From magnum. What a wonderful Champagne! While this 1970 has not the stuffing of the best years, it was so fresh and vibrant without any hint of oxidation. In addition, it has with a very good precision and great balance. Sad we had to share this bottle. I could drink this all day every day. Technically the 95 pts are a stretch put the enjoyment level was just so damn high.

TN: Delicate perfume of nougat, toffee, brioche and butter on the very inviting nose. Nit super intense but nicely precise. Very fresh, young and still vibrant palate with fine mousse and the same aromas along some citrus and apple freshness. Very balanced and harmonious.

Decanting: Not decanted, no decanting needed.

From magnum. I‘ve had this wine from the regular bottle a few weeks earlier and it was stunning (rated 96). From this magnum it was still too young and reductive but you could sense that stuffing is there and this wine can become the beauty it already is from the regular bottle. 92/93 points.

TN: Reductive nose with some white fruits and yellow fruit underneath. Restrained and fresh. On the palate a bit more open, dense, fresh, balanced with white and yellow fruits, some flowery aromas and a bit of minerality. Not overly open but nicely defined and already quite enjoyable.

Decanting: This would have needed a few hours in the decanter.

From magnum. This was rather hard to drink at the beginning of the evening. These wines can be quite dry with some age and work well to start an evening but this was still sweet, too sweet. In addition, I found it a bit watery. Maybe my palate was just not ready.

From magnum. Not decanted, this performed very well right after pouring it. Intense, layered, precise, round and harmonious. Based on that this was on a 95/96 point level. After half an hour it cracked a bit and showed less clean with some unwanted age notes. All four Missions that weekend (52/64/66/71) showed quite consistent, lots of typicality and fun to drink.

TN: Starts off expressive on the nose, displaying herbs, black tea, liquid and dry tobacco, old leather, ash, minty and meaty notes and still ripe dark fruit. Superbly complex and precise. The palate can‘t replicate it. The aromatic complexity is similar but it is all a bit watered down. The structure is impeccable and the finish shows great length and poise. After 20-30 minutes more port like ripeness and oxidation nose came forward and tainted the experience but until then, this was a 95+ pts experience.

Decanting: Not decanted. This needed no decanting.

From magnum. This needed a bit of time to come out of its shell. It became sweeter and more expressive by the minute but never really showed overly complex. Nicely light and airy but with a bit of tension missing.

TN: At first there was some cellar stink on the nose but it blew off with time and underneath were blue and especially sweet red berries. Quite expressive but simple. Same on the palate with an airy texture, molten tannins and a medium acidity, overall missing a bit of tension. The same sweet fruit aromas but not much more.

Decanting: Not decanted, this would have needed a good decant.

From magnum. The highlight here is the nose. Super expressive with perfectly defined sweet and sexy red berries. So intriguing and inviting. The palate was missing density and power but the 96 points nose alone was worth the entry fee.

TN: Super expressive nose full of strawberry candied, raspberries, some caramel and brandy notes. Not as complex as the Mission 64 in the next glass but super sexy. One you could smell all night long. 96+ pts. On the palate the same fruit aromas are there but watered down, missing the concentration and additional depth to excite. Smooth tannins, good acidity, light feel and medium length.

Decanting: Not decanted, no decanting needed.

From magnum. The wine showed brilliantly, full of life and tension and with lots of that ripe 1947 fruit. It is so powerful and concentrated, one would never guess this to be an almost 75 years old wine. Super intriguing and round and a lot of fun to drink. It might not have the complexity of the best wines of the vintage but this superbly clean bottle was drinking on a 95 point level today.

TN: Highly expressive nose displaying lots of dense, dark, ripe fruit along meaty notes, fine herbs, some dough, menthol and with time more tertiary aromas, especially tobacco. Complex, well-defined and intriguing. Very powerful and concentrated on the palate with lots of ripe dark fruit, minerality, mostly graphite, tobacco. Not super complex but well delineated and focused. Still a strong, much younger feeling structure with loads of melted tannins and a good freshness. Creamy texture and a long finish. Quite complete and very exciting.

Decanting: Not decanted, a short decant would be enough.

From magnum. I had high hopes for this Lynch from this great vintage but unfortunately it didn’t really deliver lots of excitement. With some air, the nose showed quite an interesting profile but the palate never really came around, it misses tension, power and complexity. 93/94 for the nose, 89/90 for the palate.

