Every December, Bipin makes an annual pilgrimage to Bordeaux to taste its newest vintage, see some old friends, and taste some older wines, too, of course. One cannot live off of new releases alone. Bipin likes to avoid the crush of April when most people rush to Bordeaux to taste the newest vintage and also prefers to taste the wines after they have settled in the bottle a bit. During our week in Bordeaux (which actually included three nights in Paris), I was able to taste 133 wines, and I will try to share all these notes with you over the course of the next few weeks. Maybe I can actually finish telling the tale of a complete journey for once!

I have gone with Bipin each of the past three years, and every year Bipin holds a dinner at Chateau Lafite Rothschild called ‘Bipin’s Thanksgiving.’ Basically, Lafite opens up the Chateau for Bipin and his guests; there are not too many people in this world who can say that! Bipin’s entourage always includes his best friend Wolfgang, a couple of US friends (myself included), a who’s who of Bordeaux winemakers, owners and property managers, as well as a significant wine personality from a region outside of Bordeaux. Last year, it was Egon Muller, and this year it was Pablo Alvarez from Vega Sicilia. Bipin likes to ‘educate’ some of his Bordelais friends that there are, indeed, wines from other parts of the world, although it is not easy to convince the Bordelais that!

Besides Pablo, the guest list included Anthony Barton (of Leoville Barton), Herve Berland (of Mouton), Jean-Michel Cazes (of Lynch Bages), Charles Chevalier (of Lafite), Alexandre de Lur Saluces (formerly of d’Yquem), Jean-Bernard Delmas (of Montrose but formerly of Haut Brion for decades), Thierry Manoncourt (of Figeac), Jean-Francois Moueix (of the Moueix family), Paul Pontallier (of Margaux), Jean-Guillaume Prats (of Cos d’Estournel) and Christophe Salin (also of Lafite). As you can see, it was an A-list crowd, and the red carpet of Lafite had been rolled out in grand fashion for Bipin once again.

This was actually my third night of the trip, but I have chosen to start the week’s story here. While we tasted many 2006s throughout the week, this evening was more par for my course and one of the more dramatic, vintage wine affairs of the week.

After a cocktail reception of addictive cheese puffs and remarkably delicious NV Pol Roger Brut, we sat down to a first course, which was accompanied by a flight of 1967 Sauternes. I am not a big sweet wine drinker (I find the sugar too much for my body), but Bipin insisted on the foie gras/Sauternes combination for the first flight, and I was reminded how good a culinary combination that can be. By the way, I put on about ten pounds this trip; six hours of eating and drinking each day is not easy!

The first Sauternes was a 1967 Chateau Gillete Crème de Tete. Bipin shared how the Gillete was actually ‘aged in cement, and Prats remarked how it ‘smells of a dirty, old cellar.’ Aromas of honey, honeycomb, candle wax, dates and waxy, dried peach and apricot fruit graced its complex nose. There was medium body and sweetness here, along with more candle wax flavors. It had a smooth, nutty finish and seemed mature. There were touches of secondary underarm aromas, and the wine was a bit minerally and ceramic on its finish. Delmas found that it did not have ‘the usual aromas of Sauternes.’ Barton called it ‘against the rules,’ and Chevalier commented that Gilette just bottled their ’86 recently. Prats wondered how they made their wines and whether it was a ‘solera system’ or if they just smothered it with sulfur (92).

The 1967 Rieussec was served out of magnum, a treasure from the cellars of Lafite. There was more orange blossom and a nuttier nose, but also similar candle wax aromas. The palate was richer and more honeyed, lush with a nice sparkle of acidity and bready flavors on its finish. There were secondary aromas of interior mahogany, and its acidity really stood out (94M).

The 1967 Suduiraut had a honeyed nose with aromas of bread crusts and oranges. Its palate was denser and thicker than the Rieussec’s, but its finish was a bit bitter in this brawny Sauternes. Apricot flavors emerged along with earth, nut and cement ones as well (93).

Last and certainly not least in this flight was the legendary 1967 d’Yquem. Bipin remarked after one smell, ‘Yquem is Yquem.’ It had the most complex and exotic nose, honeyed of course, but also possessed marzipan, grilled nuts, crème brulee and musk. Its long and delicious palate was full of apricot, nut and apple flavors. Bipin continued that it was ‘very round like a Pomerol.’ It was clearly ahead of the pack, seemingly mature but still possessing hidden acidity. Candle wax flavors emerged in this very fine and slinky Yquem. Charles Chevalier commented how 2007 was going to be a great Sauternes year, by the way (96).

1996 Krug was Bipin’s version of a palate cleanser, and Bipin shared how Remy told him that his father found 1996 to be similar to 1928”¦high praise, indeed. Its nose was very racy and full of complexity, possessing aromas of citrus, bright seltzer, hay, straw, even stable and yellow fruits. The palate was racy, zippy, citrusy and long. Buttery aromas developed, and its acidity really took over in the glass (96+).

