Very, very big. I overall liked the material here, but I found the oak to be too prominent overall. This didn't have any of the fabled Ramonet mint, nor the egg custard note that I personally find with Ramonet. The freshness and vivacity of this wine was deadened by the heavy oak use; there's a slight bitterness on the finish as well from it. A bit of a shame, really.

Ugh, I hate having to admit that Salil is right (especially about stuff like dry riesling). This wine was pretty damn good. It started out very peachy and fruit forward, somewhat Keller-like but lacking the weight on the backend. There's a little bit of white pepper and spice here, but it's at the end of the dinner where this really started singing -- this became so incredibly saline, and the mineral lift emerged prominently on the finish. Compelling stuff. Am I going to run out and buy more dry Austrian riesling after this? Not yet.

Of the three MG Chaignots (1999 and 2010), this was obviously the must rustic and true to NSG form. Incredibly backwards and structural at first, lacking fruit and showing mostly acid, this wasn't too interesting to drink. It was only with lots of air where some of the fruit started to emerge, and the wine became more balanced on the palate. The rough and tumble character of this wine speaks pretty true to both the vintage and the appellation.

Easily my favourite of the Chaignots trio (1995, 2010). This was much more silky in texture and didn't have all the coarseness of the 1995. It was also more mature and the tannins resolved enough to make this feel ready to drink (though there's lots of life left). The acidity isn't as prominent as on the 1995, but the fruit is more at the forefront, giving this a more generous disposition.

More potential than pleasure right now, though there is certainly some to be had now. Distinctly different from the other two Chaignots in that this had a little more sweetness and black fruit to it and less of the earthy NSG edge. I'll add that this doesn't feel as opulent and glossy as the 2018 in barrel that I tasted at the domaine. Not quite there in terms of resolution, this would need more air if opened now, or better yet, more years in the cellar.

It's been a while since I've had a Sancerre, so I was pretty keen on trying this. Alas, sauvignon blanc is still sauvignon blanc. This has a weird combination of white grape and green bell pepper on the nose. The palate fortunately is much better, but there are still some green notes there as well. Good acidity, minerality, and weight, the thing that sticks in my craw are the green/pyrazine notes.

The nose here shows lots of the red-fruited, light 2008 character. It's got that thing that I would readily mistake for stemminess but I'm pretty sure the wines here are fully destemmed. Red fruited and bright on the palate as well, but a little obscuring muddiness that seemed to get more prominent when I revisited the wine later. A very good bottle of grand cru Burgundy that delivers what it promises on the label, but I have to admit I was hoping for more.

Others at the table were far more keen on this wine than I was. I thought it somewhat charmless and heavy, especially for a Chambolle. The fruit leans towards the black side of the spectrum, and this feels too weighty on the palate. Some brown spice on the nose points to oak use -- the finish on the palate amply confirms it. There are some bitter elements on the finish that are unfortunately paired with the tannins.

Quite dirty on the nose but the palate was very fresh and bright, and I could have guessed that this was a 1996 or even a 2001. Unfortunately, the dirtiness just got worse as the night wore on.

So nice to get to taste this without having to open one of my own. A really nice amount of dried herbs on the nose here, as well as fruit that leans heavily towards the red side of the spectrum. Not too expressive right now, this shows plenty of potential, with most of the compelling bits all eclipsed by the tannic structure. Not readily enjoyable like the 2012 a few years ago. Nonetheless I certainly appreciated the potential here, and hope to revisit one a few more years down the road.

Far more ready to drink now than the 2010 Biondi Santi alongside. This has a generous amount of fruit on the nose and palate, and definitely veers more to the black side of the fruit spectrum. Slightly volatile, but not offputtingly so. Oddly this feels simultaneously ready to drink and fully mature. Not quite sure how to reconcile that, but based on the structure my guess is that this is going to sit on a plateau for a fair number of years.

A new producer for me. Quite a convincing first experience though, even if this bottle is far more fruit-forward and juicy than I would expect for a 2004 Barolo. No barrique here (at least that I could taste), which is the number one requirement for nebbiolo. Juicy and sweet, with fruit flavours that are more akin to stone fruit than berries. Supple tannins on the back end, this holds its 15% abv incredibly well.

Somewhat muted and demure right now, but unmistakably classic nebbiolo. Roses and red berries dominate on the nose and transfer over to the palate. However, the palate's structure doesn't feel as prominent and overall I found the intensity and concentration at a somewhat dumb spot. This is another of many wines on the table tonight that seems to be more potential than pleasure right now. I'd add that I wouldn't expect this to be a long ager, as this doesn't have quite enough structure for the very long haul.