TN: Fresh nose with tobacco, minerality, meaty notes, cardamom, bbq sauce and dark fruit. Quite interesting although not perfectly defined. On the palate dark and red berries, tobacco, graphite and herbs but not with enough intensity, tension and weight. It gained a bit of power with time but not to a sufficient degree. Without edges and good freshness, a slightly creamy texture but a rather weak finish. Promising on the attack, the wine loses power and intensity quickly.

Decanting: Not decanted, gained a bit with air. A short bit of air is enough.

From magnum. Tasted double blind. This jumped out of the glass, intense, super complex and highly precise. Easily on a 96 to 97 point level. On the palate, however, this seemed totally strange, while not faulty or dead, it just was bizarre. How to score such a wine? I don’t really now but I could put my nose into that glass for another hour… and for that I randomly hand out 92 points.

TN: Stunning nose with a rainbow of dark berries, ripe and fresh, pure and slightly dry, lots of spices, some georgous brett notes, tobacco, black truffles, graphite and slate. Superbly defined with lots of verve and intensity, Very balanced and inviting. Wow. Not much more to say about the palate than what’s above in the intro.

Decanting: Not decanted. No decanting needed.

Talbot 1952 vs Talbot 1953, both from magnum. Not a close race here with the 1953 (95 pts) living up to the reputation the vintage with a complex and precise profile and an impeccable structure. Blind I would have guessed this to be 20-30 years younger. The 1952 (91 pts), on the other hand, was rather simple but had reductive, sulfur notes which well-dosed like in this wine, I’m a sucker for. And these notes were well balanced a nice sweetness.

TN: Reductive, ashy, sulfur along dark fruit on the nose. Sexy. The same pattern on the palate with not much more to it but a beautiful fruit core and sweetness. Quite intense and precise but no complexity. The tannin structure is well intact and the wine has a good freshness and the texture is nicely creamy. Not overly long but all in all quite pleasant.

Decanting: Not decanted. Maybe a bit decanting could have helped here.

Talbot 1952 vs Talbot 1953, both from magnum. Not a close race here with the 1953 (95 pts) living up to the reputation the vintage with a complex and precise profile and an impeccable structure. Blind I would have guessed this to be 20-30 years younger. The 1952 (91 pts), on the other hand, was rather simple but had reductive, sulfur notes which well-dosed like in this wine, I’m a sucker for. And these notes were well balanced a nice sweetness.

TN: Stimulating nose with dark berries and sweet raspberries, meaty and ashy notes, tobacco and menthol. Quite layered and precise. Nicely creamy texture and with good concentration on the palate with the same complex aromas and minerality. Super sweet and nice. Fine tannins, good freshness, good tension, fine finish… quite complete and a wine you could drink a whole bottle of easily.

Decanting: Not decanted, no decanting necessary.

From magnum. I didn’t like this. While not faulty, it was completely in the dried fruit, port-like spectrum with some unwanted age notes and without much tension and verve. There was some pleasant sweetness underneath but not enough to convince me that this is clearly well past it’s prime - at least from this magnum.

From magnum. This was an incredible wine with a complex nose and palate, superb but not perfect delineation, a wonderful round and integrated structure and a very good balance. Compared to the 75cl, this magnum has not yet developed much tertiary aromas. As soon as that kicks in and the complexity increases, the 96 pts today could climb to 97/98 easily. The structural frame and the fruit certainly allow for further graceful ageing.

TN: Very sexy and inviting nose displaying lots of ripe dark fruit, candied red fruit, minty notes, somer grassy/herbal scents. Very fresh and full of tension and intensity on the palate with a lot of minty notes, red and dark berries, minerality and earthy notes. Very little detectable tertiary aromas but so much fun to drink with well-rounded ripe tannins and a creamy yet superbly fresh structure and a long finish.

Decanting: Not decanted and good from the go. A short decant should be sufficient.

From magnum. This was one of the stars in the tasting, if not the very best wine for many participants with 99 and 100 pts rating handed out like candy on Halloween. But I agree with sirpat and GH, that it was nowhere near perfection on this day. From this large format, the wine was still too young and in a dormant stage. I’m not sure if a proper decant would have helped a lot as despite a lot of swirling it never really showed its true colors in the 30+ minutes I followed the wine. You could sense all the stuffing underneath, though and I hence have little doubt that this wine can reach lofty heights once it will be ready.