It was on to the Burgundies, as Bipin always loves to make his Bordelais friends ‘endure’ a flight of Burgundies. This year’s flight was comprised of 1990s, beginning with a 1990 Roumier Bonnes Mares. The Roumier was a bit peanutty at first with a szechuan edge. There was also a touch of stems in this meaty and gamy wine. Musk, fireplace and rust slowly emerged. There was a lot of animal present, and I had flashes of Burghound 1990 ‘stew’ right before my very nose. The palate was more classic, however, rich and still possessing animal flavors but also vitamin ones. The wine did seem a touch autumnal and was soft and tender yet still meaty. Wolfgang was smitten, citing ‘no faults.’ In time, brown spices, chicken bouillon, citrus and strawberry emerged; the wine actually freshened up in the glass (95).

The 1990 Jadot Chambertin Clos de Beze had a seemingly fresher nose with lots of vitamins and a foresty complexity. There were edges of musk and pheremones, a bit of tangy in those regards, and a touch of salty iron. The palate was polished, soft and smooth, with flavors of beef, earth and even a bit of diet cola. It had an easy yet long finish, and I was surprised how polished it was, although there was still some nice grit (93).

The rare 1990 Leroy Musigny had that Leroy kink ”“ the beef, cedar, pine, bouillon, leather, band-aid and cement. Double your wood and double your pleasure lol. It was also polished, but it had a lot of spice, and the best acidity of the flight so far. Vanilla, wood and cement flavors were present. There was that cedary pop to its finish that Leroys often have, along with more menthol in time. Prats and Delmas admired the Leroy, one calling it ‘plus elegant et aromatique.’ Given the miniscule quantity and lofty price tag of this wine, I was a tad disappointed, as I have been more often than not with 1990 for Leroy (94+).

The 1990 Richebourg was a grand finale to this flight. Great stem aromas jumped out right away. Secondary aromas of iron, menthol, cedar and red, wintry fruits soon followed. The palate had the most pop and t ‘n a. Its finish was superb, its acidity clearly lasting longer than any of the others. There was no ‘1990 disease’ here, and its great, stemmy aromas carried over to the palate (96+).
Wolfgang was asked to speak of this flight and summed it up, ‘I am married to Bordeaux, but my mistress is Burgundy.’

It was time for Unico to shine, and seven decades of Unico were on tap, direct from the cellars of Vega Sicilia, where none of the wines have been reconditioned. We began with the 1974 Vega Sicilia Unico. That cream soda, caramel style of Unico immediately stood out. The nose had this chocolate sex appeal in a mocha latte way. While soft, the nose of the 1974 was still firmly upright. Its palate was tender with nice, citrusy spice and a great, leathery finish. There was a touch of that Vega (Spanish perhaps?) egg there, but in a good way, with a truffle on top. Polished, smooth and sexy, the 1974 Unico announced to the room that while we were no longer in France, we were still in the presence of greatness (93).

The 1962 Unico had a similar nose yet nuttier and more intense. Its caramel aromas seemed hand-made by David Bouley versus the ‘Kraft’ of the 1974. And I love Kraft caramels, so don’t misinterpret! There was a morning sunshine quality to the wine, this oatmeal, grits and whey thing, with a pat of butter, all drenched in more caramel. There were flavors of both chocolate and caramel and a rich mouthfeel to the ’62, which was still light on its feet. Polished like a fine jewel, there was amazing freshness and concentration to the ’62, whose acidity was still very ‘high,’ as Delmas observed. Citrus came out on its finish (95).

The 1953 Unico has always been one of my favorite Unicos, and this bottle was no different. It was again a sex bomb of chocolate-covered espresso beans, as it always has been for me. There was also a touch of cherry cola and the appeal of a high-class stable with hay, wood and animal all in the best of ways. Complex and sexy, it had great milkshake flavors along with dust, citrus and sour (in a good way) cherry. This was a beautiful wine, also with superb acidity, so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised to see this wine last another fifty years; it even outlasted the ’62 and continued to flex and squeeze by the end of the evening (97).

The 1942 Unico showed us how the level of complexity increases with age for Unico. Each of the first four Unicos were so similar that this flight was like watching a flower blossom over the course of an entire Spring season. In the ’42, the coffee qualities took a decadent, liqueur-like edge, and it had rich, toffee-like qualities. Delmas preferred the younger pair in this first flight, finding the older pair a bit dry. I couldn’t help but wonder if those that make (and review) wines are more partial to younger wines since circumstance dictates that that is with what they are most familiar. The flavors were more coffee, and garden joined the party, and again the sweetness and acidity stood out. Cracked white pepper emerged with time in this also stellar Unico (96).

I was asked to speak about this flight, and besides briefly sharing the above notes with the esteemed crowd, I made a point of reminding everyone how fresh these wines were despite the fact that they had never been reconditioned, and I urged everyone (who has not already) to stop the practice. Whether or not my words fell on deaf ears, I cannot answer, but at least I tried to share my own personal philosophy with this ‘who’s who’ of Bordeaux.

