December 31 and August 15 are the two highlights of the meals we share with our closest friends. For this year’s August 15 lunch, we invited two friends who have attended every August 15 gathering at our house in the South for nearly twenty years, a friend from Paris who came with his son and is a great wine connoisseur, a friend from Lyon, also a great connoisseur, as is a friend from Aix-en-Provence. With the wines brought by our friends and my own, we have such a beautiful programme that this meal will be considered the 312th wine-dinners meal. One can judge by looking at the list of vintages:
1926 – 1926 – 1928 – 1929 – 1953 – 1954 – 1955 – 1976 – 1997 – 2002 – # 2016.
The opening of the wines begins at 8:30 a.m. and continues until 11. The friends who are already there come to attend this session during which I open all the wines. There are some beautiful surprises on the nose, some corks resist while others come out perfectly. It is a usual opening session, but made fascinating by the comments and exchanges we have together.
Yesterday we had drunk the Salon 2002 Champagne from magnum, and I wanted to keep some so that one of our friends, who only arrived on the morning of the 15th, could taste this champagne.
The aperitif begins with the Champagne Salon 2002 in magnum, opened the day before. It has not changed one iota and, with the bottarga, as yesterday, it takes off quite impressively. With Oscietra caviar served on very soft potatoes, the pairing is very interesting. A very rich rillette welcomes the Champagne Salon 1997. We realise just how different the two Salon Champagnes are. The 1997 is very solid, powerful, with a very strong foundation, whereas the 2002 is much broader, more airy and more inspiring. But both are obviously very great, and I am happy to see that they share the same DNA, that of a Champagne of the highest quality.
We now serve the Champagne Substance by Jacques Selosse. A new feature at Selosse is that the disgorgement date is no longer indicated directly on the bottle. One now has to turn to a system accessible on the internet which, unfortunately, did not give us the information we were looking for. We can nevertheless assume that this Champagne is fairly recent, which seems to be confirmed by the very powerful pop when it was opened. It is a very young Champagne, but very structured, very lively and very effective. Above all, it shows a great difference from the two Salon Champagnes. One could say that the Selosse is much sharper, much more incisive than the two Salons, which express themselves in a different register, one of opulence and generosity.
Small white puddings go wonderfully well with the Substance Champagne. I have the intuition that this white pudding would go perfectly with the Meursault Charmes Chanson 1928. So we keep a few pieces to taste when we sit down at the table.
At the table, I serve three white wines: the Meursault Charmes Chanson 1928, the Chassagne-Montrachet 1926, from an unknown producer, and the Hermitage La Tour Blanche Jaboulet-Verchère 1955. We are overwhelmed by the perfection of these three white wines. It is quite astonishing that they should be so alive, and the greatest surprise is the Chassagne-Montrachet 1926, which has a colour of incredible freshness and a liveliness that astonishes everyone. How can a hundred-year-old wine be so fresh and so vibrant?
The pairing with the small pieces of white pudding that we had kept is sublime with all three wines. I thought it would be particularly remarkable with the Meursault 1928, but it works equally well with the Chassagne-Montrachet 1926 and the Hermitage 1955.
The heart of smoked salmon, a particularly soft and succulent piece cut from the fleshiest part of the salmon fillet, creates a brilliant pairing with the three white wines, and we have the impression that we are living through a unique experience. Once again, how is it possible that these wines should be so great? We are all overwhelmed. We have had brilliant Champagnes, and now here are three wines without the slightest flaw. Each has its own charm. The most powerful is the Hermitage 1955. The Meursault Charmes 1928 is very well structured, while the grace of the Chassagne-Montrachet 1926 is so astonishing that it is the greatest surprise of these three wines.
The scallops offer another approach to the white wines, as their flesh is particularly rich and generous. The Hermitage 1955 benefits the most, pairing particularly well with this dish.
We now move on to the red wines, and I serve two wines which have almost nothing in common, but which coexist perfectly. First there is a Clos Fourtet 1926, brought by a friend who is very moved to drink a hundred-year-old wine with us, and an Échézeaux Domaine de la Romanée-Conti 1954, which offers the most striking fragrance of all the wines we have smelled so far.
