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.

I had just arrived from Paris only three hours before Eddie’s Christmas party at Del Posto’s. After freshening up a bit, I jumped right back into the frying pan after a week in Bordeaux and Paris where I spent at least six hours a day eating. I do not understand why all French people are not fat. I’ll try to get to writing up that week next.

We were actually in the gorgeous basement of Del Posto’s, a private room that I have never been to before. Many familiar facelifts were in attendance such as one of my fellow enthusiasts , Big Boy, Bad Boy Bruce, King Angry, Big Mike, Robert Bohr, Raj Parr, Patman, Tom, Evan and the co-hosts from the house, Joe and Mario. It was a joyous occasion and much generosity was on display.

I was actually a half-hour late, and by the time I arrived, it was already a bit chaotic, not in a bad way, but chaotic in the fact that bottles were open all over the place. I quickly tried to get my bearings and headed for the Champagne table. Forgive the short notes, but it was a bit of a party and a bit of rapid-fire Jeopardy as well.

A jero of 1989 Cristal was first, and it was singing out of jero. Fresh, racy, zippy and practically sizzling, the ’89 was a great way to start the afternoon. Corn, straw, butter and minerals were all present in this ‘underrated monster’ of a Champagne, per Bruce. The acidity was extraordinary (96+J).

A gorgeous magnum of 1971 Dom Perignon was next, and it was about as good as it gets. Clean and so fresh, it was balanced, still young, yet just starting to show some traces of mature flavors. Bread, seltzer, minerals, light toast and nuts were all in harmony in this exquisite Champagne (95M).

A rarely seen 1971 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne was next. I should say that all of the Champagnes, I believe, were courtesy of King Angry and Bad Boy Bruce. Big Boy probably had one or two in there, though. The Taittinger was insanely good, ‘blowing away’ the Dom according to the King. It was intense, zippy, and hedonistically full of decadently delicious butter and butterscotch flavors. Taittinger’s Comtes de Champagne still seems to be under the radar when it comes to the luxury cuvees of Champagne, but it definitely belongs in any top ten list (97).

A 1971 Pol Roger Blanc de Chardonnay was on its last legs, lacking much petillance or complexity. Perhaps if it was tasted first, it would have given a better impression (87).

A controversial magnum of 1978 Ponsot Clos de la Roche was the first wine I tasted. It was beefy, earthy and tasty with a long, dry finish, typical of my memories of this wine, but Robert was convinced that there was some Rhone wine in there, possibly done by the house, possibly done by a stranger. Regardless, I found the wine to be deserving of excellent status (93M).

I quickly hopped on over to the magnum of 1971 Ponsot Clos de la Roche. This Ponsot was full of the citrusy tang of 1971, offering lemon hints to its core of tangy cherry and vitamin flavors. Tender, balanced, satiny and long, I thought it was a great wine (95M).

We finally sat down, and in honor of the truffles, many of us brought Italian wines. We began with a magnum of 1971 Gaja Sori San Lorenzo, by way of the Golden Cellar, actually. The wine was a beauty, possessing great cherry fruit and tender dust, earth and leather complements, but this was a wine that was fully mature, on a plateau and all about its fruit. It caressed the palate with grace and style (95M).

A glass from a magnum of 1966 Perrier Jouet was thrust in front of my face, another fresh and racy bubbly with oaky ‘coconut’ flavors per Raj. It was solid, although the oak was a hair too much (93+M).

A magnum of 1964 Cantina Mascarello followed the Gaja in fine fashion, showing the classic tar, leather and chocolate side of Piedmont. The palate was soft and dry, possessing excellent leather flavors and a dry, sandpapery finish (93M).

The 1961 Cantina Mascarello magnum that followed was a bit different in its personality, as this older sibling had an incredibly oily personality, sweeter and thicker in its profile and giving off lots of caramel, molasses and nut aromas and flavors (94M).

It was at this point that I got up from my table and went to the ‘house’ table, where dozens of wines were sitting for the sampling. I began with a magnum of 1964 Roumier Bonnes Mares, always a good place to start anything wine related. This was another controversial magnum as it was atypically sweet for Roumier, almost a bit chapitalized, but I did find some of the classic garden and earth that old Roumiers are prone to have (93M).

