarante années de vie commune. Il a déniché un Bordeaux Côtes de Francs Château Le Puy 1966 qui nous surprend tous par son excellence. Bien sûr, ce n’est pas une bombe. Bien sûr, ce n’est ni Latour ni Margaux. Mais que c’est bon ! Le nez est très expressif et puissant. En bouche, c’est frêle, mais aussi velouté, charmeur, délicat. Quel beau vin qui a su, comme notre amour, braver le temps qui passe ! Sur un mignon de veau aux morilles, il brille, et paradoxalement, beaucoup plus sur les morilles qui ont l’intelligence de parler à voix basse pour laisser entendre le message du vin. Il faudrait savoir par quel cheminement ce vin de la famille Amoreau a été étiqueté avec la mention : « expression originale du terroir ». Ce n’est pas un plaidoyer de cette époque.

Sur l’époisses, nous essayons le Domaine du Pin, Vial négociant, Premières Côtes de Bordeaux 1937 à la belle couleur et au nez racé. Mais ce liquoreux n’a pas la puissance d’un Yquem (accord essayé à Anvers). Il ne peut pas lutter à son avantage, même si l’accord se justifie. Il est beaucoup plus à l’aise sur une tarte au citron de Pierre Hermé, qui précède une fanfare ahurissante d’accords miraculeux. Les macarons de Pierre Hermé sont redoutables de perfection. C’est surtout leur texture, leur « mâche » qui impressionne. Les goûts sont compliqués car Pierre veut sans doute trop montrer. On rêve d’un macaron à une seule saveur dont celui à la rose indique la voie à suivre. Mais tous sont magnifiquement bons, et les accords avec les vins explosent de toutes parts. Le macaron à l’huile d’olive et vanille, avec le 1937, est éblouissant : le liquoreux rebondit sur l’amertume de l’olive pour offrir une palette aromatique insoupçonnée. Le macaron fruit de la passion et chocolat au lait est déjà, lui tout seul, une œuvre d’art. Mais le Domaine du Pin capte le fruit de la passion pour un accord invraisemblable.

Le macaron chocolat et caramel a une texture divine comme j’en ai rarement croquée, et un Maury Mas Amiel millésime 1980 surgi de nulle part comme le mari trompé dans une pièce de boulevard, exacerbant son coté griottes, nous a plongés dans une béatitude irréelle. Et le macaron au pur chocolat a fait ressortir la griotte et le café du Mas Amiel pour un plaisir final digne d’un feu d’artifice.

Dîner de grande joie, où un Côtes de Francs et un Premières Côtes de Bordeaux ont montré que la région de Bordeaux ne se limite pas à cinq ou six appellations. Ce dîner avait plus de trois macarons. C’est bien.

With some friends, all born in the same year, we have created a club.

We meet once every two months, and the one who invites the others is always different.

We meet in Automobile Club of France where I am member.

Aperitif by the bar with a Moët & Chandon NV which has certainly more than 10 years. So the champagne has got signs of age, is a little smoked, and it is loveable.

I thought it would not be possible for the second bottle to be as good, but, to my surprise, it was as good. These champagnes, when they get a little age, are purely lovely.

I am not a big fan of Moët, except on vintage cuvées. But with age, it is largely better. It makes sense to store such champagnes for 10 years.

Then on a very ordinary cook (in school, I would give a note : "could do better"), we had three bottles of Pape Clément 1989.

Due to the cellar of the club (on Place de la Concorde) the wines get probably more age than in a normal cellar.

– the first was very balanced

– the second had a pronounced wood, rather charming, which pleased me

– the third had a little too alcohol in front of the scene;

But the three bottles had a common characteristic :

The wine is good. Really good. Very obvious personality, and what pleased me, did not try to show. Very balanced and not playing with its muscles.

I do not know how behaves Pape Clément now, under the leadership of Mr. Magrez, but this way of making the 1989 pleased me a lot.

