The 214th wine-dinner is held in the Pages restaurant. Chief Teshi warned me a few days before dinner that he should fly to Japan on the day of dinner at 8:30 pm so the guests will not see him. I went a few days ago to the restaurant to develop the menu, working with Teshi and his assistant Marc trained in the Astrance restaurant.

During the opening session of the wines I often discussed with Marc the recipes of the dishes and he came to let me taste sauces to obtain my agreement. From 17h to 18h15 I open the wines on a corner of the kitchen table while everyone is busy preparing abalone, sea knives, squid, fish and poultry. The ballet is set to perfection and with serenity. The wines all have promising odors. The most discreet are those of Montrachet, of La Tâche and Petrus. The most astonishing of power is that of Lafite 1944 and the noblest is that of Yquem 1945.

My friend Tomo joins me very early and we are going to drink a beer at the nearby Teshi bistro, and we eat Edamame, the beans whose taste I love, that goes well with Japanese beer.

We then return to the restaurant to wait for the first guests and I want them to be welcomed by a young champagne rather than by the first champagne on the menu. I choose on the wine list a Champagne V.O. Selosse disgorged in January 2015. The attack of this champagne is very engaging and I am excited by its generosity and complexity. But very curiously the champagne is very short. It is a sudden pleasure, then nothing. Despite that I like very much this frank champagne that titillates me well.

We will be ten around the table including five Spanish men who came especially for this dinner after seeing a video where I present the philosophy of my dinners. The four other guests are regulars, three Parisians including Tomo and a man from Bordeaux. I present as usual the « instructions of flight », « fasten your seatbelts », etc. And we go to the table.

The menu developed with chef Teshi and realized by Marc is as follows: seasonal appetizer / seafood platter, knives and veal tartare / abalone risotto / mullet with crab sauce / roasted blood duck of the Burgaud family / three beefs (Simmenthal, Angus and wagyu Ozaki) / poached foie gras and its consommé / mango from Brazil.

As for the recent dinner at the Guy Savoy restaurant, I wanted to innovate by breaking habits. This will be reported by commenting on the wines.

From the first sip, we all fall under the spell of the Champagne Deutz 1953. It has indeed an attack of a crazy charm. I confess that I never would have imagined that it had this level of grace and charm. It has discrete fruits yellow and golden, it is fluid and refined. The appetizers are delicious but have very pronounced tastes. It is a mistake to have put such flavors with an old champagne like this Deutz. For those appetizers a champagne of 1990 or 1996 would have been appropriate. With this 1953 it would have needed sweet flavors like foie gras for example.

The 1949 Veuve Clicquot Champagne is decidedly different from the previous one. It has more bitterness and a longer length. Rich fruits appear at the end of taste, with fleeting traces of delicate red fruits. It is a champagne very noble, a bit confusing even enigmatic and it is a great champagne. The combination with the dish earth and sea is very relevant.

The Chablis Grand Cru Moutonne Long Dépaquit Bichot magnum 2002 had a nose of a rare magnitude at the opening. This perfume is always as ample and the wine is wonderful. I love this year 2002 for this domaine. The abalone is a bit hard because it has not been hit but the divine sauce and the risotto create a combination of first size. This chablis that I appreciate is the only wine that will not have votes but it is the fate that undergo the young wines in a dinner of old wines. It is unrelated to its extreme quality of wine enthralling and joyful.

It is one of my coquetries to always associate Petrus and red mullets. Several times Marc made me taste the crab sauce and the result is spectacular. The Château Lafite-Rothschild 1944 has a very strong nose of truffle, announcing a wine of a power that I did not expect. The grain of this wine is heavy and racy. It is a beautiful Lafite of great depth.

Alongside him on the dish, Petrus 1962 presents itself as a very great Petrus. It is subtle, refined, with a finer grain than the Lafite, and Miguel, one of the guests who says that he never had any real emotions with Petrus admits that in this 1962 he finds a Petrus which moves him. Pétrus is a wine that cannot be easily discovered. This one conquers us by its nobility and its persistence aromatic racy. It is a great wine and the red mullet, once again, marries divinely with it.

