I had been trying to do a 2000 horizontal for the first six months of 2007, and since I was unable to coordinate with my usual drinking buddies, I decided to make this a public event and conduct it through the Wine Workshop. Picholine was the setting, and eighteen of the vintage’s finest wines were assembled for us to taste where this vintage was in 2007. I guess you could say that I finally got to scratch my seven-year itch.

We started with the St. Estephes and the 2000 Calon Segur. The Calon was long and refined in its nose, possessing great t ‘n a and nice peanut aromas. Sweet and sturdy, it was an outstanding nose with its perfume, cassis and minerals. Wendy noted ‘chocolate chip cookie dough.’ The palate had lots of acidity, and the wine was finish forward at first, rounding out yet still spiny in general. Wendy also admired its’ sweetness,’ and the Calon was tasty but a bit muted in the mouth overall (93).

The 2000 Cos d’Estournel was outstanding. If there is one Chateau in the Left Bank knocking on the door of First Growth Status, it would be Cos, which has achieved almost unparalleled success beginning with its great 1982 vintage. The nose on the Cos was wound with lots of cedar and peanut aromas, and Wendy admired its ‘spicy’ edge. There was great pinch and minerality along with ‘fantastic pungency.’ From now on, unless I say otherwise, all quotes are from Wendy. She certainly knows how to share her opinion and is usually spot on. More peanut, along with violet and exotic deep fruits graced its nose and palate. The Cos was incredibly refined, enough so that it would make an oil executive’s heart sing, and it had a long, regal finish (95).

The 2000 Montrose was ‘massive.’ There was certainly more t ‘n a here than in the previous two, and the wine had loads of spice and spine, as well as a nutty edge. The style of St. Estephe shone through all three wines in this first flight, as they all had this similar style underneath it all. Mike found the Montrose a bit ‘angular and sharp,’ while also noting that the Cos was ‘well-connected.’ The Montrose was spiny and long but a bit brutish at the young age of seven (93+).

At this point, Brian asked me of what year did 2000 remind me, and I immediately responded 1982 ”“ the soft, elegant and refined acidity was a dead ringer for me, and I had just done an ’82 retrospective three months prior. Mike added that 2000 was ‘1982 at its best,’ obviously preferring 2000 overall.

It was on to St. Julien and the 2000 Gruaud Larose. The Gruaud was a curious fellow, at first revealing lots of stinky, animal and barnyard action. Behind that, there was peanut, cassis, perfume and lots of pencil. The palate was gamy and meaty, very tasty despite that touch of animal still there, and you know who chipped in with ‘green tea.’ The Gruaud kept improving in the glass (94).

The 2000 Leoville Barton was atypically subtle and wound at first. After some serious coaxing, aromas of brick, fireplace, cedar, coffee, cassis and deep roasted nuts all emerged. Its long and robust nose became very classic and full of spine, and it was easily the most concentrated wine so far. ‘Is it Cali?’ Wendy joked, but then she admitted that it only walked the line. The palate was also very concentrated and long, possessing spine and more noticeable alcohol but still tasty. The more wines that I had, the more I thought about 1982. Wendy admired its ‘fantastic length.’ The Barton got sweeter in the glass and definitely had that Napa Valley Grill to it but was still outstanding (95).

The 2000 Leoville Las Cases was unfortunately corked. Duuuuude, bummer (DQ).

We snuck a 2000 Pichon Lalande into this flight of St. Juliens, and it was a 2000 Pichon Lalande, which had an elegant, sexy nose, so elegant with its flash of cassis perfume, nut, cinnamon, mineral and Asian spice aromas. Stu observed ‘licorice and anise’ while Wendy was on the ‘truffle’ train. The Pichon had pop to it, and Stu was smacking his lips accordingly. The Pichon absolutely exploded in the mouth; don’t try to take this wine through airport security, it was that explosive, which is unusual by Pichon’s usual standards. This was special stuff, and Mike chipped in ‘good green pepper’ (96).