A very pleasant wine.

I hope it is today in the same direction as this very charming, balanced, elegant Pape Clément 1989.

I had been charmed recently by the cook of Christian Le Squer in Ledoyen, so I was afraid that a new try would be less emotional. My wife suggested that we invite friends for a dinner and I reserved there. As I write a bulletin which was sent to the director of the restaurant, I arrived before the others, welcomed as if I were Richard Gere entering a boarding school for young girls. If I arrived earlier, it is because my wife does not like that I spend time reading the wine list. I ordered the wines, and they arrived.

We begin with a champagne Gosset 1999. It is a champagne which has a very expressive taste. We had it with the “amuse bouche” made of four different pieces of a very clever and sophisticated cook, but I had an idea. I asked that each of us we receive an oyster. And the combination is magical. Since I have discovered this combination, I try to get it as often as I can.

We had an incredible menu. I write it in French :

Oursins de roche en coque à l’avocat, soufflé de corail rafraîchi

Grosses langoustines bretonnes croustillantes, émulsion d’agrumes à l’huile d’olive

blanc de turbot de ligne juste braisé, pommes rattes écrasée à la fourchette et montées au beurre de truffe

anguille fumée sur toasts brûlés à la lie de vin

carré de chevreuil, réduction d’une poivrade relevée de griottes

fromages

croquant de pamplemousse cuit et cru au citron vert

soufflé passion à l’ananas épicé, sorbet litchi

chocolat noir en fines feuilles croustillantes au lait de pistache glacé.

We had the urchin (delicious and airy) with “Y” d’Yquem 1985. I had this wine the last time I came, and as I adore this wine, I ordered it. And I did well. This wine is incredible. Such a personality, such a charm is incredible. But what is even better, it changes its personality by every combination with food. Kaleidoscopic, this wine amazed me by every sip. I adore this wine above many others due to its semi sweet discrete attitude behind the dry wine. And 20 years advantage this wine.

I had ordered a few hours before a Clos de Vougeot domaine Méo Camuzet 1998. This Clos de Vougeot has been the first wine that I had drunk of the Domaine, which made me adore the domaine. Since that, Jean Nicolas Méo became a friend. Of course, 1998 is young, but with air the wine broadened. And if it was not appropriate with the eel, it was fantastic with the roe-deer. A very pleasant wine, but it is not so good to drink it so young. It has many qualities and represents a nice form of the present Burgundies.

The cook of Christain Le Squer was fabulous, and the fact that I was pleased as the first time represents a very good point.

He cooks very naturally. It is extremely well built and realised, but it is mature, with no need to show.

Perfect on every course, I appreciate a lot. And I recommend the place.

But for my eyes, the star of the night (after my wife of course) is the “Y” d’Yquem 1985.

I could have named this new discussion : “is there a Parker taste ? (part 2)”, (if you remember a message that I wrote on a Thunevin wine) as you will see that my daughter has definitely the Parker taste.

My son, his wife and their son left our house, and my two daughters arrived for lunch.

We tasted with my son in law the Mission Haut-Brion 1929 which had spent one night in a closed decanter. The smell was nice even if going slowly to an earth smell. And in mouth, it was possible. The oxygen had played a positive effect, even if, it has to be said, the wine was really dead.

We continued with La Conseillante 1981, and the wine which did not talk to me last night was superb now. This is incredible how a night had such a positive effect. I was hesitant yesterday, and today I was enthusiast. A nice wine, a little strict in its definition, but having gained a joy of life.

