I love Hong Kong. The city, the people, the energy, and the passion for wine are a combination rarely seen in the world today. My ten days in HK saw a lot of great wines and generosity on display, and the festivities commenced on Monday night, which was technically a ‘category 8’ Typhoon night, with 12 being the highest and most dangerous category. The wind was certainly whipping, but the rain mercifully stayed away until late in the night, really coming down heavily the next morning. Eight was enough to close schools and many businesses the next day, although by the afternoon, the typhoon had passed through, and it was business back to normal.
About eight of us got together on Monday night thanks to the efforts of Lawrence, and Paul was able to secure us a table at Café Gray, which is not officially open but doing a few, special pre-opening meals for some of Hong Kong’s finer diners. Gray himself was there, getting ready for what will technically be the opening in a couple more weeks.
Some 1995 Dom Perignon Oenotheque kicked off the evening in fine fashion. The ’95 had that classic Oeno style ”“ clean, pungent and grassy with hints of hay, citrus and melon. The palate was full and fresh, quite long, yet the acidity didn’t overpower the wine like many young Champagnes. It still sparkled in the glass and had nice zip, rounding out and becoming more fleshy with time (94).
A 1976 La Tache set the stage for what would be a mainly Bordeaux night, and it had a great nose. 1976s can be instant charmers but not be last-longers, so to speak, and I predicted this would be great for about 30+ minutes before disappearing into the air. I guess one could say that ’76 Burgs are great first kissers lol. There was sweet musk and black cherry fruit along with nice stalk, forest and a pinch of menthol in the nose. The palate was full of autumnal fruit flavors, round and balanced, with traces of earth, tea and dust on its finish (93).
Desmond noted ‘chocolate’ right away in a 1959 L’Evangile, and Gary found it ‘quite powerful.’ Loewe concurred, calling 1959 ‘more tannic than ’61,’ in general. It was, indeed, quite chocolaty with a hint of garden goodness, along with some faint aromas of cement and pungent interior. The palate was big and a bit of a bruiser with lots of alcohol showing. Its cassis and plum fruit were walking on slate stilts, and a hint of metal/iron ore was there as well. The L’Evangile’s sexy nose was old but fresh, and its acidity was really long in the belly, but there was some squareness in its shoulders. 1959 was never quite the vintage in Pomerol that it was for the rest of Bordeaux, although clearly still way above average (93).
Unfortunately, a Jean Nony Negociant bottling of 1947 Cheval Blanc was corked (DQ).
Paul had brought a pet wine of his, the 1958 Haut Brion, a vintage not often seen. This bottle was from the Mahler-Besse cellars, and the nose was certainly classic HB. There was that instant whiff of gravel, although oak started to creep in, in eyebrow raising fashion. The tannins and acidity were still firm in the penetrating nose, but its palate also had that oaky edge. The initial attack in the mouth was nice, but its mid-palate and finish were soft. Its flavors were more oak than anything else, although its oak morphed into cedar a bit. I was wondering if the wine was reconditioned at all, but there was no indication that it was (88).
Hello, 1955 La Mission Haut Brion. The first words to be written were ‘wow.’ There was a deep core of cassis and chocolate here, escorted by massive t ‘n a, cedar, mahogany and more classic wood without the oak. The palate was rich, sensual and vibrant, with secondary dust and desert qualities. There were nice, old citrus kisses to its caroby core, and it got more chocolaty in the mouth over time. While it competed with the last wine we would have on this night for ‘WOTN,’ it ultimately fell a step behind as we headed down the stretch towards the finish line (95).
A 1959 Lafite Rothschild was reconditioned in 1998, perhaps a bit too much so. It was sweet and gamy with lots of t ‘n a in the nose, but it came across younger more than older; it didn’t find the right balance that a great reconditioned wine should have. The palate was sweet and chocolaty, flirting with figgy, nicely dense and with flavors of leather, spice and cassis. Lawrence admired its ‘excellent finish,’ and while the wine was tasty, it was a bit hot and lacked the depth that I wanted and expect from this wine. It was still very good, but it should have been outstanding (92).