The second flight of Unicos actually began with the yet-to-be-released 2004 Vega Sicilia Valbuena, which was quite tough to drink after those great, old Unicos. It was very Burgundian in style; in fact, I probably would have guessed Burgundy if served it blind! Pablo was adamant about pointing out that this wasn’t a second wine but rather another style from Vega Sicilia (90+).

The also yet-to-be-released 2000 Unico was very black peppery in the nose, possessing great t ‘n a as well as touches of chocolate. It reminded me of a Guigal single-vineyard Cote Rotie with its dense purple fruit, kisses of bacon and white and black pepper. This was actually the first public tasting of this wine, which is ‘not for sale until 2010!’ Pablo exclaimed. There was indubitably great raw material here; its acidity and minerality were exquisite. Curiously, I guess I must have been feeling frisky, I wrote, ‘I will not rate this wine since it is three years prior to release, and I don’t want to get arrested lol.’

The 1994 Unico, a wine that has been heating up at auction recently, had an amazing nose. It had a summit-like quality of Burgundy, Spain and Bordeaux coming together for some sort of agreement about universal greatness in wine. Its violety and vitaminy fruit had great pitch; there was sexy musk and a touch of nut as well. This wine was a veritable ‘Purple Rain,’ complete with Apollonia, of course. The palate was taut and so young, so Burgundian in style. There were touches of cigar around its edges. Drinking this wine still seemed like taking a teenager on a date, so again thoughts of imprisonment for drinking a wine at too early an age crossed my mind :). The 1994 did have great verve and pitch and will be sure to climb my point ladder in time, but for now it remains at its best in the cellar, aging slowly and surely (95+).

Our final decade of Unico was represented by the 1989 Unico. The nose was peppery again, but there was more of a leathery kink here, and one could finally start to see again more of the classic typicity of Unico. Though dominated by pepper, the wine still had that caramel flesh and was just starting to show itself. ‘Fitting that the wine would be eighteen years old,’ I playfully wrote. Prats found ‘a touch too much oak’ in the ’89, but there was still nice spice, citrus and acidity here (93).

The Bordelais grilled Pablo at the end of this second flight, and he held hisground admirably, sharing many facts about his proud Bodega. Some left impressed, but I could tell that others were not certain this wine should be mentioned in the same breath as some of Bordeaux’s greatest clarets. To me, there is no doubt that it is as good a wine as there is in the world once it has reached a certain maturity level.

There were a couple of Tokays at the end, from Hungary, actually owned by Vega Sicilia. I had had enough sweet wines for the night, so I will end on a comment from the legendary Jean Delmas, who remarked how everything is getting sweeter; wine, food, everything, and that was not good for our health! A spoonful of sugar does not always help the medicine go down.

This past Saturday night saw me back from the frying pan we had cookin’ in Hotlanta yet right into the fire of New York City, where I had a small gathering with a significant client and how to manage his cellar better in 2008.

The most important details to work out were what to drink, and the wine list at Veritas is always a good place to begin. Both being the Champagne lovers that we are, 1990 Cristal was the aperitif of choice. I have been drinking a lot of Cristal recently, which is always a sign of a good holiday season. The 1990 was gorgeous, although a touch sweet. It had lots of yellow fruits, golden raisins and a spoonful of sugar that was right on the border of acceptable but didn’t cross it. An overall toasty and nutty personality encased this tasty and hedonistic bubbly, which still retained the hallmark Cristal elegance. Rich, warm, approachable yet still fresh and ascending, I found this to be another excellent Cristal but felt more impressed by recent ‘89s and ‘96s (95).

1983 Roumier Musigny? Sure, why not? The wine was so forward from the word go, revealing waves of sweet and open fruit. There was the full spectrum of black, red and purple; all the elements of a wine rainbow. What impressed me most here was the sweetness and perfume, and the chewy quality of the aromatics. It was another top ’83 that was drinking beautifully. It was definitely fully mature, as all qualities of its finish had melted away and integrated completely into its wealth of fruit. Also sweet on the palate, and fleshy to match without being heavy, this was a ‘love me tender’ wine that still had a lot to say although certainly at its best. Mark concurred that while it was on the border of 5-star territory (95-6 points), it did not have the staying power to merit that status. I guess the Moose could have used some Wine-agra lol (94).

We plucked a half-bottle of 1985 Ponsot Clos de la Roche V.V. to go with the last course, and it was a staggering experience and one of the better Ponsot memories to go on file. The wine was so thick and oily in the nose; it was like concentrate of Burgundy. There were amazing dank and fresh aromas at the same time. The Ponsot was saucy and meaty yet fresh and full of plum, cassis and black cherry fruit, all thick and dripping in that concentrated fashion. Still fresh and racy, ‘full of vim and vigor’ as Mark added, it was an eye-opening bottle ”“ make that half-bottle, which made it all the more impressive. I do not remember having a bottle of Burgundy that was both this concentrated yet still retained a classic style beyond that fact. It is certainly one of the wines of the vintage along with the Meo Richebourg and Henri Jayer wines (take your personal pick or two) (97).