In the initial program, the Montrachet Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1997 logically followed the chablis, but in discussing with Teshi and Marc, the idea of a duck was mentioned and I immediately said: let’s try with the montrachet, which, it will be agreed, is daring. I had in fact the memory of a mallard duck prepared by Guy Savoy that I had associated with a Montrachet of the same domain of 1976. The tenderness of the flesh of the duck is such that the combination goes well. The Montrachet has no trace of botrytis. It is very dry, fluid and not thundering. It is a wine of strong structure, long as a speech of Fidel Castro, which is powerful but measured which makes even more appreciate its nobility. It is a great wine entirely in keeping with its reputation.

On the three divinely cooked beefs we have two burgundies. The Beaune-Marconnets Remoissenet P and F 1947 has all the delicacy and charm of the light wines of the Côte de Beaune. It is charming.

Alongside him the Musigny Duvergey Taboureau 1949 is a powerful wine, rich and very bourguignon, with bitterness that delight me. I confess that the two seduce me. The votes will go in favor of the richest wine, the Musigny, but both have such a Burgundian charm that I taste them gently to listen to all the subtle notes.

Another audacity in this dinner is to place La Tache Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1986 after the red meats and to associate it with a poached foie gras placed at this time as in meals of the 19th century. This wine had a discreet fragrance at the opening and its cork showed temperature differences where it was stored and where it traveled as this bottle returned from America. The wine is good but does not give the emotion it should. Of course we recognize the markers of the wines of the estate including the salt, but there is a lack of persuasion in this wine. Thus the agreement that had remarkably existed between poached foie gras and Y d’Yquem in a dinner made by Guy Savoy is less relevant with La Tâche. The lobes of foie gras are delicious and small discreet beans bring a note of freshness.

In the kitchen Marc had shown me beautiful pieces of mango and it appeared to me that it should not be diced, to let each guest manage the chew of the fruit to arrive at the best possible agreement with the sublime Chateau d’Yquem 1945. This wine is fascinating. Its color is quite clear when it is 72 years old. The perfume is diabolical, carrying all the spices of Arabia. In the mouth it is gold molten, honey by brewed. This glorious wine is perfect and what makes it so is its correctness of tone. There is not a gram of heaviness, the sweetness is metered wonderfully. The charm acts. The wine is fluid and beautifully complex, eternal. This wine will reap the votes as in a banana republic as it is acclaimed by all.

When we arrive at the time of the votes I have served the wine that I had planned in case, but also so that it put an end point pleasant to this meal. The Champagne Mumm Cordon Rose rosé 1982 presents itself in a deliciously kitsch bottle imagine served at the wedding of a Barbie doll. And this champagne is a very big surprise. Never would I have expected it at this qualitative level, because it is a large warm rosé, richly fruity, gastronomic, which accompanies very well mignardises.

We are ten to vote for ten wines because the Selosse and Mumm champagnes are not on our vote papers. As said before the chablis is the only one to have had no votes. Only two wines were named first, the Yquem 1945 eight times which is very rare and Petrus 1962 twice first.

The vote of the consensus would be: 1 – Château d’Yquem 1945, 2 – Montrachet Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1997, 3 – Pétrus 1962, 4 – Musigny Duvergey Taboureau 1949, 5 – Champagne Deutz 1953, 6 – La Tâche Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1986.

My vote is: 1 – Château d’Yquem 1945, 2 – Montrachet Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1997, 3 – Pétrus 1962, 4 – Musigny Duvergey Taboureau 1949.

It is quite rare that my vote is strictly equal and in the same order, to the consensus vote. This happened only seven times at dinners which are in my files.

The food was superb as always in the restaurant Pages and I appreciated the involvement of Marc and the complicity which inspired the creation of the menu and the recipes. The veal tartar associated with a clam, the risotto of abalone, the red mullet with the juice of étrille and the three beefs are dishes of great precision for the wines. The mango was perfect for Yquem. The beautiful culinary surprises were there. Thibaud made a service of wine without fault and very attentive. Laure presented the dishes with charm and in impeccable English.

It is certain that I shall see the five Spanish crazy amateurs again. The atmosphere was cheerful. It was a very big meal whose star is that Yquem of which Salvador Dali would have said with his inimitable accent that it is « transcendental ».