A 1953 Lafite Rothschild closed the evening in fine fashion. This, being an original bottle, was everything I expected and wanted. At first, it was a bit stinky, and it needed time to blow off some of its initial hay and wet grass. Thick, seepy fruit emerged with some swirling and aeration. The wine was rich and tasty, richer than I expected, and its hay blew into coffee and earth with a pinch of citrus. There was great ‘smack’ to this leathery wine and excellent pop to its finish. Carob, cobwebs and dust were all there as well. The wine was delicious, still vigorous but definitely mature. It remains one of the all-time classic Lafites (96+).
I actually had to go back to work after dinner and ended up spending another four hours trying to deal with deadline issues for our next set of Fall auctions. I wasn’t jet-lagged at all during my trip to Hong Kong, just work-lagged! The next two days were basically devoted to October and November, so I was especially ready come Thursday night to enjoy some more great wine, and we had assembled about fifty eager collectors for a BYO spectacular at the Island Shangri La. It was a quite social affair, and I only managed a dozen, brief notes, but they were good ones :).
We started off with a magnum of 1992 Sauzet Montrachet, which was as great as 1992 can be. The wine was rich and yeasty, only showing a touch of that fast-forwarding 1992 style. Its acidity was still solid, and this was a mouthful of a white, no doubt helped by the magnum format. Sauzet is one of the elite producers of white Burgs, and probably the least appreciated of the elite. His style has a power unmatched by any other producer in Burgundy (95M).
A magnum of 2002 Chave Hermitage Blanc stood up nicely to the Sauzet, even though it was from a vintage not held in high regard. If real estate is all about location, location, location then wine is all about producer, producer, producer. A great producer will make quality wines every year no matter what the conditions, and this Chave proved it. The Chave had lots of gamy fruit and glue in its nose. The palate was long and had great spine with lots of honey and wax flavors. Thanks, Dave (93M).
There was a James Suckling sighting, and along with him came a 2001 Massetto. Talk about a great package deal. James is always great company at a tasting and an encyclopedia of wine knowledge, and he was really the first major Western wine critic to experience the Hong Kong market. No one from the West knows Hong Kong and its major collectors more than James. The Massetto was super-concentrated and deep purple personified. The words ‘rich’ and ‘thick’ kept appearing over and over again in my notes, along with ‘super.’ James added, ‘layered and powerful”¦black olives and mint.’ This was an awesomely endowed wine, full of decadent flavors of coffee and blueberry. It was still very young but incredibly sexxxy juice (97).
If there were a Bordeaux that could stand up to the Massetto, a good choice would be the 1989 Haut Brion. It was another ‘wow’ wine; it is always special, indubitably one of the top ten wines made in Bordeaux over the last forty years. Long, elegant yet meaty, it zipped along faster than the speed limit but still seemed like it was moving slowly. It was so sensual, seductive from the first sniff to the last sip, full of carob, caramel, cedar and enough spice for Julia Child’s kitchen cabinet. This is an any place, any time wine. Thank you my friend (99).
The 1982 Haut Brion that followed had many similar characteristics, but there was much more peanut butter here in a peanut brittle way. This had a tender side to it that the ’89 wasn’t ready to show. It was more forward than the seven years between the two, gamier and readier, although still with a long life ahead of it. The ’82 HB seems to be under-appreciated in the market and is certainly the best value of all the First Growths (95).
A magnum of 1966 Haut Brion was all about the coffee in the nose. Its palate was smooth and satiny, soft and tender, fully mature and ready to go. While not in the category of the greatest Haut Brions, it is still very good, though probably best to drink up (91M).
Thomas blessed us with a rare 1969 Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape. As I have recently iterated, I love old Beaucastels. They are amongst my favorite, old wines and an incredible value relative to similarly old, great Bordeaux and Burgundy. This ’69 was no exception. It was full and regal in the nose, emitting black fruits, wet stones and pinches of game, tar and pepper. It was long in the mouth, tasty and tender despite a full finish marked by earth and cement flavors. It was another awesome, old Beaucastel (94).
A 1995 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Les Cras was pungent and gamy, long and full of iodine and dry leather flavors. While 1995 is a controversial vintage in Burgundy, there is no doubt that Roumier hit the bullseye this year and made the wines of the vintage, and this Chambolle proved why (93).
It was back to Bordeaux with an excellent magnum of 1964 Latour. Its nose reminded me of rich, Christmas pudding. It was long, tasty and sensual, in a good spot out of magnum, displaying classic flavors of black fruit, carob, walnut and pencil (93M).
