Drank at Lord's whilst watching the cricket. This is a non-vintage, zero-dosage Champagne.

Champagne Pure, Pol Roger
Nice fruit on the nose, reasonably biscuitty. This smells like standard Pol Roger, and that is no bad thing. The palate is really rather acidic and direct, it bloody well hurt my poor stomach. Nice fruit, though, and a good, fine mousse. Reasonably long persistence of flavours on the palate, too, but the acidity dose dominate and this is just a bit too linear. For all of its style, I'd like a touch more weight and fat to the palate. Don't get me wrong, this is a nice NV fizz, but I prefer the standard Pol.

I've been told my RSS feeds contain too much. This has led me to fiddle with my blog software and discover that I can just put summary descriptions in which then link back to the main article. From now on my RSS-feeds will contain less. If you have no idea what an RSS-feed is then don't worry about it. I'll test it with my last post.

This is another good bottle in a string of good bottles since the Pinot Noir By Farr; you have no idea how such events cheer me up. If I am honest, I am pretty unwell at the moment. I am about to change medication and this might be difficult for a while. And yet, a few good bottles in select company has provided me with an awfully large amount of jolly points; the wine has added to the experience of people obviously liking me over the past few days and, even though this can sometimes be difficult to deal with, it is really rather nice. Now, a serious sweet wine:

Tokaji Aszu 6 Puttonyos "Betsek" 1999, Royal Tokaji Wine Company
Darker than golden syrup. A lovely nose of botrytic, candied apricots, with a pleasingly earthy character. This is a classy sweet wine. The palate is obviously silky and smooth, and even though it displays classic Tokaji oxidative tones it is still really fruity. As far as it is possible for these sort of wines to display vineyard character, this does. It is very long and bursting with complex fruit/mold/oxidative flavours, which delight and titillate for a pleasing length of time. There is a highly attractive character to this wine. It'll last forever, but why bother? It is great fun now, and you can think about it too, which is never a bad thing.

That Shiraz By Farr was really good, as was the de Courcel. The Leflaive BBM was a transcendent experience. People open these things for me and I open them for them. Maybe I am not so bad. Maybe people are not wrong to like me. Even in the midst of psychosis there are oases of complete loveliness. I hope I can remain out of the bin and continue this hit-rate of great bottles over the next few weeks.

Quite different to the marvellous 2003.

Pommard Premier Cru les Rugiens 2005, Domaine de Courcel
Quite pale in colour. A marvelous nose of fresh strawberry and cherry fruit, with a good mineral tang to it. It smells very refined and very Cote de Beaune. The pure fruit is framed beautifully by the subtlest of oak aromas. This is a great, detailed nose to delight and intrigue. The palate is reasonably tannic, but has masses of pure fruit, lovely acidity and a really most pleasing oak treatment. The finish is long and complex, This wine has all one could ask for from a bottle of Pommard Premier Cru, lovely fruit, nice structure and freaking nip loads of style. Will age for fifteen to twenty years and only get more beautiful. Perhaps put it away for five to seven years unless you drink it within the nest six months as these things, whilst forever being beautiful, can often go through an awkward, middle-aged period. But don't let this put you off, go out and buy some, man, this is obscenely good. Yves Confuron may be a miserable sod, but by arse the geezer makes tits++ wine; sometimes in a 'tits out for the boys'-sense as in 2003, sometimes in a direct and linear sense as in 2004 and when he makes them like this, hedonistic, sexy and yet elegant and beautiful, you've got to snap up all you can find. Five bottles left.

We are told there is a dash of Viognier in this. It is seriously good.

Shiraz By Farr 2003, Gary Farr
The nose of this is completely compelling: rich, dark fruit and earth. It has an array of spicy, complex and subtle aromas, this is one of the most beguiling noses of a Syrah wine I have had since last night. This may be a 14% wine but it is not at all overblown or heavy, the fruit is quite lovely. The palate has a sophisticated tannic structure with completely lovely fruit, rich earthy complexity, quite brilliant acidity and a stylish, hedonistic finish which leaves you wondering why on Earth anyone would bother ageing this for much longer as it provides so much pleasure now. This is seriously good, I really don't think I've had a better bottle of Australian Shiraz than this, and I don't think you will either. Forget all of those Grange, Old Block and Hill of Grace horrors and have a bottle which provides even more visceral pleasure and a damned-sight more intellectual pleasure.

