A nice start to the dinner - this was a pretty neat Champagne. I do not think it was quite as good as the best Grande Annee vintages, and this bottle has slipped a bit from the last one I had in 2011, but it was still very decent indeed. It had a nicely engaging, rather masculine nose, with yeast and brioche, sweet white fruit and a touch of limes, and then notes of white meat and some stony mineral accents running behind. The palate had a nice juicy attack, with citrus limes and lemon and green apple flavours giving the wine a clean, clear feel that was quite a departure from the broad, creamy, meaty nose. This showed both the gentle fleshiness of a Bollinger as well as the soft feel of the 1999 vintage though, all adding to make it very drinkable, if just a bit lacking in oomph. The finish was actually distinctly mid-lengthed, trailing away with a bite of citrus lime and a little toasty spice. All in all, a pretty good Champagne. Gentle and enjoyable now, although it can probably use a hold for a bit more time in the cellar.

Very good indeed. This had a really engaging nose, quite perfumed, with wafts of dried flowers, kumquats and orange peel, and just a shade of browned apples and earthy, minerally tones coming in behind. The palate was showing really well too. It had a rich ripeness that spoke of the 1990 vintage, with ripe red apples and sweet lemons making out a fleshy attack. This was laced with sprightly acidity and flushed with a nice touch of spice that spread across the backpalate in a good, broad finish. Very nicely balanced for a 1990, it somehow managed to come across both powerful and yet well-controlled. A very nice Champagne moving towards its peak.

Pretty good, but this was an in-your-face wine – not quite my style. It had a huge, rich nose, with thick aromas of beeswax, honey and peaches wafting out of glass along with a little chalky, flinty undercurrant of minerality. With time, some sweet cream notes floated out as well. The was matched by a thick, layered, waxy mouthfeel on the palate, with big fat flavours of sweet stone fruit lined with spice and toasty, popcorny oak notes. There was a whiff of alcohol warmth in here somewhere as the wine then powered its way into a rich finish with yellow fruit, butter and nuts. There was some acidity that brought a decent balance to the wine, but any brightness or lift was otherwise quite buried by all that fruit. Oodles of oak aside, if you like the big, fruit-forward style, this is actually a pretty good wine and drinking well now. Not my thing though.

An excellent Puligny 1er Cru. I had quite forgotten having had this before, but from my notes on a bottle we had a year and a half ago, this showed very consistently. It had a lovely nose - sweet peaches and nectarines, a little lemon peel, some vanilla and cream, and then a little lift of exotic nutmeg spice, smoke and a hint of earthy mineral; this was a very nice and complex bouquet. It was lovely on the palate as well. Fresh and pure, yet soft and melting, it caressed the mouth with mellow waves of honeyed apples and gentle orangey tones leading into a lightly spiced finish. Little pinpricks of chalk and mineral then peeked out at the edges as the wine took on some air. There was a nice warm depth here, but it was also beautifully balanced with well-integrated acidity. Very yummy - this was still fresh, juicy and lively, yet at the same time already perfectly resolved and drinking beautifully. Lovely.

Pretty good. The second of two white Puligny 1er Crus, this had an bigger, broader nose than on the 1998 Montille Caillerets, with a deeply saline, seashelly character alongside wafts of white fruit and a faintly sweet hint of white flowers and nectar when first poured. As the wine warmed up in the glass, the bouquet really opened up, with sweeter tones of stone fruit, smoke and spice and a really deep seam of chalky mineral coming to the fore. That same chalky, seashelly character was there on the palate as well, especially on the attack before the wine fanned out across the midpalate with really nice sweet white fruit and floral accents. Like the Montille, this was drinking well now – it was soft and round, yet nicely balanced and focused throughout. Decent finish too, closing out with a nice long trail of smoky, chalky, minerally tones. It did not quite have the quality of the Montille, but this was very nice.

