A friend of mine recently moved into a new home, and found the Richebourg in a closet along with a bottle of '61 Dom Perignon. As he doesn’t drink, he gave them to me. Bottles were warm to the touch.
'61 Jaboulet-Vercherre Richebourg - PnP. Fill is approximately 3 1/2" below the cork. Almost orange in color. Muted bouquet, but vigorous swirling reveals the faintest scents of damp soil, mushrooms and spice. Virtually nothing on the palate except hints of cherries and a touch of acidity that went flat after a few moments. Nothing on the back end. After ten minutes in the glass, dead. A pity.
'61 Dom Perignon - PnP. Fill approximately 3" below the cork. When the cork was pulled, there was a slight hiss. Bronze color, a few bubbles, astringent taste. Nothing. A pity, because well-stored bottles of this are examples of the pleasures of aged champagne.
Well, it´s good luck to get these bottles, on the other hand if they had been stored (much) too warm - certainly a pity.
However, I honestly do think that a slow-ox of several hours would have helped at least the Richebourg a bit … PnP - in my humble experience - isn´t the best way to bring out the best of old bottles. They most probably wouldn´t have been glorious, but maybe a more satisfying performance … the DP with that low fill and almost without bubbles is certainly more a white wine than a “sparkler” …
When such things happen, if the first contact with the wine (the smell) is not exciting, then, use slow ox. Because you have nothing to lose to do so.
I agree with Gerhard but I would say that the one which I would have believed to perform is the Dom Pé 61. Slow ox plays a role also for champagnes.
Slow ox will never ressuscitate a dead wine, but to declare that a wine is dead without having given the chance to recover through slow ox is something to avoid.