The third flight was all First Growths: the few, the proud, and the increasingly wealthier. The 2000 Haut Brion was sweet, smoky and spicy. Aromas of cinnamon, sweet perfume and cassis were present in its bready and nutty nose. The palate was long, balanced and elegant, quite regal and fine. Wendy was all over its ‘walnuts,’ while Mike keenly observed its ‘smoked wood and hickory.’ There was great gravel to this outstanding wine, and tremendous definition and pop to its finish (96).

The 2000 Margaux had a fabulous nose with its hallmark elegance but still great intensity. There were buckets of t ‘n a and great spine and spice. The palate was rich, concentrated, spicy and long, packed and compact, dense and exotic with almost blue fruit flavors smothered in soy (96+).

The 2000 Mouton Rothschild was the least impressive of this impressive quintet but still excellent wine; don’t get me wrong. The nose was deep, dark and dank; rich, creamy, nutty and sexy. The palate had more polish and a soft, elegant finish although Stu liked its tannins. The wine was rather approachable at this stage (94).

The 2000 Lafite Rothschild was incredibly refined with a core of spine and cedar. ‘Accesible?’ Mike questioned. Jim called it ‘guarded’ but still loved it. This wine was beautiful with a flash of flesh and a thick finish. Stu picked up on ‘graphite,’ and the wine got gamier in the glass. Although not usually a Lafite fan, I have to admit the 2000 was stupendous. Mike concurred that of all the First Growths, his money was on Lafite for the long-term. He was then interrupted on his cell phone with an important call from China (97).

The 2000 Latour, however, was appropriately served last in this superlative flight. ‘Is that a powerful wine or what?’ Someone rhetorically asked. It was a penetrating beast, sinus-clearing with its t ‘n a, along with aromas of cement, cedar and a touch of milkshake. Rich, concentrated and dense, the Latour was the biggest wine of the evening and also the thickest and the longest. Game emerged in this behemoth of a wine. It reminded me of that Kayne West song where the chorus goes, ‘bigger, longer, faster, stronger.’ While I am hesitant to give young wines scores in the 98 and 99 point territory because my convictions are that those scores are for wines that stand the test of time, the 2000 Latour left me no choice (98).
We hopped across the river to the Right Bank, and the 2000 Cheval Blanc had the disadvantage of being served after the Latour. Its nose was gamy with taut red fruits and wintergreen. It was still long and rock solid, possessing great t ‘n a as well as high pitch. A touch of fig joined its gamy side. The palate was toned and defined, a bit shy and more closed with a dusty, nice finish. The Cheval was exotic yet square at the moment (95+).

The 2000 L’Angelus was meaty and also gamy, edgy and rich with dried, gamy fruit, prompting Brian to call it ‘in the closet.’ There was lots of spice in the nose as well. Thick, cedary and polished, there were flavors of dates and raisins to this gamy wine. Brian likened its flavors to ‘roadkill’ because it was that gamy. He loves the stuff lol. The finish had a touch of explosiveness (93).

The 2000 Pavie was, as Josh had said a couple weeks prior when one was opened at one of our auctions, ‘not bad.’ The nose was dusty, spicy and cedary with a touch of vanilla. The palate was rich, big and long with impressive length. Quite meaty, there were also lots of coffee flavors here, but like I said, it wasn’t bad. I could actually polish it and its cinnamon-y French toast flavors off. As a side note, the ’05 out of barrel, however, I found gross, so perhaps it, too, needs to scratch a seven-year itch (93).

A trio of Pomerols finished up our evening, beginning with a 2000 La Conseillante. It had that classic Conseillante gaminess in its nose, with great t ‘n a, ‘superbad’ and deep. There were also big and solid aromas of plum, cassis and spice. The palate was a bit softer than the nose led me to believe but still popped (95).

The 2000 Trotanoy was more Campbell’s soup but still gamy and possessing plum and cassis aromas as well as sweet flavors of the same. While I preferred its structural and spice components in the nose to those of the Conseillante, its palate was a bit shut down at the moment (93+).

Last but not least was a 2000 Hosanna. It was about that time where my note-taking skills were shutting down, but I still managed to find it good, solid and big with the most power of the Pomerols but also rugged (94).

To me, 2000 is 1982 all over again, perhaps even better and aided by the gains in technology and knowledge that the last two decades have seen.

