My favourite of the Champagnes tonight, outclassing the Krug which just wasn't showing, well, anything. Sappy and sweet, with a very Cristal vinous quality, but overall missing the incisiveness that I still want to see in my Champagne.

This has always been a bit of a frustrating wine; tonight it just wasn't showing much at all. Ticks the Krug boxes but lacks the extra oomph to put it up there as a great bottle. More air and/or time in bottle would serve this well. Pretty funny, because I had had some decent experiences with this, and also some experiences where this was just shut down hard. Unfortunately, tonight was the latter.

Not a great showing of this tonight -- just didn't really seem to catch its stride; it was a bit too astringent and felt a bit ungainly and angular. Slightly unpleasant green note on the finish that was unexpected.

Again, I always expect a fairly autolytic wine with Bollinger, but again, this wasn't it. It is a very solid showing, but didn't seem to have the same complexity that I remembered from a few months ago. Nonetheless, there is good palate weight coupled with freshness.

This really didn't speak to me at all. Had a weird underripe quality to it that I found really undesirable. Lean and kind of astringent on the palate, and missing depth here. The more I try these wines, the less I like them.

Mature, but still showing plenty of fruit and some sweetness. It feels like this was harvested quite late, in that the plushness of the fruit is on full display (which isn't something I've always found in nebbiolo of this era). Fully mature tannins, this is at peak and not likely to improve with more age, but is impressive in stature now and quite enjoyable. The story of this wine, of course, is that it is the progenitor of Gaja's Sito Moresco.

Opened at 9:30, and put into a decanter at 12:30. Stunning. It's light, lithe, and elegant, with a pure, crystalline red-fruited character that works so well for nebbiolo. Delicate and filigreed, with mature tannins and the right amount of acid balance to the fruit. Silky texture, and among my favourites tonight.

Too young. This is a wine of potential right now, but it is definitely impressive. On the darker side of nebbiolo, with the fruit showing most prominently right now. Tons of tannin as well; definitely one to hold.

Opened at 8am, double-decanted at 4pm. Not a great bottle. Just kind of dirty and muddy. Some slight soy notes as well. A shame.

#8866. Double decanted at 10am. Slightly earthy with some of the ripeness of 1997 showing through here. Unfortunately that ripe fruit hasn't held up so well, as it does show a slight bit of brown/pruney notes. In comparison to the Falletto, this had a little more elegance and lift, and I preferred this to its southern neighbour.

#1701. Double decanted at 10am. More intense and burly than the Santo Stefano, but again showing some of the heat of the vintage. A slight stewy quality here that really detracts from the wine quite a bit. Not entirely muddy or unclean, but this bottle leaned into that direction more than I would have liked.

#3795. Opened at 7am, double decanted at 4pm. Delicate, crystalline red fruit the way 1996 Giacosa ought to be. Very structured but the non-Riserva status of this actually makes it a little more approachable here. It's certainly quite tannic still, but the fruit profile is such a contrast to the slightly muddier 1997s alongside. I've always been a big fan of the 1996s, and this bottle is yet another case in point.

Double decanted at 11am. From this era, I've always been a little wary of the Conterno wines, because they can often be a bit dried out or weird, but this bottle was none of that. Very chewy and backwards, with a riper (and far blacker) profile than the Giacosa on the palate. Dense and stern with plenty of tannins still, even if this is already reasonably approachable.

#2581. Opened at noon, double decanted at 2pm. Unanimous wine of the night. Just an absolutely brilliant showing of what old nebbiolo can be. As textbook as it comes with intense red fruit perfume on the nose, and just a slight hint of tar too. On the palate, there is concentration and weight, but the ethereal Giacosa lightness as well. Absolutely stunning stuff, and a very nice denouement to my experience with this wine almost a decade ago.

#1665. Double decanted at 10am. Initially a bit of a woodsy note here, and a nose that just wasn't very expressive. There were subtle hints of TCA on the nose and palate for me -- gotta love being so overly sensitive to it.

#0167. Opened at 8am, decanted for 45 minutes at 4pm. Beautiful, nascently mature nebbiolo with a decent mouthful of tannin still. The fruit is a mix of red and black and for my taste, this has much more breadth and power than the arguably more elegant Asili. But I liked this wine for its overt power and stature, even though I'm certain there's more upside with age.

#4381. Opened at 9:30am, and left in a decanter starting at 11. This doesn't have quite the same imposing palate presence as the Barolo; it's more shaped and sinewy, with a red-fruit-dominated profile and more acidity. There's a slight coffee tone on the backend that sort of doesn't belong there. Others at the table didn't see as big a step between the Barolo and Barbaresco as I did.

#1016. Opened at 9:30am, and left in a decanter starting at 11am. This was the most accessible wine of the flight and drinking very, very well (as has been the case for a while now). Red fruited, floral, and a good balance of weight and elegance. Approachable now, but certainly with enough in the bank for decades to come. I'm a big fan of this wine, and the contents of the group's cellars can also attest to that not being a unique opinion.

#6553. Opened at 9:30am, and left in a decanter starting at 11. Honestly, just not showing very well tonight, despite all the air we gave it. There was a slight brown note here that could have potentially indicated past (and slight) heat damage, because the fruit profile certainly wasn't as clean and precise as other examples of red labels and 2001s ought to have been. Nevertheless, there's a good sense that this wine is also nowhere near mature. As a bit of a note to self: T. M. says that when he brings his bottle to a future edition of this dinner (at a year he judges appropriate), it will be the wine of the night.