We somehow got pulled over at the bar on our way out, where Mark insisted on buying a 1985 Grivot Richebourg. I was starting to stumble at this point, and I had already missed the first half of the Giants-Patriots game, so I didn’t exactly give this wine an ocean of time. Mark later told me that it opened up after I left, but its impression right away was not an impressive one. It seemed a bit lost in the glass, not displaying much except the remnants of a healthy use of oak, and an overall beefy personality without the sauce or sides. While I found it to be confused and one-dimensional, ‘Mark noted its underlying power and floral qualities,’ putting it in 4-star territory (93-4 points). Either the wine had too much toast for me, or I was toast, and my rating is giving it the side of the coin where benefit of the doubt lies (90).

New York, New York, it’s a heckuva place”¦

I recently found myself in Atlanta, a city I have not been to in a few years. I can safely say that fine wine is alive and well in Atlanta after an impromptu get-together with some of its finest collectors, who treated me to many gems from their plentiful cellars.

We gathered at Eugene’s, recommended dining for those of you in the area, and started off with a delicious magnum of 1988 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill, which was in a great spot. Toasty and smoky with vanilla and white chocolate aromas, the ’88 was smooth yet long, tasty and balanced. There were great earth flavors and spritz along with some caramel sex appeal in this delightful magnum (94M).

A trio of young Chablis helped wet our whistles, beginning with a funky 2000 Raveneau Chablis Butteaux. Dasha noted its ‘very tropical’ personality. It was smoky at first, and so gamy that I wondered if this bottle had been affected at all. There was a lot of toast, anise and animal in the nose, but classic citrus on the palate. It had this ‘apple juice’ quality per Dasha, and despite some nice spice, the Butteaux really lost itself in the glass soon and gave way to its animal and gamy traits, a bit too much so (88?).

The 2000 Dauvissat Chablis ‘La Forest’ was cleaner, possessing more anise in the nose, pungent, rocky, minerally and more classic. There were nice citric dust flavors and lots of rocks, ‘so much minerals and flinty,’ as Joel added (90).

The 2002 Fevre Chablis Les Clos was ‘so vanilla compared to the other two,’ and its use of more oak was noticeable but not overbearing. It had more musk to its nose as a result, also having some game and vanilla. Toasty and tasty with musk and animal flavors, the Clos had smokier flavors and a bigger finish, perhaps driven by its terroir advantage (91).
br>A pair of Haut Brion Blancs was next courtesy of Wild Bill, Atlanta’s personal wine sheriff, ensuring that great wines will always be served in his part of town! The 1982 Haut Brion Blanc had a complex, almost wild nose, full of glue and exotic wood aromas. Game, anise, smoke and honey-glazed fruit rounded out the nose. The wine was round and smooth in the mouth, showing mainly glue flavors but also a dry, long, citrusy finish. There was still very good acidity left in this dry and austere white, which someone likened to a ‘Bacardi’ of a wine, while Joel found it ‘Sauternes-like”¦unsugared’ (90).

The 1985 Haut Brion Blanc was clearly a step up from the 1982, gamier and meatier and possessing aromas of sunny yellow fruits and golden raisins in its sweet and creamy nose. There was also a fabulous toasty quality to its aromatics that passed over to its palate, which was smoky as well and had more glue flavors. Its acidity gained in the glass, and this long and stylish white also gained straw flavors and nice spice and pop to its finish. Bill, a self-proclaimed Burgundy lover, was asked if he was ok with this Bordeaux stuff, to which he playfully replied, ‘it’s an honorary vegetable’ lol (94).

There was one more white Bordeaux, an intriguing 1976 Laville Haut Brion. The Laville had a distinctly Sauternes nose, very sweet, nutty and apricoty, giving an almost sweet wine impression aromatically. The palate was much drier, gamier and possessed high acid. Tasty and long, there was still light grit to this pleasant ’76 (90).

The whites continued with a trio of Burgundies, beginning with the 1969 Leroy Meursault Perrieres, which brought up the age-old Leroy question, ‘What is it?’ It had a great nose for a 40 year-old Sauvignon Blanc. There were many redeeming qualities, including nice acid, citrus, vigor and cat’s pee (which I find in many late release Leroy whites). I liked the wine, and found it to be very good, but if that was a forty-year old white wine, then I am a twenty-one year old stud quarterback (91?).

The 1989 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne had an exotic nose with aromas of foie gras ice cream, if you have ever had such a thing. It had this sweet delicacy, as well as great perfume and an open-wide personality. This secondary, mushroomy complexity was great as well. The palate was long and citrusy with nice dust flavors, delicious and round and morphing into crème brulee with time in the glass. Marzipan joined the party over time as the wine softened like Bounce (93).

The 1991 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne was only a step behind the 1989, which was surprising given the perceived disparity between the two vintages for white Burgundies. The ’91 had a smoky coconut nose, still fresh up front and nice in the back, too. There was dust, leather and spice to its finish, and Dasha admired its ‘coffee’ and found it to be her favorite of the flight (92).

