Blog

Actually, at the time, we didn’t know that it was a 1964 Horizontal, as King Angry was our host, and all bubblies were accordingly served blind. Big Boy and I trekked down to what I like to call ‘West Virginia, New Jersey,’ aka chez Ray. Rob actually picked me up from my warehouse in what was the absolute worst smelling car service I had ever experienced. I have no idea how Rob even tolerated the trip to the warehouse in the first place. I mean, this guy had enough BO for a post-workout, pre-shower interview session with all of the Chicago Bears. It definitely wasn’t Big Boy style, and I was later told that the regular car was in the shop and therefore usual driver on the sidelines. Uh huh. At least I was able to convince him to send the guy home. I mean, I would rather sleep in Ray’s woodshack where he keeps all his hatchets and axes then suffer through another car ride with this guy.

Back to the main event, which started off with a bubbly that had a mature, warm nose and great layers of sweetenss; sugar, caramel, gingerbread, molasses and even white chocolate were all there in this incredibly exotic nose. There were great flavors of mature game without the gaminess. Additional flavors of apple, grapefruit and guava combined with delicious white chocolate ones. This bubbly was perfectly mature and on a plateau with just a shred of petillance left. Very hedonistic and with sexy vanilla flavors on its finish, this bottle of 1964 Veuve Clicquot was outstanding stuff (95).

The next bottle had more freshness to it and pleasant aromas of vanilla, but it also possessed a touch more wood that morphed into a very exotic combination of cedar and mahogany along with complex spices and slices of orange. The nose got better and better, but the palate had this weird jasmine flavor and was a touch bitter on the finish, revealing almost rose stem flavors along with some sushi ones. Overall, this bottle of 1964 Charles Heidseick was a bit woodsy but still very good (92).

The third bubbly had this incredible baked pie spice aroma, along with great cream, like an apple pie with vanilla cream and cinnamon, Daniel Boulud style – that was it! It was the freshest Champagne so far, very racy at first. Rob found it ‘slaty,’ and it did have that late disgorged edge. It got a little yeasty and animaly in the glass, and dill soon emerged in this rapidly changing magnum of 1964 A.R. Lenoble (92M).

Champagne numero quatre had a bit of underarm in the nose, but in a good way. There was also a wildflower and field combination, along with nice vanilla and a bit of pungent rock. There were great flavors of wood, a kiss of caramel, and earth dug up by Clydesdales, and balance between the three camps. It was very pungent, and Bad Boy Bruce admired its ‘gasoline’ qualities, while Ray observed ‘coffee.’ More vitamins emerged in this solid bottle of 1964 Taittinger (not Comtes de Champagne) (94).

The next bottle was absolutely stunning and quickly rose to head of the class. Aromas of yeast, marinated white meats and vitamins were deliciously good. Gamy, meaty and vitaminy flavors were present in its long, balanced and fresh palate. There were great and hedonistic vanilla flavors to this 1964 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne (96).

Ray threw us a screwball with the next glass. Again incredibly fresh, this nose was exotic marzipan all the way with a touch of yeast in the nose. The palate was a bit yeasty and oaky, possessing nice freshness but lacking flesh-ness, vimful yet linear. Surprise, surprise, it was the other half of the magnum of 1964 A.R. Lenoble! Touche, but it was still (92M) despite a touch of morphing in the magnum, although in retrospect it seemed reasonably consistent.

We were up to the seventh bottle, and this one had a mature nose full of oil, cinnamon,spice and cedar with a rusty, gamy and mature edge. The flavors were a bit dirty and gardeny yet tasty. The 1964 Cristal was tasty, smooth and long, although a bit disappointing given Cristal’s usual performance in this decade ”“ I have had mind-blowing bottles of ’62, ’66 and ’69 so far (92?).

The next bubbly had a lot of alcohol and acidity in its nose and was very sturdy with excellent spice and spine. There was a yang of gamy maturity here, and the palate was very smooth, tasty and lovely, very fine indeed. It was an original bottling of 1964 Dom Perignon (93).

I think it was about now where Ray had some lobster sashimi served, encased within the front half of the lobster shell in true gourmet fashion. However, I passed on this course when my half-lobster started crawling off my plate.

We had to get to number nine before we finally got a ‘real Champagne’ out of Big Boy, and it sure was. There were loads of rust, wheat, yeast and hues of orange, yellow and white (meat) in this complex nose. The palate was smooth and satiny, delicate yet o so long. Subtlety and class were what this glass was all about; its acidity was superb as was its length, the finest so far, prompting another ‘unreal’ out of Big Boy in regard to its length. It was a 1964 Krug Private Cuvee (96+).

The last of our 1964s was a Pol Roger, which was full of doctor’s office action with its iodine, vitamin and game qualities. It had an insane pungency to it and was a bit wild and crazy. Its vitamin qualities were superb, and its palate was long, dusty and meaty (94).

There were another half-dozen non-1964 Champagnes opened, along with about ten reds, but I will get to those another time. 1964 was the shining star of this evening, and anyone who thinks vintage Champagne can’t age needs to taste again.