We were invited over to the new house of a couple of friends of ours; it was a lovely house and they are lovely people. Some good wines, too.

Bienvenues-Batard-Montrachet Grand Cru 2001, Domaine Leflaive
Decanted an hour and a half before we drank it, this had a really expressive nose of nuts, minerality, lovely fruit and real power and density. It smelled delicious, really complex and stylish. The palate had weight and density, but was kept lively and light by great acidity and fine minerality. Again, really complex on the palate. This was an incredibly classy wine that was drinking well now. Excellent stuff.

Chassagne-Montrachet 2004, Domaine Ramonet
This was very young on the nose, banana esters very prominent. There was some good Chassagne flat-Champagne character, though and it did smell of Ramonet wine. The palate was reasonably light and elegant, with good fruit and a reasonable finish. Quite a nice bottle of wine, but would have been better in a couple of years time.

Volnay Premier Cru Clos de Chateau des Ducs 2000, Lafarge
I don't think I've ever smelled a wine that had as much freshly-cut grass character on the nose, it was very stemmy and green. Palate was reasonably balanced and fruity, though, with some length. Not a great Lafarge bottle but you cannot deny it had personality.

Cote-Rotie 1998, Bernard Burgaud
A lovely, rich, complex nose of dark fruit, earth and pepper. Real complexity here. This is obviously a proper vintage and a damned-good bottle of Cote-Rotie. The palate had some noble tannins, but great fruit and spice. A really complex, very long finish. Damned good Cote-Rotie, to be enjoyed with great pleasure now and over the next ten years, if you've got a good cellar.

Cornas "Granit 30" 2001, Vincent Paris
Nice ripe fruit and spicy pepper on the nose, smells reasonably typical for Cornas, with a degree of style. Palate had a good tannic structure with nicely integrated fruit. Up for drinking whilst reasonably young and vibrant, I fancy.

Riesling Auslese Brauneberger-Juffer Sonnenuhr Fuder 6 1997, Fritz Haag
I had this a couple of days ago, it was similar. A damned good bottle of wine, to be sure, but up for drinking.

James also tried to pop a bottle of Michel Colin-Deleger Chassagne Premier Cru 2000, Vergers if memory serves (and it often does when it comes to wine). Like the last bottle of 2000 Colin-Deleger we tried it was oxidised and undrinkable.

I tried this chez Haag with my great chum Gernot Schleiss when we visited in 1998. I knew they were pretty freaking triple-A then, and now I get to enjoy them when they are showing off with a bit of age. Hooray!

Riesling Auslese Brauneberger-Juffer Sonnenuhr Fuder 6 1997, Fritz Haag
A proper nose of mature Riesling: citrus fruit and petrol. It has a truly inspiring minerality to it, really slaty. The thing you have to love about 1997 German wine, though, is the fruit, and this has it in spades. This is seriously complex on the nose and has bags of style. The palate has plenty of sweetness and a lot of fruit, but great acidity and real vivacity. It bursts with energy and life which is great for an eleven year old wine. It is very long, and really oozes class and complexity. This is a really ubermensch-level wine. Fruit, minerality, life, what more could one ask for? Probably time to drink now and over the next five years, though.

I recommended this at the end of last month; I was right.

Pinot Noir by Farr 2004, Gary Farr
A lovely nose of bright red fruit and, if you can believe it from an Australian wine, it is really earthy. You can tell he largely ferments with whole clusters, too; you can smell the stems. There is some real complexity about the nose of this wine, which is really good as it cost nineteen quid. The best compliment I can give this wine is that it smells a bit like Domaine Dujac from a ripe, charming vintage. But even though it is ripe this is no bruiser, it is a perfectly balanced 13.5% and there is not a hint of jamminess to the fruit. The palate has plenty of fresh red fruit, good acidity and a slightly prickly tannic structure. This tastes a bit like Burgundy that it going through its awkward, middle-aged stage. But it is quite delicious and easy to enjoy, reasonably complex too. I think this wine will last until it is ten and, dare I say it, improve along the way. This is a top bottle for the price and I would be very interested in trying the By Farr prestige cuvee Pinot Noir known as Sangreal. Pleasingly that is not that much more expensive than this; Gary Farr makes damned-good wines and you have to be gladdened that he doesn't charge the Earth for them.

