Helen's 'conversation wine' was served blind and the conversation was: 'What the hell is this?'. I had no idea. Bright orange colour, but clean and youthful, not evolved. A bouquet of orange and lemon peel, butterscotch, honey and minerals. Lots of phenolic grip on the palate, very oxidative flavours, orange, grapefruit, crème brulee and honey. An individual, interesting wine. On the reveal, this is a Georgian wine and when I travelled to Central Asia earlier in 2014, they were the best wines available there, which was Helen's inspiration … Still I did not have anything like this wine ... I don't think it would be a cellar wine.

Lemon colour, with a little depth. A restrained, delicate nose of talcum powder, lemon and meadow flowers. Crisp and dry on the palate. Lovely texture and mouthfeel. Nice fruit weight. Dry finish.

Served to me blind, this was an interesting wine that seemed Burgundian, but otherwise a wine I could not place. An attractive nose showing some evolution with smoky, bauxite and citric aromas. Pleasant on the palate, if perhaps a little straightforward and uncomplicated. The flavour profile, with its gentle citric, creamy lactic and mealy aspects reminded me very much of lemon custard (but less sweet). Good concentration and volume with acceptable acidity. The wine showed some age and was properly oxidised, making this a 'drink soon' proposition for me. From a vineyard near the top of the Corton hill.

If I had trouble picking the Ladoix blind, this was much harder. The nose was quite honeyed and sweet, suggesting to me some Gerwurtztraiminer. There were also citrus and mineral aromas. There was some residual sugar on the palate, but less than I was expecting from the bouquet. There was a nice, viscous mouthfeel here, with good fruit weight. It is a young wine and obviously a blend and although pleasant enough, not a wine that impressed me very much on the day. I understand it’s 60% Gerwurztraminer, 25% Riesling and 15% Muscat.

This was more like it! The bouquet of Helen's wine, served blind, took me straight to the hill of Corton. A glorious bouquet of white flowers, mixed spices, minerals and blanched almonds. There was also serious new oak too but not in a way that overpowered the aromatics of the fruit. And the Faiveley delivered on the palate. It was rich, dense and muscular, with Grand Cru fruit weight, structure and power. But it also had lovely bright acidity, shiny minerality and beautiful balance. I was guessing this as a 2007 or a 2010 Corton, never a 2009. A class act. Gorgeous now but it would be superb in 10 years, if it survives premox.

Again served blind, after the Corton, this had a dumber nose, although I picked up citric, wet granite and mineral notes. There was a little oak on bouquet, but it was well integrated, as it was on the palate. The wine was fat, rich and dense. I was picking it as a 2009 Chassagne, as it seemed to be lacking a bit of acid cut. However, this is a very young wine from a good white wine producer so I would not judge it on this. It may have been in a dumb stage. Give it at least 5-7 years if you are brave about premox.

Served blind, a real change of speed. A spicy, chalky, metallic, citric nose. Racy sparkling acidity on the palate. A lower fruit weight than the wines around it and less fruit forward flavours, more minerals, rock and chalk. This seemed like an Italian wine and, with this acid profile, a very good food wine.

Advanced colour tending orange. An Autumnal bouquet of dried Autumn leaves, burnt toffee, smoke and baked apple. The palate is very oxidated, flavours of toffee apple, Époisses and grilled almonds, with some minerality. No real Chablis typicity left, but clearly the wine is an evolved, mellow Chardonnay. Still some life and acidity left. An interesting, fully mature wine.

The vanilla oak hits your olfactory senses first, then citric, river rock, chalk and mineral aromas. This is a young, fairly primary Chablis on the palate. However, it is a little disappointing, as it lacks some focus, precision and acid cut. Not at all premoxed but perhaps stereotypical 2006 Chablis. The flavour profile is citric and nutty but does not show any of the oyster shell, saline or marine elements you look for. There is some acidity on the back end but the palate seems to pull up a bit short. A little disappointing for this top producer and climat.

I brought this wine to (hopefully) show that not all 2006 Chablis are disappointing. Served blind as a pair with my Laroche, people liked it, but had it as a quality Cote de Beaune, not as a Chablis at all. Again, it lacked Chablis typicity, but it was, in my view, an excellent Grand Cru level Chardonnay. A lovely bouquet of minerals, lemons and limes and white flowers. On palate, this is an attractive, expressive wine with good fruit weight, sufficient acidity and beautiful balance and proportion. Good length, the wine finishes dry on minerals. Drink in the next five years.

