It is really cool. Thank god for shipwrecks, wine's only archaeology (aside from all of those mysterious "hidden cellars" navigable only by H. Rodenstock).
However, Juhlin's reaction, as described, is a jumble and makes little sense to me:
Richard Juhlin, a Swedish author of numerous books about Champagne, said he noted great variations in the first 10 bottles tasted, from seawater to great stuff. After overseeing the recorking, he said both Juglar and Veuve Clicquot had in common a mature aroma, almost of cow cheese, Brie or Vacherin, almost too strong, combined with a liqueur-like sweetness. Of the two Champagnes, he found the Juglar, a little more intense, bigger, the French would say, rustique, but said they both compared favorably to some of the best Champagnes today.
So even the best ones taste like stinky cheese that's "almost too strong" but still they "compare favorably to some of the best Champagnes today"? I have to get out my thinking cap.