L 019. Really not my kind of Champagne at all. Simultaneously very oxidative and very sharply acidic, with little weight on the palate either. Oddly mature with browned fruit for a wine of such relative youth too. Hard for me to imagine that this is really what this wine is meant to be by design...

311032. Yeah, proper Krug. Opulent, rich, and powerful. Mature, and showing some plenty of richness, but more acidity and brighter than the Krug of yore. Really love how age has given this more of the old-school Krug feel; the moral of the story here clearly is to age your Grande Cuvée.

Served single blind. Light, red fruit, with a relatively lighter texture, though definitely with plenty of classic nebbiolo tannin. Nice perfume and missing some of the weight and depth of top nebbiolo, but approachable now all the same. Compared to the 2017 Bussia, the other wine in the flight, which was darker, I guessed that this was the Barbaresco.

Served single blind. Relatively darker fruit than the Roncaglie, this has a bit sterner of a tannic structure and a little more weight as well. Clearly a young wine with a little dilution (perhaps from the vintage) and modest weight. Less acidity and a more fruit-driven profile than the lighter, more mineral Roncaglie. I guessed that this was the Barolo of the flight.

Served single blind. Very dark complexion relative to the rest of the wines; (in hindsight, surprisingly) mature, and relatively prominent alcohol here. Sweet, darker fruit, and relatively plush and opulent. I thought that this was the Barolo of the flight.

Served single blind. Along with the Barbaresco, surprisingly mature for the vintage (in hindsight). This felt a little lighter than the Maria di Brun. Additionally, it was a little more wound up, and showed more acid and seemingly a bit more long-term aging potential. A distinctly grainy and pronounced tannic structure made me think this was the Barolo of the flight.

Served single blind. Very sweet fruit on the nose, and relatively red-fruited in the context of nebbiolo. On the palate, this also shows similarly sweet fruit relative to its partner in the flight. Relatively lighter in stature as well, indicating a relatively cool year. I guessed the Barolo here. A bit of a post-script -- while this was certainly a pleasant wine, and drinking very nicely, the lightness and relative openness of this wine convinces me that 2012 really is the worst Piedmont vintage for a good... 20ish years?

Served single blind. Clearly even lighter in stature than its flightmate (which turned out to be the Pira). The acid is more prominent, and there is almost a bit of a thinness to this wine. More structural, and a bit less outrightly enjoyable than the Pira. Quite accessible now, but given that this is on the wispier side of nebbiolo, not one for long aging.

Served single blind. A big dichotomy between the two wines in this flight, and this was the first flight where the table was almost unanimous (I was in that majority) on guessing that this was the Barolo. A dark, velvety wine, with a riper character and showing full signs of maturity. Very good, but certainly missing the complexity of the single-vineyard bottlings. It's held up well for its designation, but it's time to drink up.

Served single blind. Next to the 2000 Barolo, it was pretty obvious that this was the Barbaresco, if those old adages were to be believed. The fruit was lighter, more red, and the wine in general more acid-driven. Like the Barolo, this was very much mature and ready to drink; in fact this isn't one that I think has much further aging upside relative to the single-vineyard bottlings. Nevertheless amply enjoyable (and in hindsight better than the stewy bottle from a few months ago).

Served single blind. High-toned and showing a touch of cough syrup and slightly confected red fruit. Quite ripe, with a touch of alcohol showing through on the finish. In contrast to the relatively cool 2012s, this shows the lighter modern Roagna house style, but in a relatively hot year. I ended up guessing this was the Barolo due to its plusher structure.

Served single blind. Juicy and ripe, with relatively high-toned red fruit, not unlike its partner in the flight. However, this didn't have quite as much acetone on the nose, and also showed more of a linear, mineral core and lovely young nebbiolo perfume. Far more weight than the 2012 flight, which was very nice to drink now. I guessed this was the Barbaresco.

Served single blind. A bit of a stewy wine, with dark fruit and notes of overripeness. Knowing the contents of the flight, and having had this wine before, I guessed that this was the Falletto. Not entirely convinced that this was a representative bottle, but then again, I haven't had it in many years. Certainly a disappointment when it comes to the name on the label, but we all know the story at this point.

Served single blind. Light, but almost crystalline red fruit on the palate. Much brighter and lifted than the Asili alongside. Relatively simple and almost a bit dilute. This felt more linear and mineral in comparison, but even then, this doesn't feel like a wine that is as long-lived as a wine bearing the name Giacosa on the label ought to be.

Served single blind. The relatively darker wine of the flight (which made me think Barolo, despite Rabajà generally being a darker-complexioned site). A bit high-toned and mostly indistinguishable from the Rocche in that super cheerful, young nebbiolo sense. The alcohol feels a tad high, but that's maybe a sign of the times. Unsurprisingly drinks like a barrel sample.

Served single blind. Like the Rabajà, high-toned red fruit on the nose, with a slight bit of aldehyde and plenty of crystalline, candied cherry, young nebbiolo notes. Not quite as darkly complexioned as the Barbaresco, I swapped the appellations on my guess. Overall, this is a little more delicate and shows a bit less intensity as well. Hard to gauge very much, as these drink like barrel samples, but the quality is undeniable.

Served single blind. Clearly an older Gaja Barbaresco having just reached maturity, and relatively darker. Not as complex as the ST, though I preferred it to the SSL. Silky tannins, no modernist bent here whatsoever. Grainy tannins that smoothed out upon revisiting the wine later in the evening.

Served single blind. Absolutely brilliant. Mature, but still on an upwards trajectory. Effusive nose of nebbiolo florals and red fruit. Ample weight on the palate without the feeling of heaviness at all. There's a coolness to the fruit which alongside the acidity provide that necessary lift. None of the high-tonedness I'd expect from Sperss either -- this was clearly one of the single-vineyard Barbaresco bottlings.

Served single blind. Clearly lacking the high-toned cough syrup notes of Sperss, so this was also another easy Barbaresco call. Darker and brooding, and honestly a bit simplistic in comparison to the other two preceding wines. On a similar maturity level (in that there is still plenty of upside), with perhaps the most intense tannins of the three Barbarescos, and accordingly giving me the feeling that this is the one that needs more time than the others.

Served single blind. Clearly the odd man out here. Candied and slightly confected qualities to the red fruit here. Relatively high-toned and a distinctly modernist bent compared to the Barbarescos (which while not quite traditionalist where never over the top). This is one of the Piedmont pairs where I think the style of the wines is truly very different between the appellations.

#18-02, 9% abv. Kind of an odd Spätlese -- neither here nor there, really. Feels dilute, but also relatively high in alcohol, and comes off heavy-handed but also lacking the sweetness so it drinks like a Feinherb.