(see pictures in the article in French below)

Le 214^ème dîner de wine-dinners se tient au restaurant Pages. Le chef Teshi m’a prévenu peu de jours avant le dîner qu’il devrait prendre l’avion pour le Japon le jour même du dîner à 20h30 aussi les convives ne le verront pas. Venu quelques jours auparavant au restaurant pour mettre au point le menu, c’est avec Teshi et son adjoint Marc formé à l’Astrance que nous avons travaillé.

Pendant la séance d’ouverture des vins j’ai souvent discuté avec Marc des recettes des plats et il est venu me faire goûter des sauces pour recueillir mon accord. De 17h à 18h15 j’ouvre les vins sur un coin de table de la cuisine pendant que tout le monde s’affaire pour préparer les ormeaux, les couteaux, les encornets, les poissons et les volailles. Le ballet est réglé à la perfection et avec sérénité. Les vins ont tous des odeurs prometteuses. Les plus discrètes sont celles du Montrachet de La Tâche et du Pétrus. La plus étonnante de puissance est celle du Lafite 1944 et la plus noble est celle de l’Yquem 1945.

Mon ami Tomo me rejoint très tôt et nous allons boire une bière au 116 le bistrot voisin qui appartient à Teshi, et nous grignotons des Edamame, ces fèves dont j’adore le goût qui se marie bien à la bière japonaise.

Nous revenons ensuite au restaurant pour attendre les premiers convives et j’ai envie qu’ils soient accueillis par un champagne jeune plutôt que par le premier champagne prévu au menu. Je choisis sur la carte un Champagne V.O. Selosse dégorgé en janvier 2015. L’attaque de ce champagne est très engageante et je suis emballé par sa générosité et sa complexité. Mais fort curieusement le champagne est très court. C’est un plaisir subit, puis plus rien. Malgré cela j’aime beaucoup ce champagne franc qui me titille bien.

Nous serons dix autour de la table dont cinq espagnols venus spécialement pour ce dîner après avoir vu une vidéo où je présente la philosophie de mes dîners. Les quatre autres convives sont des habitués, trois parisiens dont Tomo et un bordelais. Je présente comme à l’accoutumée les consignes de vol, attachez vos ceintures, etc. et nous passons à table.

Le menu mis au point avec le chef Teshi et réalisé par Marc est le suivant : amuse-bouche de saison / assiette terre mer, couteaux et tartare de veau / risotto d’ormeaux / rouget sauce étrille / canard au sang rôti de la famille Burgaud / assiette de bœufs maturés (Simmenthal, Angus et wagyu Ozaki) / foie gras poché et son consommé / mangue du Brésil.

Comme pour le récent dîner au restaurant Guy Savoy, j’ai voulu innover en cassant des habitudes. Ce sera signalé en commentant les vins.

Dès la première gorgée, nous tombons tous sous le charme du Champagne Deutz 1953. Il a en effet une attaque d’un charme fou. J’avoue que jamais je n’aurais imaginé qu’il ait ce niveau de grâce et de charme. Il a des fruits discrets jaunes et dorés, il est fluide et raffiné. Les amuse-bouche sont délicieux mais ont des goûts très prononcés. C’est une erreur d’avoir mis des saveurs aussi typées avec un champagne ancien comme ce Deutz. Pour ces amuse-bouche un champagne de 1990 ou 1996 aurait été approprié. Avec ce 1953 il aurait fallu des saveurs douces comme du foie gras.

Le Champagne Veuve Clicquot 1949 est résolument différent du précédent. Il a plus d’amertume et une plus grande longueur. Les fruits riches apparaissent en fin de goût, avec fugacement des traces de fruits rouges délicats. C’est un champagne très noble, un peu déroutant voire énigmatique et c’est un grand champagne. L’accord avec le plat terre-mer est très pertinent.

