Solid, enjoyable champagne that is more on the autolytic, leesy side, with a moderate amount of creaminess. Relatively soft, this doesn't feel to be driven by its acids and the sweetness here seems to indicate a very generous amount of dosage.

Served double blind. Somewhat thin and green on the nose, with an element that almost reminds me of sauvignon blanc. Nonetheless the texture and acidity are far more in line with chardonnay, but for a moment I toyed with St. Bris, before settling on a fresh bottle of 2011 white Burgundy. A very disappointing showing of a wine from a producer that I love.

I think I liked this bottle more than most at the table. It's certainly a botrytis bomb, and there are plenty of sweet fruit flavours here from what I presume would be a relatively late harvest. Made in a style that wanted to accentuate the naturally lacking acidity, this drinks like a dry version of a sweet wine.

Served double blind. Incredibly floral nose, to the point where I thought this was viognier, but with acidity. The strangeness was having the aromatic intensity along with the acidity; a bit of a stumper, I couldn't think of anything that had that sort of profile. A good amount of alcohol on the back end as well. After the reveal, I'll admit that this wine made sense. Despite my distaste for sauvignon blanc these days, this didn't taste too much like it.

Served double blind. Clearly Piedmont -- red fruited, bright, floral, and ever so charming. This is in the style of the post-modern producers, so it was a swing back to the classical style but with far more open and fresh red fruit. Somehow drinking very well at this generally awkward time for nebbiolo.

Served double blind. Very juicy and sweet, with a profile that swings towards black fruit. Plummy, jammy, and quite ripe. I thought that this was CdP with a bit of a modern twist but in hindsight the lack of dirtiness should have clued me in that CdP wasn't the best guess.

Corked.

Served double blind. Immediately identified as SQN (though admittedly I saw the wax top and felt the incredibly heavy bottle). Anyway, this is exactly what you expect. There's nothing subtle about it. Big in every way -- the bottle, the oak, the fruit. More drinkable than I would expect, the biggest impediment to my actually enjoying this is the horribly bitter and oaky finish which is mostly (and mercifully) overwhelmed by the port-like fruit.

Served double blind. Clearly nebbiolo, and clearly a top end producer given the purity and precision of this wine. The only question was who, and what vintage. This came across as a lighter vintage, so I was thinking it may have been 2012 or 2014, and I was debating between Bartolo or G. Rinaldi down the street. More shocking was the reveal that this was a 2011 -- it was so light and lifted, it felt like this was from a cooler year than a riper one.

Served double blind. A very juicy, crunchy style of wine, with plenty of clean red fruit and a prominent acidic backbone. Not complex, but very enjoyable and approachable. The table (myself included) settled quickly on Cote de Beaune given the sturdier profile of this wine. The high acid profile made me guess that this was 2013. I haven't tasted many of Roulot's reds, but this was quite nice (though less so once the price is taken into consideration).

Served double blind. Initially this was so stinky and reductive I thought it was corked, but the TCA did not bloom, so I was wrong on that count. For my taste, this was very thin and acidic, and showed a lot of earthiness and relatively little fruit. The structure and acidity had me guessing 1995 and 2001 and Nuits at first. Others liked this more than I did.

Served double blind. Bizarre wine that showed lots of greenness and thinness but not pyrazines, so the closest thing in my mind was 2004 red Burgundy. Dirty and weedy, this didn't move the needle at all for me. Slightly reduced as well, but that dissipated with air.

Served double blind. Sweet, juicy, and very ripe with a fair bit of tannin. A hint of strawberry here was the thing I seized onto to enable a GSM guess. Generally bigger and riper than I care to drink, with plenty of structure here for the long haul.

Brett. It got worse and worse.

#21-76. Served double blind. Dark brown in colour; going through all the different styles of dessert wine, it seemed clear that this was a very old high-Prädikat wine, for one, because of the relatively low alcohol (meaning it hadn't been fortified) and also because of the maple syrup flavour that old sweet riesling can pick up. Not the cleanest example though; this had a fair bit of funk to it, as well as a surprising streak of acidity whose profile was greener than I would expect for a wine of this age. (The label actually says Riesling und Silvaner.) To be honest, more interesting than good.

Served double blind. A very strange chenin; I had trouble guessing both the chenin and the botrytis part here, so I was all over the place. The floral element, which I latched onto, had me thinking this was Jurançon. There was also some odd melon notes. On the reveal, this maybe made a little more sense, but overall the chenin character seemed to have been overwhelmed here, and I didn't pick out a distinct botrytis flavour either (the wine is surprisingly pale for its 31 years and supposed botrytis influence).