Very nice. This was really funky when first opened, which made me fear for the worse. Thankfully, after short decant, it bloomed into a lovely wine, with a beautiful nose, full of lush earthy tones flecked with bits iron, and then sweet red dates and dried cherries, dried roses and a meaty backdrop. The palate felt just on the lighter-weighted side for a Corton, but it was very elegant, with fine-boned tannins and sprightly acidity streaming through bright, fresh, pure flavours of dark cherries and berries - a darker fruit expression than on the nose - before fanning out into gentle notes of iron, earth and spice at the finish. With time, a slightly coffee-ish note started peeking out right at the wine's tail. Like the best of 1985s, there was a very Burgundian ethereal-ness to this. While not a blockbuster, it certainly had decent depth, but it was the effortless transparency and little hidden complexities on this that made the wine so enjoyable. At a lovely place now, and a great pairing with roast duck. Yum.

A solid wine. It took awhile in the decanter to blow off a layer of funk and open up. When it did, it was clear that this was was quite a different animal from the sparer, more elegant 1985 Corton that preceded it. It was obviously from a much warmer year, with a deeper, toastier nose, with slightly roasted edge to its expressive aromas of ripe red cherries, earth and roasted meats sprinkled with bits of spice. The palate too was riper and richer, with a full, substantially fruited feel to its flavours of dark cherries, plums and blueberries bedded not with forest floor and meaty accents. While not the freshest wines, this was still decently well-balanced for a 1976, with a little touch of acidity and a firm underlayer of tannins that are just starting to mellow pulling into a super-long, still grippy finish that was full of brambly spice. A powerful, masculine wine, but it was not one-dimensionally so - this had lots of character on it. Nice.

Consistently excellent, but if I am to be harsh, this bottle was perhaps a small step or two behind the stupendous experiences we have had with the 1999 Churchill in the past. If anything, this seemed rather tighter, less giving - still though, that would be nitpicking. This was an excellent Champagne by any measure. It had a typical expressive nose of fresh cream and vanilla, a touch of grassy herb, and plenty apple flesh riding on a very minerally undertow. Some white meat accents also emerged with time. As always though, it was the palate that really impressed. Creamily texture, with a supple balance and fine, gentle mousse, it had rich apple favours and a fleshy, white-fruited midpalate enlivened by a little trickle of lemony acidity. A bit one-dimensional at first, but with time, it opened up to show little kumquat notes and some flowery accents. There was a lovely juicy feel on this all, so that while it had a delicious fleshiness, it was still always ultra-defined and focused - a wonderfully balanced marriage of power and grace. Wonderful long finish too, with a nice stream of mineral running through its ripe apple flavours. Still though, while the previous two bottles I had rocked my world, this came across as a great Champagne that was still holding a lot back in reserve. In an awkward phase maybe, but it will no doubt be something special in 5-6 years.

We have had enough examples of this wine in recent months for quite a few on the table to blind-guess it correctly, but boy has it been consistently excellent. This bottle was no exception. The nose was richly expressive, with a veritable explosion of rose and violet flowers, ripe black fruited notes of blackberries, blueberries, brighter shades of red cherries, and a savoury smelling underlayer of earth and meat. With time some very Clos de Bèze inflections of exotic spice and talcum powder drifted out as well. Wow. Of the bottles we have had, the palate here was perhaps the most youthful, showy a lovely tension, with nervous acidity and fine grippy tannins running through its pure, lifted tones of dark cherries and berries. As with previous examples, this had a really plush richness and depth for 2001, but had a trim, litheness to it - flabless, as someone put it. Right at the finish, a slatey, minerally pull dragged the wine into a long, grippy tail. Wonderful stuff. Really enjoyable now. Yet on this evidence, a well-stored bottle of this wine can well go on growing for another 10 years or so.

