Every year Bipin Desai makes a winter trip to France. He asked me for the last six years to organise for him a dinner during his trip that we call “the dinner of the friends of Bipin Desai”. It is a dinner with wines brought by every guest and the dinner is paid by each individual. As Bipin had given me the date very late, some friends who used to attend were busy, like Alexandre de Lur Saluces, Aubert de Villaine, Jean Pierre Perrin or Didier Depond. It is the occasion to welcome new “members” within this gang. The participants are : Bipin and me, then “old” members, Bernard Hervet who is now by Faiveley and my son, and new members : Richard Geoffroy, the man who makes Dom Pérignon, Jean Jacques Bonnie, the owner of Malartic Lagravière, Jean Hugel, the extraordinary 82 years old co-owner of Hugel, and a friend of mine who initiated the dinner that I made recently by Astrance with a Cheval Blanc 1947.
In the main entrance of restaurant Laurent, we begin by an immense wine : a magnum of Dom Pérignon Oenothèque 1966 which was disgorged in 2004. Richard says that two years of disgorgement is very proper. He says that this 1966 is 50% chardonnay and 50% pinot noir. We enjoy this wine, and the fact to have the comments of Richard and the perspectives that he gives enlarges our pleasure. The wine begins by a salted aspect. Iodic and salty and Richard adds : green heavy leaves. Then the white flowers and the pink fruits come. And more and more the flowers become whiter and expand, and the fruits become juicier. The message gets more and more structured and simplified, and Richard is excited when I said ‘simplified’ because he considers it as the best compliment. He wants to keep the historical taste of Dom Pérignon, and all his efforts are made to make it be recognised immediately. By tasting this champagne that he knows quite well, he is as enthusiast as we are. Open minded, and happy as a kid, I mean as me. I tell him that I see two possible directions for food. One swimming in the same direction, or one swimming in the opposite direction. Oysters and shells will fit to one aspect, and veal’s head will fight with another aspect.
We finish our glass and we go to our lovely table. It is an elliptic form, but curiously, as we are only eight, we should have had discussions for the whole group, but in fact we discussed mainly with the direct neighbours only. This was good as Richard Geoffroy was sitting just by me.
The menu of Philippe Bourguignon and Alain Pégouret has been extremely intelligent, and this time the sauces created the greatest combinations.Saint-jacques marinées au citron, betteraves rouges cuites et fumées au feu de bois / filet épais de gros turbot cuit au naturel, ventrèche et condiments, jus iodé / jarret de veau cuit doucement, légumes d’automne en cocotte, rehaussés d’un jus acidulé / filet de chevreuil relevé au poire de Sarawak, « späzle » à la poêle / vacherin Mont d’Or et reblochon fermier / mousse un peu sucrée de marrons ardéchois en mille-feuille croustillant, brisures de châtaignes grillées.
My friend Didier Depond has not had chance with his wines. On the last meeting of the Academy for ancient wines, he had sent three champagnes, which were not drunk and had been stored in a wrong place. I have got them since and put in my cellar. For this dinner, as Didier could not come, he had sent me a magnum of Delamotte 1985. As we were 8, two magnums would be too much, so, with the agreement of Didier I replaced his magnum by his “academy” bottle of Salon 1988. Alas, the champagne is corked. What a misfortune! But if one accepts to forget the nose, and to forget a certain trace of bitterness, the message of the champagne is particularly interesting and I was happy that Richard had a completely open attitude, trying to understand what this Salon has to say. I appreciate that as it is my philosophy. The recipe was extremely clever, to combine earth and sea to challenge the Salon. But it was not its day.
Two very opposed wines come together with the turbot. As Jean Charles de la Morinière could not come, he had sent me a Corton Charlemagne Bonneau du Martray 1985. This wine presents itself a little shut. As if it would not open the door to let our senses take advantage of it. It requires a lot of attention to catch the subtlety of this great Corton Charlemagne. Some friends who had kept some drops told us that one hour later, it was completely delicious. Not enough oxygen !
On the contrary, the Meursault Perrières Coche-Dury 2004 is a pure bomb. The nose, expansive, is full of minerality. It’s a black stone. What is interesting is that Richard, drinking it, takes an enormous pleasure because he recognises in this wine what he wants to make with his chardonnay. And he is obviously happy and explains why. Delicious to listen to. The wine is expressive, powerful, typed, and forms with the inner parts of the fish a provocative and pushing combination of a great unusual delight. This wine, anyway, is a baby.