A bottle of 1983 Margaux was in perfect condition, chalky and minerally, fuller-bodied and more stony than any other bottle of this that I have ever had. Its acidity was noticeable and noticeably good, and its spine and length suggested younger rather than older. Its black fruits were almost entrapped by its minerality; this will be a fascinating wine to follow for the next 25 years (95).
There was one more Bordeaux on this starry night, a 1990 Cheval Blanc, whose nose was full of meaty, wintry red fruits and hints of gingerbread. There is always this hint of game and wild grass to the ’90 Cheval, and I say that in a positive way. The palate was classic all the way around, rich and red, tasty yet still somewhat shy and reserved. This was a meaty, long and regal wine that will be enjoyable for decades to come (96).
I didn’t have much left in me by the time a magnum of 1989 Giacosa Barolo Falleto Riserva came around. Its leather and acidity really stood out at this point, along with its black as night fruit. This was a mouthful of a wine, practically taking my tongue hostage with its sheer strength. Long and zippy, the Giacosa spoke up for Italy admirably on this great night (95+M).
After a good night’s sleep, it was the day before the auction and time for our pre-auction tasting. There were many fantastic wines being poured. I only had time to taste about a dozen of the 35-40 wines being poured, but the standouts for me included 1971 Moet Rose (94), 2004 Marcassin Pinot Noir Three Sisters (94), 2003 Dujac Clos de la Roche (95+), 2001 Lafleur (96) and 1985 Rayas (96). The Moet Rose was delicious, still fresh yet showing some mature and open red fruit flavors, still vibrant with its effervescence and citrusy goodness. The Marcassin was remarkably good. It was rich, saucy and full, a mouthful and then some of beefy, California Pinot that retained the grape’s natural sex appeal. I was impressed, and equally so by the 2003 Dujac. I must confess that I have not had too many 2003 Burgundy recently as I don’t drink that much ‘serious’ young wine, and I have also perhaps been a bit brainwashed by a few Burgundy connoisseurs that this is not a pure or classic vintage in Burgundy due to the excessive, record-breaking heat of 2003. Well, this Dujac lit my mouth up. It was rich and concentrated and still full of acidity and length, making my lips smack and my tongue lick the roof of my mouth. It had sweet fruit, but not what I would call overripe, as the knock can be on ’03. It left me with a yearning to try a bunch more ’03 Burgs in the near future. 2001 Lafleur is a classic Lafleur, and 2001 is a great vintage for Pomerol. I will never forget when one of the Moueixs told me, ‘It will be interesting to compare the 2001 and 2000 over the next ten years,’ and that ultimately one day the 2001 might be held in higher regard. ‘Nuff said. The 1985 Rayas showed the glory of great Chateauneuf du Pape. I don’t know about all these new producers that have achieved huge ratings. When it comes to Chateauneuf, I keep it simple ”“ Rayas, Beaucastel, Bonneau, Pegau, Brunel”¦I might be missing a couple of others, but you get the idea. The classic producers that have been making wine for decades are the ones I tend to prefer, and the same goes for the rest of the world, too. Experience matters. The ’85 was open and rich, tasty and gamy, jammy with its kinky strawberry fruit, supported by hot stones, leather, garrigue and spice. It was the real standout of the whole tasting for me, even more so than the Lafleur despite their same score, since the Rayas was much more open due to the sixteen year age difference.
I ran off to a quick dinner, where I had a flashback of our last auction in Hong Kong as 1989 and 1990 Petrus were already being served. I was given the pair blindly and able to identify which one was which. Phew :). I guess it helped having the same pair three months ago! My conclusion of the two was also the same, although this bottle, make that bottles, of the 1990 were better than the one I had in May. 1989 is the greatest of the greats, though.
The 1990 Petrus had a gamy nose, a touch figgy and caroby but still possessing a core of hardcore Pomerol fruit. It was also waxy and had more noticeable alcohol than the last bottle in May and a little more strength. Gil found it ‘a bit rusty’ and its alcohol a hair ‘disjointed.’ The wine was tight, better than the last bottle I had, but it continued to improve in the glass and with each refill. It is nice when you have two bottles of this wine to go around and around! The finish kept expanding, and the wine kept fleshing out. It was easy to keep drinking it, for sure (96+).
