I have found over the last few years that the best place to be on New Year’s Eve is at the home of the world’s greatest collector of Champagne, aka Big Boy. This year was no exception, and the generosity of our host was on full display with an incredible lineup of Champagnes and wines. In fact, the evening ended up being a little more wine-heavy than I thought, but after what we got to taste, there would be no complaints.  All wines were sabered by our host; therefore you can add an ‘S’ at the end of each Champagne rating if you so choose.

Rob had coined a phrase over the course of 2008: ‘The rats of ’08 will become the bulls of ’09 and slaughter the pigs of ’07.’ This saying relates to the Chinese calendar year and the fact that 2008 is a ‘year of the rat,’ 2007 a pig, and 2009 a bull year, of course. This calendar cycles every twelve years, so that 1996 is a year of the rat, 1995 a pig year and 1997 a bull, etc., going back to the beginning of time. Every wine served on this night was to be from a year of the rat, pig or bull. Game on.

I had gotten there early, and a few wines had already been opened and decanted, so I figured let me get ahead of the curve while I still had my wits with me, at least most of them. One of the wines was a magnum of 1971 Ponsot Clos de la Roche. Of course, since this was a Big Boy production, everything was to be served out of magnum; actually sometimes Jeroboam. The Ponsot smelled like Burgundy and reminded me of the ’71 vintage with its menthol and vivid acid rust. So far, so good. There was gamy fruit behind that, lots of red flowers to its aromatic fruit. The palate was gamy and tasty with lots of flesh and hints of black pepper and cola. Balanced and polished, it was a nice start to the evening and seemed right to me (94M).

We didn’t waste any time with a magnum of strong>1949 Rousseau Chambertin, whose nose was so gamy it was practically chewy, but still overall definitively silky with that ’49 haunt. There were great traces of smoke and old wood to go with its decidedly red and rose aromas. The palate was lush and tender, absolutely delicious with its game, meat and old fruit flavors. There was almost a touch of fig to its finish, something in that ‘senior’ fruit category. Light chocolate shavings rounded out this mature and plateau-ing red that still showed good posture after all these years (96M).

The Rousseau made a nice pair with the magnum of 1949 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle. Slover was quickly drooling, with ‘sensational’ spilling out of his mouth after one sip. The nose was a left turn, with bacon traces to go with its purpler fruit. It was very musky with aromas of band-aids, chocolate and more earth. It had Burgundy in its personality due to its age, ie a softening, but the kink said all Rhone. Light pepper emerged in time. Slover fancied the ’49 to be what the ’61 would taste like in 30+ years, as if the ’49 was in the same quality camp yet an earlier maturing vintage”¦relative to the ’61, of course. Every wine in the world might seem earlier maturing next to a good bottle of that! The palate was classic in every sense of the Hermitage word with its burnt, roasted earth, toast, chocolate, game, stone and white pepper flavors. Still young out of magnum, this long, smoky and rich red was impressive, still possessing hidden acids that proved long in the gut in a sneaky way (96+M).

Next up was a rare magnum of 1900 Lafite Rothschild, recorked at the Chateau in 1986. It was the real deal and about as good a reconditioned bottle as I have had in recent memory. The nose was full of cedar, clean from the reconditioning but still lush with cassis. Cedar was the dominant trait, however. Despite the obvious fact that the wine was reconditioned, it was damn delicious, vibrant and rich in its fruit and cassis flavors, complemented by delicate cedar and earth. Rose and grape also added themselves to the flavor profile, and there was a purity to the wine despite its theoretical impurity. Speez noted ‘a hint of cougar (insert your own body part here).’ Big Boy found it ‘close to outstanding,’ and ultimately I found it so (95M).

The 1985 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Riserva was quite young, rockin’ and rollin’ by comparison to the previous quartet. Its nose was full of leather, tar, smoke, truffles and that Nebbiolo goodness. Tar and chocolate flavors graced its earthy palate and rock solid finish. This wine is still an infant, and another sip two hours later had me note, ‘wicked’ (95+M).

There was one more wine for my warmup session, a 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes. The nose displayed massive concentration, the most so far, brimming with big and rich aromas of chocolate, game and menthol. Its flavors had a bit of a wild streak to them, especially with its mint, eucalyptus and almost jasmine flavor. Quite gamy, there were fruit flavors of blueberry and acai as well as a hint of cola. Compared to the bottle that I recently had from the Grunewlad collection, though, I found this wine to be polished and hibernating a bit out of magnum, better to drink out of bottles at this stage, even though that could still arguably be too young (95+M).

Not a bad warmup, huh? What did I have to do to get some Champagne already??? Enter 1996 Krug Clos du Mesnil out of magnum, three of them to be exact. Not a bad reception bubbly. Its nose was fabulous, possessing more breed than Churchill Downs, or Churchill for that matter. The nose was raining razors with its searing structure, yet somehow a perfect flash of sweetness came through in the form of fat vanilla cream. Smoke on the water rounded out this golden child of a nose. The palate was long and in charge, full of yellow, lemon and citrus flavors. ‘Fantastic’ summed it up for what will probably be considered one of the greatest Champagnes of the 20th century if not all-time (98+M).