Unfortunately, a magnum of 1964 Vogue Musigny was oxidized (DQ).

A magnum of 1959 La Mission Haut Brion was outstanding. Chocolaty, earthy and gravelly, it was everything it was supposed to be. Its fruit was front and center, chewy like Charleston. Still young and big out of a magnum, here was a wine that could age another fifty years, in magnum format, at least (96M).

The next wine was one of the stars of the night for me, although Eddie was a bit disappointed with it. The magnum of 1971 Romanee Conti was extraordinary to me. I should note that Eddie had it right away when opened, but two hours later when I finally came across it, I thought it was phenomenal. It had all the complexities of great old RC ”“ earth, garden, hay, animal, bouillon, citrus, rose and menthol were all in abundance. Its fruit and mouthfeel were rich, and its acidity superb (97M).

A magnum of 1982 Gaja Sori Tilden was pleasant, long, dry and earthy but a touch on the dry side (92M).

The parade of Taittingers continued with a glorious 1966 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne that Ray or Bruce brought over to me. I had had this wine last New Year’s Eve, and it, too, was outstanding but much more mature than this bottle. This bottle was a ‘wow’ wine, incredibly fresh and long and full of that golden Blanc de Blancs complexity and that signature butterscotch quality I find in the great Taittingers. It was another superb bubbly, and more than an adequate palate cleanser (97).

I was still at the ‘house’ table, furiously trying to taste everything before returning to my table. A magnum of 1985 Bartolo Mascarello continued the tradition of the Cantina (run by his father). The Bartolo was long and dusty but not overly complex and got lost in the crowd (91M).

The 1990 Giacosa Barolo Falleto Riserva, however, stood out in the crowd, as always. ‘Ridiculous,’ was how my note began. It was a huge wine, as always, with enough t ‘n a for the entire Rockettes. It was also beefy and leathery, as always, thick and juicy with oily, nutty, gamy and chocolaty flavors. It was one of the stars of the night, as always (96+).

The 1990 Giuseppe Mascarello (cousin of Bartolo) Barolo Monprivato stood toe to toe with the Giacosa, equally as great, oily and chocolaty as well, but possessing a touch more minerals and a shred less fat than the Giacosa. These will be two fascinating wines to track over time (96). I finally made it back to my table, where my magnum of 1990 Sandrone Barolo Cannubi Boschis was able to answer the challenge set by the previous two Barolos. Much tighter and more coy out of magnum, I wished that I could leave it alone for a few hours; unfortunately, that was not possible! Very wound and slaty, the Sandrone screamed out the glass, revealing more of its whips and chains than flesh. Tar, leather and slate dominated the wine, and I felt like I was disturbing its peace by drinking it out of magnum. Oh well (95+M).

We time traveled back with a 1945 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino courtesy of Big Boy. Similar to other experiences that I have had with this wine, the color was pale and tea-like, looking more like a sherry than a wine. However, the wine was delicious, although admittedly a wine for necrophiliacs. Its chewy texture and marzipan complexities made for a tasty treat, although I could easily see many thinking this wine was over the hill (95).

The 1941 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino was a bit perplexing, as its color was significantly deeper and younger than the ’45. The wine was quite tasty, possessing trademark Nebbiolo flavors and excellent acidity, but I couldn’t help but wonder if this bottle was the real deal (93?).

The 1973 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne was solid as well, yet more racy and less hedonistic than its previous siblings, showing more straw and seltzer personalities (94).

There were a couple more bottles to be shared, an off bottle of 1970 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino (DQ) and a vitaminy 1970 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne that was the least inspiring of all the ‘Tatts’ but still very good. It just didn’t have the complexity of the others, as 1970s will do in the face of ‘66s, ‘71s and ‘73s (91). By now I was in full party mode, and it was off to Roy’s for another holiday party. I was a bit whacked, to be frank, but still found time to enjoy a couple of great wines. Mags of 1990 Dom Perignon Rose were flowing and showing well. I have loved and been disappointed by this out of magnum, so it was good to see it back on track and even flashing some strawberry fruit to go with its monstrous acidity and racy bubbles. This is easily a 50-year Champagne out of magnum (96+M).