A really unusual and quite fascinating wine from Josko Gravner. The winemaking style with this cuvee has changed quite a bit over the years. From what I gather, between 1997 and 2000 (the period when this was made), the Breg was crafted from a blend of wines fermented in half-buried clay amphorae and some that went into large Slavonian oak barrels. (Gravner only went “full amphorae” in 2001). The whole process from vineyard to bottle is also biodynamic. A deep orangey amber colour in the glass, the wine had a sweetly attractive nose of honey, beeswax and orange blossoms, with a core of dried stone fruit aromas laced with an earthy clay and terracotta note. Intriguing. The palate was really interesting too. It had a nice glow of ripe stone fruit and gently honeyed tones infused with complex notes of earth and clay and spice. There was almost a tannic bite and structure to this along with bright, zippy, orangey acidity. It was difficult to know what to make out of this. It is a good enough wine, very challenging and full of character, but I somehow did not find it all that enjoyable to drink from a purely aesthetic basis. It seemed quite ageless and I have absolutely no idea how it will develop in the coming years, but it will be interesting to try this again in 10 years’ time.

A solid, enjoyable Chianti. This has developed nicely since I last had it 7 years ago. Tonight, it showed a really nice nose of sweet dried cherries and wild berries flecked with powdered herbs, dried spices and a little touch of dried earth. A very Italian bouquet – nice stuff. The palate was in great shape, drinking beautifully with nice flavours of prunes and plums and dried cherries laced with slightly chewy tannins and bright, tomato-ish Sangiovese acidity. The finish had a nice dusting of Italian herbs and a dried prune character that spoke of the hot 1997 vintage. Altogether really nice and drinking wonderfully. Time to start drinking up though. This seems perched just on the outside edge of its peak drinking window and will probably start going downhill in the next few years.

I loved this. It had such a wonderfully Tuscan nose, with sprigs of mint and fresh herb dancing around sweet notes of dark cherries and fresh berries and then little notes of earth, wood and sweet flowers trailing behind. Beautiful. There was lovely brightness on the palate, with fresh acidity and fine, powdery tannins framing deliciously juicy flavours of dark cherries and wild berries flecked with bits of spice and dried herb as the wine glided into a fine, long finish. Unusually for a 1997 Chianti, of which the far more advanced Castello di Brolio that we had earlier was a good example, this was still clearly very youthful. When paired with a nice hunk of Bistecca Fiorentina, a touch of the sweet fruit of the vintage and a nice dusting of mineral came out, but otherwise it still seemed quite tight in spite of 2 hours in the decanter. While giving a lot of pleasure on the night, this could actually have benefitted from 5-6 years more in the bottle. Very good indeed, but it needs more time. 93+

Wow, this was really nice. A fine example of just how good the 1998 vintage was on the right-bank. It had a beautiful nose, swirling with tobacco and spice and damp earth, plums and black cherries - a beautiful Merlot bouquet that got me wanting to smoke a cigar. Lovely palate too – soft, seductive, with lovely full flavours of plums and sweet black cherries infused with smoky, spicy, earthy tobacco notes that filled the backpalate in a lively finish. There was lovely balance here, with bright acidity and the finest tannins giving the wine a really nice sense of focus. Absolutely delicious, this is lovely stuff that is starting to drink nicely now. It still has the substance and balance to age effortlessly over the next decade and more though. Very, very good indeed.

Disappointing. It was not a bad wine, but I would really have expected more from any good Pauillac in 1990. The nose rather flattered to deceive – this had an absolutely classic left-bank nose, with cedar and pencil lead, earth and tobacco and a nice core of cassis aromas. Really quite nice. Unfortunately, the palate came across rather preternaturally soft, having a rather soupy feel to its cassis, cedar and light capsicum notes. Flavours were okay, the balance was alright, with a decent amount of acidity, but the tannins were very soft, almost a bit mushy as the wine slid away into a tobacco filled finish. I wonder if this was an off bottle. Served blind, it was pleasant enough but not great, this felt like it should have been drunk up 4-5 years ago.

Very nice, but not quite as good as the superb “standard” 1990 Frederic Emile I thought. This had an attractively sweet nose, with apricots and nectarines, red apples and lightly honeyed notes. The palate was off-dry rather than sweet, showing juicy lime and lemon notes on the attack wed to sweeter suggestions of stone fruit and apples on the midpalate and then a nice minerality on the finish. There was a lot of depth on the wine, all nicely integrated into a creamy package, but it bore its heft so effortlessly that it seemed almost weightless. I thought the slight sweetness actually threw off the wine's lovely poise and balance and distracted from its beautiful minerality ever so slightly. That aside, this was quality. Drinking nicely now, although I can see this getting better over the next decade or so.