The 1989 Petrus was deeper and more chocolaty in its nose, pure class in a glass. In the mouth, it was regal, long and full of vim. Flavors of chocolate, plum and forest danced together like Baryshnikov and an ensemble of thousands. Length, harmony and strength – that is the 1989 Petrus. It will age forever (99).
The 1992 Screaming Eagle was a fascinating follow up to the pair of Petruses. It actually had a little Petrus character to it. Hints of game and fig jumped out at first, followed by black cherry fruit, coffee and a touch of olive. It was full of exotic spices. The palate had great game and spice flavors, and more coffee. That kiss of Cali sweetness was not over the top and rather refined here, and its tangy cassis and grainy cedar qualities were joined by exotic blueberry. Gil found it more ‘huckleberry, exotic raspberry coulis and a peach schnapps finish.’ It was long and delicious and could hang in the same flight as the Petrus, although the Petruses kept getting better while the Screamer stood pat, and if anything started to soften (95).
A glass of 1995 Krug Clos d’Ambonnay helped us say goodbye on a high note, although I still find this first vintage to be excellent and not yet outstanding. There was lots of lemony goodness and elegance in this young, taut Champagne. There was a flash of fruit, and while its flavors were great and its finish long, it still needs lots of time to come into its own (94+).
Once again, thank you very much to my friend, who also brought the 1989 Haut Brion the night prior. It was an incredible evening and a pleasure to meet some of your friends as well.
The auction was on Saturday, and it was a tremendous sale, but you all know about that already. I always like to enjoy a drink or six at an auction, so I brought with me a glorious magnum of 1989 Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape Hommage a Jacques Perrin. I haven’t had this wine in a while, and it has always left the impression on me as one of the greatest Rhone wines ever, always exceeding the equally-regarded 1990. While this wine has always been massive, and it was still big, there was a decadent core of fruit showing in this magnum that was delicious and open. There were black and purple fruits, spice, pepper, earth and that Rhone gamy quality all combining for a fantastic experience. Chunky and long, this was again special stuff and starting to shed some of its thick skin (97M).
The Monday after brought another festive gathering, kicked off by a spectacular bottle of 1996 Salon. This bottle was just perfect, like drinking diamonds. It just sparkled from first sip to last. Minerals, white fruits and extraordinary acidity produced lightning in a bottle. It was so fresh, so long and so balanced. Its tangy, pungent fruit was like a sun rising with its yellow flavors, and this Champagne just dropped me to my knees (97).
Surprisingly, some liked the 1996 Dom Perignon Rose better. The nose was all alcohol and acidity at first, but rusty red fruit tried to fight through along with a pinch of grass and almost melon. This is a wine that needs time; it was rusty and clean but very lean, tight and unyielding. It came across with more brute strength than the Salon, and it did open up in about an hour showing hints of exotic fruits, ginger, lime rickey and citrus peel. Its last sip reminded me of strawberry lime soda (93+).
Paul noted ‘lychee’ in a 1972 Richebourg. Additional aromas of earth, bacon, tomato and ‘mint’ were present, along with some nice t ‘n a. There was also this touch of grilled endive meets marshmallow (accompanied by a ‘yes!’ in my notes; I was excited to pinpoint such an unusual combination lol). Light toast and a hint of animal rounded out its nose. The palate was very citrusy and leathery, lean and dry. Paul keenly observed, ‘it will turn sour in an hour,’ but he gave it too much time as I started to see that in fifteen minutes. The wine kept heading south for the winter despite its initial complex aromatics (88).
A 1989 Guigal Cote Rotie La Turque burned rubber in the nose fast and furiously. There was lots of classic, mountainous Rhone fruit with tons of minerals and quartz. The palate was very peppery and also with bacon, earth and garrigue flavors. Victor found its bacon qualities more ‘smoked meat.’ The wine was a bit dry, its only flaw (94).
A 1999 Ponsot Close de la Roche V.V. had chunky, thick fruit in that 1999 way. Vitamins jumped out of the nose, with hints of medicine dropper, baby style. It was very wild with lots of kinky raspberry fruit. The palate was rich and concentrated, again with a hint of medicine, along with some iron. The wine was fleshy, kinky, sweet and unusual Burgundy. I saw the style of 1999 in the wine, but overall it was atypical (92).
