A little more sweet and grapey on the palate than I would have expected. Seems to show a little prickly, and while this is pleasant and more than drinkable, it's not particularly complex.

A little cleaner than my last experience with this wine, but the oak use here is far too much. Some sneaky acidity on the back end, but overall this feels too heavy-handed. Slightly oily texture as well.

No. 7320. A big and rich wine, with that archetypal Chave polish on the nose. Layered with a mix of smoke, meat, and olives, but richly ornamented with a vast array initially black, and with air, more red fruit. The palate isn't as structured as some of the bigger vintages of this wine, and I'm thinking this will likely be a relatively younger drinking edition of this wine. Nonetheless, this isn't too shut down or hard at the moment and I'm more than happy to be opening this these days.

Served double blind. Beautiful juicy fruit here. Light and delicate, and the juiciness makes it really easy to identify as barbera (which I did). Very bright acidity and the fruit helps balance everything.

Served double blind. I saw the colour of the capsule, so the producer guess was pretty obvious. It's obvious this wasn't a nebbiolo, so the question was whether it was the dolcetto or barbera. There's a slightly confectioned quality to the fruit here and a slight bitter tone on the finish.

Ok, I think I will have to just admit I have no idea what I am talking about. This is certainly different from my tastes of this wine on release. It has far more richness and weight than what I remember. Nonetheless, this is just really large-scaled and there's lots of raw power here. I still do understand a bit of the complaints that this wine was a bit thin (the acidity does feel a little tart). In any case, the jury's out, my notes are worthless, and I am still happy I own a good amount of this.

Word to the wise: never drink the St. Joseph next to the Hermitage. The difference in level between the two wines is too stark. The nose has a pleasant mix of red and black fruit, but the palate is lighter and shows a little more bitter oak than the body of the wine can handle.

I didn't like this as much as my last bottle; the nose is relatively pure and clean, with the classic Clair profile, but the palate is a touch thin and shows a slight bit of astringency. Nonetheless, very lovely, light profile here.

This is very much to my taste. It's not reductive, and instead shows an incredibly complex, layered expression of sweet fruit, florals, and just a slight kiss of oak. A little buttery but in the best way chardonnay can be. Lovely complexity on the palate with silky richness that's very enjoyable. Clear grand cru weight, complexity, and density here.

Classic, old school style Bordeaux, without too much dirty funk (though there's definitely a bit of brett here). At the same time, there is some really lovely power thanks to the fruit. A little more polished and flashy than other older iterations, but quite delightful, especially for the modest price.

An abnormally long cork that did less than nothing for the bottle given how it was riddled with TCA.

From magnum. Showing high-toned on the nose, with an unintegrated sweetness on the palate. Prickly and not convincing.

Showing a little more bitter and astringent than from my last few times. The palate feels quite herbaceous and there's a bitterness that's not very pleasant on this bottle. Not as good as my last experiences with this wine, and for my palate, not worth the price at all.

Just a really slight bit of reduction on the nose. Really nice white fruit, with a good amount of citrus and minerality here. Lovely crisp acidity here.

No. 10113. Very light. Distinct stemmy qualities and a touch of green on the nose and palate. Light as expected, and shows the house style very clearly. Clean and mineral, but without the concentration and power you'd expect from a grand cru.

Nope, still don't understand these wines. Nice red and black fruit with some good Gevrey earth, but also an unpleasant cigarette-ashy herbaceousness that overwhelms everything else that could be nice about it.

On the heels of the 2002 yesterday, which was probably starting to get a little long in the tooth, we have this bright and juicy 2009, which shows a fabulous freshness and lots of richness from the vintage. White fruit and incredible intensity, and ready to drink now.

So effin' weird. Tastes like a boiled Yukon potato. Old and funky with surprising acidity. A little caramelly too. Others definitely liked it more than I did, but for my palate, past its prime. I'm not a big fan of how highly autolytic champagnes age.