Next up was a 1973 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, and yes it was out of magnum. Still one of the most underappreciated big-time Champers, the Comtes stood out for its signature butterscotch right away, along with heavy cream, light toast, butter on top and a hint of all good, foresty wood. Fresh, lean, zesty and racy, I might have guessed 1996 if served to me blind as this magnum was in extremely good condition. Its finish dominated its palate, although there were also nice butter flavors and kisses of oak. There was one noticeable flaw, the fact that the flavors seemed short and mono (94M).

The ‘73s continued with a 1973 Dom Perignon Oenotheque magnum. It had a nice nose, classic DP with its granulated sugar and pinch of gingerbread. The palate was a little dirty and gave a sugar water impression despite nice fizz and vim. Dirty and earthy, the palate was long and round with a touch of teabag to it. Its flavors also seemed a bit short, but maybe that was the 1996 Mesnil (93M).

A 1959 Henriot Cuvee des Enchanteleurs was clearly disgorged recently, obviously fresh but not much after that. It was a touch sour on the palate with some notes of corkiness (88A).

It was back to the grill again with a 1973 Dom Perignon, this time from an original magnum. The nose seemed better, more balanced with nice aromas and edge to it, more musky and intoxicating with excellent cream traces. Its flavors of grilled nuts and toast were spot on. Original baby, go ‘head baby (95M).

We continued on the Moet trail with a magnum of 1959 Moet, which had a wild nose with lots of wheat and farm-like aromas. There was a granulated edge that brought back the classic, as well as nice butter along with this definitive cement quality merging with its wheat. The palate was round and ‘not so complex,’ as one noted. The palate was buttery and yeasty but a bit flat, not over the hill but possessing barely any fizz. Its roundness was one of its better qualities in the mouth (91M).

An original magnum of 1973 Krug was ‘dead on,’ as Big Boy put it. There was a lot of seashell and Fulton fish market at first, but that quickly blew off into the signature vanilla cream. The palate was apple cider meets rocket fuel with a razor’s edge of a finish. It had an endless silver streak in the mouth, zippedy doo dah day and den sum. There were good flavors of wood chip and almost a cinnamon without the spice. It was so zippy at first that it almost burned the tongue, although it did mellow nicely over time (96M).

We went back to the reds with a pair of Mascarellos, beginning with the 1961 Cantina Mascarello Barolo. It was glue city in the nose, along with some suburbian leather. The palate had leather as well with a touch of Madeira and bitters, thin in the middle with some paint thinner up front. There was also caramel glaze to this advanced yet solid Barolo (90A-M).

The 1971 Cantina Mascarello Barolo had a richer nose, firmer and with much more red and rose fruits along with leather and cigar. The palate was absolutely delicious, full of rust and rich bronze age action. Long and zippy, there was mucho citrus sex appeal in this flat-out fantastic wine (95M).

The next wine was one of the more discussion-worthy wines of the night, a double magnum or jeroboam of 1899 Latour. We couldn’t tell. At first, questions of authenticity were in the air, and even Big Boy thought it might be fake, despite the fact that was acquired five or six years ago and supposedly was one step removed from Latour itself. It was indubitably reconditioned, clearly showing darker and more youthful fruit, but it still had mature nuances and old qualities. The distinguished Sir Robert Bohr started making some positive observations at first. Olof noted ‘500 flavors at once.’ There was mint and eucalyptus at first. The texture was fleshy, rich and long. The wine remained controversial. Candle wax, earth and cobwebs all emerged, as did some signature sea salt and walnut. I was convinced it was Latour, but it was quixotic in its ‘am I young or am I old’ way. No one could say it wasn’t a reconditioned 1899, and by the end of the night there seemed to be mostly believers. The next day the wine was even better, so soft and supple, and even more decidedly Latour in its flavor profile, still with a purple core. It reminded me more of 1955 than 1899, and I guess reconditioning helps if you want to have an old wine 24 hours later (94D/J?).

One possible jero deserves another, especially when the other is a 1923 Bollinger. It doesn’t get much rarer than that. I had recently had a controversial bottle of this, but after this jero, I can safely say that there is controversy no more. The nose was the essence of white truffle oil, much like the bottle from before. Loreto hailed it as ‘trufflicious.’ Mike noted hints of garlic, and it wasn’t my breath, either. Someone noted apricots, and there were indeed apricots, but definitely on the Turkish side. Rich and oily in the mouth, there was still nice spritz and length here. It was rich and buttery with oyster shell flavors (95J).

More red wine? How about a magnum of 1949 La Tache? Very LT and very ’49, this was about as rich as 1949 can be. It had the oil, the rose, the leather, the meat, the menthol. As Crane noted, it had ‘a feminine style but still manly.’ Everyone noted its greatness, with lots of oohs and aahs coming from the crowd. It was definitely wine of the night so far, and even had Robert asking for seconds (98M).

One good ’49 deserves another, especially when it is a 1949 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. Old book jumped out of its haunting nose. Rose and a citrus twist helix rounded out this amazingly old yet fresh nose. Robert quickly crowned this as the ‘best wine I’ve had tonight.’ Big Boy cooed ‘amazing and unbelievable.’ Its palate was tender, rich, long and soft, but its richness was what stood out the most. It was in a perfect spot (98M).