The last wine of the night was another special out of magnum, a 1971 Richebourg. It, too, was superlative, showing the rose, leather, game, iron, minerals and tender citrus that it should. More forward and caressing than the RC, it was still closer to its youth than it was its old age. It was singing a sweet song that was music to anyone’s lips that got to taste this nectar. I plan on drinking as many 1971 s as I possibly can for the rest of my life (97M)!

The rest of the night was a bit of a blur, making up for the lack of holiday snow so far this winter, but a fun one, and a bit of a slow morning after.

The stars were once again aligned for a spectacular weekend in Los Angeles, orchestrated by none other than Dr. Bipin Desai. While the BCS standings may have been on many people’s minds heading into early November, it was the BCW (Bipin Cheval Weekend) that was on the collective collectors’ minds of those fortunate enough to get a seat at this sold out event. Bipin has become renowned for his wondrous wine weekends that he holds periodically in Los Angeles, as well as Bordeaux, Paris and other parts of the globe occasionally. This weekend brought Bordeaux to Los Angeles, along with Pierre Lurton, managing director of Cheval Blanc and d’Yquem. He was on hand to guide us through 35 vintages of Cheval Blanc, St. Emilion’s most collectible wine, and this weekend would prove that claim to be deservedly so.

Most of the wines came directly from the Chateau, which is a rarity when it comes to older wines. In fact, demand has been so great in Bordeaux at the top Chateaux that one could say it is becoming a rarity for younger wines as well! But to find wines seventy years or so old from the Chateau is very rare and a testament to the library at Cheval Blanc. Even though Bipin had two bottles of every wine for this event, he told me that the demand for this event was one of the most extraordinary that he has ever seen, and he has done hundreds of these wine weekends. He actually had to turn people away, as much as that pained him.

As usual, it was Friday night, and I had just stepped off a plane in time for dinner. I smelled all the wines first for each flight. I was feeling a bit under the weather, though the wines of Cheval Blanc quickly brought good feelings back.

We started with the 1988, whose nose was fabulous, again, since the last time I had had this wine was with Pierre himself at Cheval Blanc. This bottle also had great aromas of sweet red fruits, green and black olives, cherry, nut and a touch of cola. The palate was red and rusty with nice tannins and alcohol. The 1988 is in a great spot right now, and Michael Twelfthtree, famous Australian winemaker, was also loving it, and James Suckling admired, its ‘really fresh quality and licorice’ (93).

The 1985 was a bit milky in the nose, with lots of bell pepper up front. There was earth and beef behind it and very subtle red fruits. It opened up more to reveal brooding and deep t n’a. The palate was really big, chunky and muscular, with black olive and black fruit flavors. It was a big wine by Cheval standards, and although James found it a bit off, I found that in time, it found itself in the glass. It was massive compared to the 1988 (95).

The 1979 was similar to the ’85 with its upfront bell pepper and touches of milk, earth and beef. There was also a pinch of szechuan; ’79 seemed like the ‘85’s little brother, possessing less overall of everything. It got greener in the glass and revealed wintergreen flavors. It lacked length, but was still very good. Pierre admired the ’79, citing that ‘acidity is the backbone of wine’ (90).

Pierre also noted that the 1978 was picked rather late, on October 8th. There were lots of green olives in the nose, and again that touch of bell pepper, but the green olive was the dominant trait herein. It was musky and more aromatic in the gamy direction, and also more forward with its earth components, a bit toasty with lots of campfire qualities. Fleshy, rich and very tasty in the mouth, it possessed light rose and a kiss of green olive and mint (92).

The 1975 evoked Gil, aka Mr. Wine Vegas, to call this, ‘the bell pepper flight.’ The ‘75 had more wintry and waxy fruits to go with its green olive, and it also had some animal, complete with fur. The palate was rusty but also a bit musty with hot tannins and flavors that were a bit dried out. Pierre remarked, ‘In general, there were unbalanced wines in 1975, and a big wall of tannins in most’ (88?).