Our fall gathering of the 12 Angry Men had a few diplomats join us from overseas in lieu of some regulars who could not join us this time. They would be sorry. Big Boy was on fire and provided an awesome arsenal of incredible champagnes that made this already special evening absolutely extraordinary.

We began with a trio of “cocktail” champagnes, all served blind, as was every champagne for the rest of the evening. The first bubbly had aromas of vanilla cream and a touch of toast, along with sundried white fruits and twists of orange rinds. There was a lot of honey flavors to its wine-like palate. Earthy and dirty, there was just a touch of petillance left to this bold 1949 Pommery. Big Boy observed, ‘This is not the best bottle of this that I’ve had, and nothing close to the Jeroboam that we’ve had twice. 1949 is a citric vintage that doesn’t have the acid of 1947.’ (91)

The second champagne was fresher with sexy aromas of granulated sugar, vanilla and caramel. There was great balance to its nose, and it had a perfumed sexiness to it. On the palate, there was great minerality, and even though it was entering that wine-like stage, there was more petillance here than in the first bottle. Rob admired its, ‘massive citricity.’ This bubbly was certainly great, and its white earth and white chocolate flavors were absolutely delicious. Eli observed, ‘summer truffles.’ We were all surprised to see that this was also a 1949 Pommery! In fact, it was a second bottle from the same case! It just goes to show the variation that old wines can have, even when stored under the same conditions (95).

The third cocktail champagne was a touch oxidized, but benevolently so. It was very creamy in the mouth, tasty and nutty and full of lanolin, oil and date flavors. Kuti observed ‘armangnac’ and found it much more deep and complex than the other two. Its caramel flavors were still delicious despite that touch of over-maturity. It was a 1950 Philipponat Clos des Goisses (95A).

Two flights of six champagnes total graced us for the official sit down beginning of the evening. The first champagne had a very exotic nose with distinct guava aromas, while Peter picked up on ‘lime.’ Big Mike observed its ‘syrup-like’ personality, and its flavors were also crazy, over the top, exotic, almost cream soda like, and frankly bordering on weird. Someone else observed coffee and chocolate. It was a little over the top for me, but one of the most exotic champagnes that I have ever had. I was surprised to see this was a bottle of 1953 Krug (91).

The second champagne Eli keenly observed, ‘dry porcinis soaking in water.’ It was totally that all the way. Its nose was very dry and lacked sweetness, and in the mouth it almost tasted like a locker room would taste ”“ could one taste such a thing. There was nice spritz and body to this bubbly, which also had lots of mushroom flavors. The ounce of Iranian Osetra caviar that accompanied this first course, however, brought out the quality of this champagne tremendously and made a huge difference to me. The wine ultimately proved to be excellent and good thing it did, as it was a 1953 Salon (93).

The next champagne had a very balanced nose with tropical and caramel edges. Balanced and beautiful, there were classic straw and golden flavors. Someone observed that it was ‘balanced and had more finesse than the rest.’ Dasha noted, ‘cement and concrete.’ It was an excellent bottle of 1953 Louis Roederer (not Cristal) (94).

The second trio, which was also served with the first caviar course, began with an oxidized bottle of 1943 Pommery (DQ).

The next champagne had a nose full of ‘coffee beans,’ according to Gillian. It was creamy and honeyed, round, rich and lush, Montrachet-like in its personality with great, sweet sugar and dry cement flavors. It was a delicious bottle of 1945 Pommery (95).

The last bottle of this first flight of champagnes again had the porcini mushroom thing happening. Again very dry and yeasty, it was a bit too yeasty, and a slightly defective bottle of 1947 Pommery (91A).

Nine champagnes were down, and we were ready for some wine. We had four whites from four decades to get us going, beginning with a magnum of 1955 Bouchard Corton Charlemagne, acquired directly from the domaine by Eli, and it was very clean accordingly. Aromas of yellow sunshine, minerals, sunflower oil and touches of yellow game were all present in its nose. Its acidity was remarkably fresh, undoubtedly assisted by the reconditioning process at the domaine. The palate was rich, nutty, racy and fresh, full of anise flavors and still possessing that mature kink of older flavors. It was smooth and outstanding (95M).

