Served double blind. I am a big fan of Agrapart and think I know the house style reasonably well, but did not - at all - pick this Champagne as an Agrapart (guessing Cedric Bouchard). I did not even pick the Champagne as a Blanc de Blanc, thinking with the richness it must have some Pinot Noir. So, an atypical Agrapart - without any of the trademark acidity and austerity - but, in my view, a very good one ... A spicy, floral, opulent nose with a little brioche. Well integrated, rich and full on palate. (92-93)

Served double blind. Again, I did not pick this wine, even though, again, I am a fan, both of the house and of this vintage. On bouquet, aromatic with spices, white florals, apricots, marzipan and mandarin peel. On palate, it seems to have lost its puppy fat and some of its energy, compared with previous tastings. Peaches, pears and a little citrus with rocky minerality. Also some apricot jam and a touch of honey comb. Sill largely dry-seeming, tactile and viscous. Lovely mouthfeel. I remain a fan.

Served double blind. It was a nice change to serve a Sauternes with apéritifs. Deep gold colour. Gorgeous, very rich and opulent bouquet of apricot, treacle, honey comb and baking spices. On palate, a big, upfront sugar hit, very ripe and rich, dominated by tropical fruit. Also, creamy crème brûlée, orange peel, peaches, ginger and honey. I picked 2009 as the vintage. Perhaps lacking a little refreshing acidity, however hedonisitic. Unctuous, concentrated and viscous. Drinking well now but years in front of it, of course ...

Also served double blind with the apéritifs. Obviously classy German Auslese Riesling, I had pegged - due to its quality and its stage of evolution - as a 2001. Deep gold. Popped and poured with a slight spritz. Deep gold colour. A bouquet of peaches, pears, lemon, honey, quince and minerals. No turpentine note you often see on older Rieslings. On palate, harmonious and seamless. Lovely acidity. Pure and clean. Citric and honeyed with pineapple, yellow apple and river boulder. For me, at a perfect spot of its evolution. A brilliant Auslese!

A pair of superb Champagnes served non-blind, such an interesting comparison. A beautiful nose weaving spices, florals, citrus and tropical notes. The sort of bouquet I could happily sit in a corner sniffing for half an hour. Detailed and complex yet of a piece. A different story on palate. Dense and powerful, as tight as a drum. "Very taut and austere", said Nick. At present more a wine - and I use that word intentionally, rather than Champagne - to admire than to enjoy. It seemed like it needed 10+ years in the cellar. Huge potential. It could ultimately even end up better than the 2002 (93 - 95+).

A pair of superb Champagnes served non-blind, the 2002 in magnum. An almost equally beautiful and multi-layered bouquet - as the 2004 - just, perhaps, a tad richer and more opulent. Much different on palate. Much more open and approachable. Characteristic 2002 richness and ripe fruit. Real depth, concentration, structure, power and length. Yet - compared with the 2004 - quite open-textured and harmonious. On its optimal drinking plateau now, I'd think, but, I wouldn't be surprised if it stayed on it for 10+ more years. Brilliant!

Served double blind. I did not see a lot of Chablis typicity here and picked this wine as a Côte de Beaune - a Meursault or Chassagne - from a warmer year. Deep gold colour. A lovely, I thought slightly oxidised, nose of white florals, clotted cream, blanched nuts, poached pears and citrus. Similar notes on palate. More orchard than citrus fruit, with a touch of the exotic. Once I knew it was a Chablis, I thought it must be in the 2004 - 2007 range, showing what I thought was a little premox. Once it was established as a 2009 Fèvre Les Clos, I could see where the ripeness and the comparative lack of Chablis character had come from. I love Fèvre Chablis but closely follow the 'Fèvre premox window' which - having long past gone through 2006s and made serious in-roads into 2007s - I was hoping was not yet nibbling away at 2009s ... Any way, this was for me a good, rich and powerful Chardonnay.

A pair of white Burgundies served double blind with the chicken entrée. Close to a pop and pour by Rauno, the Genevrières would have - in my opinion - benefited from more air. Pale gold with some green at the rim. On the nose, Boillot-typical reductive notes followed by grapefruit and lime citrus, cinnamon and chalky minerals. Also, mineral and lemony in the mouth with pear, nectarine and other orchard fruit. Quite reduced and perhaps drinking a little straightforwardly and linear. I guessed the wine as a 2014 Meursault. Good freshness and acidity retained by Boillot in a warm vintage.

