One of the better Grande Dames I have had in recent times, and a really solid start to the evening. It had a strong, assertive nose, with wafts of sweet cream, ripe apples and brioche cut by a little minerally scent. Very attractive. The palate had a nice fullness to it, filling the mouth with a lovely creamy mousse. It certainly had the muscle and weight one would expect from a Grande Dame, but the power was held very subtly, with the clean balance and bright citrusy notes of the 1996 vintage knit together beautifully with generous, mouthfilling flavours of ripe apples and a sprinkle of lime zest. This was so effortlessly balanced that it was almost almost elegant in spite of its power. Lovely graceful finish too, with the fleshy fruit lined with savoury, saline mineral notes. Really solid stuff, starting to drink very nicely now, but with quite a long runway ahead. I would happily keep these aside for the next 3-4 years.

This was a beautiful, classic Leflaive Pucelles - possibly the best of the many vintages I have had the privilege of drinking. It had beautiful nose, with classic notes of cream and white fruit and sweeter peach aromas laced with a wonderful minerality and whiffs of typical gunflint. Lovely stuff. The palate was every bit as good – perfectly integrated and really complete, it was at once muscular and powerful, with a full mouthful of fleshy white fruit and more peachy flavours infused with a nice spiciness, yet also blessed with pitch perfect balance, showing fresh and lively from attack all the way into a long, powerful finish that gently lined the backpalate with a beautiful, gunflinty minerality. Not the most cut or defined, there was a certain cloudiness to its flavours, but this was lovely, classic stuff, drinking at absolute peak.

Opened an hour and half before service, this was showing quite nicely when we got to it. It had a beautifully fragrant nose – with meaty, earthy low notes and lovely red fruited tones framed by drifts of dried, gentle scents of wood spice and then tobacco, garrigue and a twist of medicinal herbs. With time, I thought I smelt something spicy that reminded me of chili powder in there as well – a lovely, mature bouquet. The palate was very pleasant. It was very freshly balanced for a 1976, with lovely gentle acidity and tannins that had mellowed into soft, velvet robe farming nice flavours of fresh dark cherries and blueberries with just the slightest dusting of orange peel on the sides. Surprisingly youthful I thought, especially towards a long, lingering finish, where dark cherry fruit was kissed with a fragrant spice and little herb. There was some semblance of Richebourg power and muscle remaining in the wine, but it certainly was not the strongest wine in its flight. Still though, beautifully pleasant to drink. I do not think this will improve much further, but it should hold at this level for a long time yet.

Lovely – this was just a step behind the 1999 Anne Gros Richebourg in terms of quality, but was quite a bit readier to drink on the night. Opened some 4 hours before service, it had an incredible nose - one of the best bouquets I have put my nose into for a long time - with soaring, floral perfume and fragrant red fruited notes, lithe scents of freshly cut flower stalks, and little savoury shades of mushroomy earth a little meatiness, then the gentlest accents of toasted herbs and woody spice nestling with a touch of metallic mineral in the background. Absolutely beautiful, this was the kind of magic that can only come out of a Burgundy. In spite of the 4 hours in an opened bottle though, the palate was still rather tighter than that peacock’s tail of a nose, with little layers of complexity just beginning to bubble to the surface. Here, a gentle but insistent mineral note wound its way through subtle flavours of dark cherries topped up with a little earth – a lovely, pure expression, all wonderfully integrated too. There was a nice sinewy strength to this and a decent sense of structure behind the fruit, with the finest silken tannins and a clean freshness giving the nice sense of backbone to the wine. It ended in an open textured finish that started out with little drifts of spice and dark cherries and flowers, opening up over time into an absolutely beautiful mouthful of dark spice. Lovely stuff, just on the cusp of maturity. I would set this aside for another 3-4 years, and drink it over the next decade or so.

