Blog

This year, Big Boy had an intimate gathering of 15 or 20 close friends at his home in New York City, and I was one of the invited guests. It was the perfect remedy for what traditionally has been a night that I stay in, as in New York City it can often be amateur night without the Apollo.

We had a quick pre-game huddle and decided that we would drink Champagne from 7:30-9pm, change it to red wine until 10:30pm and then finish with Champagne for the rest of the night. It was a good game plan.

A magnum of 1975 Dom Perignon Rose kicked things off, and Jim and Wendy were all over its strawberry and cream. aromas. That was the nose in a nutshell, which also had excellent freshness, complementary rose, subtle earth and white chocolate. There was also nice freshness in the mouth with good vim and fine bubbles. It was not superlative Champagne but was solid, a little dirty in its flavors on its long finish. The acidity seemed to be going with the wind (93M).

The magnum of 1966 Moet Brut Imperial that followed had a gorgeous nose of honey, nut, cream and toast. There was great blend and balance, and it was still fresh with warm, medium-bodied straw and earth flavors, a touch of yeast, and again a bit of a dirty finish. There were also tasty yellow fruit and gold dust flavors. A lot of people preferred this to the 75 Rose (93M).

That was a big bottle of 1975 Bollinger RD, a jero to be precise. Jeros always seem so much bigger when you are trying to actually pour one! Big Boy was a bit aggravated, as he felt the 75 was not cold enough.. This bottle was re-disgorged in 1996 and had a very wafery nose, very distinct. There was supporting straw, yeast and sun-dried yellow fruits. It was lightly creamy and lightly tasty, and then tootsie pop aromas developed, and I got seconded on that emotion. There was not a lot of fruit definition in the mouth, which gave it a lighter-styled impression. There were baked bread and earth flavors, nice sprite and decent acidity. Wendy came up with .cookie dough and baked pineapple. aromas along the tootsie pop lines and also admired its effervescence. Jim finally noted that it tastes younger. You can tell about the RD. (91J).

That was all the time left in the first period, so we segued into some red wines. First was a magnum of 1929 Haut Brion, from the same batch that I had at the Top 100 Weekend in October. It again delivered a complex experience. Rob noted that it was so Burgundian, while Wendy admired its Asian spices. Tobacco, leather, mesquite and espresso bean were all very expressive, and despite these aged aromas dominating, there was still a healthy dose of cassis fruit underneath it. Wendy picked up on green tea and saffron.. There was still amazing color to this gravelly magnum. Its palate was pretty, less complex than its aromatics with nice flavors of Worcestershire, citrus and mocha. Paul found smoked sausage, and Teona even got into the act with antique wood.. It was very consistent with the Top 100 magnum. It got tangier, prompting Rob to say drink em up. This is totally integrated and ready to go.. Tasty, balanced and smooth, there were nice, cedary flavors and still light vim on the finish (95M).

A 1952 Cheval Blanc magnum was next. 1952 is one of my favorite Right Bank vintages and still a bit of a secret. Someone admired its smoky. nose. I found its nose to be incredible, full of crushed red fruits, sweet black cherry liqueur and oil, musk, marinated lamb, and nice floral sexy back. behind it. It was black and blue and red all over, symphonic in its aromatic display with touches of bramble, cigar and leather. It flavors were pure, its balance between fruit and finish superb, and its definition extra special. There was still a prettiness to it, its length and backside both elegant and firm. Wendy and Jim combined with .lavender, tea leaves, hoisin, Worcestershire, Burgundian, spectacular.. It was pretty special (96+M).

The 1978 Gaja Barbaresco held its own after the Cheval, but it was a touch corked, but not enough to cloud the judgment or experience of it. There was still the classic tar and leather, along with a bit of motor oil. It was very wound with a lot more structure than I expected. It was very spiny, possessing extraordinary acidity in the mouth. It was very schreechy, long and earthy with a hint of potpourri (93M).

The 1978 P. Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle. had a spectacular nose, singing with that Rhone bacon and menthol, as well as some good barnyard, as Jim noted, but it was a barnyard distinct for the Rhone. It has slow and slithering t n a, an anaconda of a nose almost, along with great spice and beef. Wendy picked up on .saltine. and wintergreen.. It was smooth and tasty, but there was not an ocean of acidity left nor a lot of tannins. Wendy accurately observed. The thing about 78 La Chapelle is that every time I seem to have it, even out of magnum in this example, it seems to be approaching full maturity and not this colossal infant that many people perceive it to be. Don.t get me wrong; it was a great bottle of wine but one that I always seem to expect more from (95M).

Wine time was over, and it was time to batten down the hatches and drink a lot more Champagne. If there is anyone in America with a greater Champagne collection than Big Boy, then I want to meet him! There were plenty of options on hand, but Rob wanted to freshen our palates back up with a 1996 head to head match-up of Salon vs. DP Rose. These were both served out of bottle and the only things on this night not served out of larger format.

