Disgorged March 2013 (I believe). This is a solid, if not entirely exciting bottle of champagne, that demonstrates the brightness of the vintage very well. It's got vibrant acidity and bright minerality that I really like. It's not too lean or acidic, and that roundness is important to keep the balance here.

Served double blind. There's a bit of high-toned aldehyde/Sharpie marker here on the nose, but otherwise, this is an incredibly aromatic wine, with some really nice florals. Based on the nose, I wanted to go to viognier, but the acidity wasn't quite right for that -- there was just too much of it and the cut here was simply a lot sharper than most northern Rhones.

Served double blind. This is probably to albarino what Vatan is to sauvignon blanc, so it wasn't exactly easy to pin down, except via some deductive reasoning. There's a bit of ester on the nose (like banana-ester-synthesis day in organic chemistry lab), but otherwise, this is dense and minerally, with a broad texture that is expansive but not heavy. Really nice acidity too, but the alcohol pokes out just a little.

I didn't really like this too much at first, but it definitely got better and better with air. It's a very rich and fat wine, perhaps typical both of the site and the vintage, but the oak here showed far too prominently, and there was a bit of caramel or butterscotch that I didn't particularly like. Only moderate reduction, though there was a slight touch of popcorn. With air, this seemed to shed some of the oak to show a little bit more of an apple profile. A bit hot and heavy on the palate for me, relatively speaking.

Served double blind. Another wine that was a little tricky to place. There was a bit of a sulphurous stink at first, but besides that, this seemed to be fairly neutral. This seemed to have experienced some oak, thanks to its really fat and rich palate (I don't think this wine actually does -- I suspect it's the late picking that gives this the fatness). As well, I picked out a splash of green so I thought this was some sort of riper sauvignon blanc, perhaps from Bordeaux?

Served double blind. Stuck my nose in the glass, "smells like kabinett". Light and sweet, with some good acidity, though it definitely feels a little fatter and broader than I would have guessed for a Mosel wine (in hindsight, the softer 2011 vintage would be the reason for that, along with the fact that this was served at a slightly higher temperature than ideal). I ended up thinking that this was a light vintage Rheingau kabinett.

Served double blind. Lychees = gewurztraminer. There's just nothing else to discuss here. Feels young enough (perhaps 5 years?). A touch cloying and more alcohol on the back end than I care for. A pretty typical gewurztraminer, which isn't really a great thing at the end of the day.

Served double blind. There's a bit of almond on the nose, as well as some golden apples. It's clearly a bit animale and funky, and I pretty much went straight to Vouvray sec. There's a slight touch of sweetness here as well, which is kind of nice. On the other hand, I'd be a little confused if I opened this expecting chardonnay.

Served double blind. Sponti? Unripe. Tastes like a barrel sample. Horribly unbalanced acidity, and pretty much nothing else. No way to put a guess here -- anything that's harvested in July probably tastes the same.

Served double blind. Initially on the nose, I had thought that this was a pinot, thanks to the slight dusting of earth and the lovely red fruit. Tasting it makes it clear that this is nebbiolo. It's light and floral, and very pretty. I ended up guessing that this was either 2004 or 2008, which were the two most red-fruited and lighter vintages in the age range that I thought was appropriate.

Served double blind. Pyrazines! Clearly Loire cabernet franc, and while this is still really green, there's a ripeness of fruit here that made me guess a riper vintage (2005). No roasted character here at all. There's a slight bit of animal funk on the nose, but this is relatively clean.

I didn't like this at all. The nose shows a fair bit of oak (trees died for this?!), and there are some herbal elements that speak nicely of Brunello. However, the palate isn't convincing at all -- it's empty on the midpalate, showing no fruit or body. It's just a pile of acidity and then on the finish, you get a boatload of bitter tannins. This is one of those really mediocre wines that I use to justify my neglect of Brunello.

Served double blind. Clearly shows some secondary characteristics. Given the hint of oak here, as well as some of the earthy and leafy notes on the nose, I guessed that this was something like an old school Napa wine with 30 years under its belt. It's a nice enough wine, though if I opened this expecting a nice bottle of nebbiolo, I'd be severely disappointed.

Served double blind. The candied strawberry on the nose is enough to give it away -- this is new world pinot noir. Certainly I didn't end up in New Zealand (was thinking along the Oregon lines). There are other things in this wine, but for me, this is a bit too candied, and there's too much of that for me to overlook it and find the other things here.

Served double blind. Napa cabernet was my initial reaction -- it had the blue fruit and vanilla oak signature that seemed appropriate enough to me. So when I was told that this was old world, I thought it was a garagiste St. Emilion wine. I think that that train of thought should be enough to describe how atypical this wine is. Chewy tannins, black fruited, modernist polish. As to all those who still claim (the estate itself included) that this is a traditional house? You are fake news. I'm immensely happy to have purged all this mediocrity from my cellar.

Served double blind. Dungy and poopy, and not the pleasant Burgundian kind. Seems to be the product of a bit of post-modern winemaking with its bit of carbonic, lightly candied fruit, and attempted glou-glou nature. I guessed that this was some sort of gamay, but I really didn't like this enough that I had really stopped caring at this point. Like Ramonet trying to make reds or Mugnier trying to make whites, I think Kumeu River should just stick to one colour of wine (hint: not red).

Served double blind. Candied and sweet, but clearly syrah -- I was thinking for a moment that this was the 2016 Pax whatever, but the palate here was a little riper and fuller than that. There's nice red fruit and a generous hit of white pepper here, as well as a nice savoury quality. This isn't too modernist, but the red fruit and the bit of elegance would lead me to guess Cote-Rotie. With the reveal, I have to say I'm very surprised at the oak treatment on this -- it's really quite nice.

Serve double blind. Weird smoky nose to begin with, followed by a little bit of apples and a very troubling amount of green snap peas. Lots of acidity and a bit of animal funk had me thinking dry chenin. It's interesting to try, but hardly the kind of wine you'll ever see me sitting down for a glass of.