My wife has prepared a piece of veal cooked at low temperature. The Clos Fourtet 1926 is incredibly rich. One wonders how it is possible for a hundred-year-old wine to have such power. It is quite unreal.
As for the Échézeaux 1954, it has such presence and such personality that one could hardly imagine that it is an Échézeaux. One might think of a wine with a higher ranking in the hierarchy of the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti. We can drink the two wines together without the slightest problem, even though they come from different regions and have very distinct personalities. The fragrance of the Échézeaux is absolutely extraordinary. My friends will like this wine so much that it will be ranked first in the vote at the end of the meal.
The second series of red wines consists of a Chambertin Faiveley 1929 and a Sénéclauze, wine from Oran, Algeria 1953. On one plate, Angus beef and Wagyu are served side by side. We can therefore move from one to the other and see how the pairings work.
The bottle of Chambertin Faiveley 1929 had a very high level and a label that could appear quite recent. But when I removed the cork, it was clear that it was original. This wine is quite dazzling, once again displaying a youthfulness that no one could imagine possible.
The Sénéclauze 1953 has unbelievable power and extreme richness. I discuss it with one of my friends, who is a lover of Algerian wines. One could even think that this Sénéclauze is superior to the wines of Frédéric Lung. I have a profound adoration for Frédéric Lung’s wines, but the power, serenity and extreme energy of this 1953 wine have an extraordinary effect on me, to the point that I will rank it first in my vote, because I love being surprised by the success of wines such as this.
The pairings are perfect. Obviously, the Wagyu is the most relevant match for the Sénéclauze, while the Chambertin Faiveley goes extremely well with the Angus beef.
At this stage of the meal, I would willingly have stopped the programme, because up to this point we have had absolutely perfect wines, none of which has shown the slightest negative aspect. My friends even say to me: “You know, if you write an account of this dinner and say that every single wine was perfect, nobody will believe you.” Well, I shall have to accept that nobody will believe me, because what we have just experienced is absolutely extraordinary.
I would willingly have stopped there, but I had planned a Château d’Yquem 1976 and, of course, everyone asks for it to be served. My wife has made a tarte Tatin which creates a phenomenal, almost fusion-like pairing with this Yquem. The Yquem 1976 has a strongly amber colour, exactly like the apples in the tart, and on the palate we no longer know whether we are “drinking” the tarte Tatin or “eating” the Yquem, so completely do the flavours merge. It is truly an absolutely perfect pairing.
Normally, we were supposed to continue with a Dom Pérignon 1990 and finish the Pommery 1934 from the day before, but I declare that this is the end of the meal, because while you can never have too much of a good thing, everything has its limits.
I ask my friends to vote, and the results are very interesting. Of the six possible first places, four go to Burgundies, with two first-place votes for the Échézeaux and two for the Chambertin. The other two first-place votes go to the Chassagne-Montrachet 1926 and the Sénéclauze Oran Algeria 1953.
The vote of our group of six voters is: 1 – Échézeaux Domaine de la Romanée-Conti 1954, 2 – Sénéclauze Oran Algeria 1953, 3 – Chassagne-Montrachet 1926, 4 – Chambertin Faiveley 1929, 5 – Clos Fourtet 1926, 6 – Hermitage La Tour Blanche Jaboulet-Verchère 1955.
My vote is: 1 – Sénéclauze Oran Algeria 1953, 2 – Chassagne-Montrachet 1926, 3 – Clos Fourtet 1926, 4 – Hermitage La Tour Blanche Jaboulet-Verchère 1955, 5 – Échézeaux Domaine de la Romanée-Conti 1954, 6 – Chambertin Faiveley 1929.
Every one of my guests tells me that they have never experienced such an incredible meal, in which every wine was absolutely perfect. What overwhelmed me most was the series of three white wines, with their almost unreal colours and deeply moving flavours. I can confirm that this was one of the most extraordinary meals we have ever experienced.