The 1996 Salon was served out of a successfully sabered 750ml. There were actually four successfully sabered bottles by our host, who must have been practicing a lot on cases of Korbel or something, as he had it down. The 1996 Salon was like the razor’s edge; there was so much vim, vigor and acidity here it was like being in the eye of a storm. One could see the greatness of the 1996 vintage in the Salon, which was fresh as a baby.s bottom. It was white meaty underneath that 1996 greatness; so balanced, so long, so stylish and deeply penetrating. Rob gave it 6 stars. Incredible. Pure Blanc de Blanc Le Mesnil. No dosage.. It was probably the greatest young Champagne that I have ever tasted (97+).

The 1996 Dom Perignon Rose was no match for the Salon. Wendy called it a disservice. to serve this after the Salon. There were light rose and pink grapefruit aromas. It had some intensity and length to the palate, lots of acid but a softer character of flavor, and lots of dirty earth flavors on the finish as well, much like the.75 and 66. It just didn.t stack up to the Salon (93).

Magnum force returned with a 1959 Pommery. Someone called it Vahlrona chocolate.. It did have an exotic nose, a bit wild and wet, yeasty with some swimming pool there. Its wine-like palate had tangy fino flavors on its finish. It had tasty, creamy and nutty flavors, and cocoa traces on the finish (91M).

Jim and Wendy had most generously brought a magnum of 1959 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, which was the most exotic and complex&wine of the night. It first revealed cream and orange soda qualities and was a bit reserved. It became milky, earthy and white dirty in a good way. Wendy called it .fruit salad. due to its tropical exotic edges. It was very wine-like, and much more complex in the mouth. It actually drank like a fine, aged Montrachet. It was incredibly buttery, and even Pat separately noted how it was like a nutty, old Montrachet. and also picked up on .canteloupe.. Comtes de Champagne is 100% Chardonnay and a Blanc de Blancs Champagne. The butter, the toffee, the toasted nuts; it was an insanely good white Burgundy, more special by the fact that it was almost 50 years old. Many great old Champagnes become wine-like, and I have come across no finer example of that fact than this 59 (96M).

A magnum of 1959 Dom Perignon had a touch of freshwater to it, a pinch of good stalk and white sugar aromas. It was the freshest of the 59s but also had a weird, indoor wax aroma. It got more sugary in the glass along the line of a Dr. Brown’s celery soda and was good but not a standout after the Taittinger (92M).

Finally, some Krug. However, the magnum of 1962 Krug Private Cuvee Extra Sec was oxidized and very flat (DQ).

No fear, the 1964 Krug Collection was here. It was great, also having that younger quality of the Bollinger RD as Jim referred to, but Rob was adamant that Krug does not disgorge with younger vintages as other houses might, because that is what Remi Krug told him and is also so fresh due to the steel corks that they age the bottles with. So I asked Rob to ask his good friend Remi Krug himself about what happens behind the scenes at Krug, whose response was:

.Disgorgement is the ugly name for the operation by which the sediment formed in each bottle by the secondary fermentation is expelled out of the bottle, allowing the Champagne to be bright and limpid as one expects. As such, every champagne must be disgorged. At Krug, we usually do this 8 months to one year prior to expected shipment date. This is a minimum because, for some of our wines, and in particular for Krug Collection vintages, there may be a much longer period of time between disgorgement and shipment. There is no mathematical time. It varies as we feel best appropriate.

This being said, disgorgement date does not have, for Krug, the importance that some people believe from what they hear as the truth for some of our colleagues. The exceptional and well acknowledged longevity of Krug results from ( i ) the quality of our very strict selection of grapes, ( ii ) our unique first fermentation in small oak casks which literally “vaccinates” our wines against future oxidation and consequently grants them this extraordinary longevity, and, finally, ( iii ) the quality and harmony of the blend itself. These are, for Krug, I insist, the real reasons for the extraordinary taste developments over many years and even decades. In this very specific context, the disgorging date is a minute detail of no real importance.

And, beyond all this, there is, of course, ( iv ) the storage conditions. Ideal here in Krug cellars, near to perfect at the most serious wine stores&this can really affect the ageing pace of any great wine. You should always buy your great wines from great wine specialists..

It was much more intense than the Bollinger; big, full and long, there was great sprite here. It was rich in the mouth with intense straw and cream flavors, highlighted by white truffles dipped in chocolate. Yum (96M).

The ball dropped, and a jero of 1949 Pommery came out. Having recently had both the 53 and 47 Pommery out of Jeroboam with Big Boy, he mentioned that he had saved the best for last. Clearly, that was the case. I had never seen anyone saber a bottle of champagne, let alone a magnum, but when Big Boy sabered the 49 Pommery jeroboam, holding the pundt in one hand and the saber in another with no outside assistance after nearly five hours of imbibing, i knew we were in an official wine twilight zone. Fresh, special, pure and long, the Pommery was light on its feet yet packed a punch (95J).

Last but not least was a magnum of 1961 Dom Perignon .Charles and Diana Wedding Cuvee.. This was specially released from Dom Perignon for the Royal Wedding. Big Boy got a few cases when he recently acquired Buckingham Palace. Ok, so maybe he only made an unsolicited offer. Pat found the 61 Krug-like.. It was fresh, long, spiny and had a vigorous and intense palate, an outstanding Champagne (95M).

The notes were waning, and the dance floor was heating up, as Big Boy turned his living room into the Marquee and led the booty shaking. It was a great way to ring in 2007.