I had opened a Lafite-Rothschild 1971. The colour is very clear, as some Cotes de Beaune. The smell reminds of some berries which are hell red or pink. Very dense and intense smell, and in mouth a very particular elegance. It is interesting to notice that this wine has obviously got age, so has not the shining beauty of a young Lafite. But it has developed a set of flavours which is rare. We enjoyed a lot, but here comes the Parker taste. My son in law adored the Lafite, my younger daughter adored the Lafite, but my elder daughter said : “no, not my taste. Give me the Thunevin wine for 4 euros, yes. Not this Lafite”. So the Parker taste stroke again. My elder daughter loves more straightforward wines (this does not mean that the Parker taste is simplified – this is not the case – but my daughter had adopted one of his advices : she had been convinced by this type of wines on which Robert Parker wrote recently and that my son had bought immediately).

With apple tarts I poured the remaining of the Yquem 1950 which had stayed for the night in the bottle closed by a neutral cork.

And I must say that if I had some reserves on this wine yesterday, I have been fully convinced today. Oxygen has a power to cure many wounds, and this Yquem 1950 is definitely in the league of a Yquem 1921.

Magnificent, combining caramel, burnt coffee to a delicious image of the grape that you chew. Something between an Escenzia, but largely more complex, and a more conventional Yquem. This time I adored it and my wife said to me : “yesterday, I saw you largely less enthusiast than our son. Now you like it”. But she added : “it was perfect yesterday too”.

I am glad that La Conseillante, which I love, came back to a significant interest, and that Yquem 1950 performed so well, even if I still think that very black Yquem have less interest than the golden ones, which explains why I do not praise so much Yquem 1921.

I write these lines in two parts. Now, it is just before the dinner.

I have just opened the bottles for a dinner decided at 5 pm.

My son says : “we come”.

As I am trying to put some order in my cellar, I have noticed bottles which have to be drunk.

The Mission Haut-Brion 1929 is certainly dead : big loss of volume, and a cork fallen in the bottle.

I open it without hope, but immediately I smell a particular smell indicating that the wine could live again. Not sure of course, but the possibility exists.

I decanted the wine as the cork was swimming, and the smell was really positive. Not any trace of cork smell. I have no illusion on this wine, but we will see.

The Yquem 1950 is low shoulder. It has to be drunk. When looking at the bottle, what is curious is that the upper part of the wine looks dark and thick, but the lower part is a pure gold. This is certainly due to the glass.

I opened the wine, and a fantastic smell appeared, deep, with a huge botrytis. We will see. I have hope with this one.

To be sure to drink something with no problem, I opened a Lagrange Saint Julien 1975. Nice smell. No problem. Just one curious thing : I have bought this bottle with 23 others in a sale. When, why, I do not know. But they have an additional label of an importer from Buenos Ayres. If it is said that travels forms the youth, I hope it is true also for this wine.

Of course the wounded bottles are only for familial consumption. But when as last year, I opened a Yquem 1921 which had to be drunk and which was perfect, it is worth making tries in our familial circle.

I write now after the dinner.

The Mission 1929 being served had a nice smell. The first sip was agreeable. But it was obvious that the wine is dead. One hour later the smell was still very agreeable, but the wine was hopeless.

The Lagrange 1975 is a very pleasant wine. It has nothing particular to say “wow”, but it is pleasant. The length is not enormous, but the balance, a very fruity appearance, show that we drink a nice wine. Let us say to make an example a wine which would be noted 88. But I would be probably more severe than many notes which are given in this forum.

Then the Yquem 1950. My wife who never drinks except Yquem is enthusiast about the smell and the colour. I am enthusiast for the smell but less for the colour. My son is enthusiast for the wine.

What is my personal view? I would say that this Yquem is in the family of Yquem 1921. An enormous botrytis, some aspects of an essencia, a generous weigth in the mouth. Very great Yquem, but as I am not too much a fan of the very brown Yquem, I am not on a cloud. Obviously a deep Yquem that you could put in comparison with a 1921. But not exactly what I expect from Yquem. I prefer the 28, the 47 or the 55.

Meanwhile, as we were a little short with red wine (so before the Yquem), I opened at the last moment a La Conseillante 1981. Very proper, very well built, but this wine does not talk to me. I had yesterday a wine that I bought the same day (so it had no time to get a seat in my cellar), a Latour à Pomerol 1997. I preferred the Latour to the Conseillante, very acceptable, but with no sign of what makes life happy : something unconventional.

