A solid Batard, even if it was rather too early to drink at this point. This had a lovely nose of flinty, smoky mineral drifting through a core of ripe yellow fruited aromas, with just a kiss of sweet oak at the corners. Quite an evolved nose for a 2010 I thought. The palate was rather less warm and developed than the nose suggested though, showing tons of vibrant energy tingling through its veins, with a real muscular seam of juicy, lemony acidity running through otherwise rich, powerful yellow fruit flavours. The finish was very dry and structured with all that citrus acidity, revealing a nice bite of mineral under it all. A wine that needs a lot of time to come together yet, and will probably drink better in 6-8 years, but there is certainly quality here.

Really nice for a 2005 - I was quite surprised at the vintage when the bottle was unblinded. This had a classic Puligny nose of cream, white flowers and sweet white fruit, with a touch of spice and some earthy mineral. The palate was a bit tight and reductive at first, but it opened up nicely with just a bit of time in the glass. While this might not have been quite as nicely shaped as the two accompanying Grand Crus from stronger white vintages that we served alongside, it nevertheless had a really good sense of power and balance to it (especially for a 2005), with a nice mineral spine underlying solid white-fruited flavours. It had a really strong, powerful finish too - a true Champ Canet. A solid wine, starting to drink nicely now.

This was the third of a trio of really nice whites over lunch. It had such a lovely nose, with sweet green apples, lime and slakey mineral making a very Chablisienne bouquet. The palate was beautifully shaped, with an absolutely precise sense of balance to its crystal clear flavours of white fruit lined with gentle acidity and a lovely sense of mineral, all this leading into a long, grippy finish. Quiet, gentle, understated, yet with plenty of depth and persistence wed to a lovely transperancy. This was a great wine, drinking well young, but with a long future ahead of it.

Absolutely beautiful. This was Champagne of character and style. It had beautiful nose, with a touch of white meat, deep yellow fruit, bits of honey and caramel - absolutely lovely. The palate was even better. Rich, moreish and delicious, it filled the mouth with wonderfully pure, persistent flavours of yellow fruit, kumquat and mineral, all leading into a magnificent finish. Grippy, compelling and full of life. This was a brilliant champagne drinking at peak.

There was some quality on this, but I did not find it all that enjoyable. Green on green, this was 2004's vegetal notes x Prieure Roch's whole cluster funkiness. The nose was all herbs and spice cloaked over soupy longans. You really need to like the style to enjoy that bouquet. The palate was just liked the nose - almost vegetal, but with a base of pleasantly pure, limpid red fruit underneath. There is quality on the fruit, but the green is just a little too distracting. It may shed some of that somewhat, like many 2004s have been doing, but until then, just not my thing.

This was so very enjoyable. I absolutely loved the nose - it spilled out the glass with deep aromas of dark cherries, sweet wild berries, boiled herbs, earth and spice. It was charming on the palate too, if not quite as lush as the nose promised - this was more about lifted red fruit in the mouth, with a little sprinkle of fragrant spice, a touch of rose petals, all glowing with a nice Burgundy purity. Delicious. The finish was nothing to shout at, but this was a otherwise fine wine, drinking nicely now. Such a complete 1er Cru - I just loved the marriage of bright, crunchy fruit to pure, lifted acidities. Not what I expected from a 2006 with its elegance - nice.

Decently good, especially for the vintage. This started with a rich, warm nose of black cherries, earth and spice. Very attractive. The palate had a remnant of the burnt smoke and some of the drying tannins of the 2003 vintage, but otherwise had a nice clarity to its dark cherry and berry flavours, with a bit of woody spice tailing into a longish finish. A touch rustic from the vintage, perhaps lacking a touch of complexity, but a pretty nice wine nonetheless.

Nice, but this was clearly a poorer showing from a bottle we had a few months back. The nose was deep and rather reserved here, with dark blue fruit, earth, mineral and a bit of Bonnes Mares spice. Really big and dense, but an impressive bouquet. The palate was huge - deep, dense and powerful, with dark cherry and spice wound around a deep core of clean acidity and gentle spice. Really pure and pristine in spite of its depth and girth - this was really impressive. It was all still quite tight and unyielding though; this was a monster of the wine that will take quite a few years to come around though. I would love to try this in a decade's time. It will be one of the longest lived 2006 wines fo sure.

Not a bad wine - just rather spoofy and not very Burgundian. It had a typical Dominique Laurent "200% new oak" nose, full of toasty wood, and wood spices floating around very ripe dark cherries and berry aromas. The palate had a nice balance to it, with juicy acidity tracing its way through pure flavours of red and blue fruit. However, the wine was always haunted by the woody oak, which dominated it from attack to finish. Really not quite my style. One wonders how this will develop after another 10 years. But given that plenty of time has already passed since bottling, I am not sanguine that the wine will ever shed the over-oaked feel.