Glorious, glorious wine. This is unequivocally a wine flirting with perfection; the only issue is its youth. Everything is so complex and intense, with layers upon layers of black fruit, olives, polish, leather, meat, smoke, and truly everything that syrah should be. A bit of the Chave polish as well, so there's no denying who made this wine. Without a doubt the greatest young Chave I've ever had, and probably one of the best Chaves made in my lifetime so far. I am in awe.

#23-00, 9.5% abv. Slightly dirty on the nose with some earthy things going on, and a little more botrytis than Spätlese ought to have, but this shows a really nice ripe fruit flavour and good richness overall. Ready now; this isn't something that I'd age much more.

Yeah, consistent with my notes yesterday. It's better than my experiences at Krug House. More rich and ripe, with good breadth and lovely intensity. And as I've said multiple times, I've more faith in Krug than my own palate. I think this is certainly just a question of letting the wine settle down in bottle.

The hype is real. Incredible silky nose with black fruit and spice, fruitcake, dust, vanilla, and just incredible complexity with a slight hint of cooling pyrazine. Obviously an monumentally scaled wine, and truth be told, a little difficult to drink on its own without food right now. Nonetheless, the quality is obvious. Most impressive is the application of oak here -- none of the bitterness and WA100 pain grillé (read: toast), coffee, stout, chocolate, etc. tones. Somehow this manages to stay pure and crystalline. Cult Napa at its finest.

Opened the night before to aerate this properly. This is the promise of the 2000 vintage delivered. A beautiful balance of perfume, earth, and fruit. This is clearly a ripe wine, but it has held together very well, without the fruit turning brown or getting muddied (a problem in a lot of aging ripe-vintage nebbiolo). Silky and resolved, for my palate, this is at a peak drinking window right now.

Served double blind. Significant whiff of sulphur on the nose here with plenty of reductive qualities. Right away my mind is at 2004 Leflaive. The guess I felt was further confirmed because of the relatively high acids and a palate that was primarily driven by acidity. This didn't have the oiliness and richness of the grand crus, so I guessed 2004 Leflaive Pucelles. A touch surprised at the vintage, but in my mind a pretty good guess nonetheless.

Earthy and slightly bretty, but some really purple fruit. Too young, with the oakiness poking out right now. This doesn't seem like an overblown modernist monster, and it might be great in 20-30 years, but for now, just kind of pointless to drink.

Served double blind. Obviously CLB based on the nose alone and the massive differential in quality between nose and palate. Nonetheless, this feels larger-scaled than some of the lesser vintages of CLB I've tasted so I thought that this was a 2010. Lacking a lot of the layered complexity that I would expect from a higher appellation, I guessed that this was a lieu-dit level wine.

Served double blind. A really nice balance of earth and dirt on the nose with fruit and acid that is just slightly disjoint. Very ripe and a little bit of sweetness, but for me it's really the tannin that gives the vintage away. Clearly some serious weight in this wine though, and not just from the tannin. I guessed 2005 Mugneret Gibourg Clos Vougeot, and I'm pretty damn happy about that.

Wow. One of the most convincing champagnes I've ever tasted in my life. Incredibly young and still very taut, but the citrus and bread here are just absolutely incredible. Lots of power and tons of minerality as well. Drawing the logical conclusion, this is probably one of the best young Krugs I've ever tasted. CdM is truly impressive in how it manages to capture both the essence of chardonnay and the house style, without either taking a leading role.

Incredibly powerful, potent Bordeaux. A lot of juicy fruit but hidden underneath it are some notes of leather and graphite. The palate is a little overblown though (as I remembered from my last experience tasting this); showing a lot of red fruit but just far bigger scaled than I would expect for a Bordeaux of this class. Seems a bit clumsy and lacks elegance now. Give this time; likely it will be a phenomenal wine with time (it had better be!), but right now, it's more purply and juicy than is enjoyable.

Very, very good, especially for the peripheral appellation. There's not too much fruit here, but a really brilliant structure with awesome acidity. Fairly ripe and a really nice spiciness. Despite the ripeness, bone dry. Probably some of the best stuff I've had from the appellation, along with Guffens-Heynen.