Just to note, the partner says this is very New World. He is wrong. There is plenty of fruit, sure, but there is more than that. There is earthiness, stemminess and a notable degree of complexity. This is a bottle of proper Pinot and I should not be surprised it comes from Australia because I am well aware that Gary Farr is a talented, experienced winemaker who doesn't arse around letting his grapes stew in the heat then bleach any remaining character out of them in the winery.

Christophe Roumier makes damned good wines. This is not pleasing me very much, though, perhaps it is still too young?

Chambolle-Musigny Premier Cru les Cras 1996, Domaine G. Roumier
A bit brick in colour. Some nice fruit on the nose, but it smells a bit direct and, dare I suggest it, there is a hint of greenness about this wine. Also a hint of HP Sauce which I find deeply unattractive (great as it is on bacon sandwiches). This smells reasonably complex, harmonious and balanced, but just not very nice. The palate is just a bit flat and one-dimensional too, it is just not so interesting. OK, the brightness of the fruit and the undoubted complexity of this wine lift it above 'sub-interest', but nowhere near far enough for my liking.

After the 'Egly-Ouriet being nice' shocker it is good to get back to some reliably crap producers. The 'sub-interest' status of Santa Duc wines is forever assured. Of course, Robert Parker gave it 93 points (whatever the hell that means) and said it will age until 2018.

Gigondas "Prestige des Hautes Garrigues" 1998, Domaine Santa Duc
The nose smells of raw booze, strawberry jam and horrible, horrible rancid dirtiness. This is unbalanced and simply repulsive. The palate has a hot, booze-tastic burn and sweetness to it, soupy tannins (if they can even be called tannins) and a nasty flavour of rotting jam. Is it possible anyone could enjoy this monstrous horror? It has aged really badly and (let us be honest) was bloody dire when it was released, so please, let us drink something else and use this for burning grease stains off the garage floor.

We went out shopping today and with only moderate arm-twisting the partner purchased a truly, truly beautiful thing. It is a Sarah-Jane Selwood bowl and looks like this (click for enlargements):

We now own nine pieces by her and this is one of the most beautiful. I love it. It is really suggestive. If you want to pick up a piece by her I suggest you go to Contemporary Applied Arts.

I hosted a wine tasting last night, people didn't get as many right as I had hoped. Mind you, tasting Champagne is always really foxy, especially when, like these wines, they had a bit of cellar age on them. I had aged all three for three and a half years since I purchased them. The Cornas were both damned good.

Champagne Grand Siecle, Larent-Perrier
A lovely, polished complex nose, smells a bit of fishy Pinot and tinny, but mainly rich, complex, stylish aromas. This is a lot better than when it was fresh from the shelf. The palate was very complex and smooth, with a fine mousse and a good, long finish. This was quite delicious, well worth the £35 it cost.

Champagne Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru Brut, Billecart-Salmon
Quite anonymous on the nose. There is not much there apart from a bit of egg and toast. Age has made this less expressive; weird. The palate was very direct and linear, with a good creamy minerality and lots of nice fruit on the finish. However, it was a touch direct. I found it a bit hard work on the old stomach for not much reward.

Champagne Blanc de Noirs Grand Cru, Egly-Ouriet
Oh this is so difficult. Really hard. You see, the thing is every Egly-Ouriet wine I've had I've hated so I have sort of decided I hate Egly-Ouriet, yet this wine was truly excellent. It had a dense nose of red fruit and rich soiliness. Yet it still seemed very light and refined on the nose. Lovely complex flavours here. The palate had real weight, plenty of fruit, but great acidity and vivacity. The finish had a touch of meat about it, but the acidity and minerality were also present making this a lively, exciting wine. I am sure a bit of age helped it. This was quite delicious. Shame the wine is so expensive these days. Still, the only Egly-Ouriet wine I can recommend (up until now).