Clearly good, but way too young. The least ready of the Richebourgs, this was a bit grumpy even though it had the longest air time, having been opened and recorked some 10 hours before serving. It had a lovely nose though, earthier than the other Richebourgs, with a layer of sous bois and earthy mineral and gamey meat lying behind fruiter aromas of dark cherries and berries touched by a little floral note and just the tiniest hint of oak. Very Richebourg in character. Same thing could be said of the palate. This lacked a bit of the finesse and elegance of the other three Richebourgs, but it was a good wine in its own right. It was rich, powerful, muscular, with deep, dark flavours of black cherries and berries blessed with the effortless balance and transparency that the very best wines in 2002 share. However, on the other side of the coin, it also had some of that rather stubbornly tight feel of the more backward 2002s, coming across as rather opaque and uni-dimensional. This clearly has its best years ahead of it though, with a great structure of clear acidity and fine-boned tannins that gave a little powdery grip amidst the tight little notes of cherries blackberries and dark fruited plums that were woven together with a little earthy mineral in a long, powerful finish. Impressive, but still very tight – this is a powerful, structured beast that easily needs a decade more before drinking anywhere near peak.

Absolutely beautiful – this was the best amongst the quartet of Richebourgs by some distance, and one of the table’s favourite wines overall. The nose was full-on 1999, full of rich, thick, ripe aromas, with dark plums and black cherries and dried flowers on a more savoury bed of earth and meat and stony mineral, all wreathed with a fragrant waft of powdered spices. Lovely stuff. The palate was very satisfying indeed, if still a bit monolithic. It was powerful, dark and deep, showing layers of muscular dark fruit edged with a little mint and spice and dried flowers. This was just superb – complete, balanced, pure, yet with a lovely deliciousness. All wonderfully integrated and effortless graceful too, riding on a stream of juicy acidity that was woven deep into the fabric of the wine and held firm by wonderfully fine tannins, so that the the wine seemed to float along in a soft, velvety, almost creamy texture in spite of its firm, well-structured spine. Great stuff, all leading into a full, long, powerful finish where were little complexities just starting to show, with earth and spice and meat peeking out from amidst the sweet fruit. A beautiful wine, already wonderfully integrated, with real depth and power wed to class and stylish verve. For all that though, it was clearly still in its nascent stage on the night and needs tons of time in the bottle yet to really strut its stuff. I am not usually a fan of Anne Gros' style, but this was breathtaking. I would give it another 10-15 years in the cellar, and it should be a world beating Richebourg when its time comes.

The first, and clearly the oldest of the Romanée St. Vivant flight - I think we all picked it out correctly as the 1989 DRC. Overall, a very pleasurable wine, but neither the strongest RSV I have had in recent times, nor even the strongest in the flight. There was a lovely, mature ring to its nose, with a little touch of funky earth and boiled herb and sous bois chasing rich, sweet notes of flowers, dark cherries and plums and a dusting of wild berry aromas, all muddled together in a rich, warmly inviting fragrance. Quite lovely. The palate was delicious and drinking very nicely, with soft tannins and a touch of juicy acidity framing matured flavours of dark cherries, plums and blackberries, with earthy shades as a backdrop. The finish faded just a tad, drifting off with a charming kiss of warm Chinese herbs and a little dash of Vosne spice; and I thought this lacked a bit of cut and elegance, coming across even a tad rustic for an RSV, with the rather lower acidity of the vintage standing out somewhat. Overall though, a very nice wine, really yummy, even if it was not particularly brilliant. I would start drinking this up around now if I had any.