A bottle of 1966 Drouhin Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche, again thanks to Eli, was a ‘wow’ wine. Its nose was smoky and full of coffee and white asparagus aromas. Its palate was still rich, nutty and toasty with lots of earth flavors. This bottle was still young, even though it was an original bottling, and super smoky on its delicious finish (95).

The 1978 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was Big Mike’s least favorite of the night, and a touch affected. It still had a deep, heavy, smoky, nutty nose with touches of citrus and orange. Yeasty, gamy and smoky, there was also some exotic ice cream and toast aromas. The nose continued to unfold with touches of green onions and herbs in the garden. The palate was buttery, round, gamy and rich; even though it was a touch oxidized, this wine was still very complex, and one I had no problem drinking to the last drop (94A).

The 1983 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was much fresher than the ’78, clean and possessing pop to its nose and also the sweetness of 1983 with a pungent, rocky edge as well. There was just a touch of alley in the nose, and while its acidity was starting to crack a bit, the wine held and expanded in the glass, which made me feel that it still had some life ahead of it. We had Roger to thank for the Leflaives (94).

It was onto the reds, and a flight of Leroy began this segment of our evening’s journey. A 1929 Leroy Gevrey St. Jacques (at the time I guess it hadn’t been divided into Clos and Lavaux) had a rich and hearty nose with brown sugar aromas, a la 1959, annd was also oaty, earthy and a touch dirty. There were also sweet cherry aromas along with touches of bouillon and spices. The palate was round and rich, hearty and beefy and full of bouillon flavors (93).

The 1949 Leroy Bonnes Mares that Peter blessed us with had a sweet, perfumed, elegant yet substantial nose full of violet aromas. It had this garden fresh quality and some richness behind it. The palate was smooth, balanced and long with more citrus flavors emerging (93).

The 1949 Leroy Musigny, courtesy of the recently relocated to the East Coast Andy, had an incredibly, open, ripe and rich nose. There was a lot of citrus and meat here, and the Musigny possessed the most intensity by far in this flight. The palate was super gamy and full of rose petal flavors, and I loved its richness, power and grace (96).

A duo of Roumiers was next, beginning with a 1988 Roumier Bonnes Mares Vieilles Vignes courtesy of Eli. The nose had intense vitamins and minerals, also possessing great skin. There were pungent citrus and grape seed qualities along with grape oil, nut and game aromas. The palate was long and earthy, full of tannins and vitamin flavors. There was great grit and length to this rare bottling of Roumier (95+).

The 1964 Roumier Bonnes Mares had ‘iron, menthol and peppermint,’ per Big Boy, who we had to thank for this bottle, or possibly Big Mike. Also meaty and gamy, it had aromas of truffle pasta in it with the oxtail to match. Secondary aromas of cinnamon and cedar emerged. The palate was yeasty and ripe, almost hot, but some oxygen opened the wine up to reveal gorgeous cherry dust flavors. The ’64 kept gaining in the glass, and this duo was a great pair, as there were a lot of stylistic similarities to the two (95).

It was time for an intermezzo, and when Big Boy is in the house, that usually means another half dozen of champagnes. The first bubbly was a bit oxidized with sherry aromas in its nose, but it was also nutty, oily and gamy with nice vanilla cream notes. Despite that kiss of morning mouth flavors, there was great texture to this affected bottle of 1969 Bollinger Extra Quality (94A).

The second bubbly was ‘rockin’ per Rob. It was clean yet meaty with touches of apricot fruit aromas. The wine was absolutely spectacular in the mouth, still possessing so much power yet also amazing grace. It was a 1966 Bollinger Extra Quality (97).

Our third wine was an oxidized bottle of 1964 Bollinger Extra Quality (DQ).

The fourth bubbly had dirty aromas of white chocolate. The palate was smooth and easy, still possessing decent acidity. It was a tasty bottle of 1962 Bollinger Extra Quality (93).

The march of Bollingers continued with a 1961 Bollinger RD, disgorged in 1972. The nose was clean, young and fresh with rich vanilla aromas that carried over to the palate. There was a lot of seltzer intensity to the finish in this excellent RD (93).

A 1959 Bollinger RD that was disgorged in 1989 was dead on arrival (DQ).