We finished off the evening with a trio of Champagnes, beginning with a staggering 1900 Moet. Olof, Scandavia’s version of physical therapy meets sadism, acutely noted, ‘crème brulee, vanilla bean, caramel and espresso bean.’ The Moet had the truffle oil of the ’23 Bolly and the butterscotch ofthe C de C. It reminded me of a Daniel Boulud coconut cake. Insanely rich and exotic, it also reminded me of a great white Burgundy, perhaps a Meursault Perrieres. It was delicious and round, and Robert noted, ‘white chocolate covered espresso bean.’ Paul hailed it as ‘Willy Wonka.’ Speez kicked in ‘ever so nutty and creamy,’ which worked all the more better with the Stimpy impersonation. Crane noted ‘burnt cake.’ The gloves were off, and everyone was all-in for the 1900 (98M).

Three ‘98s in a row, what year was that? A 1947 Bollinger made us forget. It had the same truffle as the ’23; I guess it’s a Bolly thing. There was also chicken bouillon there. The palate was super; long and fresh and amazingly so on both counts. It was long and zippy without the zip, if that makes sense. Its flavors were rich and long, with butter toffee and hard candy flavors. Two distinguished gentlemen noted separately ‘Rolo’ (96M).

There was one more magnum left, a 1971 Cristal, and it was a spectacular one. ‘Really fresh’ came from Slover, and ‘deep and thick’ from Big Boy. It was incredibly rich with a light saber of a finish, zippy and with orange marmalade and corn flavors. Its finish was extended and extensive with a super Sprite bite. Big Boy also noted ‘burnt orange,’ and there were toffee traces on its finish (97M).

I must confess there were a couple of klunkers, but we ended up using them in the sauce of the great cuisine of Chef Gaia Bagnasacco of Milano.

But New Year’s Eve wasn’t over, and I would soon discover that it was just beginning. As previously noted, I came back the next day to have some 1899 Latour again, and we also had a 1926 Bollinger, which again had this super exotic truffle oil aroma, along with a kinky, limy and gamy overall nose. A streak of mint surged to the forefront, Chartreuse-like and edgy. Big Boy was admiring its citric pitch, and there was a lot of life left in this ancient Bolly. I wondered if this and the ’23s of previous mention were disgorged at the same time due to the similarities. The pungency of its flavors was a bit much for me, and it held it back, again for me, but Big Boy was in love and rated it much higher for its freshness and condition (93).

The rest of Friday was dedicated to some cellar management, and Saturday I was in the office, catching up and getting ready for 2009, when I got the call at 5pm. ‘Johnny, I need you to run by my house, grab the following seven magnums and meet us at Balthazar. Now.’ Thirty minutes later I was at the bar of a packed Balthazar, which closed down one end of their bar for Big Boy and entourage. Any complaints of not enough Champagne on New Year’s Eve would soon be off the record.

The crew was already there drinking 1996 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill. I took a quick glass of this clean and fresh bubbly. It was full of yellow sunshine aromas. Its palate was long and balanced, elegant and smooth. It was more refined than I remembered, but this had been in the glass a bit before I got there (95).

First officially up was a spectacular magnum of 1949 Pommery Rose in unreal condition. Its color was a perfect light pink. Bobby noted ‘Riesling-like petrol and peach.’ It was very peachy, almost like a Buckingham Palace bellini. ‘Purely elegant, 100% integrated total rose and hard to make better,’ cooed Big Boy. Sweet, clean and pure, the ’49 was all one could want in a rose. Secondary strawberry qualities emerged. ‘That’s why Pommery is better than Dom”¦lacks nothing”¦the forties is the greatest decade for Pommery,’ were all comments from our generous host. Bobby noted ‘sweet tart’ without the tart, almost this powder andacid combination. Paul added ‘Dylan’s Candy Shop,’ to which I replied, ‘more like Fitty’s Candy Shop,’ to which Loreto reminded us, ‘It’s Big Boy’s Candy Shop’ lol. Everyone was floored by the ’49, including our eager bartender. A few glasses made their way around the room, and soon strange women from strange countries came to thank Big Boy for a taste of his magnum nectar (96M).

Wait, there were six more magnums to be had. The next was a (DQ), an oxidized 1949 Louis Roederer magnum, which still had excellent texture and length, and impressive sweetness in the mouth. Were it not oxidized, it would be in rare air territory.

The 1959 Louis Roederer had a perfect nose, clean and fresh, from a magnum acquired directly from Roederer. The disgorgement was clearly within the last few years, as this was fresher than most average 1990s, let alone 1959. It still had mature aromas of nutty, sundried, yellow fruit, as well as this kinky coconut milk meets mother’s milk. It was very buttery once you got past its freshness, almost sauteed. ‘Acid city,’ one remarked. This magnum was so fresh, it could last another 100 years, and one could keep it in the glass 24 hours, and it would still be great. It reminded me of the 1996 Clos du Mesnil somewhat, and while the disgorgement gave the ’59 ‘superpowers,’ it did have me yearning for some of its natural maturity. That was the only bad thing I could say about this 6 star wine from this 6 star vintage. There were long, zippy and tasty granulated sugar flavors along with vanilla lemon finger wafer ones, too (97+M).