The 1971, my birth year, was very pungent and olive-y. It was the most open of the flight, wintry and minty in its personality, but also possessing red fruits, almost red citrus fruits. It was round and soft with a nice hint of sweetness to its fruit, yet still rusty.
Subdued yet forward and expressive, Gil and I preferred the 1971 to the 1970 that followed. Gil observed, ‘Cali weed and rose petals in the nose.’ Pierre also preferred the 1971 to the 1970 (92+).

Bipin preferred the 1970, whose plummy, nutty, figgy and gamy qualities set it apart from the rest of the flight. There was just a touch of menthol and cedar in its singular nose. The palate had nice richness and more plum flavors, meatier in style, and its acidity took over in the glass. Francois Audouze, our Parisian representative, hailed the 1970 as best of flight, followed by the 1988, 1971, 1985 and 1978, in that order (90).

The warm-up was over, and it was time to get serious for the 1955. The 1955 had a complex nose of wheat and exotic, jammy, smoky, sexy red fruits. Sweet and kinky, it had the cherry, raspberry and strawberry trifecta. It was almost as if a shot of Yquem was in the glass; it was that sweet. The palate was gamy and figgy, a touch oxidized, but in that natural date and cola way. There was a bit of ‘old painting varnish’ according to Gil. It did have that round autumnal edge to its fruit flavors (93).

The 1953 saw a return to the smoky, campfire aromas previously seen in the ’78. Fresh and also sexy, it occurred to me that this bottle was perhaps reconditioned, and indeed it was, in 1985. Big time cinnamon aromas emerged. There was great elegance and balance to the palate, and flavors of raisins, red fruits and wintergreen abounded. It was gorgeous, but just ‘not the best bottle that I had’ according to someone (94).

I should note that many of the older wines came directly from Cheval and were reconditioned. Although I am generally not a fan of reconditioning, I must say, for the most part, that Cheval did a particularly good job with their reconditioning, and that outside of the general freshness of some of the older wines, it was tough to say that many were definitely reconditioned. Due to the format and timing, I was not able to find out exactly which wines were reconditioned for this session, although I managed to find out more for the second session that followed on Saturday.

The 1952 didn’t taste right to James. There was cinnamon again, ‘solera’ according to Gil. It also had some hoisin. The mouth had that touch of metal, definitely reconditioned and probably the worst job of the evening. It was simply not what it should be, but others found it spectacular, which meant that the second bottle (which I did not try) was better than the first. This wine should be in 95-97 point territory; it can be killer (90?).

The 1937 had old cobwebs in the nose, with lots of dust and rust that gave me a haunted house impression. It was fully mature; beautiful, long and caressing with great old flavors (93).

The 1934 had a ‘whiff off doggie poo’ right off the bat, almost masquerading for Burgundy, according to Gil. James also observed that he forgot how Burgundian Cheval can be. There was great aromatic complexity in the ’34; rust, earth, wintergreen, old book and carob were all present. The palate was round and rich with great t n’a, but the acidity is what really made this wine stand out from every other so far. ‘What acidity!’ was how I put it, to be exact. There were also complex caramel and rust flavors on its lengthy finish. Christian Navarro loved the ’34 the best, and Michael La Tondre also said that the ’34 was his favorite, noting its, ‘Cohiba cigar, candied raspberry and tremendous finish’ (96).

Now began the flight of young bucks, beginning with the 2004. The 2004 was obviously a baby by comparison to the wines that we had just had, and it was full of baby fat fruit accordingly. It was still sappy and sweet with lots of dark, sweet fruits, incredibly concentrated and full of crushed black cherry and black raspberry oil. The palate was rich, balanced and long, possessing big time chocolate flavors and earthy spice. The fruit was rich, full of coffee flavors, with excellent minerals on its concentrated finish (93+).

The harvest in 2003 was the earliest picking since 1893. There was even more coffee and chocolate in the nose, along with a touch of beef stew and hot earth and smoky aromas. The palate was ripe and forward, gamy and sweet, a bit of a floozy. It had ‘light brick with lots of dark chocolate’ flavors per Gil, and lots of liquid vitamins on its finish (92).