Rob had saved the best Bollinger for last, an unreal bottle of 1929. Dasha observed, ‘the smell of death,’ which was a most interesting comment, but perhaps appropriate given its age. It was absolutely delicious, so perfect, a dead ringer for Montrachet: buttery, rich, delicious, wine-like, and majestic in its overwhelming greatness (98).

As great as so many of the wines that we had already tasted on this magical evening, this next flight of reds absolutely stole the show. It began with a spectacular bottle of 1966 Rousseau Chambertin, courtesy of Big Mike. The first thing I wrote was, ‘WOW.’ The Rousseau was meaty, intense and ‘DEEP;’ it was full of rose, iron, crushed red fruits, vitamins, tannins, alcohol, acidity, brick, iron, wildfire”¦it was game over. As Eli decreed, ‘that’s it.’ The palate was rich, hearty and incredible with its rose, oil, game and vitamin flavors. This was wine was flat out incredible (97).

The 1959 La Tache that followed was equally incredible. Actually ‘redunkulous,’ as I eloquenty put it. The nose was rich, hearty and intense, full of incredible iron, rose and Worcestershire aromas along with menthol, rose, leather and ‘meaty sausage’ per Dasha. Again, I eloquently wrote, ‘YIKES,’ meaning that this wine was so good that it was scary. The palate was rich, fleshy and gamy, possessing huge t n’a and enough power to take over most third world countries. It was bottle number 9775, for those of you that are curious. This could only be a Big Boy or Big Mike bottle, I forget sorry (98).

The last bottle was, I believe, the fourth or fifth bottle that I have had from a very special case of 1955 Romanee Conti owned by Rob. This was bottle number 006782, and it had the most menthol intensity in the nose, as RC is prone to have. It was Kuti’s favorite of the flight, and he got lost in the ‘purity and depth’ of its minty nose. There were also spearmint flavors, and Big Boy admired its ‘iron flavors’ along with its ‘concentration and complexity.’ What made this wine even more special is the fact that it was made from ten-year old vines. Dasha also picked up on ‘jasmine qualities,’ and she was 100% correct. Almost everyone preferred the 55 RC best in this flight except me, though picking a favorite in a flight such as this is really splitting hairs (97).

We still had a couple of reds to go, and a pair of Jayers at that, beginning with a 1985 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Les Brulees. These were my humble offerings to this distinguished crowd, as I have been on a Jayer kick as of late since treated to so many great ones courtesy of the Man with the Golden Cellar. Jillian picked up on ‘pear brandy’ right away. This was a killer bottle of Jayer, and Robert Bohr boldly said that the Brulees is the ‘best Jayer of all in 1985.’ He would know, and after having this bottle, it was hard to disagree. In the mouth, the wine was rich, meaty, earthy and intense. Its finish lasted longingly. Rich flavors of vitamins and beef abounded in this spiny, spectacular wine, and Rob admired its ‘cinnamon spice and pitch’ (96+).

The last red wine on this evening was a 1980 Henri Jayer Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, which caused Big Boy to say ‘wow.’ He continued, ‘For this to stand up to the RC’s and Rousseau is impressive.’ Dasha observed ‘licorice and a little thyme’ and how she ‘loooves thyme.’ I quickly mentioned how much I love thyme too, especially hers lol (95).

What’s this? Another flight of champagnes? Sacre bleu! The first bubbly came across a bit oxidized at first, but slowly unfolded to reveal vanilla cream and caramel aromas. In a few more minutes, this champagne just sexploded; that’s the best way I can put it. It was rich, creamy and luscious, full of baked croissant flavors with the strawberry cheese filling. Wow, what a bottle of 1949 Louis Roederer Rose (97).

The 1959 Roederer Rose was completely oxidized, and were it not, I’ll bet it would have been spectacular (DQ).

The 1966 Roederer Rose had similar qualities to the 1949. Long, fruity and expansive, it was also full of strawberry, mineral and earth flavors (96).

The roses continued with a 1982 Louis Roederer Cristal Rose, which was full of nutmeg and ‘clove’ aromas per Dasha, as well as delicious and mature brick flavors. It was surprisingly mature for a 1982, but then again, this was the 34th wine of the evening (95).