The maturity I was looking for in the 1959 came in the form of the 1961 Louis Roederer, which immediately got ‘three cleans and two jerks’ from Big Boy. This original magnum had a much warmer nose, displaying exotic aromas of rye, ‘confectioners’ (Bobby), wheat, corn, wax, minerals and seeds including sesame. In fact, it was everything bagel style. Bobby also noted ‘potpourri,’ and there was, big-time. The palate was almost as fresh as the ’59 despite the original bottling. There was still speed racer acidity, and ‘rare air’ and ‘real deal’ came from the KOB. There was a nice, gamy twist to the flavors, and ‘oceanic depth’ per Bobby. There were meaty, white gyro juice flavors and an hour later, the ’61 was still going strong, o so nutty and ‘acorn-ish’ per Avi. He went on to say, ‘if they served Champagne in Heaven, this would be it.’ Big Boy insisted it was 98 points, and he may have been right, but I was stuck on (97+M).

The Roederers were finished, but the ‘61s paraded on with a 1961 Bollinger. Unfortunately, the Bolly was affected with a kiss of fino. Nutty skins and white cola flavors were there in what could be called a pleasant but flat Champagne. Hints of orange peel and more white fruits grew on me. There were tasty vanilla ice cream flavors, and I liked it even though it was affected. Bob the bartender, having the tasting of his life, noted the higher Pinot Noir content. A perfect bottle would have been a higher score, but the Bolly soon fell apart, and morning mouth joined the party, and that’s not a party one wants to be at (92A-M).

The final ’61 was a 1961 Krug, another original bottling. Bobby the bartender was having a tough time with the cork as it was so tightly in there, and he shared, ‘the best ones are the most difficult ones, just like women.’ Now the Krug was ever so slightly oxidized as well, but it was so great that it turned out being outstanding nonetheless and probably the best ‘affected’ wine that I have ever had, and Rob later said separately the same. It had similar nuances to the Bollinger, but this was way better, much richer and longer even though it shared a similar wine-like quality. It was round, lush, smooth and rich with apple cider flavors. Were this not oxidized, it would have clearly been 98 or 99 points. Its oxidation took on a bouillon essence flavor, and the Krug ‘kept building in the glass,’ as Big Boy observed, and he is one who knows about building. It got more honeyed, and had ‘mind-blowing minerality ”“ that’s why it is Krug,’ Rob also shared. Pretty impressive for a bottle that wasn’t 100% (96A-M).

The final Champagne to ring in the New Year was the 1928 Bollinger. Rob was anxious about the finale as he wanted to end with a bang, but one sniff elicited a ‘Thank you, Jesus.’ The color and fizz were both there and incredible for this ancient wonder. Wheat crackers were the first aroma I noted, followed by a seeping vanilla and touch of apple. Earth, forest, cinnamon spice and Apple Jacks joined in. It had great perfume. It was so sweet in the mouth, almost too much at first. ‘We are in the land of all-time,’ Big Boy pronounced. The palate eventually developed a dry goodness to it, not leather, not earth, but rather a benevolent cardboard, like opening up a Chanel gift box. There were Rose’s Lime Juice flavors on its finish, which had great sweetness and spritz. Pinches of mountain herbs and dried apple had this tremendous bubbly flirting with 98 points (97M).

It was a tremendous start to what will hopefully be a better year for everyone. There are many great collections out there in the world, but the greatest collectors are the ones who share from their cellars, and it is tough to find anyone more generous than Rob.

And on the first, second and third day, he opened them.

We started with a 1964 Bollinger RD magnum, disgorged in the mid-80s. It had a yeasty nose with light orange blossom, minerals and light mesquite. It was a touch musty in the mouth at first, very dry and linear. There was still nice sprite and decent straw flavors, but most were unimpressed. It got a ‘sweaty’ from Brad, it was definitely corked and an ‘ehhh’ overall (88A-M).

We got to the controversy early with the evening’s second bubbly. I should note that the King always does his hosted tastings blind, so everyone can make an ass of himself and be relegated to the King’s stable, where God knows what happens lol. There was this wild truffle pudding sweetness to the nose, flirting with a butterscotch. Its flavors tasted almost spiked with something absinthe or de menthe. Something and cinnamon joined the party, but the overall palate gave a minty and medicinal impression, and it was very fresh. Brad said that he ‘never had a nose like this before,’ while Big Boy found it ‘outta this world.’ Everyone was all over the truffles in the nose. People were guessing ‘60s or ‘70s, and then the guessing went all over the map, and no one thought this was a 1923 Bollinger. Even after people knew, some still didn’t think it was :). I haven’t seen too many fake Champagnes in my life, but have seen a handful, and its crazy nose and sickly flavors had to make you wonder, but I couldn’t say one way or another definitively. Airplane Eddie found the nose ‘still mind-blowing’ thirty minutes later (93).

The third bubbly had a more mature nose and was seemingly more advanced than the previous two. There was more baked bread and yeast, as well as petal aromas. The palate was round and wine-like, and I have definitely had better bottles of 1929 Bollinger, seeing that I have had a near-perfect, 98-point one before. The palate was easy and tender, soft and with morning mouth flavors (91A).

The next bubbly also had the truffle oil thing going on, big-time. There was also a hint of floral, sweet, lavender-ish something. Brioche toast aromas rounded out the nose. The palate was delicious, long and balanced, still with a touch of sprite. The palate also had coffee flavors, and its touch of petillance tickled my fancy, as did kisses of white chocolate and sugar. Big Boy declared that we were in 6-star territory. It was a 1900 Heidseick Monopole. Hell yeah (97).