Opened at 9:30am, and left in a decanter starting at 11am. Undrinkably volatile. This has been a pretty inconsistent wine in (not just) my experience, but the volatility tonight was egregious.

Opened at 9:30am, and left in a decanter starting at 11am. As much as I appreciate the generous sharing of this bottle, it's just nowhere close to where it ought to be. A massive tannic beast of a wine, slightly tamed by a brown butter uovo in raviolo, but mostly just a brooding hulk that needs easily two decades to settle down. Unmistakably high quality material here, it just needs time to actually become a fully enjoyable drink.

Oxidized. It seemed that extended air had given this a chance, but it never turned the corner.

#10398. I really have no idea what to make of this showing tonight -- there was a distinct sauvignon blanc, white-wine-adjacent tropical nose (like passionfruit or kiwi or something) here. The palate showed the red-fruited character and acidity I remember from the bottles last year, but tonight's bottle was just absolutely befuddling.

#993. Sadly the only sound bottle in the G. Mascarello flight. But what a bottle it was. It's like the regular Monprivato but amped up to the next level. That said, this isn't as expressive and open as the best bottles of the 2001 from last year; this is a wine that needs more time because of its still very firm core of fruit and tannin. But the pure red fruit and crystalline quality is present here, and it's just a matter of time until it unfurls into a very magnificent wine.

#2224. Served double blind. For inside-joke reasons, we guessed that this was 2001 Dujac before even smelling, tasting, or seeing this bottle. Then I said that because it was tacked onto a Mascarello flight, it had to be Bartolo. Anyway, none of that is actually germane to this wine -- it's a very dark wine showing plenty of vanilla and coconut lactones, and with its fairly grippy tannins had me going through the list of modern(ish) producers, before settling on Aldo Conterno. The palate's display of oak isn't as overt as the nose, but despite the impressive black fruit and tannin, I found myself consistently getting distracted by the oak. Admittedly not my preferred style of nebbiolo.

Not a super great showing of this wine -- there was a slight hint of volatility there, as I guess happens with Cappellano now and again. Red fruited and delicate, but missing the structure and the well-put-togetherness of the 2001 alongside. Still I quite enjoyed the texture of this, and hope that this was just a slightly off bottle, though I haven't been as confident about my original feelings on 2004 over the last year or two and have become slightly bearish on it based on a few that I've drank over that time period.

Surpassed the 2004 by a long shot today, but overshadowed by the Franco. Nevertheless, a brilliant execution by Cappellano -- I loved the delicate red fruit and floral accents, with some lovely acidity to balance the fruit here. There's still plenty of potential here, so it's not like this has to be drunk up anytime soon.

Absolutely stunning, magnificent nebbiolo that was among my wines of the night. It epitomizes the 2001 vintage with its crystalline red fruit and balanced structure of acidity and tannin. A very complex and layered palate with lots of breadth without becoming heavy. The tannins are still grippy and youthful, but all the good things you want in nebbiolo are here and in harmony. Wonderful now, but no harm in waiting either.

Opened at 7:30am, double decanted around 4pm. I liked this a lot more than the others at the able -- this was about as stem-inclusion Burgundy as it comes for nebbiolo. (In hindsight, the nose was very close to a bonus 1993 Dujac MSD later in the evening.) The palate arguably was a bit thin, but some iberico helped fill in the gaps. It's a very distinctive style that is arguably atypical for Barolo, but I really liked that intense stemmy quality. Fully mature; not convinced there's too much further upside to aging this. Classic Burlotto Verduno.

Very dense in the context of the other Burlotto wines, and the lack of stem inclusion makes for a very, very different wine. Darker and earthy, but with some of the same lightness that Burlotto is renowned for. Youthful, leathery tannins, and still a bit chewy at this point. Denser than I would expect for a 2004 as well.

Very nice to cross paths with this again -- it's a great wine from a great vintage. The stem inclusion notes aren't as prominent on this, but instead you get a bit of a delicacy to this that I very much like. Not quite as far into the red-fruited side of the spectrum as I would expect for 2001 Burlotto, but nonetheless with crystalline, pure fruit. In a very good window, but given the slightly coarse tannins, a bit more time won't hurt either.

Now this, this is everything a Burlotto Monvigliero is cracked up to be. Clearly too young, but the stem inclusion and red fruit here makes for a very pretty wine that would be trivially easy to confuse with Burgundy on the nose. (The trick is the tannins on the palate.) This reminds me a fair bit of red Burgundy from 2008 or 2013 for its intensely perfumed red-fruited profile, but unlike those, this will need far longer to become mature.

Bottled in 2022. The nose has some old Eiswein-adjacent aromas of maple and horseradish, along with the perhaps more usual brown sugar and caramel notes of very old sugars. Moderately sweet, and counterweighted by the intense acidity that you get from this sort of concentration. Impressive stuff, but a little goes a long way.

Another bottle from the same lot as September; this one was oxidized.

Served double blind. All roads lead to Burgundy. Unmistakable, intense stem inclusion on the nose. The perfume here is absolutely stunning; the palate a little bit of a let down after the nose (but that's more a statement on how good the nose was). It didn't have quite the weight and density of a grand cru, but just given how good this was, it was almost a bit silly to think that this would have been but a villages wine. Bright red fruit and very much acid-driven. I guessed this was from around 2000.

Served double blind. Powerful nose, and clearly something in the same age range as the 1993 Dujac. Still shows some red fruit, but a grippy iron-like quality on the palate got me thinking hyphenated Chambertin instead. Firm tannins and plenty of structure, with an ashy (but not unpleasant) note hiding that had me thinking Bachelet.