A 2004 Leroy Gevrey Chambertin had a rich, saucy nose. I was told that Leroy didn’t bottle any grand or premier crus in 2004, so all the wines went into an ‘AC’ Gevrey and Vosne, depending on the vineyard, of course. The nose was exotic and concentrated with seepy, thick raspberry and blackberry fruit. The palate, however, was softer, easy and smooth, nice and pleasant, but simpler than I wanted. There was a touch of New World beef, along with menthol and spice (91).
The biggest surprise on the night was a 1998 J.J. Confuron Romanee St. Vivant. Leather and cedar were the first things I noticed, with reticent black fruits behind. It had what I call nice ‘whiff’ to it with its hints of allspice and all-fruit, for that matter. I really liked its taut style, and the palate was singing, impressing me with its leathery, taut 1998 side, and this was already open for two hours! It was still tense, with hints of hilltop garden, and it possessed classic qualities despite Confuron being a producer that is sometimes considered to be on the New World side of the wheel. I think I will be drinking more 1998s in the coming year; I think it is time to revisit this underrated vintage (93).
We finished up with a classic 1983 Yquem, sweet and delicious with lots of candle wax and honey. It was very stony in its aromatics, still sweet and decadent as only Yquem can be, with outstanding acidity (95).
There was one more night, and it proved to be a definite nail in the coffin, as I didn’t drink for three days afterwards as a result. It was all Jerome’s fault, but I’ll get to that later. We had a fun group assembled, including another James Suckling sighting.
The evening started off innocently enough with a magnum of 1990 Dom Perignon, which was very fresh out of magnum, much younger than out of bottle, as it should be. It was clean with great acidity, as well as mineral, spice, cement and straw aromas. With excellent definition and length in the mouth, it got even breadier over time, like toast soaked in oil. Yum (95+M).
Thomas, one of Hong Kong’s most knowledgeable wine lovers, brought with him a few goodies, the first of which was a 2003 Trimbach Riesling Clos Ste. Hune, one of my favorite white wines, period. The nose was great, full of lychee, honey, petrol and waterfall. The palate was also delicious, balanced between its sweet fruit and petrol qualities. It was smooth and floral with nice richness, beautiful fruit and a soft, tender finish. Happy happy (93).
A pair of Margaux Blancs was next, beginning with the 2000 Pavillon Blanc du Margaux. The nose was yeasty with complex straw and gold aromas, along with honeydew and honey drip. The palate had glue flavors, along with waterfall and sunchoke ones. It was tender and definitely at its peak, pleasing at first, but the more I tasted it, the more it went downhill (88).
The 2005 Pavillon Blanc du Margaux was similar in style but sweeter. It had the glue, the hay, the yeast. It was ‘a point or two more’ per James, who was in the 87/88 point zone for both these wines. I preferred the 2005 significantly more than the 2000, and found it richer and fresher. Maybe this is a wine best within its first five years. Peter admired its ‘vanilla’ qualities (91).
It was on to the reds and another Thomas treat, a 1986 Ponsot Latricieres Chambertin, which Thomas quickly asserted was ‘better than the 1985’ he had the night prior. High praise indeed! The nose was super sexy, so seductive and gorgeous, sweet and musky. There was a lot going on: iron, black cherry, raspberry, tangy vitamins, garden and citrus borders all framed by impressive vigor and t ‘n a. The palate was ‘wow’ with its strong acidity and huge personality; this was about as impressive a 1986 as I can remember, save a 1986 Roumier Musigny. The finish was massive; before that there was a surplus of citrus, leather and cement smack flavors. It popped in the mouth, and I could not stop drinking it. Gil loved its ‘bang for the buck,’ and someone called it ‘the cat’s meow.’ Tasty, dry like the vintage, and with hints of cedar and menthol, this was an impressive wine, and James was loving it too, although he graded it a point less than me as he felt it would not get any better than it is right now (95).
Thomas pulled another cat out of his bag with a 2000 Anne Gros Richebourg. This was another impressive Burg from a year that is not that highly-regarded for its reds. It was another testament to the most important wine lesson I can ever give, which I will say again here: producer, producer, producer. The 2000 was quite rich in the nose, another ‘wow’ wine, very concentrated and beefy with tantalizing black raspberry fruit. It gave an oily impression, and aromas of vitamins, forest and cedar rounded out its nose. The wine was rich and tasty in the mouth with strawberry flavors and a kiss of lemon drop. I think it was James who said that it was ‘more modern but there is still precision and upside here.’ This time he was a point higher than me, but it felt like we were in sync. I get to be Justin lol (94).