We were starting to heat up, as the next bubbly was also very complex. The 1949 Bollinger had aromas of honey, acacia and edges of minerals and botani ebi sweet shrimp were enveloped in its sweet, floral and decadent style. It was lightly toasty. Its palate was mature, full of caramel and orange flavors, with just a touch of sprite left. Someone noted that it was ‘in a perfect place, mature but just enough acid.’ Its finish was lengthy and dry, and its spriteliness actually picked up in the glass; this was a long, intense and dry wine that still left a fine impression – it still had elegance and delicacy. There were great honeycomb flavors, and this stony, minerally, creamy beauty won’t get any better, but it won’t necessarily get worse for a bit, either. Yum (96).

Another odd bottle was next, and it was a 1961 Salon. ‘Sea dock,’ was the first thing I noted. Bob concurred with ‘barnacles.’ It was tough to get past that, but it did blow off, and a little vanilla cream came through. The palate was round with flavors of minerals and citrus. There was good sprite here, a lean sweetness and a smokehouse edge. The sea dock blew off, and it was very fresh overall, but the King and Big Boy both acknowledged that the bottle was disappointing given what it was. Todd noted ‘apples’ (93).

We were back to Bollinger again, and the 1961 Bollinger was outstanding. There was a bit of sweaty armpit in a nice way, along with shellfish shell ”“ there was this great musky, seared scallop thing happening. The palate had excellent definition, with fresh and lively citrus and vanilla flavors. It was leaning on the dry side with a pinch of sweetness, and had great lime flavors (95).

The next one was even better, also fresh, clean, sugary, edgy, floral and sexy. Its nose was also white meaty. There were decadent oil flavors, and a smoked, outdoor grill style to its flavors. Sweeter and more sugary than the 1961, the 1966 Bollinger was great. A ’66 versus ’61 debate broke out, and one of my fellow enthusiasts was in the ’61 camp, but conceded the ’66 was better now. Eddie preferred the ‘66 (96).

It was time for some red wine, and the first was Burgundy, of course. It had a fabulous Burgundy nose, sweet and tangy, full of hedonistic and musky fruit. Vibrant black cherry, gamy Burgundy essence permeated the nose and palate. Menthol was also all over the palate, and there were round, tea-like flavors, as in the Emperor’s tea. There were also beef bouillon and oil flavors and unreal garden goodness in this spectacular 1969 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze (97).

The next wine was also a Clos de Beze, this time being a 1976 Drouhin Chambertin Clos de Beze. Its nose was much more coy, tight and shy, with an oatmeal nose, along with rose and black chocolate. The palate was citrusy and dry with nice tannins. Clean and clear, it left a very good impression but was tough after the Rousseau (91).

Unfortunately, the 1976 Drouhin Musigny was oxidized (DQ).

It was back to Champagne, and the mini-streak of bad luck continued with a corked bottle of 1970 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. What a shame. There is no doubt that this bottle would have been in the 95+ category if it hadn’t been corked, but there was too much cork to deal at this stage (DQ).

Lucky number thirteen was a 1975 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. Its nose was sweaty, with good animal aromas. It had a nice edge to its very, very dry personality. Strawberry flavors emerged, but overall it was too dry. It did have nice length, and hints of unsweetened marzipan emerged. The sushi brought some life out of it and some bready goodness, but I wanted more from it (92).

The 1979 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises finally lived up to its reputation. As Eddie succinctly put it, ‘Now that’s an f’in wine ”“ really good mousse.’ Big Boy hailed it as ‘great.’ Its nose was incredible ”“ sweet and wide with the bread and meat of a perfect calzone, made with whole wheat and grilled. There was also this ginger snap edge to the ’79, whose crazy complexity and razor-like greatness combined for an intensity unmatched by any other Champagne on this evening. Bready, yeasty edgy, long and full of straw flavors, it continued to get better you better you bet (97).

The next bubbly was very oaky, over the top with its oaky, baked oak. The palate was so thick and meaty, though, it made me want to forgive. Its texture and length were monumental, but the oak was tough to get past. So damn thick but too damn oaky are pretty much the remainder of my notes on this 1979 Krug Clos du Mesnil (95+?).

The VVF’s continued with a 1980 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises, which was dusty, almost spicy in a wintry way. There were nice vanilla notes, but also a hint of alley in the morning, freshly hosed. Nice freshness, nice sprite and nice length made up for a nice wine, simple but nice. I guess it was the vintage (91).

The 1981 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was a bit rubbery at first, Eddie was liking it, but Big Boy found it ‘good but a little empty.’ It opened up to reveal honey, marmalade and quince aromas and flavors, with the flavors adding an orange hue to the overall picture. It kept getting better and better. Big Boy then confessed that he was smoking crack, and a lifelong addict lol (95+).

The 1982 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was peculiar, with a rubber tire nose and a rubber tire, super dry palate. It tasted like it should be great, but just wasn’t (92+?).

Eddie pulled a couple wines out of his bag to break up the Champagne, and it was perfect timing. The first had an intoxicating nose that was smoky, sweet and sappy. Aromas of mesquite and a wood-burning grill along with an exotic perfume graced its nose. There were also great forest and cedar nuances in its fantastic nose. The palate was super ”“ balanced, long and with great stalk and good earth flavors. It was evidently good real estate, and this 1964 Richebourg got oilier and sweeter (95).