The Château Malartic-Lagarvière 1961 of Jean Jacques Bonnie comes with just a small lack of oxygen, and we know that the shyness will disappear quickly. When it is done, the wine is full of spicy bread, moka, coffee, and is deliciously velvety. The veal’s meat is like a candy. But it is the sauce which captures all the elements of the juicy Malartic.
The difference of age of more than 60 years between the two Burgundies will not disturb anyone, as the difference of age of the people around the table of more than 40 years. The Chambertin Clos de Bèze Faiveley 1990 is a young wine, not really formed as the alcohol comes first. It is not completely structured, but promises to be a more charming wine, if it is allowed to stay in a cellar for 5 to 10 years more. A promising unaccomplished wine. The two glasses being very near nobody could say that the older is from 1929. As my wine is Pommard Epenots Joseph Drouhin 1929. I had told Richard all the good I think of 1929, and I had talked about my “magic touch” concerning old wines. And here, Richard has the demonstration of what I claim. He is bluffed. This wine has everything. The colour of a wine of ten years (and as the subject of fakes was raised, I can say that it is impossible that it were a fake), an imperial smell, made of balance, and in mouth, the total serenity. Rich, unctuous, velvety, it catches the sauce of the game to reach unparalleled levels.
I witness a discussion which exists between Richard and Bernard. They talk about their attitudes towards the year 2003, the choices that they took, which proved to be excellent. And they are happy to check that what they consider as priorities, are lived exactly in the same way by the other. To see such a communion of thoughts was a great moment for me as I created this moment. Do you imagine that Jean Hugel would let this discussion invade the table ? It is that you do not know Jean. Now it was the time of our friend of 82 years whose dynamism in unbreakable. Bipin told me after the dinner : “your friend Jean, he talks a lot!”. But Jean is wise, knows what he talks about, so every word was passionate, and Richard was pleased to listen to an experience of this level of quality.
On a vacherin, I had included a wine thinking of Jean Pierre Perrin whom I would have liked to have with us : Châteauneuf-du-Pape Domaine de Beaucastel blanc 1955. Golden as a summer fruit, this wine has a nose of an extreme precision. In mouth it is fantastic, and we supposed that a lot of Roussane was inside. This wine also has everything. The exotic fruits, the precious woods give kaleidoscopic aromas and tastes. But the message is clearly organised. A wine purely mature to which no one could give an age.
Jean had told me that very probably his wine would be dry. And it was the case, explaining why I had chosen with Philippe Bourguignon a Reblochon. The Riesling Vendanges Tardives Hugel 1966 is absolutely delicious, delicate, soft in its expression, but a charm of a great magnitude. Spices and citrus fruits are suggested. A delicate handsome wine.
By contrast, the Gewurztraminer Sélection de Grains Nobles 1997 that I had already drunk at the home of Jean is a bomb. The nostrils are invaded by a perfect message of a well built strong Gewurztraminer. The wine is strong, but quiet. All in it is balance. Once again, Hugel gives a great image of Alsatian wines.
When I ask my friends to vote, the wine makers are very reluctant as they would be embarrassed to vote or not for their wines. The real winner is Dom Pérignon which got 4 votes as first without needing the vote of Richard. The Pommard 29 gets two votes as first, and the Meursault and the Riesling 66 get one vote as first. Every wine except the Salon was in the votes.
The consensus vote would be : Dom Pérignon Oenothèque 1966 en magnum, Pommard Epenots Joseph Drouhin 1929, Beaucastel blanc 1955 et Riesling VT Hugel 1966.
My vote include as two firsts my two wines. And there are two reasons. I have no necessity to not vote for my wines, as I do not “build” them. And the second reason is that as I wanted to please my friends, I chose wines which I adore. So my vote was : 1- Pommard Epenots Joseph Drouhin 1929, 2 - Beaucastel blanc 1955, 3 - Dom Pérignon Oenothèque 1966 in magnum, 4 - Riesling VT Hugel 1966.
What to conclude after that dinner? Among eight people there were four wine makers of four regions, and of very different ages. I have witnessed the extreme openness of all of them. We have had passionate discussions; we have enjoyed great wines on a great food. I am happy
