Bright and obviously Sauvignon nose. Classy. Quite creamy. One of Keith's new-discovery Cape numbers or maybe a Cotat? The latter I think. Relatively young. Oops, no, Tom goes for Dageneau and it's confirmed. Quite flinty and focused, light on its feet and with great line. With air it becomes more expressively Sauvignon on the nose. ****

Bright gold. Waxy, lanolin nose. Rich and concentrated, seems too rich for a Rioja, so maybe northern Rhone? Don't think it's Semillon etc. no, turns out to be Rioja after all, well done Tom, so Tondonia, and judging by colour and freshness, 81? Yes. Really very good, plenty of depth and interest and managing to combine interest and freshness. Lovely. ****

Creamy with some richness on the nose. Very poised. Must be Puligny. Top premier or GC? Really lovely, a touch of cream, mineral, floral, long. Supreme poise. This is what every burgundy should aspire to. Slightly hazelnut nose star ting to develop. Stunningly nice. ***** stunned to find that this is 06. Was thinking 04/07 Leflaive Pucelles. After three hours the spearmint starts to develop, but this is still supremely poised and elegant for 2006.

Full gold, very similar to the 81 Tondo. Weightier texture than the Ramonet. Slightly honied on the nose. Quite evolved. Just starting to get a little creaky on the finish with air. Grand Cru weight/texture, but it seems older than it is. Puligny apparently, so presumably GC, but what? Decent and serious but lacks the excitement of the previous wine. ****. Picks up and starts to pull itself together with air, a touch of lavender honey on the nose and more poised.

Old, dusty garnet. Sweet, savoury old soy nose. Late 70's? C de Nuits somewhere. Sweet fruit, rounded. Fragrant, but tightens on the nose with air. Core of soy, sweetness and a more mineral edge. Loses some charm with air. ****

Older on the nose, more restrained and less expressive. Richer and fuller on the palate though. Sweet fruit. Very rounded through the attack and front of the mid-palate, falling way a bit towards the finish. Plush and flattering though. Maybe 78? Yes. Village is revealed as Gevrey, so Beze? Yup, but no idea on producer. ****

Mineral. Deep. Cherry-scented. Griottes? No, apparently Beze and 99. Oops, it's not, our host has confused himself, CSJ 99, so Fourrier? Opens up nicely, still has the richness and depth, but also a fragrance and a lightness. More butterfly-like with air and a shade above my last experience of this in January. *****

Again, deep, savoury, dense red/black fruit. Dense and glossy - Tom says oaky, Jamie reduced. Anyway, 99 CSJ again apparently, so must be Rousseau. Solid and quite serious. Lacks the slightly ethereal quality of the Fourrier. A little more floral and lifted with a couple of hours of air, but still taking itself quite seriously. One for the longer haul. ****

Classic Graves nose. Tobacco, cedar. Sweet fruit. Classic. Must be Haut Brion. 85? No, so maybe 82? Turns out to be the 90. Rich, rounded, some depth here. Sweet-fruited, long, plenty of complexity here. Complete. *****

Richer, slightly porty, Madeira cake. A little flatter and slightly lactic cf the others. A touch more volatile too. Early 80s right bank? No, Jamie nails it as Musar, so it must be the 91. Yes. A touch volatile and showing some heat but this is very good. A little lighter and more volatile with air. This must be the value pick of the flight. ****

Minty initially, quite ripe, rich, some element of decay. Cold be convinced that this is a classy Henschke etc, but claret apparently. 89 right bank? Huge surprise to discover this is 78 Latour. Ok, my first taste of Latour, but where's the power and austerity etc, this is positively sexy, and 78 too. Where's the green edge. Opulent! Rich, deep and classy, majesterial even. Lightens a little in the glass with air, but this is a class act. *****

Young and tight burgundy nose and palate. Another 99? No, 07. Quite dense and chewy. Lots to it. Not sure where it's going. Too young, but not the obvious class of the 99s. Should be fine though, plenty of material to work with. ***(*)

Left bank claret nose and palate. Oops, right bank. Cheval B? No. Figeac? Phew. A savoury, slightly liquorice quality. Long. Savoury and satisfying. ****

Not sure on the nose, but a claret palate. Right bank richness. Rich, long and satisfying. Very good indeed and better than previous bottle at The Square for Neal's book I think. Very good. ****1/2

Deep gold. Bright. 76 Sauternes? 71 apparently. Rich. Rieussec? No. Coutet? Yes. Good botrytis. Density here. Lip-smacking unctousness. Persistent but doesn't quite follow though with top level complexity on the finish. Very good though and by far the best of the three bottles of this that I've had the chance to try. ****