I always thought Bernstein’s very finest recording was his 1961 Harold In Italy, probably still never equaled, followed by his first recording of the Sibelius Fifth (his second recording of the Sibelius Fifth was a dud).
There is a monstrous error in your New York Times piece.
“Sibelius was not a composer with whom Bernstein was closely associated.”
That statement is not true. Have you checked concert archives?
Bernstein developed a great love for Sibelius while a protege of Serge Koussevitsky, another great Sibelius champion, and Bernstein went on to perform the music of Sibelius frequently throughout his career.
Bernstein programmed Sibelius often with the NYPO (as well as in his pre-NYPO years as a guest conductor with various American orchestras), and Bernstein recorded all the symphonies and much other Sibelius orchestral music during his New York years.
Bernstein programmed Sibelius again in Europe during the last decade of his career, re-recording the symphonies in Vienna. Indeed, one of Bernstein’s last series of concerts with the Vienna Philharmonic was a Sibelius cycle, especially requested by Bernstein after the orchestra had informed him that his engagements with the orchestra were coming to an end. Several of Bernstein’s DGG Sibelius recordings (long withdrawn from the catalog, I believe, and withdrawn with some justification, I assure you) were recorded live at concerts with the VPO.
In short, Sibelius was a great and lifelong favorite of Bernstein.
In attributing indifference to Sibelius’s music to Bernstein, you may be thinking of the music of Carl Nielsen. Bernstein developed a brief fascination with Nielsen’s music in the mid-1960’s, and recorded at least four of the symphonies as well as the two wind concertos, creditably, but Bernstein fairly quickly lost interest in Nielsen’s music and soon dropped Nielsen from his active repertoire altogether.

Thank you very much, Andrew and Dennis, for your comments. Andrew, I agree with you entirely regarding Harold in Italy — that is truly a great performance and one I very strongly considered.
Andrew, regarding Bernstein’s Sibelius connection, yes, I checked the concert archives and spent much time poring over James H. North’s imposing New York Philharmonic: The Authorized Recordings, 1917-2005.
I don’t dispute anything that you say regarding Bernstein’s personal taste for Sibelius. My point — imprecisely stated, clearly — was that from the point of Sibelians, Bernstein is not one of the conductors whose name comes up routinely in discussions of the composer’s work. Kajanus, Koussevitzsky, Karajan, Davis, Vänskä — those are names encountered in nearly every appraisal of Sibelius on record.
What I was meant to suggest was that Bernstein very likely should have been included in that list, based on precisely the affinity I find in that recording of the Second Symphony, which is among the greatest of all — and the one I personally turn to most frequently, as a lover of that piece.
My distinction had less to do with Bernstein’s personal inclinations and preferences, and more to do with the perception of that work from a distance. The fact that, as you’ve stated, the later Vienna recordings are easily dismissed and at one point deleted (though as Dennis points out they’re back around now) is perhaps one reason that Bernstein is in my judgment not considered to be among the Sibelian elite.
A better way to state what I was trying to get at, probably, would have been to say that Bernstein was a conductor not closely associated with (or linked to) Sibelius. By the time my ambiguity occurred to me, it was too late to fix it. I appreciate your words here very much, not least to address my own shortcoming — though obviously I view it what I wrote not as an error, but as an imprecision.

I’ve always loved Bernstein’s recording of Honegger’s “Pacific 231” and “Rugby,” made with the New York Philharmonic in the early 60s I believe. They are very robust and gritty, not to mention virtuosic.
Also, his recording of “On the Town” with the original cast is a real pip.