I served the Laroche blind beside the Fèvre. Some of my friends have expressed very mixed views about the house. On a quick straw vote, most preferred the Fèvre over the Laroche, but some preferred the Laroche. I was not among them. Under screwcap. There was a lot of sulphur on the nose, presumably to protect against premox. If you could get past that, there were some nice nuances of baking spices, citrus and apple pie. The palate had some attractive citric, malic and creamy lactic flavours, but, overall, seemed too broad and unfocussed. It seemed a bit overworked, muddied and rough. The balance did not seem right in this wine and it seemed to be lacking a little acidity, which was a surprise, given the vintage. I’d drink it soon.

Mike's wine (again served blind) had a beautiful bouquet of white florals, yellow spices, talc and mixed blanched nuts. It had real Grand Cru level dry extract, depth and power on the palate. There was limited acidity in the mouth, but the wine was quite fine, balanced and reasonably elegant. It had little or no Chablis typicity I could see, and I thought it was another Corton. This made sense when the vintage was revealed. An atypical Grand Cru Chablis but a very good wine. On the evidence of this bottle, there is no hurry to drink this Dauvissat.

By now I'm beginning to doubt my ability to pick a Chablis blind. Served blind, this wine has notes of apple seed, raw almonds, lemons and limes on bouquet. Again there are no seashell or saline elements, suggesting a Chablis. On palate, there are some signs of evolution, but no real Chablis character. The palate seemed a little tired and subdued. The oak also seemed a little too elevated and out of balance. There is however a nice, viscous mouthfeel. On this showing, I would drink this Chablis soon.

Served blind, a nose of spices and raspberries, red cherries, plums and red currants, with a little dry earth. The flavour profile was similar, with decent fruit on the palate. A solid, earthy, slightly muddy wine, not at all spectacular or lifted. I was thinking this was a 1er but, on the reveal, I wondered if it, as a 2005, just needed more cellar time to be at its best. It was far from clenched and iron on the palate, but I wondered if the wine was closed in a different sort of way? Perhaps it will improve in 5-10 years?

Served from Magnum. A lovely, lifted nose of largely red fruit, that did not give much suggestion of just how primary was the palate. In the mouth, huge tannins and screechy acidity. Very dark fruited, with tons of dark soil, the dense mid palate is all iron and granite. There is serious dry extract and structure here but this wine is a classic structured 2005. Hold for 10 years, preferably more.

Rauno’s wine had a lovely fragrance that was quintessentially red Burgundy. The bouquet was redolent of underbrush, damp earth, dark berries and some dried herbs, suggesting some whole bunch. On palate, there is a bit of bite from the acidity, but it is good, vibrant acidity. A precise and focused wine with good architecture. The flavours are largely dark berries, sous bois, damp peat and Porcini mushrooms. An intriguing wine. Ready to drink now, but there is no hurry of course.

Served blind. A lovely perfumed nose, reminiscent of an open meadow full of small flowers. In the mouth, rich, open textured, relatively generous and toasty, with some herbiness. I had this wine pegged as a Chambolle and the vintage was not a surprise. Fully open for business now.

Sadly, corked, the only corked wine of the month. The wine seemed however to have good underlying material.

Served non-blind. I have had this wine several times and consider it one of the best red Burgundies of the 2007 vintage. It has a beautiful Gevrey nose of spices, largely red berries, tobacco, dusty earth, dry underbrush, with a hint of Gevrey animale. Normally Bachelets, particularly the Grand Cru Charmes, take longer than this to come around, but the 2007 is relatively forward and quite accessible now. On palate it is all spices and red berries, with a little warm earth and hints of minerals. Excellent fruit weight, full bodied and very long. I plan to hold my last bottle for 3-5 years.

Served blind. Popped and poured. A bouquet of cracked pepper, plums, dried clay, dried hay, with a little barnyard. On the palate there is more barnyard, clearly some brett, not to an unacceptable level (for me) but clearly there. The other flavours were plums and red fruits, earth, game meats and campfire smoke. Good fruit weight and structure. Just reaching its optimal drinking window now. Decant for 4+ hours if you open in the next few years.

Served blind. An attractive, spicy, red currant nose. On palate, there seemed to be good underlying fruit here but the wine showed very modern winemaking and heavy vigneron signature. Muscular, super concentrated, very worked. The wine seemed over-extracted. Helen said it did not however have the fruit to match the tannin. Clearly a Burgundy of at least 1er level, seemingly very primary and quite unbalanced. Surprise on the reveal that this was a 2007, a lighter vintage. I'm not sure I can suggest a drinking window. Drink now, because I doubt it will come together?

Dusty, scorched earth on bouquet, also red fruits. A solid wine with a flavour profile of red plums, warm earth and brushwood. Quite rich and ripe, but offset by good acidity. Good structure and length, if a little uncomplicated. Drink now or hold. The wine did not probably get its due because it was served (non-blind) in a pair with the Vougeraie Bonnes Mares, which tasters, me included, gravitated towards.