The 2001 was very aromatic with its candied red and black fruits and had a splash of cough syrup. Tangy and sweet, it also had this almost blueberry profile, most likely due to a large percentage of merlot. There were lots of coffee and vitamin flavors. It still had classic fruit, nice definition and beautiful balance. The tannin was very vimful, and those vitamin flavors really made me lick my mouth. It was another excellent right bank wine from the 2001 vintage (94).

We entered the evening with a bang, that being the 2000. Big, chunky and clearly on another level, the 2000 had huge breed and divine aromas of chocolate, coffee, espresso, graphite, black cherry, blueberry, motor oil, vitamins, pine forest and cedar. Now that’s a complex nose! The palate was exquisite; long, fine, balanced and elegant. It reminded me what the 2000 Bordeaux tasting did; 2000 is the new 1982 (96+).

Saturday brought us back for lunch at Chinois, where nineteen more wines awaited us eager participants. Friday night had left us wanting more, and Saturday definitely delivered. We started with the 1999, which had a shy and brooding nose. It was a much more masculine style of Cheval. There was lots of earth and minerals, and slowly penetrating t n’a in its very cedary nose. The wine was round and rich in the mouth, again cedary yet also foresty, long and big in its profile. Its taut, rusty fruit was a bit square, and it seemed that this wine has closed up a bit since the last time I’ve had it a few years ago (92).

The 1996 was also cedary, yet olive-y, and its wood qualities were a kiss too much; in fact, it had the most noticeable oak of the weekend, and that’s not a good thing. The palate was better, more olive-y yet still cedary and square, but it had a tasty edge that the ’99 lacked. Medium weight, tender and tangy, the ’96 had red fruit flavors, and I preferred it to the ’99 on this day, but would much rather have the ’99 in my cellar. The oak blew off a bit, and while everyone ultimately liked the 1983 best in this first flight, most also preferred the 1996 next. It was the most open and friendly in the flight, but it also had the least weight. Someone observed, ‘smoked chili, light raspberry and invigorating minerality’ (91).

The 1995 had much more wildflower and lavender in the nose, yet was again cedary with bell pepper and chocolate aromas. In the mouth, the wine was round and rich, with lots of t n’a, flirting with hot. Its fruit flavors were rusty, and there was citrus on its finish. It opened up and had a real rusty ‘pop’ to it’s a finish, so much so that Bipin called it a ‘revelation’ (92+).

The 1989 was the greenest of the bunch, as always, with lots of bell pepper, olive and this puttanesca tomato sauce edge, so much so I wanted to throw some pasta in it. The ’89 was actually in a tasty spot, but it seems very forward and on a fast track to maturity. Lush, round, fleshy and tasty, it had sweet green pepper flavors that won’t get any better. Pierre observed its overall merlot and leathery nose. Although I think it won’t get any better, this bottle of ’89 was in a good spot, and even though it was green, Jef professed that he liked it with ‘I like green.’ Shroomy qualities developed as well (93).

The 1983 Cheval Blanc was punishingly wound, with searing t n’a, minerals and sawdust. I had to swirl what seemed like 1,000 times to get past the minerals, but behind the minerals were sappy, menthol, olive, game, wintergreen and asian spice aromas along with meaty fruit. The palate was round and rich with tremendous acidity that seemingly lasted forever. The ’83 shattered the rest of the flight, and its great core of rich, red fruits, brick, fireplace, asian spice, hay and minerals even left Bipin, ‘very impressed.’ That same someone from before admired, ‘uncountered delicacy, dust, earth and bouillon’ (95+).

The 1983 reminded Jef of how he likes the concept of great ‘shadow years,’ ie the vintages after the great years like 1983 after 1982, 2001 after 2000, etc., and has been very successful with some purchases along those lines.

The next flight began with a 1966, which had wonderful aromatics, although Serena Sutcliffe, whom I had the pleasure of sitting with, was very sensitive to some chlorine in the glass. Once we worked past that, there were tender and sweet aromas of winter, cherries, minerals, earth, candle wax and a touch of sexy sweat. While the aromatics were nice, the palate was very, very dry and lean, with no sweetness whatsoever and a citrus-y, dry and uninspiringly earthy personality (88).