Nice familial dinner. I would be happy to solve the problem of low levels to offer to my children 100% perfect wines. But it gave us an opportunity to open a Yquem 1950 of a high class. Why not ?

Il y a trois ans, sur un forum américain où l’on parle surtout de vin, je fais un pari avec un contributeur hollandais sur le gagnant du prochain Tour de France. Je gagne. J’avais mis la barre assez haut, avec, pour enjeu, un dîner à Paris dans un restaurant d’au moins deux étoiles et des vins pour plus de 500 €. Cet ami ayant ensuite disparu du forum pendant plus de deux ans je me suis dit que mon pari devenait de plus en plus virtuel. Quand j’ai reçu un mail m’annonçant sa venue à Paris, le pari reprenait des couleurs.

Nous arrivons au restaurant Laurent accueilli par Patrick Lair, sommelier avec qui j’ai débouché des centaines de flacons de rêve. Sur mes suggestions Harry, mon ami, avait commandé à l’avance les vins qui sont apparus sur table avec la température idéale. Le menu est imprimé en français et en anglais, ce qui est une attention fort délicate, avec le nom des vins.

Une araignée de mer dans ses sucs en gelée, crème de fenouil accueille un Corton-Charlemagne Bonneau du Martray 1996. Le vin met un peu de temps à s’ouvrir, mais quand il l’est, c’est un beau Corton-Charlemagne riche. Moins fantasque que le Coche-Dury de la même année bu récemment chez Patrick Pignol, il est plus orthodoxe. C’est un grand vin rassurant.

Le Lynch Bages 1985 que l’on boit sur une noix de ris de veau truffée dorée au sautoir, asperges vertes et Périgueux est extrêmement impressionnant. C’est le nez qui envoûte, qui signale un très grand vin. En bouche il est serein, dense, velouté, et la sauce lourde à la truffe l’épanouit encore. Les asperges sont trop jeunes encore, même si elles croquent bien avec le Lynch Bages.

Le nez du Sociando-Mallet 1990 est beaucoup plus serré, strict. On sent le bois austère. En bouche, alors que le Carré d’agneau de lait des Pyrénées caramélisé, artichauts violets et petits oignons mijotés au beurre de romarin serait un partenaire idéal, la carapace de bois empêche toute autre saveur de s’exprimer. Je sens toutefois qu’au fil du temps, le vin a envie de se libérer. Et j’ai alors une intuition. En croquant une gousse d’ail, toute adoucie par la cuisson mais fort goûteuse, l’ail décape le bois et libère de belles saveurs où même du beau fruit, caché jusque là, se libère généreusement. Il se peut qu’en d’autres circonstances ce vin se montre mieux. Nous n’en avons pas eu la magie.

Le Saint-nectaire devait accompagner le Sociando-Mallet. Mais je le préfère sur le Corton Charlemagne, à l’aise sur ce fromage.

Mon ami s’étant souvenu que j’aime le Banyuls, un Banyuls Solera hors d’âge, Docteur Parcé vint flirter avec un Sabayon froid, chocolat-noisette, crémeux aux épices et glace caramel à la fleur de sel. Cette cuvée, commencée avec des vins de plus de soixante ans, et incrémentée d’ajouts annuels ne me convainc pas autant que cela, même si c’est bon, car j’ai connu des Banyuls plus chatoyants. J’ai classé les vins de ce dîner ainsi : 1 – Corton Charlemagne 1996, 2 – Lynch Bages 1985, 3 – Banyuls Dr Parcé, 4 – Sociando Mallet 1990.

Le service de Laurent est exemplaire, la cuisine rassurante et solidement campée dans la qualité. L’atmosphère est unique. Mon ami avait avec élégance assumé son pari. On en refait un ?