TN: Dark brooding nose with dark fruit, spices, tobacco. All a bit muted and only with time a bit more expression. Very fresh and thick on the palate with the same aromas but not overly expressive and not as complex and precise as the other, much more open and ready to drink wines in this flight (Montrose 90, Poyferre 90). A wall of fine tannins and a good creamy yet fresh structure but as everything was muted it missed also that touch of sexiness. I was surprised how fresh this wine showed, I expected an even more massive, decadent and ripe wine.

Decanting: This magnum would have probably needed a day in the decanter.

From magnum. My clear #1 of the tasting, no doubt. Montrose can be stubborn and needs a lot of time and I feared that a large format might not be ready but luckily, this was not the case. With a bit of swirling this wine showed exceptionally well: expressive, hyper complex, perfectly delineated, impeccably structured and with a long and expanding finish. A very complete wine and in this form at its peak (if you like fresh fruit like me). So classic and aristocratic which made the great Poyferre 90 magnum in the next glass look like a slutty sister. The 90 Montrose is ready, whereas the 89 Montrose shows variable with many bottles still rather dormant and in need of a lot of air.

TN: Highly expressive and layered nose with masses of black truffles, herbs, minerality, lots of dark fruit. Classic and tertiary in the best way. With more time, more and more fruit sweetness made it even more balanced. Wow, a nose to die for and easily worth 98 pts but the palate was even better. The same intense and perfectly defined aromas with lots of tobacco, black truffles, slate and graphite, dark and blue fresh berries, earthy notes and herbs. Always changing a bit and revealing new aromas in the classic/fresh spectrum. Fine velvety tannins, a perfectly integrated, well-measured acidity, a fresh but creamy enough texture and a long finish with a rainbow of autumnal/truffles and black fruit aromas. It got more expressive and intense by the minute.

Decanting: Not decanted and that worked well. Still, these usually need some time (2h?).

Mini vertical of Heitz MV 1975/1976/1978. All from magnum. The 1975 (94+ pts) and the 1976 (95 pts) showed very well with the classic mint-monster aroma profile and the otherwise classic, fresh, almost airy shape. Both wines didn’t show enough complexity to reach a higher score today. The 1978 (84 pts) was well past its prime but that is certainly a problem of this particular bottle than of the vintage in general. Usually, these old Heitz MVs are consistently great wines. A bit predictable and from time to time a bit one-noted? Maybe, but so much fun to drink.

TN: At first there were some wet cardboard, cellar stink notes on the nose but with a bit of swirling and air they quickly dissipated. Intense but not overly complex nose with lots of ripe dark fruit and menthol notes. Nicely precise and inviting. On the palate a lot of power and concentration with beautiful red and dark fruit, menthol, spices and a touch minerality. Well built frame with powerful, ripe tannins, a good freshness and a fairly light and airy texture. Medium+ length with menthol and red fruit dominating. Quite complete and balanced for a higher rating it would have needed more depth.

Decanting: Not decanted, no extensive decanting necessary.

Mini vertical of Heitz MV 1975/1976/1978. All from magnum. The 1975 (94 pts) and the 1976 (95 pts) showed very well with the classic mint-monster aroma profile and the otherwise classic, fresh, almost airy shape. Both wines didn’t show enough complexity to reach a higher score today. The 1978 (84 pts) was well past its prime but that is certainly a problem of this particular bottle than of the vintage in general. Usually, these old Heitz MVs are consistently great wines. A bit predictable and from time to time a bit one-noted? Maybe, but so much fun to drink.

TN: At first a bit muted and only on a 92 pts level, the wine got better by the minute, opening up, gaining intensity and precision. But never reached the expressiveness of the 1975 in the next glass. This still gets a higher rating as it has more stuffing. More layers of fruit, lots of mint notes, earth and a pronounced minerality as well as some spices on the nose and palate and a menthol finish. Very fine structure with molten tannins, a high but well-integrated acidity, a creamy texture and overall a Bordeaux feel. Superb balance and a lot of fun to drink, this could certainly have gained one or two points if we would have time to follow for one or the other hour.

Decanting: Not decanted, needed a bit of air. My guess: This magnum could have used 2 hours in the decanter.

Mini vertical of Heitz MV 1975/1976/1978. All from magnum. The 1975 (94 pts) and the 1976 (95 pts) showed very well with the classic mint-monster aroma profile and the otherwise classic, fresh, almost airy shape. Both wines didn’t show enough complexity to reach a higher score today. The 1978 (84 pts) was well past its prime but that is certainly a problem of this particular bottle than of the vintage in general. Usually, these old Heitz MVs are consistently great wines. A bit predictable and from time to time a bit one-noted? Maybe, but so much fun to drink.

