Appearance: medium red, good mousse.
Nose: red wine nose with cherries and blackberries, spice and tar, some oak. Goes even more in the direction of oaked red wine with time in the glass.
Palate: fruity, somewhat sweet fruit-styled in the attack, noticeable spice, medium acidity. The mid-palate shows tannins and dryness, and the aftertaste is quite spicy.
Summary: powerful, odd style, 87 p?
The aromas here didn't really indicate Pinot Noir to me, and I didn't think it was a Champagne since the acidity was on the low side for this.

Appearance: bright yellow, the lightest in hue among the four white bubblies
Nose: citrus including zest, ripe yellow fruit, some notes of maturity, possibly some oak, mineral, slightly smoky, some perfume.
Palate: citrus, grapefruit, rather high acidity, some spice, good concentration (but not really "fat"), long aftertaste.
Summary: has not peaked yet, 92 p
Came across as younger and with higher acidity than expected once I knew what it was. We all believed this was an oaked blanc de blancs. A very good but slightly odd bottle.

Appearance: dark gold with amber hue, darkest among the four white Champagnes
Nose: red apples, old winter apples, oranges, some oak, deep fruit notes with spice, slightly oxidised notes, some perfume.
Palate: good concentration, apple, grapefruit, spice, some nuts, strong mineral notes, high acidity, fresh and long aftertaste with some green apple.
Summary: wonderfully developed, 94 p.
Disgorged 29 October 2008. Slightly darker and more powerful than Substance disgorged 2007 when tasted alongside.

Appearance: gold with amber hue
Nose: winter apples, nuts, oranges, oxidation notes, clearly developed, some perfume.
Palate: yellow winter apples, spice, quite good acidity, long aftertaste.
Summary: wonderful development, but more slender than the previous wine, 92 p.
Disgorged 2007. Tasted alongside Substance Oct 2008, they were initially similar, but this one diverged as it sat in the glass. It showed less oak in the nose and was more slender on the palate.

Appearance: light golden colour
Nose: clearly toasted notes of hazelnuts, smoky with notes of gunsmoke, cocoa powder, under the smoke some yellow fruit; an impressive nose.
Palate: quite concentrated, yellow apple, citrus, enormous minerality and sets of a "mineral attack", quite high acidity, fresh aftertaste..
Summary: an impressive wine with a quite developed nose and a relatively young palate, can take more cellaring. 94 p.
This may be the best Grand Cuvée of this label design that I have tasted, at least in a regular 75 cl bottle. To me, it was rather of "regular" Krug Vintage standard.
Disgorged 2002, cork code A221

Appearance: light yellow
Nose: citrus, discrete perfume notes, mineral, spice. Changed rather much as it sat in the glass. Initially there were some candy aromas (in a positive sense) and after a while some smoke notes emerged.
Palate: dry, citrus and in particular grapefruit, yellow apple, some candy notes, rather good acidity, some spice, mineral, long and fresh aftertaste. Also the palate changed after a while, and it then tasted more oily and spicy, and showed more mineral.
Summary: 91 p
The 2004 vintage is very variable in style and quality in Chablis, but surely it is supposed to be a high acid vintage? Knowing this is a Chablis (not my initial guess), there is a lot of "grand cru feeling" to it due to its weight.

Appearance: light yellow
Nose: slightly herbal and green note, citrus, a hint of yellow fruit, rather fruity
Palate: very dry, powerful and stony mineral notes, rather high acidity, minerally aftertaste with grapefruit.
Summary: the green notes disturb me slightly, 89 p
I find the style surprising for the vintage, due to the presence of green notes. Although there may be hope for it after cellaring, I find it quite frankly weaker than many other premier cru 2011s that I have tasted.

Appearance: light yellow
Nose: yellow apple, perfume, mineral, hints of oak that increase slightly with time in the glass, elegance.
Palate: dry, loads of mineral, citrus, some yellow fruit, high acidity. Firm and mineral-dominated style.
Summary: quite good, young, elegant, 93+ p.
Quite Puligny-styled, since it was so very mineral-dominated.

Appearance: light yellow
Nose: smoky, oak, yellow apple, some butter
Palate: dry, strong mineral notes, stony, spice, high acidity, some perfume, slightly oily, a long and stony aftertaste.
Summary: both minerally and spicy in style, young, 93+ p
Heavier and more spicy style than the 2008 Fontaine-Gagnard La Romanée, which was sitting next to it. Reminds me of a Bâtard-Montrachet, i.e., has the weight of a grand cru.

Nose: dark berries, some herbs, some barnyard notes, discretely aromatic, rather elegant
Palate: dark berries with quite dark notes, rather tough, spice, powerful tannins
Summary: young - and younger than expected, 91+ p

Nose: ripe dark berries, blackberries and blueberries, some liquorice and prunes, mint, aromatic
Palate: dark berries, plum, sweet fruit in the attack, supple tannins, just a hint of alcoholic fire.
Summary: 91 p

Nose: dark berries, blackcurrants and blueberries, tar, some smoke, mineral with stone dust, tougher in the nose than the two previous wines
Palate: dry (compared to Magill Estate) but with some sweet berries, quite concentrated, dark berries, tar, powerful tannins, some alcoholic feeling the aftertaste.
Summary: slightly alcohilic, but impressive concentration, 92 p?

A few weeks earlier I tasted the 2007 Quet, which didn't impress me too much when lined up against six other 2007 Châteauneufs. The 2010 Quet is better.

Appearance: medium red, brick-coloured at the edge
Nose: dried red berries, tar, some perfume, a hint of mineral
Palate: sweet dried berries, good concentration of fruit, spice, softened tannins, slightly alcoholic.
Summary: rather typical for a mature Vintage Port, nice development, 92 p