Bill took it to a whole new level with a spectacular bottle of 1949 Cheval Blanc, the first time he had had two Bordeaux side by side in approximately ten years lol. Cedar jumped out of its nose, as well as amazing meat, cherry dust, minerals and an impression of a snow-capped mountain. The nose continued to unfold with nutmeg, chocolate and motor oil. Sprinkles of vitamins and sugar developed, but its nuttiness was what took over ”“ a full range of all nut types, in fact. In the mouth, the Cheval was rich and tasty, full of old book and carob flavors. Bob noted, ‘cigar box, licorice and strength,’ and its acidity was extreme sports, indeed (96).

The 1955 Haut Brion that followed was a good bottle but still disappointing in the context of previous bottles tasted. It was a touch oakier and smokier than the Cheval, intense with its ‘BBQ’ action, but a bit too oaky and also a touch under-ripe and slightly herbal with its bell pepper. The undercurrant of its entire personality was green, although Joel defended its richness. Candle wax, tobacco and band-aid flavors were all present in this ’55, which showed more and more mesquite but never quite enough fruit (92).

The 1975 La Mission Haut Brion also had this mesquite/BBQ edge. Vim and vigor jumped out after traveling forward in time twenty years. Punchy and expressive, its nose was full of gravel, tobacco and t ‘n a. Joel wasn’t crazy about the nose but was about the palate, which was a bit citrusy but still expressive and delicious. Someone questioned its saltiness, and it was salty but more so smoky with lots of earth, minerals and toast flavors. Dasha liked its ‘corn and grits’ qualities. It still is the South, after all! While it was not the best ’75 La Miss that I have had, it was still outstanding. Many have complained of a lot of variation with this wine, but this was about as variable as I have found it to be, and it was still (95).

Apparently Big Boy isn’t the only one who knows Champagne makes a great palate cleanser, as a delicious 1985 Dampierre Vintage Champagne followed. Its nose was one of white meat and bean soup, gamy and with a syrupy extra dimension. Flavors of marzipan were present on its yeasty and vitaminy palate. This was ‘taaaaaaastes great’ (93)!

It was time for some red Burgundy, beginning with a 1971 Latour Charmes Chambertin. I have always loved old Louis Latour Chambertins and RSVs, and this old Latour was earthy and oaty with aromas of brown sugar and Worcestershire. Its beefy flavors were accompanied by integrated acidity. Full of smokehouse flavors, this wine was oaty, brown sugary and ultimately still very good (90).

A 1949 Remoissenet Vosne Romanee Clos des Reas had a smoky nose with black and white (chocolate and vanilla) aromas and a simple palate, with bing cherry and citrus flavors. Easy and ok, it was nothing moving (88).

We were back to Jesus with a great bottle of 1971 Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes. There was incredible fruit to this ‘orgasmic’ bottle, per Richard. Its aromas made me salivate with its cherry, dust, leather, earth, bouillon, Worcestershire, citrus and beef Szechuan. Tangy and saucy, oily flavors of Dr. Brown’s celery soda, citrus and spicy beef were all present in this youthful wine, which later gave a baby food impression aromatically since it was so concentrated (96).

A 1983 L. Jayer Vosne Romanee Les Malconsorts was no slouch, either, delivering another great ’83 experience. The nose was more nutty with a stemmy edge and a crazy black cherry complexity. Corn stalk, syrup and spice flavors complemented its earth and leathery finish, which had a touch of cigar leaf on it (93).

A couple of whites refreshed the palate for one last flight of reds. The 1992 Remoissenet Montrachet was mature with aromas of yeast, smoke, toffee, nut and toast with simple banana peel flavors (88).

A 2000 Girardin Montrachet was smooth, buttery and Caliesque, smooth, nice and tasty for a Kistler lol (90).

A pair of RSV’s was last, beginning with a 1982 Romanee St. Vivant. The ’82 had a noticeably lighter color and that touch of ’82 stew like a soup kitchen. Earthy, dusty, gamy and toasty, its aromas became stewed cherries. Its palate was smooth, soft and round with still just a shred of semblance of support (90).

Finally was another ’83, the 1983 Romanee St. Vivant, which was minty, meaty, mentholy and ripe with its cherry fruit profile. Forward and sensuous, there were round flavors of cherry, dust and citrus, all a touch under-ripe but still very good (92).

And that is why they call Atlanta ‘Hotlanta.’

The stars had yet again aligned on New Year’s Eve, and the world’s greatest collector of Champagne had once again welcomed some of his closest friends and family for a spectacular evening of bubbles, bubbles and more bubbles. 2008 was already looking like a very good year thanks to Big Boy.

A flight of 1996s was on tap for the first quarter, and 1996 once again showed why it is a Champagne highlight reel in and unto itself, with all six sampled scoring 95 points or greater, aka 5 stars or more. It will go down in history as one of the greatest vintages ever for Champagne.