TN: Sadly this was well past its prime and no representative bottle. There was still some mint and mostly dark fruit there but lots of soy sauce and broth notes too. The structure was fairly fine with round tannins, a good acidity and a creamy texture. But overall a rather unpleasant wine.

Decanting: Nothing would have helped here.

From double magnum. No detailed notes taken. This was a pleasant wine with some nice tertiary aromas, driven by an intriguing spiciness, with a good freshness and a nice fruit core. Fun to drink but without the poise, depth and creaminess needed to reach a higher level. Clearly superior to the 1979 (87 pts) which was served next to it had some strange notes.

From double magnum. No detailed notes taken. On the nose this had an ugly smell of a wet dog. Even with a lot of swirling and time, this remained the dominating factor till the end. Fortunately, the palate showed a bit better with a nice dark fruit core and a beautiful creaminess but all in all this never really shined.

The tasting was concluded with three sweet wines. All from magnum. Winner was the La Tour Blanche 1945 (95 pts) which showed wonderfully mature with a beautiful fruit sweetness, balanced by a superb freshness and lots of tertiary development. Quite similar with a bottle of Yquem 1948 (98 pts) we had the day before with a little bit less of everything. The Guiraud 1967 (91 pts) was fresh, complex and balanced but didn’t had a desired level of purity with a lot of chemical notes showing. Tasted blind, the rare Gantenbein Vin de Paille 1997 (92 pts), showed very layered, sweet, balanced by a very good freshness but showed port-like ripeness and aroma profile which I just don’t like.

TN: Medium+ Expressive nose with fudge, caramel, crème brulee, citrus and apricot. Medium+ intense and nicely fresh. On the palate it is a tad less complex and needed some time to become more expressive and harmonious. It showed the same aromatic profile. Very good freshness. Overall a tad less clean boytritis profile and a tad sweeter than the almost perfect Yquem 1948 from the day before. Still, this was a lot of fun to drink and should improve for many more years.

Decanting: Not decanted, became better by the minute. Could have needed 1h+ in the decanter.

The tasting was concluded with three sweet wines. All from magnum. Winner was the La Tour Blanche 1945 (95 pts) which showed wonderfully mature with a beautiful fruit sweetness, balanced by a superb freshness and lots of tertiary development. Quite similar with a bottle of Yquem 1948 (98 pts) we had the day before with a little bit less of everything. The Guiraud 1967 (91 pts) was fresh, complex and balanced but didn’t had a desired level of purity with a lot of chemical notes showing. Tasted blind, the rare Gantenbein Vin de Paille 1997 (92 pts), showed very layered, sweet, balanced by a very good freshness but showed port-like ripeness and aroma profile which I just don’t like.

TN: Very ripe profile on the nose and palate with lots of apricots and a bit of citrus as well as some spices. It seems quite a bit younger with a high freshness. Instead of a nice saffron-like boytritis, this shows a lot of chemical and hard liquor notes as well as some wet cardboard scents you can often find in (not so well-made) Sauternes. Many might like that, but I don’t.

Decanting: Not decanted. I guess this could have used a lot of air.

The tasting was concluded with three sweet wines. All from magnum. Winner was the La Tour Blanche 1945 (95 pts) which showed wonderfully mature with a beautiful fruit sweetness, balanced by a superb freshness and lots of tertiary development. Quite similar with a bottle of Yquem 1948 (98 pts) we had the day before with a little bit less of everything. The Guiraud 1967 (91 pts) was fresh, complex and balanced but didn’t had a desired level of purity with a lot of chemical notes showing. Tasted blind, the rare Gantenbein Vin de Paille 1997 (92 pts), showed very layered, sweet, balanced by a very good freshness but showed port-like ripeness and aroma profile which I just don’t like.

TN: On the nose some alcohol heat, fresh red fruits, ripe dark fruit. On the palate the fruit is mostly in the dried/raisny spectrum with lots of spices and herbs and some tobacco notes. The wine has a very good freshness which easily carries the opulence of the wine. All in all, very impressive and intellectually appealing but just not my style. If you like port wine, you will score this higher.

Decanting: Not decanted, no extensive decanting necessary.