I’m not sure that the label of 1949 Pétrus should look like this…
It was tasted (drunk!) by a MW in 2015, who wrote, “Petrus 1949 was mute so another bottle was opened. It was glorious!” I hope that MW and the other guests enjoyed it.
Queried on Twitter about the unblemished label by some obnoxiously querulous people (though they were right to question it), MW replied, “Cork was original, label pristine frm (sic) being shrink wrapped (sic) for decades & it tasted old, gd (sic) but not impressive”.
Er, I thought that you said it was “glorious”…?
No picture available of the “original” cork, alas.
It should also have been pointed out to the MW that “Mme L P LACOSTE-LOUBAT” did not inherit her share of Pétrus from Mme Edmond Loubat until 1961.
It is improbable for her name to have been on the label of a 1949 Pétrus.
Why didn’t anybody notice this…?
The twist in this tale is that, in October 2013, Sotheby’s auctioned bottles of Pétrus from the cellar of M Lacoste-Loubat herself that had been relabelled and recapsuled.
The MW bottle certainly looks as though it could have come from the Lacoste-Loubat cellar. But it wasn’t in the 2013 Sotheby’s sale. I’m not aware of these very special bottles being offered anywhere else. And the MW made no mention of Lacoste-Loubat provenance, instead talking of “Cork was original, label pristine frm (sic) being shrink wrapped (sic) for decades”. Utter nonsense.
In all probability, it is a forgery.