Clean, bright medium coloured, clear at the rim. The nose has depth, initially with a hint of must – I’ll come back to it. In the mouth this is clean, indeed has cleansing acidity but without being tart. It seems linear and a little dilute – only in the mid-palate does it begin to unfold and deliver waves of decently intense flavour. By now the nose has tidied up and there’s a hint of pyrazine, but it’s more coal than coal-tar and adds an interesting dimension, another hour on and it smells fabulous with perfect red berries over a faintly musky base. So, this is silky and subtle, but with clean and long-lasting flavours and just the right amount of ‘sweet’. It is a very elegant lady who has retained quite some of her good looks – I really enjoyed spending the evening with her!

An earlier sample of this just seemed a bit dead, this is anything but. High-toned aromas of flowers – plenty of perfume. Full flavoured – very impressive despite a hint of coconut oak in the finish. The perfume pervades the flavours too – not just pretty, this is a wine of authority.

There is some jellied dark fruit, more complexity than the 09 too. Understated tannin mixes through lovely fresh flavours of dark fruit. Mouth-watering – just lovely.

Well, I’m glad it wasn’t me! Not a trace of volatility here, just very pretty fruit – a raspberry conserve, perhaps with a little mint-leaf. Full and impressive over the tongue, round with fine tannin. The finish is clean as a bell – just lovely wine. Given the domaine’s tarif, no surprise that this one is sold-out!

There is more depth of aroma here which drowns the worst of the ever-present family nose. In the mouth this is a lovely, comforting wine showing super flavour. Overall a very nice wine.

All I know is that a burgundy shape half-bottle has been decanted. This is very pale, almost salmon pink. The nose is dominated by volatile acidity and esters, much more-so than my recent 72. In the mouth those aromas can still be tasted, but only as a pale backdrop to a sweet core of ripe strawberry fruit, nice enough acidity and almost no tannin to speak of. I don’t mess around – I think it’s a decent 78 Beaune 1er that’s heading for the downslope (assuming it’s not a rhone!). Well I got the ‘8′ and the 1er cru correct, but I’m amazed to see it’s a 1998. It’s tasty and doesn’t smell too bad as the VA moves into the background (~30mins), but clearly this is a wine to ‘drink-up’.

Wide, ‘tender’ aromatics that are complex at the core. Just a hint of carbon dioxide on the tongue. A fulsome impression without ever becoming plump or fat. A little fine-grained tannin. Very, very pretty wine – and just a little bit more complexity than some.

Not a wine you get to taste very often due to its relatively small production. The nose is a little darker and starts deeper than the 1er cru, and is accented with rose petals. There’s a soft and welcoming texture and a creamy underpinning to the fruit. Good density at the core. Flavourful, beautifully balanced and very fine.

Started high-toned and diffuse – ouch, what’s happened here? – but 10 minutes in and the glass brings an ever-widening and ever-deepening palate of notes; deep, full, lightly sugar-coated cherries, swirling releases higher tones too – that’s more like it! In the mouth the first sip is also a little disconcerting, but following the path set by the nose, it fills out very nicely indeed – a broad range of flavours that amply fill the mouth. The fruit has none of the slightly distracting savoury element found in the Chambolle Charmes, but seems just a hint less ripe (no issue, just an observation), like-wise the tannin is finer, but clings a little harder to your gums as you exit the mid-palate for the finish – it just about falls short of being called astringent – how about astringent-ish(?) Very long, though just now much of that length is barrel flavour. A very different kettle of fish to the 2005 which was a fulsome and brazen ‘drink me now’ type of wine – this one should be allowed to slumber – if I had any more ‘bottles’ I’d make another test in about 2016, but I don’t, so the magnums will have to wait until 2020!

Only one barrel so effectively 100% new oak. The nose is less dense than the Charmes, but is wider and more complex. Likewise the palate also seems less dense, but there is saturation of your tongue and the flavours maybe have the edge. It’s a tough call between these wines – you may have to buy both!

Medium ruby red, still with a cherry-red rim. The nose starts a little diffuse but quickly tightens; it’s still a rather understated and bashful but has soft red fruit with the faintest cream rim – as you would expect (hope) from any of these wines, you can sniff this all day long as the intensity slowly builds into a perfect redcurrant as the glass empties. The sweet palate reflects the nose – it’s no powerhouse – intensity without apparent weight and almost perfect silky texture. There’s plenty of acidity but the balance is first-class. Absolutely everything about this wine is understated – apart from it’s class! There are no fireworks, but I’m still sad that I bought 6 and not 12! Young obviously, but a rewarding drink right now.

Medium-pale ruby-red. The nose is forward, just a little creamy and dense, also a suggestion of smoke in the background that hints (together with the colour) at the inclusion of some stems. The fruit is hard to get at and even seems slightly reduced to start with before offering a dense cherry expression. Silky palate, certainly refined but seems overly light. Evanescent finish, lacking that spark in the mid-palate and frankly flavour too but the finish has some intensity. It would make a good villages, but real disappointment here vs the label.