A young friend recently attained the advanced age of 50 years and as
he was a long time wine buddy, we of course used this as an excuse to
haul out all those special bottles that we had been looking for just
the right occasion to plunder. We did it over an extended lunch with
8 people in attendance and taxis on call afterward.

1957 Ch. Beychevelle – you might well wonder why any sane oenophile
would give cellar space to a wine like this, but one of this group is
much given to second labels because ‘they offer great value’ even when
a classed growth of lesser rank normally offers better wine, and is
attracted by big bottles because’ well, they are big!’. His aberrant
theories of wine collecting apparently extend to anything that is old
on the simple justification ‘How much of this could still be around
(the rest of us muttering sotto voce ‘Not much, God willing’). This
was one of those bottles that dazzled him with age as opposed to
quality and we agreed that there would never be a better (or worse)
time to uncork it, so we did. The nose actually wasn’t that bad, with
some wood and fruit evident. The colour was well into the brown
spectrum, and on palate one got a wisp of fruit, some very dry tannin
and a sweet sensation at the end. It hadn’t been an offense against
taste to put this in our mouths, but it hadn’t been a resounding
victory for middling wines in rather poor years aged far beyond
likelihood of survival either. Most of us sipped, and passed the
rest, waiting for something good.

1999 Jacques Prieur Volnay Santenots – good to see this as I have one
left myself. Good colour and gorgeous plummy fruit in the nose,
elegant with good concentration of flavour on palate and good length.
I’d figured this would be nearing the end of its useful life, but
judging by this bottle it is still holding very well.

2001 Florent de Merode Corton Clos du Roi - as I also have this wine
but have not yet got into it, it was also delightful to get the chance
to sample this. A weightier even more serious nose with an added spice
element, which was pleasant to see as this house has been a bit spotty
over the last decade, but we’d had the chance to taste before buying
and this one proved to be very decent. Sweet entry with lots of fruit,
good length and smooth sweet finish with decent length.

1970 Ch. Cheval Blanc – this wine hadn’t really distinguished itself
in a vintage that produced some notable virtuosos (Latour, Montrose)
but it had always shown nicely and I held out hope that it would still
be with us, though it has been fully mature for many years. Again, the
nose was notable, with cedar and fruit apparent, the wine elegant and
sweet in the mouth, obviously a fading but still interesting wine with
a surprisingly long finish. Good show, but if you won any, time to
drink up.

1970 Ch. Montrose – I used to be very impressed with this wine, for a
time when the 1990 was young and unruly, even preferring it to that
stellar vintage. This bottle wasn’t the best I’ve tasted, and I guess
I have to face the fact that the wine is getting pretty spotty and get
into my remaining stash. It was a bit reticent to expose much in the
nose, but after we allowed time in the glass, it did open up and
showed some ripe fruit and a hint of barnyard. It is worth noting
that while the other wines were opened at the event, this had been
opened and decanted by the person that brought it at home prior to the
event, so had more time to develop than the others. After about 40
minutes in the glass the nose was more accessible and started to add
cedar and mineral to the mix. On palate it was a typical Montrose, big
and somewhat rustic, but well put together.

1982 Ch. Cheval Blanc – It had been years since I’d tasted this wine
and I was anxious to renew the acquaintance. I wasn’t disappointed. It
had a big spicy cedar and dark fruit nose, a classic wine with great
structure and complexity, with bright edges, excellent fruit on palate
and a long, long sweet finish. It really doesn’t get much better than
this. Although some tasters seem to be wowed by young wines that
slap them in the face with lavish sweet fruit, you can give me a wine
like this with complexity and development every time!

1980 Beaulieu Vineyard Georges de Latour Cabernet – while this wine
was good in the past and had a pretty good chance of reaching this age
intact, this one must have been badly treated, or maybe chance hadn’t
favoured it and it was dead on arrival

1982 Beaulieu Vineyard Georges de Latour Cabernet – lots of vanilla in
this nose. A medium bodied wine that showed hints of tar and iodine on
palate, mellow with medium length. Nice, but as is almost always the
case, the American cabs fail to develop the complexity with age that
the clarets do.

1990 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard Cabernet – oddly, I was the only one that
detected faint hints of mint in this wine (it is usually much more
prominent) and also guessed correctly at the vintage, although I
failed to nail the producer. Medium colour, not bricking yet, a
perfumed nose, quite pleasant and sweet, that hint of mint (not
menthol or eucalyptus, but garden mint), quite forward in the mouth,
and very pleasant though my take was that this is now on plateau and
should be drunk.

1998 Vieux Donjon – served as an inter-course wine (important to
include that hyphen…) and as a replacement for the DOA 1980 Beaulieu.
This really is a wonderful Chateauneuf – every time I taste it the
wine delights me. White pepper overlaying currant and spicy garrigues
and a constant undertone of tar and quite sweet fruit, supple on
palate yet quite full bodied and lots of softening tannins. Very good
length. No rush – this should give pleasure for the next decade or
more.

1963 Dow’s Port (magnum) – this was the real reason I elected to taxi
– I’d had this in the cellar for 10 or 12 years, trying to figure out
just when you could open a magnum of Port, when it came to me that not
only did the birthday boy love vintage Port, but so did many of the
rest of them. This vintage was, according to Broadbent, the last at
Dow where they pressed the grapes by foot in traditional lagars. I
had it opened about 3 hours before drinking.

The nose was beautiful, with a floral (roses?) element and spice as
well as alcohol (some thought it on the hot side but I didn’t) and the
wine was much darker than single bottle 1963s I’ve had recently, with
a rim that was more clear than browning. On palate, sweet but not too
sweet, nor too hot, and the hint of fig although this wasn’t a stewy
fig, and dried cherries as well. Good concentration, the wine in
excellent shape and a long, long tasty finish.

It was predicted that there would be a bunch of this left over after
that long wine filled lunch. In the end, the bottle was dry and went
home with me. It is the old style squat magnum – maybe I’ll stick a
light bulb in it and have a Porto lamp!