This was a very special bottle for me. It was a 1997 Jadot Bèze drank from plastic cups in a BBQ more than a decade ago that made me fall in love with red wine in general, and Burgundy in particular - my epiphany wine as it were. Ming hunted a bottle down from who knows where, something that even the folks in Jadot tried but failed to do when we visited them a few years back (thank God for good friends!), and challenged me to blind taste the bottle in three guesses. After an embarrassing misstep in the direction of Rhone, it all came back to me - while not as earth-shatteringly good as I recall it being in my (albeit nostalgia-tinted) memory, there was no mistaking what it was. The nose was perhaps a bit funkier than before, with undergrowth and entrails drifting out of the glass, but there were those same enchanting sweet notes of macerated cherries, seasoned with spice and herb, roasted meat, and a nice, earthy minerality. It was the palate that really got to me again though. Ethereal, pure, with its wonderfully clear, high-toned flavours of red cherries and perfumy flowers dancing along on an ultra-refined and impeccably balanced structure, this was focused, pure, effortless. On the midpalate, the fruit was met by nice bassy notes of beef broth and a tons of spice, before the wine glided into a long, earthy, meaty finish that led away with a wonderful trail of slatey mineral. Jadot really hit the ball out of the park in 1997. Sure, this may not have had the greatest depth for a Clos de Bèze, but what a classy, classy wine it was - I loved this. 10 years down the road, this bottle was shockingly young, and could probably have gone on for another 10. Thanks Ming!

I had forgotten having had this wine before. While still good, I was not quite as impressed with this bottle as I was with the last. I thought the nose was very symptomatic of Chassagne in a warm year, but pretty nice, with hints of tropical fruit alongside with cream and chamomile flowers with just the smallest suggestion of honey. The palate had a rather rich creamy, chalky texture, with a lot more honeyed Chassagne notes than on the nose floating around a core of apple fruit shading into sweeter flavours of peach and ripe pear on the midpalate. This was still relatively crisp for a 2009, with a nice bit of juicy acidity, but it somehow seemed to have lost a bit of the cut and focus that I really liked from the last bottle, especially towards the finish, which drifted away rather unconvincingly with flecks of spice and a little mineral. Storage or transport issues maybe, but while this was still a really nice wine, it was not the superb 1er Cru that I remembered from the last time.

Wow, this was great. Bonin is a house that traditionally picks early, and this approach really seems to have helped them to craft some very nice wines in the fat, ripe 2009 vintage. As much as the Amiot-Guy that preceded it spoke eloquently of Chassagne, this could hardly have been anything but a Puligny, with lovely aromas of ripe apples, lemons and pretty flowers on the nose, along with little dollops honey, cream and a curl of Loire-like lanolin. Very pretty. The palate was just as delicious. Very compact, very solid for a 2009, it showed pure, mouthwateringly juicy flavours of sweet lemons and red apples drizzled with a touch of honey - all very high-toned and energetic for the vintage, with a great sense of direction and focus. Great finish too, with flowers littered everywhere and a chalky, minerally grip undergirding the whole package. There were no pretensions towards Grand Cru depth or complexity here, and this will probably be a rather early-drinking wine, but its was as good a 2009 1er Cru as I have yet had. Yummy!

This was terrific, starting with a captivating nose of white fruit and cream laced with touches of honey, white pepper and a lovely streak of gunflint. The palate was clearly Grand Cru quality. Really lovely, with a rich, wonderfully creamy texture, yet underscored by solid acidity and lovely shape and grip for a 2005 white, with a lemony brightness running through deep, persistent, mouthfilling flavours of bread fruit and apple flesh. Really powerful, compelling stuff. Not quite as chiselled as from the very best vintages maybe, yet this was still nicely balanced and beautifully focused, from attack all the way into a superbly long finish, with dollops of cream over a bedrock of flinty mineral and spice that stretched far and away into the distance. Wow. This was way, way too young. If I had any criticism, it was still a bit narrow in expression and lacking complexity at the moment. 5 years' time though, and this may well be world-beating.