Le Chablis Grand Cru Moutonne Long Dépaquit Bichot magnum 2002 avait un nez d’une rare ampleur à l’ouverture. Ce parfum est toujours aussi ample et le vin est merveilleux. J’adore cette année 2002 pour ce chablis. L’ormeau est un peu dur car il n’a pas été frappé mais la divine sauce et le risotto créent un accord de première grandeur. Ce chablis que j’apprécie est le seul vin qui n’aura pas de votes mais c’est le sort que subissent les vins jeunes dans un dîner de vins anciens. C’est sans rapport avec son extrême qualité de vin entraînant et joyeux.

C’est une de mes coquetteries de toujours associer Pétrus et rougets. Plusieurs fois Marc m’a fait goûter la sauce aux étrilles et le résultat est spectaculaire. Le Château Lafite-Rothschild 1944 a un nez très fort de truffe, annonçant un vin d’une puissance que je n’attendais pas. Le grain de ce vin est lourd et racé. C’est un très beau Lafite de grande profondeur.

A côte de lui sur le plat, le Pétrus 1962 se présente comme un très grand Pétrus. Il est d’un charme subtil, il est raffiné, au grain plus fin que le Lafite et Miguel l’un des convives qui dit n’avoir jamais eu de réelles émotions avec Pétrus dit qu’enfin il a trouvé avec ce 1962 un Pétrus qui l’émeut. Pétrus est un vin qui ne se laisse pas découvrir facilement. Celui-ci nous conquiert par sa noblesse et sa persistance aromatique racée. C’est un grand vin et le rouget, une fois de plus, se marie divinement avec lui.

Dans le programme initial, le Montrachet Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1997 devait logiquement suivre le chablis, mais en discutant avec Teshi et Marc, l’idée d’un canard a été évoquée et j’ai immédiatement dit : essayons avec le montrachet, ce qui, on en conviendra, est osé. J’avais en effet le souvenir d’un canard colvert préparé par Guy Savoy que j’avais associé à un Montrachet du même domaine de 1976. La tendreté de la chair du canard est telle que l’accord se trouve bien. Le Montrachet n’a pas de trace de botrytis. Il est bien sec, fluide et n’est pas tonitruant. C’est un vin de forte structure, long comme un discours de Fidel Castro, qui est puissant mais mesuré ce qui fait encore plus apprécier sa noblesse. C’est un grand vin tout-à-fait conforme à sa réputation.

Sur les trois morceaux de bœufs divinement cuits nous avons deux bourgognes. Le Beaune-Marconnets  Remoissenet P et F 1947 a toute la délicatesse et le charme des vins légers de la Côte de Beaune. Il est charmant.

A côte de lui le Musigny Duvergey Taboureau 1949 est un vin puissant, riche et très bourguignon, avec des amertumes qui me ravissent. J’avoue que les deux me séduisent. Les votes iront en faveur du vin le plus riche, le Musigny, mais les deux ont un tel charme bourguignon que je les déguste doucement pour en écouter toutes les notes subtiles.

Une autre audace dans ce dîner est de placer La Tâche Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1986 après les viandes rouges et de l’associer à un foie gras poché placé à ce moment comme dans les repas du 19^ème siècle. Ce vin avait un parfum discret à l’ouverture et son bouchon trahissait des écarts de température là où il a été stocké et là où il a voyagé car cette bouteille revient des Amériques. Le vin est bon mais ne donne pas l’émotion qu’il devrait. On reconnait bien sûr les marqueurs des vins du domaine dont le sel, mais il y a un manque de persuasion en ce vin. De ce fait l’accord qui avait remarquablement existé entre foie gras poché et Y d’Yquem dans un dîner réalisé par Guy Savoy se  montre moins pertinent avec La Tâche. Les lobes de foie gras sont délicieux et des petites fèves discrètes apportent une note de fraîcheur.

En cuisine Marc m’avait montré de belles pièces de mangue et il m’est apparu qu’il ne faudrait pas les découper en dés, pour laisser chaque convive gérer la mâche du fruit pour arriver au plus bel accord possible avec le sublime Château d’Yquem 1945. Ce vin est fascinant. Sa couleur est assez claire alors qu’il a 72 ans. Le parfum est diabolique, porteur de toutes les épices d’Arabie. En bouche c’est de l’or fondu, du miel par brassées. Ce vin glorieux est parfait et ce qui le rend ainsi c’est sa justesse de ton. Il n’y a pas un gramme de lourdeur, la douceur est dosée merveilleusement. Le charme agit. Le vin est fluide et magnifiquement complexe, éternel. Ce vin récoltera des votes de république bananière tant il est plébiscité par tous.