My wine served double blind. Fully decanted and left open about five hours before serving, which seemed about right. Deep gold. A beautiful, complex, multi-dimensional bouquet of orange blossoms and other florals, peaches and pears, almond paste, spices and some exotic fruit notes. On palate, rich and opulent. Real fruit concentration and gravitas. Generous and broad with powerful acidity. Girardin is sometimes criticised for its oak handling - and there was toasty oak apparent in this Chevalier - however it was in proportion to the dense, ripe fruit and well integrated with it. "Oak frames the wine beautifully ... quintessential white Burgundy", said Con. Glorious now, it will go another 10 years easily, I'd think.

A pair of red Burgundies served double blind with the meat dish. A bouquet of wood spice, black cherries, soil and dry brushwood. Also dark fruited on palate. Bright, vibrant acidity. A shade below mid weight. On the night, more forward and enjoyable than the Latricières. Earthy and mineral with dry bramble. Like the Latricières, although obviously Grand Cru quality, the Clos de Bèze did not speak specifically - to me at least - of Gevrey-Chambertin terroir. A Faiveley in the "new" style from a forward vintage. Ideally, I'd still hold this wine for 3-4+ more years.

A pair of red Burgundies served double blind with the meat dish. Another dark fruited nose with earth and mixed spices. On palate, a large volume of juicy black fruit - more than the Clos de Bèze - and seemingly considerably younger. Bigger, more broad shouldered, I thought with more gravitas than the Clos de Bèze. A lot of unresolved tannin, structure and power. Iron at its core. Much more strict and austere than the Clos de Bèze. More closed, it was still drinkable on the day. Brendan mentioned that he had given the wine 15 hours air before serving. Potentially the better wine than the Clos de Bèze, I'd say it ideally needs 7-10 more years in the cellar. Obviously a Grand Cru, but again I thought not showing much Gevrey-Chambertin typicity. Another fine example of "new" Faiveley winemaking. Scored on performance on the night, not potential.

A second pair of more mature red Burgundies served double blind with the meat dish. Inky colour, close to black. Dark cherry, dark spice, crème de cassis, black liquorice and clove aromas with some wet iron. On palate - as Rauno said - "modern, dense and powerful". Also, quite young-seeming. Primary black cherry and blackberry fruit with dark earth and black liquorice. Serious fruit volume, concentration and structure. The fruit and oak tannins still prominent but not obtrusive. Again, Grand Cru gravitas with some iron filing minerality. Ideally give this wine at least 5+ years, with this stuffing it'll probably go another 30 years. All class!

My wine served double blind. Fully decanted and left open about five hours before serving, which was about perfect. Much more evolution on this bouquet than with the Dugat-Py, and what a bouquet! Just beautiful and multi-layered with tobacco, spices, fresh and dried red fruit, dried herbs, hay and rose petals. On palate, everything you look for in Grand Cru Burgundy. Excellent fruit depth and concentration but rounded and softened by time. Lovely à point, precise acidity. Detailed and very complex. Mellow and savoury but still with enough succulent primary fruit to keep it in balance. Tannins evolved and melded into the fruit. Seamless and complete. Very long, finishing dry and savoury. One of my wines of the year so far.

Two Piemontese wines served blind as a pair to finish. Decanted about five hours before serving, which seemed about right. Deep, dark colour. Also a dark nose: tar, black earth, black cherries and other dark fruit and brown spices. There was a lift to the bouquet but it was more dry herbs - or sottobosco - than floral. On palate, a broad, structured Piemontese, drinking much less than 19 years of age. Earthy with creosote, cherries, tartufi neri, porcini and sottobosco, old leather and black liquorice. Obviously a Gaja - the Gaja signature style was clear - but not really expressing Barbaresco, as opposed to say Serralunga, terroir. Sturdy but relatively fine grained tannins. Good fresh acidity and excellent length. Drinking well on the night but I'm sure properly cellared bottles will continue to evolve positively for 10+ more years.

Two Piemontese wines served blind as a pair to finish. Nick’s wine was aromatic with notes of earth, brushwood, red fruit and road tar, with some dark red roses. On palate, complex with lately red berry fruit, plums, tar and earthy. An iron core. Structured with real mid palate weight. Balanced and harmonious. Precise focused acidity. Approachable now but a baby really. This Barolo will I’m sure improve over the next 5-10+ years. Excellent!