The next red courtesy of Eddie had an earthy, gamy nose that had great meat to it. The flavors were more tender with sour cherry notes along with carob and citrus. The menthol and mesquite were admirable, but it was soft in the mouth overall, still excellent. It was a 1969 La Tache, which some preferred to the ‘64. I just felt like saying, ‘Eddif2f2f2f2f2f2f2f2f2e’ (93).

The 1991 Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze had a spiny edge with great spice and an easy personality. Meat and blood spilled out of the glass (93).

It was back to Champagne with a great nose, spritely, fresh and special with white meats and fruits. Tangy and citrusy in the mouth, this 1985 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was sexy juice (95).

The 1986 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises was taut and citrusy, with a great centerpoint, and corn and butter flavors in a margarine way (93).

Words were starting to allude me as we neared wine number twenty-five, as you can see by my concise notes. The trend continued, as my notes for the 1989 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises read, ‘bready, toasty, corny”¦so fresh and young”¦super fresh”¦super young fresh.’ I think that about sums it up, other than the fact that the ’89 was a monster, one of the wines of the night, just so young and wound that I felt we were disturbing it (97).

We ventured into Bordeaux with a gravelly and smoky nose full of rich tobacco and meat aromas. Cassis, caramel and dank, dark fruit also emerged. Edgy and delicious came to mind as I sampled its rich tobacco flavors. It was round and tasty, balanced like well-managed bank accounts. Are there any of those left out there? Some tootsie pop flavors signified Pomerol, and it was an outstanding bottle of 1947 Latour a Pomerol (95).

The 1945 La Mission Haut Brion showed lots more animal and barn, very gamy and earthy, but softer overall. It did gain in the glass to reveal more game, hay, earth and animal, but was still shy in the company of the Latour a Pomerol (93+).

We had another incredible Burgundy that was meaty and gamy with rose, oil, iron, animal and animal fat. Rich, meaty, delicious was all that was needed to describe the “19?? Je ne sais quoi.” Sorry, I forgot to write down what it was, and was waiting on an update there from the King as of press time”¦it was (95), whatever it was 🙂 .

The 1964 Romanee Conti was also great. I even conceded the notes were over, but ‘this is the shit.’ It also got a ‘yum yum deeeelish.’ It was party-time (95+).

Well, I thought the notes were over, but the next wine gave me one last surge of strength and invigorated me. ‘Killerrrr,’ was how the note began, with a few more r’s in there. ‘Wowowow,’ was next. Smelling this wine was like walking into a royal garden, full of intensity and energy. Despite being so old, it still had remarkable acidity and great richness. Its intensity and spice were noteworthy. I couldn’t even drink the ’45 La Mission after having one sip of the 1906 La Tache. It was an earth-shaker (97).

There were a couple more bottles, a 1952 Bouchard Musigny (91) and a 1969 Marey-Monge Romanee St. Vivant (93), but the night truly ended with the 1906. What a wine, and what a night. Since the King’s secret hideaway is basically on the West Virginia border, a flock of Manhattanhites including me flew out of there in a hurry, as it was really late already. Not much was said on the trip back except ‘Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.’

Last night, New York City’s wine version of the Usual Suspects got together at a secret location to drink and be merry. A kickoff to the holiday season, it all started so innocently, with Bad Boy Bruce checking in with the King, and then it quickly blossomed into something that everyone could fit into their schedule. I happily sampled generous portions of seventeen wines in all, including a grandest of a finale. Many were magnums, and I was glad not to see the usual 25-30 wines since it was only Tuesday, after all.

Champagne dominated the evening, as many Bubblephiles were in the house. Consider me one of them. It was also a Clos des Goisses first quarter, with four magnums going back that spanned a quarter-century. We began with the 1976.

The 1976 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was disgorged in March 2002. All the Clos des Goisses we had were late disgorgements, and done very well. There was great toast in the ‘76’s nose, with a touch of Flintstone vitamins, more bread and ultimately caramel and quince. It was delightfully complex in the nose, but the palate could not keep pace. While smooth and fresh, the ’76 was also simple, solid and easy to appreciate but not as great as I was hoping. Gamy quince and wheat flavors rounded out this very good magnum (92M).

The 1966 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was grassier in its first impression, with similar cracked wheat and now rye crisp aromas. Jo observed its ‘nice mushroomy quality.’ The ’66 was much fuller-bodied, displaying more definition and flavors than the ’76. Much more. There was also great length to this superb Champagne. Edges of white chocolate danced in and out, and its great, earthy finish displayed some dirty goodness. The ’66 was disgorged in November of 2000. He shoots, he scores (95M).

We had a red wine intermezzo, a good thing when a magnum of 1971 Vogue Bonnes Mares. There were nice aromatics, with game, cherry, truffles, earth, bitters and a touch of limy kink to its citric sides. Round, tender, smooth yet still vigorous, it was a nice magnum but I wanted a little more from it (93M).