We started appropriately with an ambassador of sorts, the 1996 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill. It’s an ambassador not only due to the man after whom it was named, but also because it remains a great value (arguably greatest) for one of the Top Ten luxury cuvees made in Champagne. In fact, at a December dinner at Chateau Lafite, I was reminded how good even the regular non-vintage Pol Roger is when it was served before dinner. That, too, remains one of the great buys in bubbly, still less than $30 a bottle. The 1996 was a great way to start off the evening, delivering an outstanding experience from the word go. Its nose had picture perfect balance between its sweetness, fruit and structural components. Big Boy called it, ‘Krug-like with its green apples.’ Golden aromas showered over its minerally, slaty, racy and wound personality. BB kept harping on its ‘slaty’ qualities, also appreciating its ‘mid-palate depth.’ It did have that, flashing its fruit in the mouth like an Ali jab. There was great toast to this complex bubbly, but BB felt it was ‘missing the pitch and citricity of 6-star,’ though I countered that it was still a bit young for 6-star status, and that many wines need to blossom into that category. However, a couple of other bubblies would soon remind us that 6-star status is something that can come across even at a young age (95+).

The 1996 Krug was the third time I have had this recently released Champagne and the best of the three. Robert Bohr was all over its green apple right away. I was all over its vanilla cream, its earth and seemingly deeper, nuttier nose. Still fresh, of course, the Krug also had aromas of white meat, that green apple, oil and bread. It was really racy and popped in the mouth, more so than the Pol Roger, explosive and full of citrus flavors on its finish. The breed here was exemplary, as were its bread aromas and flavors. A regal finish rounded out this classic (96+).

We segued to a pair of Blanc de Noirs (100% Pinot Noir) , the pair of Blanc de Noirs, to be exact. The 1996 Billecart Salmon Clos St. Hilaire had a breadier, yeastier nose, much gamier and earthier than the previous two blends. Someone hastily said, ‘it’s walking the Krug,’ meaning it was showing better, but I found it closer qualitatively despite the obvious stylistic differences. Its finish was also explosive and full of earth, breed and length. King Angry Ray noted, ‘the fruit is so pure, you don’t even notice the lack of dosage.’ The Clos St. Hilaire had the complexity of a quarry full of all types of rocks, minerals and vitamins, possessing incredible acidity, structure and length. Flavors of anise developed, and the finish gained this novocaine-like complexity in this numbingly good Champagne. I asked Ray if he thought this was better than Krug, and he succinctly observed, ‘Just different. More red fruit here.’ The Hilaire more so than the first two bubblies needs time to age; they all will benefit by age, but the Hilaire seemed to be the most brooding, complex and least approachable overall (97+).

The other Blancs de Noir on official tap was a 1996 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises, which had the most exotic nose so far and ‘a lot of bread’ per BB, but it was not close to the Hilaire. Its bread aromas came across as soaked in some sort of almond syrup. Yeasty and toasty, there were lots of nut and vitamin flavors and outstanding race and zest here along with a tangy finish. For some reason, it was the only one of the younger bubblies that I didn’t see improving in overall quality, but that does not mean it will not develop aromatically and stylistically; I just think it will always be (95).

A ringer made its way into this first flight, possibly the first tasting of this newsworthy cuvee here in America. It had something to do with King Angry, Bad Boy Bruce, some Russians and a drop point, but I can’t remember any more of the details. The 1995 Krug Clos d’Ambonnay, the first release of Krug’s Blanc de Noirs $3000 a bottle cuvee, was finally here. Reticent aromas of vanilla sundae were present; it had the white chocolate, the walnuts and the whipped cream on top. The palate was dry and underwhelming at first; it was shy, simple and not giving much. It had pleasant citrus flavors, but to be frank, it did not come close to any of the first three in quality. Bruce was quick to say how it needed some time, and Robert was quick to point out the vintage handicap of 1995 versus 1996, but still, at $3000 a bottle one wants to feel winegasm at first sip, no? An hour later, though, I must confess Bruce was right. The d’Ambonnay opened up and became much more buttery in the glass, hinting at Montrachet-like complexity. Bruce observed, ‘You can really see the difference; imagine twenty years.’ True, but the d’Ambonnay was not great enough to overcome the fact that it was from 1995, and it still possessed a lack of density in the mouth overall. It will be interesting to taste the 1996 (94+).

We took a turn towards Le Mesnil and familiar grounds. The 1996 Salon was at the top of the ladder right away, as usual. This Blanc de Blancs (100% chardonnay) cuvee was clean and pungent, complex and full of anise and minerals. Clean, lean and mean, the Salon was racy like Ricky Bobby and ready for sponsorship with its wintry wonderland of flavors. With its laser-like precision and deft personality, the 1996 Salon showed why it is one of the Champagnes of the vintage again (97+).

