I had the opportunity to taste a 1966 and a 1969 Dom Perignon Brut
last night. Both bottles were well stored, the corks were both good
and both wines were outstanding. The wines were almost identical in
color flavor, body and mousse but the 1966 had a bit more of
everything including mousse. They were a golden amber color in the
glass with still a fair amount of bubbles but perhaps half of what one
would find in a newer vintage. The nose was musky and heavy with
hazelnut and cappuccino. The wine was very complex on the palate with
plenty of brioche, apple pie, vanilla, a bit of walnut and hazelnut
and finsihed with a pronounced black coffee flavor. Still plenty of
acidity and zip to keep things in balance.

On Mar 1, 2:47 pm, "Bi!!" wrote:
I had the opportunity to taste a 1966 and a 1969 Dom Perignon Brut
last night. Both bottles were well stored, the corks were both good
and both wines were outstanding. The wines were almost identical in
color flavor, body and mousse but the 1966 had a bit more of
everything including mousse. They were a golden amber color in the
glass with still a fair amount of bubbles but perhaps half of what one
would find in a newer vintage. The nose was musky and heavy with
hazelnut and cappuccino. The wine was very complex on the palate with
plenty of brioche, apple pie, vanilla, a bit of walnut and hazelnut
and finsihed with a pronounced black coffee flavor. Still plenty of
acidity and zip to keep things in balance.

I have a few single bottles of Champagnes from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
I do not like the taste of old champagne as well as when it is
somewhat younger, but your are right that some of these old wines can
hold up quite well if well stored. I have not had the DP 66, but I
still have a bottle of the 69. It was still in good form when I last
tasted it several years ago.I also have Krug 69 and DP 64.