A small debate began after the 1964 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was served, that being 1964 vs 1966, both specifically and in general. While specifically could have gone either way, in general the answer is 1966, which is not to take away from 1964. The ’64 was disgorged in November 2004 and was very clean with aromas of straw, hay, earth, grass and game. The grass and game really came out on the flavors, along with wild garden ones. Nice acidity and length played right into its ‘stonier’ personality. Elegant, easy, classy and long, the 1964 had everything going for it, but I did prefer the 1966. King Angry and Big Boy were leaning towards the ’64 (94M).

The 1953 Philipponat Clos des Goisses was the finest of our four magnums of Goisses. Its nose was full of wafers with a vanilla sex appeal and drops of honey. Wendy, aka the Angry Chick, cooed, ‘this is why we drink Champagne.’ There was this Wheaties goodness about the ’53, as if health benefits could be derived from drinking it. Its acidity was great, the greatest so far, and its vivacious citrus flavors were impressive. The ’53 stayed light on its feet, in an Ali way (96M).

Time for another red, this time a magnum of 1964 Clair Dau Bonnes Mares. The magnum of Clair Dau had a spectacular nose, dripping with sweet, decadent cherry fruit along with animal, olive, forest and mint. Jo called it ‘sensational.’ Its sweetness became nutty and meaty. The palate possessed flavors of oatmeal, brown sugar, iron and meat on the grill juice. It was round, tasty and sexy, plentiful and flirting with outstanding territory, but ultimately softening like the beginning of a setting sun. The Vogue was more silky and satiny, but the Clair Dau made one think more (94+M).

A magnum of 1975 Bollinger RD was super sweet in its aromatics with a candy corn-like complexity. Thick, lush, creamy and sweet, the Bolly had a good finish and was a better show than many expected. There was nice sprite to its personality and tasty sasparilla flavors. The ’75 still had good bones (93M).

I noted how times must be tough, because it was 10:45pm and we had only had seven wines. In 2007, we would have been up to twenty by now lol. Big Boy then made his own version of social commentary when he relayed that someone told him this past week that he looked like a million bucks, to which he replied, ‘My friend, times are bad, but they’re not that bad.’

And they were not, as next up was a killer bottle of 1990 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. courtesy of the Duke. The Ponsot was spot on, with an incredible and concentrated nose of crushed black and blue fruits. It was menthol city, with delicious mint chocolate flavors and a monstrous personality. Crazy thick and rich, the Ponsot also had an explosive finish that said, ‘see me in 2030’ (97+).

A magnum of original 1961 Bollinger was a touch advanced, very wine-like with wood notes. The palate was honeyed, nutty, round and buttery with apple edges. It was excellent, but should have been better and had lost most of its fizz (93A-M).

A magnum of 1964 Ayala was ‘diesely’ per Airplane Eddie, and very fresh as it was recently disgorged. Rich, vitamin and hearty, the ’64 was excellent but quickly an afterthought (93M).

A very rare bottle of 1966 Billecart Salmon Blanc de Blancs had a stony nose, quite hearty and sturdy with descriptors such as long, big, powerful, ‘heft’ (Patman), rich and killerrr. Its flavors were rich and full of vanilla, delicious despite a woodsy streak. Its full-bodied sweetness was most impressive (95).

The Billecart was followed by another, this time the 1966 Billecart Salmon Cuvee Nicolas Francois. The color was a bit dark, so there was some initial trepidation, but the N.F. was outstanding. Aromas of marshmallow, caramel and diesel all came from the crowd. Flavors of anise and honeypot graced this rich, thick and long Champagne, which displayed nectar-like qualities. It was lip-smackingly good with a huge finish, displaying ‘far more muscle’ per Bob. Additional flavors of white chocolate rounded out this killer Champagne (95+).

The 1966 Krug quickly bumped the Billecarts to the back. It was a perfect bottle. ‘Far and away the best,’ seemed to be an initial consensus. It had the signature, old Krug vanilla cream sex appeal, and its structure was nothing less than incredible. Even Eddie gave it a ‘quite good,’ which really means something coming from Eddie! Gentleman Jim appreciated its ‘youthful’ nature, and this serious Champagne had so much power it was flirting with being out of control. Its searing intensity called everyone to attention, and its long, spiny and crushing personality dominated the room. White berry and white truffle flavors developed. Big boy hailed, ‘there’s this and then everything else,’ in a way which made it sound like Old Milwaukee lol, but it certainly was the truth (98).

A 1966 Salon was a worthy follow-up to the Krug, with its big, saucy nose. I wrote ‘rich’ three times in my notes, and it also had vanilla, butter and cream components. ‘Awesome, long, creamy and rich,’ (make that four times). That about summed it up at this point (96).
Somehow, a 1976 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne slipped into the mix before the grand finale. It had been rated 99 points by Richard Juhlin apparently, but this bottle was not that one. It did have the signature C de C butterscotch aromas. Rich, buttery and all-around excellent, it just wansn’t spectacular (94).

Actually, there was another bubbly before the grand finale, a 1921 Moet. The Moet had a sweet nose, like a sugar stick, but also with the vanilla cream. It was wine-like but still buttery and rich, tasty and delicious, round and lush (93).

Last and certainly not least was a spectacular bottle of 1923 Romanee Conti. It was everything one could hope for from a great, old Conti. The haunting bouquet of old, wilting roses, grilled meat, old book, Worcestershire, leather, tender cherry fruit, animal”¦the nose kept going and going, literally haunting the whole room. It still had tremendous concentration and noticeable acidity that was strong enough to carry the kaleidoscopic spectrum of aromas and flavors. It was well worth the extra hour Big Boy made us wait for it as he lectured the night away (98).