The 1996 Krug Clos du Mesnil, however, took things up another notch; its intensity and pitch were noticeably better. Also a Blanc de Blancs cuvee, the Clos du Mesnil was muscular, buttery and rich with ‘massive slate and chalk’ per BB. This was truly Montrachet, with tremendous acidity and a thunderous personality. Flavors of lime and white chocolate rounded out this insanely complex and spectacular Champagne. BB told all how this was ‘the greatest land in Champagne’ and how much correlation there is between this vineyard and that of Romanee Conti. It was truly great (98+).

A trio of reds were next, beginning with a rare magnum of 1959 Roumier Chambolle Musigny Amoureuses. The nose was full of sweet strawberry fruit, and its palate was full of the most distinct mesquite flavors. Rich, round and lush, the Amoureuses had lots of cherry fruit flavors and a finish that was almost fully integrated. Subtle, classic flavors of garden and bouillon eventually emerged. Bruce shrugged his shoulders about the wine, and Robert added that ‘it was pretty yet clearly chapitalized’ and possibly topped, adding that it was ‘pleasant but not profound.’ Its depth of lushness was impressive though (93M).

A magnum of 1959 Romanee Conti was next. I must have had this wine on six or eight occasions already in my young life, and while this magnum was still ‘good,’ it was not one of my best experiences with this wine. The nose was rusty, oily and nutty, full of rich mahogany nuances. Hearty bouillon flavors were complemented by good earth, tobacco and steak sauce ones. Smooth and reticent yet still rich and long, cedar joined the party both aromatically and flavor-wise. Bruce found it ‘pure’ and outstanding, but for me, it fell just short of that status (94M).

The magnum of 1962 La Tache quickly asserted itself as red wine of the night. Sweet and dank, its nose was full of mesquite, black cherry oil, game, rose, iron and old, wilting flowers. Secondary aromas of band-aids crept in. Its palate was rich and bordering on syrupy, definitely oily and complex with its flavors of rose, brick and garden. Flat-out delicious, there was crazy complexity and a rainbow of fruit flavors (black, purple and red makes the red wine rainbow) , and finally a kiss of gingerbread to this gamy wine (97M).

Midnight was about to strike, and out came a jeroboam of 1964 Pol Roger. The third quarter of this game was about to begin, and Big Boy had his saber ready, preparing to duplicate the rarely seen sabering of a jeroboam of Champagne. I have only seen this accomplished once before, by Big Boy himself last New Year’s Eve. Make that twice, as Big Boy did it again, which is no easy task. The ’64 was a bit advanced unfortunately, but still drinkable and enjoyable, even almost great for a few minutes. The nose was very butterscotchy and full of vanilla, deliciously mature with loads of honey, straw and golden aromas. It was rich, tasty and creamy at first, but it faded quickly thereafter (92J-A).

Now it was time to get serious, and out came the old magnums of Champagne. Everything was served out of magnum from here on out, and everything was sobered, I mean sabered. Even Bruce got into the act with his first magnum, but this was a Big Boy production for the most part, and his sabering skills were on full display, only equaled by his sobering skills the next day lol. The jero only took two swipes by the way; one other magnum took three swipes but all the others were done in a single shot”¦single shots!!!

The 1971 Salon was staggering out of magnum. Bruce cooed over its ‘old style,’ while Robert compared it to a great, old Krug. It had a toasty and nutty nose that oozed sexy qualities and hedonistic vanilla and caramel aromas. In the mouth, it was rich with an incredible center of acidity, still vibrant yet starting to show a hint of gamy, mature flavors. Its flavor profile was as complex as the wheel itself, revealing vanilla wafer, wheat, desert, corn, oats and even pineapple. Its crazy complexity was sheer genius (98M).

The 1976 Salon also had that sexy vanilla edge to its nose but was showing more orange fruit and blossom aromas as well. A drop of honey and gingerbread also came forward as did this distinct frosted shredded wheat edge, either that or some Cream of Wheat with some brown sugar; it was somewhere between the two but definitely in that morning cereal category. The palate was drier than the nose made me expect; it was shredded without the frosted, more citrusy and barely holding onto its excellent status. Lean but not that mean, the ’76 was still ‘old school’ and admirable, just not up to snuff after the ’71 (93M).

Finally, something from the twenties appeared lol, a magnum of 1928 Perrier Jouet in outstanding condition. It had amazing color for a ’28, and there was orange everywhere in its profile, which was exotic and forward yet subdued like its age. White fruits and nougat were also found in both the nose and the mouth, along with white smoke and Indian yogurt flavors (94M).

Somehow, I got a swallow of 1995 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill that someone brought, I believe, which was very good but a bit lost in the shuffle at this point. Lean, racy, zippy and vitaminy with anise and citrus qualities is how I found it to be (92M).

An oxidized or just plain off 1955 Veuve Clicquot Rose ruined the streak of great bottles (DQ).

We were quickly back on track with a 1953 Philipponat Clos des Goisses, a magnum that was recently disgorged and came directly from the cellars of Philipponat. This was the bottle that took three swipes. It came across vigorously youthful at first, but still had gamy flavors of earth and white brick once it unwound a bit. White mocha, espresso bean and duck wonton flavors joined the party in this increasingly complex magnum, which became a bit Montrachet-like over time (95M).