A 2001 Comte de Vogue Musigny V.V. was next. There was a hint of milk in its tight nose, and it was also beefy and had more penetrating t ‘n a. Thomas was huffing how it was ‘not true Pinot.’ It had a nice shield around it of glass and citrus. The palate was a bit shut down. It was beefy, earthy and leathery with excellent acidity, but it clearly needed more time than the previous two wines (93+).
There was one more Burgundy on our agenda, a 2003 Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux. The Rouget had a deep, saucy, concentrated nose, again this grilled endive thing around a core of plum, cassis, soda and liqueur. It was a thick wine, and the second tasty 2003 Burg that I had had on this trip. It was really good, hedonistic and rich, long and concentrated, sweet and hearty, if anything a touch too sweet, but hey, that’s 2003 (93).
I was surprised to see there was only one Bordeaux in the lineup; it was an outstanding 1990 Leoville Las Cases. It had a great nose, classic Bordeaux all the way with its cedar, minerals, pencils and cassis underneath. The palate was still so, so young, long, cedary and zippy. James found it ‘velvety,’ and I found lots of interior qualities in that Better Homes and Gardens kind of way (96).
We skipped, or make that sipped, through Spain with a NV Vega Sicilia Reserva Especial. They make this wine every few years as a blend from three different vintages, so one has to track the inconspicuous lot numbers on the label to know which one is what, which is kind of annoying; this was a blend of 1985, 1991 and 1996, or so I was told. This had that Vega egg to its nose, as well as a sweet, leathery kink and good wood. James noted ‘jammy and rich, chocolate, tobacco and rose leaf.’ The wine was gamy, smooth, soft, tender, easy and tasty, but it didn’t quite have the complexity of a typical Unico (92).
A 2001 Quicleda Creek Cabernet Sauvignon was like ‘Idaho jam,’ James joked. It was definitely deep and inky, chocolaty and cassisy, sporting a New World woody. It was soft and smooth, relatively unexciting. Perhaps I was generous giving it 90 points, as James walloped it with an 88 (90).
A couple of Rhones closed out the red wine portion of our program, beginning with a 1989 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle. Peter found it ‘plastic-y,’ but then said he finds Rhones that way in general. The nose was fabulous, full of sweet, black fruits, garrigue, spice, pepper, game, chocolate, minerals and bread aromas. The palate was rich and hearty, more limited and square than its nose, although there was nice citrus and leather smack to its gamy finish (94+).
We also got to try a 2003 Pegau Chateauneuf Cuvee du Capo, which Peter thought had ’20, 30 years to go.’ The nose was full of sweet and sexy Grenache fruit, so strawberry and so sweet. It was gamy in a confiture way, and super delicious. There was great balance to its fruit and long finish despite its overall sweet personality. This was a wine that was gettin’ figgy with it (95+).
Actually, I forgot, we had a 2005 Two Hands Shiraz Ares, which elicited lots of boos and hisses. This was hailed as a nightclub wine, and ice cubes were requested. I guess it could have been better with some girls around 🙂 (88).
There was also a 1990 Yquem, which someone called ‘better than 1967.’ Honey, coconut, pineapple and candle wax complemented its rich structure and super sexy, nutty, lush finish. It is a great Yquem, but I’ll drink ’67 over it any time, at least for a while (96+).
When asked for my thoughts regarding the best wine, I said that I wanted another bottle of the Ponsot for right now even though the Las Cases was my highest-rated wine, and the Pegau won the freak at the end of the night award lol. It was about that time, and the guys made me do some Chinese traditions after dinner, including Jerome force feeding me shots of various liquids. Unfortunately, they forgot to give me the traditional herbs to overcome a massive hangover, a hangover to the point where I couldn’t remember getting back to the hotel or even think about alcohol for the next three days, messing up my routine :).
It was a great night of great wine, a fitting closing chapter to another great week of wine in Hong Kong. I can’t wait to be back in November.
In Vino Veritas,