The story begins by Marc Veyrat. We had made a lunch with extremely great wines of Alsace, and it was the first time that my wife and I, we met the people around the table, who have since become friends. Among them, a young scientific searcher had brought a wine of 1964. And the wine was so great that he began to cry, and we saw tears on his eyes. Such a sensible man is a true wine lover.
Some months later I receive a call : we are invited by this man for a lunch. And I receive a warning : “there is enough to drink there. No need to bring anything”. When such a suggestion is made, I consider it as a provocation, which led me to bring some wines, “in case of…”.
The house of this man is a small house in a great garden near a forest in the suburbs of Paris, very far from my home. In the house, everything evokes the love for wine. In the dining room, a lot of cases of wine are stored, as if the owners had no time to bring them to the cellar or as if the cellar were overfilled. On the walls, many amateur paintings represent the people of the family, and on every painting, they have in hand a glass of wine. I arrive in an extreme activity, and in the small kitchen my friend is preparing the meal with a huge cook book, very busy and concentrated. I show my wines which are welcomed. I was ready to open 2 or 3, but apparently every of them will be included.
I open my wines while we are served with Pol Roger 1989. The colour is of a pure gold, without amber, and the bubble is nearly inexistent. By tasting it, it is noticeable that the champagne has got more age than it should, without having captured what makes the charm of maturity. Anyway, it is an excellent champagne.
Now comes a big surprise. We drink two bottles of Pol Roger 1934. The first one has only less than half of its initial content. The colour is of a strict tea. The bubble is not there but in mouth, it is as if the bubble were still living. Having no preconceived ideas, I love this champagne. The second Pol Roger 1934 has a nearly perfect level. The colour is clearer. We are served with foie gras, so the nose cannot be judged. The champagne becomes sweet when drunk with some acid apples which go with the foie gras. Many of my friends prefer this more civilised champagne. I have a weakness for the more wounded, more wild, more exciting.
On the table a magnum with no label and no capsule arrives. The colour is a nice gold, the nose is expressive, dense, with fruit and minerality. In mouth, I know that I know this wine, but I am unable to find, and no one will find the Chablis Grand Cru Les Clos François Raveneau 1975. There was a sauce on the fish which went perfectly with this delicious Chablis.
Now, the big piece comes, and shows the generosity of our friend. The colour of Petrus 1990 is nice, dense, dark. The nose is rather discrete but announces the perfection to come. In mouth, it is a pure delight. I had already tasted Pétrus 1990 among nine millesimes, and it was the greatest. What strikes with this wine is the definition, texture, finesse. If it could be compared with a photo camera, when some cameras can reach 10 million pixels, this one (Petrus 1990) has 100 million pixels. This wine is serious, professorial, and has a length above everything. Of course, our pleasure is influenced by the fact that we know that it is Petrus. But why not?
The casting has put my first wine, a very simple Gevrey-Chambertin Chonion 1973, just after Petrus. Hard work! I had brought this wine as I knew that the people attending this lunch are real experts in wine (amateurs). And I love the precision of this wine that I have already drunk. It evokes a jam of roses. It sings the song of Burgundy. I am happy as the message of this wine has been understood. On lamb cotelettes, a Beaujolais choice of Pasquier-Desvignes 1967 is an agreeable surprise.It was served blind, and one of our friends who taught oenology found that it was a Beaujolais.
The Chambolle-Musigny les Charmes Fernand Grivelet 1934 is of an extreme sensuality. It is a great and vibrating Burgundy that we loved. Served with it, my Pommard Charles Viénot 1947 was a little cooked and torrefied. But as we have a very tasty meat, it goes very well with it.
The Pommard Rugiens Bouchard Père & Fils 1966 is absolutely superb. Extremely young and comfortable, it will not create an opposition wit the Gevrey-Chambertin Claude Dugat 1999. At this time of the lunch, I cannot say much more than it was a wine very full of joy and colours.
For the cheese a Chablis Montée de Tonnerre Verget 1995 comes, that I have completely forgotten. I wanted to impress my friends by rare tastes, so I had brought with me a Côtes du jura white Jean Bourdy 1942, which is, after 1934, the second best year for Jura whites of the 20th century. As my heart belongs, not to daddy, but to these Jura wines, I was in heaven.
The Chateau Suduiraut 1990 is a sure way to conclude a great meal, but I had not finished. A Bas Armagnac Cépages Nobles Boingnères 1977 is extremely expressive and well made, and shows the charm of great Armagnacs. Then a pear alcohol dug my grave.
These people are very fond of old and young wines. We have spent a lunch on 7 hours with very nice wines, like the Bonnes Mares 1934 or the Beaujolais. But the undisputed star of the event was Petrus 1990.
Since them, I have bought some, probably to respond to their generosity.