Again, perhaps not the strongest showing for a DRC RSV, but this was a step ahead of the 1989 to my tastes. However, while the older wine was perhaps just starting to slide away from its peak, this still seemed a bit too young. It had a lovely nose, a lot higher-toned than the earthy 1989, with lifted scents of black cherries and blueberries chased by perfumed aromas of dried flowers and fragrant cumin, cloves and other wood spices. With time, more savoury tones of and boiled Chinese herb, mushroom and earth starting wafting out of the glass as well. A wonderful bouquet. The palate was beautifully pitched and balanced, with a clean, pure expression of dark cherries and wild berries laced with high acidity and super fine, almost powdery tannins. I really liked the clarity on the wine, with its its lovely, bright freshness. On the midpalate, the fruit was wed to a some orange peel flavours and little touched of spice and herb, just before it slid in to gentle, elegant finish with a slightly bittersweet twist of herbs. This was lovely without quite being a knockout. It is still youthful though, coming across as if it still needs a few years to round up and take on further complexity. Already very good and, on present evidence, it should get even better with a few more years under its belt. 93+

Perhaps my favourite in the Romanee Saint-Vivant flight. Again, not perfect, but this was such a pretty wine – quite the quintessential RSV. It had a beautiful nose, with lovely floral notes swirling through sweet scents of black cherries and berries patted down with fragrant spice and a little savoury, almost salty meatiness– there was something a little dirty amidst the perfume of that bouquet that made it even more entrancing, like the sweet earthiness of wilting flowers, or that pungent drip of civet musk that master perfumers used to give their concoctions a little je nais sais quoi. Complex and intriguing – I could smell this all night. The palate wasn’t quite as engaging perhaps, but it was absolutely delicious, with fresh, lively rivulets of 1996 acidity running like a livewire through rich but pure flavours of dark cherries and strawberries and red berries. Fine tannins still gave the wine the slightest bite as it moved into a fine, slightly tangy finish, where more mature flavours of orange peel and sour plums were met by a little lift of slightly spice and some of an unsually salty, saline streak of mineral pulling away at the tail. Lovely stuff. If I had one criticism though, it would be that, for all its freshness, the wine somehow came across as lacking some of the absolute finesse and grace that I have come to expect from a Hudelot-Noellat RSV. While certainly elegant, it seemed to just lack a bit of cut and precision, especially over the midpalate and into the finish. Not perfect then, but I am nitpicking – it is still a lovely wine, and starting to drink well now. It would be interesting to try it in 2-3 years time though. I wonder where it is going.

A very different animal from the three older wines that preceded it – this was at once a more masculine, yet lighter-bodied expression of the vineyard. Still, it was a very good wine in its own right. The nose felt a bit grumpy when compared to the exuberant flower and spice bouquets of the other wines. This was marked as much by funk, sous bois notes as it was by its sweeter scents of sappy berries and maraschino cherries ringed with some wilting florals and a gentle spiciness. It was on the palate where the wine showed its strength though. It was wonderfully integrated, and there was such a nice purity about it, with ringingly clear notes of black cherries and dark berries seamlessly woven together with spice and earth, flowers and orange peel, and a little streak of bittersweet mineral. I thought this was just a touch lighter than its flight mates – more about clarity and minerality than fruit and flowers maybe. Saying that though, there was clearly Grand Cru depth and breadth here, all accompanied by a great spine of bright, juicy acidity and a strong, almost stern structure leading into a fine finish laced with lots of spice and a long, stony tail. Very good indeed, and there is room for improvement too. It is still rather tight though, especially at the back-end. I think it may need 6-8 more years before peak. Minerally, lighter than others, but still Grand Cru weight.

The last wine of the night and, fittingly, by some distance the biggest and most powerful. This was impressive, if still a long distance and many years away from being anywhere near what its peak. The nose was very “Vosne”, with deep draws of dark berries and earth and fragrant spice - quite attractive, in quietly masculine way. The palate echoed that. It was powerful and muscular, with deep, dark flavours of blackberries and dark cherries wound up together with meatier, earthier notes stretching into a long finish replete with more of that fragrant Vosne spice picked up on the nose and just a little lift of orange peel right at the edges of the backpalate. This was a very complete wine. It was nicely balanced and very well integrated, with a nice fullness and intensity and lots of energy still tightly wound up away in the core of the wine. Still very monolithic though, almost a bit one-noted at times. Certainly backward for a 1993. I would give this lots of time yet – 6, 8, 10, 12 years in the bottle perhaps. It certainly has the substance and structure to go the distance.