Lorsque nous arrivons au moment des votes je fais servir le vin que j’avais prévu pour le cas où, mais aussi pour qu’il mette un point final agréable à ce repas. Le Champagne Mumm Cordon Rose rosé 1982 se présente dans une bouteille délicieusement kitsch qu’on imagine servie lors du mariage d’une poupée Barbie. Et ce champagne est une très grosse surprise. Jamais je ne l’aurais attendu à ce niveau qualitatif, car c’est un grand rosé chaleureux, richement fruité, gastronomique, qui accompagne très bien les mignardises.

Nous sommes dix à voter pour dix vins car les champagnes Selosse et Mumm ne figurent pas sur nos bulletins. Comme dit précédemment le chablis est le seul à ne pas avoir eu de votes. Deux vins seulement ont été nommés premiers, l’Yquem 1945 huit fois ce qui est très rare et le Pétrus 1962 deux fois premier.

Le vote du consensus serait : 1 – Château d’Yquem 1945, 2 – Montrachet Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1997, 3 – Pétrus 1962, 4 – Musigny Duvergey Taboureau 1949, 5 – Champagne Deutz 1953, 6 – La Tâche Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1986.

Mon vote est : 1 – Château d’Yquem 1945, 2 – Montrachet Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1997, 3 – Pétrus 1962, 4 – Musigny Duvergey Taboureau 1949.

Il est assez rare que mon vote soit strictement égal et dans le même ordre, au vote du consensus. Ce n’est arrivé que sept fois aux dîners 25, 48, 68, 104, 154, 200 et ce soir 214^ème.

La cuisine a été superbe comme toujours au restaurant Pages et j’ai apprécié l’implication de Marc et la complicité qui s’est créée pour la mise au point. Le tartare de veau associé à une coque, le risotto d’ormeaux, le rouget au jus d’étrille et les trois bœufs sont des plats de grande précision pour les vins. La mangue était parfaite pour l’Yquem. Les belles surprises culinaires étaient là. Thibaud a fait un service du vin sans faute et très attentif. Laure a présenté les plats avec charme et dans un anglais impeccable.

Il est sûr que je reverrai les cinq amateurs fous espagnols. L’ambiance était enjouée. Ce fut un très grand repas dont la star est cet Yquem dont Salvador Dali aurait dit avec son accent inimitable qu’il est transcendantal.

Photo en cave des vins

photo au restaurant avec au fond Marc qui a réalisé le dîner avec l’équipe de Pages

les préparatifs en cuisine

les plats du dîner. Hélas je n’ai pas de photo de la mangue superbe

A decade ago, I had the desire to create meetings between amateurs who collect old wines and have in their cellars wines of low levels. I would have called this new formula « the case of the low levels« . I let this idea sleep in a corner of closet and some days ago I receive the mail of Pierre, a friend: « we must save the soldier Salon 1971« . In his mail he explains that the magnum of Salon 1971 has dangerously dropped in volume and that he sees no alternative but to share it with friends. A group of six is formed and this is an opportunity to bring low levels bottles. Having been very satisfied with the recent lunch at Le Gaigne restaurant, it is the one I propose and that my friends accept.

When I arrive at 11 o’clock to open the bottles, Pierre is already there. I open the whites and the reds. Many corks are torn. That of the Richebourg of the domain of Romanée Conti 1956 is black and dusty while the cork of Haut-Brion 1952 is of a cork perfect although it is older. I wish to open the champagne magnums but Pierre would like to wait before opening them. He will later regret having dissuaded me.

During the opening session, Chef Mickaël Gaignon came to discuss the menu: amuse-bouche including an acra au colin and a soup of asparagus / terrine of pork and chorizo / green and white asparagus / fish / pigeon / beef and Morels / cheese / raspberry dessert. I noted with great pleasure that the chef has simplified his recipes to focus on pure tastes. It was successful.