The 1981 Cristal Rose, I wrote, ‘see above,’ as it was getting to be that time of the night. It was a touch mature, more so than the ‘82 and also gamier, but surprisingly close in quality overall (94).

Wait! There was one bottle of red wine left, a diplomat from Bordeaux, courtesy of Eli, and it was a spectacular bottle of 1949 Petrus, consistent with many of the great old Petruses that I’ve had. Rich, chocolaty, lush and full of minerality, it was a Nicolas bottle in outstanding condition that delivered (95).

There were still two more wines, actually champagnes, left in the evening. The train was about to leave the station, so Big Boy had to send it off in style, beginning with a 1969 Louis Roederer Cristal. This bottle was un-fucking-real, full of coconut and coffee aromas, fresh like a Sunday morning bread basket. Sorry, I couldn’t take many notes at the time, but it was one of the best bottles of champagne that I have ever had (98).

Last, but not least, was the 1970 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. Yeasty, vitaminy and pungent in both its aromas and flavors, it also had secondary flavors of white chocolate and was yet again another spectacular champagne from the most spectacular collection of champagne in the world. If anyone thinks they can lay claim to that throne, then they need to invite me over as soon as possible (95).

We weren’t angry anymore.

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.

This Thanksgiving I was down in the Bahamas, escaping from the onset of cold weather back home. The Bahamas is where Las Vegas meets the Carribean and quickly becoming the epicenter for the entire region with much development in process. A good friend, client and fellow Angry Manner, Roger, was also there for the weekend, so I joined him for a relaxing and quiet Thanksgiving at the spectacular home he was renting for the week.

We kept it simple and had a fascinating head-to-head of 1996 Cristal versus 1996 Cristal Rose, certainly a step up from the White Star and Sauvignon Blanc I had been consuming by the glass the evening prior. The 1996 Cristal was, frankly, spectacular, razor sharp and teeming with acidity as a great 1996 should be, but it was also meaty and chewy with its white meat and golden fruit flavors. Aromas and flavors of straw, sunshine, light toast, citrus and buttered corn graced this regal Champagne. It was so fresh, so clean, so crisp, so racy and just so damn good. It gives the 1996 Salon a run for its money as Champagne of the vintage. It is easily a 50 to 75 year Champagne (97).

The 1996 Cristal Rose had a color that was barely noticeable as Rose; in fact, if served to me blind, I would probably never guess it to be Rose. Roger quickly pointed out that if one compared the two, one could notice the color more, which was true. The Rose out-muscled the ‘regular’ cuvee, possessing much more body, dryness and length. It really grabbed the attention of my tongue and gave it the wine version of CPR. Searingly dry but in a good way, it did not have that flash of flesh (yet) that the regular Cristal possessed, but one could not help but be impressed with its awesome endowment. Touches of strawberry and rose slowly emerged behind its mountain of minerality, but this behemoth of a Champagne was nowhere near being approachable. Honestly, it shouldn’t be touched for at least another decade if not more. It, too, is easily a 50 to 75 year Champagne and could ultimately outscore its counterpart (96+).

I cannot stress enough the agreeability and collectibility of great Champagnes. The wine world is just starting to awaken to this fact, and I feel strongly that this segment of the market is due for some rapid increases in prices along the lines of what Bordeaux and Burgundy have recently undergone. Every special meal, occasion or wine dinner should always start with at least one bottle of bubbly, and it also makes for a great intermezzo and an excellent dessert companion. Let’s not forget that it is also the perfect beverage for those of you that still make it out to a nightclub or lounge once in a while :). Can someone say all-purpose?

We also had a magnum of red, a 1982 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle. I have had good luck with this vintage and the Northern Rhone, and this magnum was no exception. Figgy, gamy and full of dark fruit, this Rhone was more on the fruit side of the spectrum than the roasted earth and bacon side that Hermitage can often be. It was very open and seductive in the nose, but the palate was softer and rounder than I remembered, perhaps a touch coy out of magnum, as I had had a much fleshier experience out of a bottle of this wine a couple years ago. Elegant and refined, it was still a nice complement to the hearty meal and food coma that followed (92M).