The 1964 formed an instant glee club, with Serena, Ed and Jef loving every minute of it. It was very fragrant, with lots of red fruits but also this cassis and fig quality. It was very stony with lots of t n’a, but this ’64 was all about its great fruit. Round, balanced, long and tender, its flavors of old sweet cherry, tender leather, mineral and book were flat out beautiful (95).

The 1962 had a super sweet, long nose that was very plummy, chocolaty, figgy and a touch yeasty. There were nice dusty flavors, and the ‘62 was along the lines of the ’66 stylistically in the mouth, but it had some shreds of fruit left, a pat of nice cassis left in its round and smooth palate. It got a little limey in the glass, but not negatively (91).

The 1961 had a killer nose that was very racy with lots of vigor and t n’a. It was also very sweet in a musky, nutty, caramel-y way. There was lots of oil in this rich and nutty wine, and as soon as I tasted it, I flashed to 1971 and ‘76 Grange. This menthol/eucalyptus craziness was total Grange. It was rich, hearty and full of strawberry flavors. Bipin concurred that ‘this was always one of the sweeter ‘61’s,’ and likened it to a ‘bon-bon’ (94).

The 1959 had a reticent nose with some sweet caramel creeping out. Francois fell in love with the ‘59 immediately, calling it, ‘completely perfect’ and having a future that will last ‘forever.’ The nose got deeper, chunkier and beefier, while hints of bread and dust and acidity oozed out slowly yet firmly. The palate was rich and creamy, absolutely delicious; it was so creamy and so sexy that it was easy to see how it tickled Francois’ fancy (96). b>

Bipin spoke about the fact that ‘every bottle was what it should be”¦candied sweetness and all”¦all the alcohol levels are 12.5% or less, and people say you need alcohol to age.’ I believe I heard a ‘harumph’ out of him next. He also went on to say that in the sixties, many wineries chaptalized to get the alcohol levels just to 12%, but today, due to the climate change, wines are naturally 13-14% alcohol. This was one of the most fascinating comments made all weekend, and it really made me think about the state of winemaking then versus now. Today, winemakers seem to be pushing the envelope as far as the alcohol levels in their wines, partly perhaps due to climate, but mainly due to intention. After having tasted so many glorious wines over the years from the 1870s up through the 1980s (I think it is safe to say that higher alochol levels are a product of the ’90s until now) , how could one argue that wines could age any better with higher alcohol levels? I am no chemist, and I have not done any lengthy comparative studies, but I do know that most winemakers whose wines I prefer always talk about acidity and not alcohol. Even Pierre acknowledged acidity as the backbone of wine earlier, and if you talk to the Burgundians, it is all about the acidity as far as aging potential. Perhaps high alcohol levels are not at all what they are cracked up to be.

The third flight was again full of young bucks, but this trio was high powered enough to put the Three Tenors to shame – make that Three Mo’ Tenors for Manny and Wilette (go see it New York!). The flight began with a 1998. The 1998 had a great nose, wound up a coiled, yet deadly with its venom, packed with sweet, sappy and dark purple fruits. There were lots of minerals, along with black cherry and cola aromas. The palate had great minerality. It was long, elegant and fine, yet substantial. I believe it was Serena who called it, ‘absolutely mind blowing and better than the 2000”¦crashingly good’ (96+).

The 1990 had a deep, sexy nose full of green olives and wintergreen. It had this open, waify edge to its black fruit and lots of garden aromas as well. The palate was so lush, long and tender with its cascading waterfall of fruit flavors. It was so elegant, possessing garden, forest, and olive flavors. Incredibly complex, Serena also ‘loved it’ (97).

The 1982 had a lean nose by comparison to the first two that was very shy and dominated by wintergreen at first. Touches of roses and cherry lingered behind. The palate was great, however, and it even had a flash of meaty fruit. Elegant yet rich, long yet balanced, tender yet full, this was one of the better bottles that I’ve ever had of this wine, which has been notoriously all over the map, at least in my experiences. This bottle of ’82 had similar qualities to the ‘90 yet more in reserve, almost a nose in winter hibernation. Serena put the ’82 third in this flight of three and found it to be ‘not what you expect.’ I found this flight to be great and a bit of a photo finish (96).