I open the Champagne Krug Private Cuvée magnum 50 years that I brought, which lost between 40 and 50% of its volume. The cork breaks when I want to pull it and I remove the bottom with a corkscrew. As soon as I feel the champagne I know it is a win. The champagne is of a beautiful gold, a joyous perfume and in mouth it is a marvel. The word that comes to me immediately is « sun. » This wine that has a sparkling strong bursts of honey and sun. What grace and especially what depth. We would never tire of drinking it.

Pierre opens the Champagne Salon magnum 1971 which has lost about a third of its volume. Right away we are on another planet with this champagne. It also has a beautiful sparkling and a more discreet fragrance. It is romantic and the white fruits and white flowers so close to Salon abound. It is much shallower and not as long as the Krug but it plays on its romanticism. We go from one to the other without any problem, from sun to romanticism according to our own desires.

Pierre opens the Champagne Barry Extra Sec 1/2 bottle 1928 which has a perfect level and is dressed in labels that are incredibly fresh. And there, I have a taste shock that is directly related to the vintage. This champagne gives me a punch to the heart. He does not have the power of the Krug or the charm of the Salon, but he has that spark of grace that leaves me speechless. It is fleeting but emotion electrifies me. Hierarchizing the three would be impossible. The biggest instant shock is with the 1928 and the deepest is the Krug, while the Salon is a ray of spring.

On the asparagus the agreement is not going to be obvious because the chef mixed the green and the white which are like dog and cat. The Château Laville Haut-Brion 1952 has level very close to the bottom of the shoulder and the color is rather pretty, more beautiful than the picture that announced this wine in the exchanges of mails. Alas, the wine is flat and cannot catch our desires.

The Chablis Vercherre 1934 that I brought is of a very dirty bottle whose level is very acceptable for a 1934, of the order of 6 cms perhaps. The wine is superb and generous. To say that it is a Chablis is probably difficult but the wine solid and frank is very great pleasure. It is tasty and long, broad on the palate. Decidedly 1934 does wonders.

Usually I never put the burgundy before the Bordeaux. But the pigeons to be served before the beef are going to make an exception.

The Richebourg Domaine de la Romanée Conti 1956 that I brought is low level like those I already drank, including that of my birthday that had so moved me. This one is even better. He breathes in the lungs the soul of the Romanée Conti who carries me with his signature of roses and salt. This wine is archetypal of the domain like the previous one, having less suffered what exacerbates less the markers of salt and roses, more integrated here. What a nobility this wine has. Richebourg and pigeon feed on each other.

The Corton Marey & Liger-Belair 1914 comes from a very beautiful bottle with the thick glass so characteristic of this era. I could not see the level because the bottle is very opaque. The color of the wine is dark and if it is drinkable, I am embarrassed by a tiny point of cork. The wine is drunk but the emotion is not as palpable as it should.

The Château Haut-Brion red 1952 is beautiful. While it appears after the burgundies, its natural class justifies it fully at this time of the meal. It is rich, ample and deep with notes of truffles and charcoal and a heavy grain giving it a beautiful presence. With the beef the agreement is superb. The level was a bit low, but totally acceptable for a 1952.

We now return to champagnes with bottles at normal levels for their ages. The 1964 Champagne Piper-Heidsieck has all the charm of the year 1964, one of the most solid in history. And it’s a strong companion.

The Champagne Deutz Brut rosé 1981 is ideal for the dessert with the raspberry, inscribing in the line of the chords color on color.

The Champagne Besserat de Bellefon 1966 that I brought believing that it is a rosé is actually a white. It is also one of the two mythical years of the decade 60, and displays a good ease, but it is I who have much less ease because this meal is once again a debauchery of generosity leading to abuse.

The chef has managed to simplify his cooking to give primacy to the main product, which is necessary for old wines. The service was impeccable and we were placed in a small private room which allowed us to enjoy exceptional wines in the best conditions.

We did not vote, but the strongest emotions for me were the Champagne of 1928, the Richebourg 1956, the Krug years 50, the Salon 1971, the Haut-Brion 1952, the Chablis 1934. It is time that I launch as soon as possible « the Case of the Low Levels« . With the friendly friends of this lunch, we have a solid hard core. To repeat quickly!

(see pictures in the article in French, just below this one)