I had to run for the hills. I think it was already after 1:30AM.

I would like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. If you read this far, then I know you will be drinking some good shtuff 🙂

May all your wines be memorable.

My recent trip to Asia before my next trip to Asia (in two weeks) found me in Korea, and as I usually find myself, surrounded by a significant quantity of fine wines. This particular evening was all about Bordeaux, 1995 vs. 1996 First Growths, to be exact. It was a great mix of people, mainly young professionals very eager to taste these distinguished wines, and very eager for Korea to lower its somewhat prohibitive tax on wine.

We started with the Haut Brions, and the 1996 Haut Brion had a fresh, waxy nose, spiny and full of cassis, tobacco and nut, but wax was the dominant aroma. A pinch of green bean and a hint of chocolate rounded out the nose. The palate had lots of tobacco flavors with a hint of banana split, very dry but lighter than I expected. There were nice cherry traces on its finish, and solid earthy flavors. Its acidity was also solid, but the body was definitely light and its dryness a bit out of balance. It was still excellent, a clean and jerk type of wine, still with upside potential but definitely not an elite Haut Brion (93+).

The 1995 Haut Brion was much more cotton-candied in its nose, sweet and fragrant with a touch of pruny goodness. There was also wax, and earth and dust joined the party. The palate was more balanced, also with tobacco flavors and an earthy dryness, but better balanced with its cherry fruit and gamy flavors. At first, I preferred the 1995, but ultimately gave a slight edge to the 1996. It would be a recurring theme (93).

The 1996 Latour had a much deeper nose than either of the Haut Brions, brooding but also a bit horsey at first. There were pencil and black fruits behind that and a touch of toll house. The palate was big yet refined, with laser-like acidity yet still full of finesse. There were nice chalky flavors on its finish, along with animal and tobacco flavors. Someone with their Palm Parker out hailed it as ‘near-perfect’ lol. It got szechuany in the nose, losing its animal and green edges to become just what Goldilocks ordered (96+).

The 1995 Latour was rounder and more honeyed in its nose, with touches of cola and a hint of syrupy sweetness. It was perfumed in an angel food cake way. The palate was sturdy and rugged, also leathery and big overall. There were stewed flavors of black cherry and cola, and its stewed qualities were those of beefy goodness. However, the 1995 did lose a step in the glass compared to the 1996 (94).

The 1996 Mouton Rothschild was spiny and waxy, a la the Haut Brion. There was also plenty of cassis, or this black, perfumed fruit. ‘Chocopuffy’ was a new word that came to mind. Carob and caramel were also here in a ‘Milky Way’ way. The palate was very spiny and waxy as well; the acidity really stood out. Excellent flavors of cassis, dry blueberry, earth and leather were complemented by a hint of green. The wine stayed spiny, but it also got greener (94+).

The 1995 Mouton Rothschild was a bit Caliesque like a great Screamer. It was rich, lush and creamy with nice spice and exotic truffles and candied something. Powder also came to mind. There were delicious coffee flavors with the griiind, and the palate was rich upfront but soft on the backside. There were excellent flavors with nice roasted edges. I finally wrote that 1995s were better now, but that 1996s were better long term, although the Mouton ended up being a dead heat (94+).

The 1996 Lafite Rothschild left no doubt as to who was in charge, at least up until now. It was a lean, mean fighting machine! It was waxy and spiny like the other 1996s, but also elegant city. There was pungent anise to go with emerging cassis and nut aromas. Lit kindling and cedar joined the party in secondary fashion. The palate was super rich ”“ finally a 1996 with upfront density! It was not only rich, but also big and thick in the mouth, and its acidity was clearly the best of the bunch, so fine yet so sharp, as in ‘on point.’ There were green flashes like lantern, and its finish was precise, linear and singular in its greatness (97+).

The 1995 Lafite Rothschild had a tough act to follow. Its nose was one of baked chocolate croissant and deep cassis and plum. It still had a meaty nose, full of iron and more chocolate, yet it still retained a perfumed-like elegance. The palate was softer and more caressing, and the finish left a soft impression as well. The 1995 was a bit ‘lite,’ especially after the 1996, dry and a touch out of balance like the Haut Brion, still excellent but not as special after the 1996 (93).

Our last pair was Margaux, beginning with the 1996 Margaux. The Margaux nose was super sexy, jumping out of the glass with its candied edge, almost like a root beer float without the root beer. Make that an ice cream soda, that’s what it was, black ‘n white with a little egg cream. The nose was toasty, spicy and spiny, full of coffee, nut and leather aromas, with enough t ‘n a for an S & M dungeon. The palate was thick and long with great acidity, and flavor and aromas of beef bouillon complicated matters in this complex wine (97).

The 1995 Margaux was the best 1995 with its honeyed and caramel nose that was rich, meaty and sexy. A whiff of wood, mainly cedar, rounded it out. The palate was full of roasted cassis flavors and length. Interestingly enough, the 1995 was already throwing a ton of sediment (95).

It was back to the USA, where I would be quite busy at night for the next couple weeks”¦