I served this wine non-blind. Mike brought out the Roumier and Jadot as a comparison. An intriguing spicy bouquet, with animale, feral and sous bois notes. The bouquet translates to the palate with tons of blood and fur (per Nick) and sauvage nuance. Gorgeous savoury, spicy fruit, with dark berry and damp earth and forest floor flavours. Excellent depth and concentration, the acids present but in good balance. Seemingly more evolved than the Roumier and out classed by it, but in some ways, as a wine to drink, a more interesting example of a Bonnes Mares. I'd say, coming into its drinking window now, but no hurry.

On bouquet, a full peacock's tail of aromas. Everything you look for in a top Grand Cru Burgundy bouquet. Stunning on palate, with lifted, primary fruit. Glossy, with a gorgeous mouthfeel and texture. Complex and multi-layered flavours, largely in the red fruit spectrum. Serious structure and tannins, huge concentration and fruit weight, but with real lightness and deftness of touch. Intense but brooding, with a huge amount to come in the next 20 years. But on the day, a beautiful wine to experience. A real treat, thanks Mike.

A lovely spicy nose, quite high toned, with aromas of cherries, mushrooms and undergrowth. Also some vanillan oak poking its head through. On palate, attractive, crystalline fruit, quite fresh and bright. This would have been a lovely wine on its own but its weaknesses were emphasised in the company of the other two Bonnes Mares. Serious Grand Cru power and fruit weight, but, to me, a little too worked and over extracted. There is a lot of oak here, yet to fully integrate and there seemed to be a hot ferment character. Long, but slightly drying on the finish, due to the oak artefact. On this basis, I'd probably give this wine five more years cellar time. Still, a very good wine, not disgraced in this company.

Served blind. Similar impressions to my previous note. A beautiful, multi-layered nose of spices, perfumes, dark florals and red and black berries. A predominantly red berry fruit palate, with spices and floral notes, but extremely complex. A lighter style but nervous with real precision and focus, coupled with energy and drive. The vintage has given higher acids, but they are gorgeous, sparkling acids. Grand Cru level dry extract and power. A very fine and elegant wine. Definitely in its drinking window now, but with years to go, of course.

This wine (served blind) was immediately and obviously something special. A gorgeous, cultured bouquet of dark flowers, dark spices and black cherries. On palate the wine was all about precision, elegance and refinement. Beautifully balanced and poised, the RSV had sufficient fruit volume, with serious structure and power, but without seeming weight, incredibly light on its feet. There was also significant oak here also but it was seamlessly integrated, with microscopically fine grained tannins. A precise, classy wine, finishing long on its minerality. Just in its drinking window now, but no hurry I would think. Thanks Nick.

Served blind with the Dugat-Py. A lovely high toned, lifted nose of red fruit and anise. On palate, Grand Cru dry extract and power. Poised, with lovely tension and acid balance. A more pure, natural, less worked wine than the Dugat-Py. Perhaps a little lacking in dimension or nuance and a little hard on the moderately long finish. Still some way to go, but relatively open now, I was surprised that this wine was a 2005 (I had picked it as 2002). I also did not pick the Gevrey character here, not seeing animale or any of the usual Gevrey markers. Approachable now, I would hold this wine for three to five years.

Served blind with the Esmonin. A very different, much more expressive, multi-dimensional bouquet. Quite a beautiful, crystalline nose packed with red berries and a chalky background note. On entry to the palate, some fruit sweetness is apparent, with quite a bit of tightness and phenolic grip on the mid palate. This had serious and cultured tannins, suggesting a 2005, not a 2006, to me. Also clearly Grand Cru quality fruit weight and architecture in this wine. The wine exhibited more obvious winemaking, particularly in the oak handling, than the Esmonin. Ultimately, I preferred the wine over the Esmonin, because of its fineness, finesse and subtlety. It finishes long on chalk and mineral nuances. Again, I did not pick this as a Gevrey, looking more around Vosne, although this was explained when the maker was revealed. I preferred the Dugat-Py, but not on a QPR basis (locally at 3-4 times the price). I’d give this wine another five years to further uncoil.

We served this wine blind to friends. A bouquet of dark cherries and blackberries, with a savoury meaty character. The tasters were split 50/50 as to whether this wine was a Beaujolais or a pinot noir. Superb concentration and firm tannins, flavours of plums, crème de cassis, black tea. Satiny, unctuous texture, showing its old vine character (from three sites with pre-phylloxera vines, planted in 1875 and 1882). From memory, a little behind the 2012 of this wine. Cellar for 5+ years, I’d think.