Cornas 1998, Clape
A lovely, herbal, meaty nose which strangely has a hint of arseholes about it. There is a hint of greenness, but loads and loads of lovely ripe fruit. A good grind of pepper is in there. It is extremely complex and not lacking any style. The palate has a huge tannic structure, interlaced with herbal pepperiness and masses of dark fruit. Very complex, but a tad angular. Great length, with real complexity on the finish. Quite delicious.

Cornas "Domaine de Rochepertuis" 1998, Jean Lionnet
Wow, what a nose! Silky, sexy ripe fruit, earth, pepper and bags of class. This smells polished and hedonistic. Real class here, and yet it is very Cornas. The palate has a lot of tannin, but it is very ripe and integrates with the bags of lovely, lovely fruit very well. Many flavours seemlessly play across your palate as you taste this. Not as angular as the Clape, but I suppose some pedants may not find this Cornasy enough. Excellent, up for drinking now over the next seven years.

It had been playing on my mind as to which Cornas would be better. Votes at the tasting were two each leaving me with the deciding vote. I have to say I lean toward the Lionnet. It just has a bit more class and style. Don't get me wrong I loved the Clape and thought it worth every penny, but the Lionnet is just a bit sexier. Half the price, too, not that these things matter so much on Elitist Review...

Riesling Auslese GoldKap Wehlener Sonnenuhr 1997, J. J. Prum: The 1996 was marvellous, why not step up a quality level and go for a better vintage too. £48 from Fine and Rare Wines.

Cornas Domaine de Rochepertuis 1999, Jean Lionnet: Proper Cornas that is silky and beautiful, tomorrow I'll be having the 1998. £23.45 from Jeroboams.

Shiraz by Farr 2004, Gary Farr: He made one of my favourite Australian Shirazes at Bannockburn, this is his personal effort. He's made wine with Alain Graillot, what more could one ask? £18.95 from Tannners.

Pinot Noir by Farr 2004, Gary Farr: He has made some great vintages in Burgundy so his Pinot credentials are spotless. I'm just about to order some of this. £18.95 from Tanners.

Chablis Premier Cru Montee de Tonnerre 2005, Louis Michel: A more minor 2005 was lovely recently, trade up to a serious Premier Cru. £16.17 from Howard Ripley.

How can I possibly describe a wine this good? For the record this cost me twelve quid on release.

Riesling Auslese Wehlener Sonnenuhr 1996, Joh. Jos Prum
An intense nose of gravel and thick grease. It is intensely limey and petrolly and positively bursting with stoney life. This is the ballerina's bits. Rude bits, at that. The complexity and god-damned style on the nose are simply awe-inspiring. The palate is light, beautifully elegant and refined, fizzing with limey, stomach-scalding acid. The sweetness is truly delicious and together with the acid and minerality this makes for an incredibly mouth-watering, moreish drink. I mean, I've had some seriously nips wine in my life and this is a memorably ranking bottle. Up for drinking now but will provide pleasure for decades if you treat it with the loving attention it deserves. I've got a bottle left; sometimes life is pretty good.

It was a bottle of Louis Michel that first convinced me that Chablis can be great. His Grand Crus are entities of intensity. This is lovely bottle.

Chablis Premier Cru Vaillons 2005, Louis Michel
This has a very steely nose with plenty of nuttiness, it is really pure and focused. The minerality is really pleasing. The fruit on the nose is strangely peary, which is really quite attractive. No oak here, this is pure, unadulterated Chablis action, and very pleasing that is too. The palate is really light and refined, but not short of concentration. It has good lemony fruit and and excellent minerality to it. This is a totally refreshing, stylish little number that completely charms. It bursts with vivacity. The minerality shows strongly on the finish which is really quite long. This is providing really quite a lot of pleasure to drink now but it has the depth of character and balance to age into something even more beautiful. Louis Michel makes excellent wines (and this is certainly one of them) that don't cost the earth. Well worth looking out for.