The first wine of the spectacular last flight was the 1949, which was slaty and wound at first, again more of a glass issue than anything else. I couldn’t get much out of the nose accordingly, but the palate was extraordinary. Rich and balanced, there were great slate borders to its decadent cherry core, and great roundness, balance, tannin and definition, and just a twist a tootsie pop to this beautiful, gorgeous wine (95).

The 1948 was even better; the power jumped right out of the nose; that sweet rust, licorice, nut and this ice skating rink/’glace’ complexity and edge. The flavors were so great, so rusty, so spicy and foresty, mineraly, slaty and earthy as well, full of cherry cola. Once again the 1948 stole the show and was ultimately the wine of the weekend, although the bottle of ’47 I would have with a close friend of mine and Gil later that evening would lay claim to the wine of the weekend throne (98).

The 1947 that I had during afternoon’s session was unfortunately a touch oxidized, with this burnt brown sugar quality to the nose, port like in its personality. Thick, long, spicy and rusty, this affected bottle was still drinkable and still excellent. The other bottle of ‘47 served that afternoon had much more rust and life, but I only got a small swallow, and the bottle that I was officially served was (94A).

The 1945 had gorgeous, tender red fruits. Dusty and sandy in its personality, it still had great sweetness in the nose and great flavors to match. Its flavors were more on the citric side of the flavor rainbow, but there was still sweet strawberry as well as flavors of actual straw giving this wine tremendous complexity. The wine possessed superb acidity and was stunningly gorgeous, very fresh and danced in my mouth (96).

The 1921 had cobwebs and tender red fruits in its nose, along with wax and leather. One could see it was very old, but this Nicolas bottle proved about as fresh as a 1921 could be. Very gamy with lots of delicious caramel flavors, the wine was round and old, tender with lots of leather and older flavors, graceful yet forceful (95).

I looked at some of the corks on this day and noted that the ‘62, ‘59, ‘49, and ‘48 were reconditioned in 1985, although it is possible one bottle was and one bottle wasn’t since two bottles were served. The 1966 was reconditioned in 1991, and the ‘64 and ‘61 were original corks, at least the corks that I saw.

Serena gave a great speech at the end of the event, summing up some of her keen observations, so I will share some of those observations with you.

She called 1995 and 1996 ‘an interesting comparison’ and admired the 1995 and its ‘richness of merlot.’ The 1953 had ‘charm,’ while the 1955 was ‘meaty.’ The 1952 was ‘mind-blowing, the best bottle that I have ever had.’ The 1970 was ‘particularly good,’ and it was as if she was looking through a door for Cheval, because that was the last year they bottled in Libourne. The 1959 was ‘utterly dominant, so mouth-filling it wasn’t true.’ The 1988 was ‘always classic,’ and how in general Cheval was exotic with its ‘cinnamon, cloves, Russian leather and sweetness.’ She finally reminisced about how she never thought that people would still be looking for the 1947 over thirty years ago.

Bipin then got up to reminisce about how he once bought six bottles of 1947 Cheval about thirty years ago for the price of 420 pounds, and how he later found out that he had won a tie bid with none other than one of his now best friends, Ed Lazarus. Bipin continued that at the time, he was just starting out in wine while Ed was already a legend, so this minor victory was something major in his evolution as a wine collector. Bipin wrote a great article about 1947 Cheval Blanc and Petrus for World of Fine Wine Magazine recently with many more great anecdotes about those wines. It is worth seeking out.

Bipin took me aside at the end and remarked how it was good to see so many people still appreciating old wine, and that he couldn’t understand this seemingly overall public disdain for old wines. ‘What public?’ I asked. ‘Not my friends!’ ‘Yes, yes, I know you know, and that your friends know, but it is the people that do not know that need to know.’ Well, now you all know lol. There wouldn’t be cellars if wine wasn’t meant to age. I, for one, will do my part to remind everyone that the greatest wines are meant to be drunk old.

Pierre also had an interesting comment in the end, something that I will end this report with: ‘Sometimes in nature, defects can become exceptional things.’