Another bottle that I quite forgot having before. This was very good. Somehow though, this bottle did seem rather tighter and less giving than the one we had a couple of years ago. The nose was rather subtle and unexpressive, with masculine notes of earth and metal, some savoury notes and subtle dark-druited shades seasoned with spicy anise, menthol and peppermint. I thought this was maybe a Vosne or an NSG instead. The palate was also tightly wound, but it was really nice, with a clean, bright attack with clear flavours of dark cherries and sour plums. There was a ripeness to the fruit and a rather clear sense of extraction on this that made some people think it was rather modern. However, the moving beyond the attack and into the midpalate, the fruit gave way savoury base, with some meaty notes, and then the wine leaned out even more, into a very austere finish, with fine, firm tannins lined with mineral and peppery notes. Good, but not very generous at the moment. This had a very structured, muscular feel. I am not sure if this has shut down for good and is slowly winding its way down, or if it is going through an awkward stage and needs a few years to sleep. One to try again in 4-5 years or so.

Simple, but polished St Emilion, quite pleasurable at the moment. It had a sweet nose of plums and black cherries wed to earth and spice and rather left-bankish notes of capsicums and cedar wood. Sweetness aside, it was quite a classically Bordeaux bouquet actually. The palate had a very elegant feel to it, with fresh acidity keeping pleasant flavours of cassis and black cherries clean as a whistle. Fine tannins than led into a slightly raspy sprinkled with mint and spice. Nothing to shout about, but this was very well put-together and really pleasant on the evening. Drinking decently well now, it should easily hold over the next 5-6 years.

I am usually a big fan of Ramonet's wines, but while this was very impressive, it seemed some years away from peak - quite amazing for a 1999 white actually, especially when so many of its peers seem to be tiring. What a nose this had - layers of cream and toasted vanilla bean, fleshy white fruit, and lots of chalk and flint. Compelling stuff. The palate was every the archetypal Batard - big, rich, fat, almost OTT, with a powerful attack of winter melon, ripe apples and sweet lemon flavours, and a midpalate stuffed with deep stone fruit flavours. There was a huge amount of depth and power here, with lots of buttery textures and flavours to go alongside the fleshy sweet fruit. Still very primary, it may even have been too much if not for the balance on the wine and, more than anything, for the tons of minerality that anchored it after all those creamy layers were stripped away - slatey, chalky, granitey - there was a real solid backbone behind it all. Great finish too, with sweet fruit and honeyed tones pulling away in a long, powerful end. Really good, but I get a feel that it may get even better over the next 3-4 years as it mellows further and sheds the last few layers of puppy fat around its middle.

This was very good indeed. It smelt almost like a Hungarian Tokay, with notes of treacle and maple syrup traced around an earthy, herbal base, and then deep aromas of honey, appley cider and a nice curl of spice - a rich, moreish and very attractive bouquet. The palate was every bit as rich and deep as the nose would lead one to expect, with rich flavours of dried peaches and apricots, dried honeyed mangoes, all soaked in treacle and sprinkled with spice. Very more-ish, very full, but still decently balanced, if not exactly fresh. A hint of coconut in the long, powerful finish gave the wine the faintest family resemblance to d'Yquem, the other famed lur Saluces property. Very good indeed - this was a great reflection of the rich, warm, generous 1989 vintage in Sauternes.

This was a real surprise. I thought it punched above it weight when I tried it a couple of times some 4-5 years back, but serve blind, this bottle easily held its own against an excellent 1989 de Fargues. Clearly younger, it came across as a very well-packed, neat little package - a archetypal 2001 Sauternes in other words. The nose was very pretty, smelling like white tea and osmamthus flowers littered over some dried peaches and apricots, along with more exotic tropical shades of lychee and rambutan. The bouquet had certainly developed nicely since the last time I tried it, and much the same could be said of the palate as well. While always nicely fresh and impeccably balanced, it had now put on a nice bit of weight, coming across with a creamy richness to its yummy, succulent flavours of lychees and rambutans, spice and flowers, all wrapped up in a focus, defined package all the way into a long, rich finish underlined by just a touch of minerality. Still a bit primary in fact, but this was very good, and will get even better with time. In many ways it was even more drinkable and food friendly than the rich, unctuous De Fargues, given the lovely fresh acidity that this carried. A great surprise when unveiled, and an excellent end to the evening.