A magnum of the very first vintage of Churchill was next, the 1975 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill. I had had this once before, also courtesy of Big Boy, at 2006’s holiday BYO party. Unfortunately, I lost my notes and the fifty wines I sampled on that legendary night, never to be shared again. Big Boy immediately crowned the Churchill as ‘6 star Champagne,’ and went on to add ‘the best of 1975.’ It was clean and racy with touches of vanilla, wheat and smoke. Incredibly long in the mouth, there were lots of limestone and slate flavors along with a touch of benevolent cat’s box. ‘Deleriumly focused,’ I wrote. It is not proper English, I know, but still appropriate; one of the joys of wine language is the ability to make your own words up! It was so focused that it made me deliriously joyful, for those of you that need translation. Linearly long, I added. There were also flavors of anise and lime on the rocks in this increasingly gamy and edgy Champagne, and even a hint of banana (96M).

It was getting close to 2AM, and before I knew it, there was a two-minute warning in effect, as Cinderellas started looking for their glass slippers, and guys started turning into pumpkins left and right. I love it when last call is a magnum of 1964 Salon. The Salon had an UNREAL nose, worthy of capital letters. That sexy, vanilla wafer quality was on full display, and its palate was super spiny. Ray noted its ‘volatile acidity,’ and the magnum was so spiny and penetrating that it almost seemed stripped of its fruit. It was super-wound in true superhero fashion, long and intense and full of unyielding lime, stone and rock flavors. I fell into a trance of bubbly bliss, all of them dancing around me, giggling playfully and beckoning me into the dark, cold night. Somehow I forgot to write down a score for the ‘64”¦

”¦and then there was the day after. Big Boy emailed me at 11am, telling me I had to come over and taste some of these Champagnes that were still open and filled. I could barely move, and after a very low key day recovering while writing these very notes you are reading, I finally stumbled back to the scene of the crime to experiment and experience great Champagnes the day after.

”¦the 1964 Salon was still fizzy, more candle waxy with a touch of lanolin and a kiss of oak, vanilla and nutmeg. It was still unwinding and unfolding in its nose, and leaner overall, yet still strong on the palate. It had rocky waterfall flavors with slate and a touch of sawdust. Flavors of white chocolate and exotic wood also developed. Big Boy admired ‘so much acid.’ Citrusy and still going, the Salon was excellent 18 hours later! However, it had lost its center a bit. Ultimately, I decided it was still 5 star territory from what Big Boy and I could remember from the night before; he was certain that it fell off a bit the day after, though (95M).

I was most impressed at how this Champagne, from 1964 no less, held up so well overnight and was still even drinkable 18 hours later, but this would turn out to be the most disappointing subject matter of this distinguished experiment, as the next three were absolutely stupendous.

The 1955 Krug I did not have the pleasure of tasting the night before, but none of that pleasure was deferred by having it 18 hours later! This turned out to be wine of the night, or at least next night! The nose was still delicious with amazing aromas of vanilla, apple and hazelnut. It was still sweet with a touch of varnish around its edges. It was a ‘wow’ wine, also delicious in the mouth, buttery, citrusy and rich, again Montrachet-like but more so than any other. Big Boy gave a speech about how ’55, not ’59, is the best vintage of that decade for Champagne. Oily and butterscotchy, it was so dense that it left a liquid sugar impression in the mouth. This was ‘serious stuff,’ and not even out of magnum (99).

The other notable bubbly that I missed was still plentiful the day after, that being a magnum of 1970 Cristal. While 1970 may be a step down from some of the other notable vintages of the previous and next decade in Champagne, this Cristal was spectacular and clearly the Champagne of the vintage when it come to 1970. Its nose was nutty and warm, full of orange peel, burnt caramel, yeast, marzipan and mahogany aromas. Its palate was citrusy and vimful, possessing delicious cream soda, cinnamon and mahogany flavors. This magnum was stunningly good, eighteen hours later as well, although Rob was quick to point out that it wasn’t left out all night like the Salon and was kept in the fridge, though still sabered and open. He also observed that it was ‘much nuttier, had a longer and deeper mid-palate and great acidity’ compared to the Salon. It was certainly the best ’70 that I have ever had, all the more impressive by its stellar day two showing (96M).

There was some 1975 Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill to be had again, and it was still bright and fresh, zippy and lemony, limy and racy with excellent mineral flavors. It was still agile, tasty and fresh and didn’t miss a beat from the previous night.

I must say, in all my years of drinking, I have never even thought to keep Champagne open overnight and that it could still be so complex and so alive the next day, especially when thirty, forty and fifty years old. It was a real eye-opening experience for me, one that makes me continue to bang my ‘Champagne is one of the world’s best wines’ drum, and just one of the reasons I am grateful to be friends with the greatest collector of Champagne on Earth today.