I've pretty much got all of the 1996 Champagnes I need, especially after this morning's delivery of a bottle of Billecart-Salmon Grande Cuvée. This is a prestige cuvée I've wanted to try for a while, but as this is a 1996 I'll have to wait until I open it. I've only purchased three 1996 prestige cuvées (as they are freaking expensive) and each one has come in over-blown packaging. The Grande Cuvée has a particularly silly 'crocodile-mouth' box:

The first thing I do when I get extraneous packaging like this is throw it away; it certainly doesn't make it to one of my cellars. I can see how the makers want people to think that they are getting something special for their obscene amount of money spent, but surely the wine should be special enough? I'd rather spend a few notes less and just have the bottle of wine.

Ah 1996 Champagnes, such good things. I'll be drinking my small but perfectly composed collection over a very long time. This means I'll have to try some later vintages, hmmmm... I've had Billecart-Salmon Cuvée Nicolas François 1997 and Bollinger Grand Année 1997 and found both to be terribly disappointing; they seemed so forward, mature and lacking rigour. 1998 is more of a 'classic' vintage (although the one I have had was bloody awful); I'll order some Pol Roger.

... And it is really serious. Hooray! This is made from a plot of vines by the Grand Cru les Preuses.

Chablis Premier Cru Fourchaume "Vignoble de Vaulorent" 2005, Domaine William Fevre
Wow, the nose of this is simply beautiful: elderflower, freshly-squeezed ripe lemon juice and an utterly wonderful nutty, creamy minerality. There is a real concentration of aromas here. The palate is not short of beauty, either. It has a floral fruitiness, the concentration of a serious Grand Cru, perfectly balanced acidity and one arse of a long, mineral finish. For all the power and density of flavours this remains supremely elegant and extremely refined. I cannot remember having better Chablis than this.

I only own one bottle of red Bordeaux and I have decided that is all I am ever going to own. Even if I become fabulously rich I am never going to buy another bottle of Claret.

Why? It is simply that Claret rarely interests me. The bottles I have had that I have found interesting have all been mind-bendingly expensive (generally supplied by friends) and I just don't feel the need to spend that much money on wine, even if I had that much money. As good as something like La Mission Haut-Brion 1975 is, can it really be worth six hundred pounds a bottle? Never six hundred pounds of my money, that is for sure.

More affordable Claret I find to be dull. They lack charm, interest and excitement. Yes, they may be balanced, elegant and intellectual, but loveliness is a character usually absent. I like wine to be an intellectual pleasure, but I also want to feel happy when I have a glass of it. Red Bordeaux is perilously short on hedonistic pleasure.

Even when mid-range Claret is made in a modern (dare I say Parkerised?)-style it is simply a big, tannic wine, it doesn't gain any charm. These wines might be riper than more minimalist Clarets, but they are not any easier to drink and still lack that all-important loveliness-factor.

Cheap Claret is, of course, utterly undrinkable. Hard, miserable and tannic, often thin and fruitless. When I have worked for various wine merchants I have always had uncharitable thoughts about people when they have asked for a sub-ten pound bottle of Bordeaux; the wine will not simply lack pleasure but be actively nasty. Cheap Claret is not even worth buying for the sake of getting drunk.

My distaste for Claret will not prevent me from drinking bottles provided by others, I cannot dictate what other people want to open, but I am simply not going to buy another bottle of red Bordeaux in my life. I'll drink the single bottle I own when I take it out of the cellar this summer (and find it charmless); after that my wine collection will be forever Claret free. Good.

This is only the fourth vintage of this wine made by Sylvain Cathiard after the vineyard was re-planted, so the vines are quite young. I have to say I couldn't tell that by tasting it, it doesn't seem light and is quite serious. Quite lovely, too. This Premier Cru is located just above the Grand Cru La Romanée so it cannot be all bad. I like M. Cathiard's labels:

Vosne-Romanée Premier Cru aux Reignots 2002, Sylvain Cathiard
The nose has obvious Vosne spice and exotic tones. It smells really concentrated and very complex; there is plenty of ripe fruit and minerality framed within a very subtle oakiness. It is really seductive. The fruit and spice coat the palate with concentrated, highly attractive flavours. It is really complex with a great long finish. The finish does have a hint of severity about it, but this is obviously a young wine and I think this would only become more svelte and silky as it ages. This is a serious and utterly charming bottle of wine; for all of its intellectual pleasure one could happily describe this as callipygian. M. Cathiard hits the bull's eye once again.

The buying recommendations are a bit early this month. This is partly because I am bored and stuck in front of the computer whilst the cleaner is working her magic, but also because I feel there is a degree of urgency about getting these wines. 1996 was an exceptional vintage for Champagne; both riper and more acidic than 1990 (which was the previous 'best vintage ever'). The wines burst with luxuriant fruit and fine acidity and will generally age very well. I've rarely enjoyed Champagnes as much as the 1996s I've had, although most of what I have purchased went immediately to my various cellars. The problem is that demand for these wines was so high most of them have now disappeared from wine merchant's shelves and have been replaced by the (much-lesser) following vintages. The five wines I recommend here are ones I have particularly enjoyed that happen to still be available, albeit in limited quantities. I suggest you snap them up and lock them away safely in your cellars; they'll provide a lot of pleasure in years to come.

Champagne Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill 1996, Pol Roger: Quite the best 1996 fizz I've had. A big, bold Pinot dominated wine that is utterly beguiling and really requires at least another five years in the cellar. This is a completely fantastic wine. If you are a member of the Wine Society you can get it there for £90 a bottle (incl. delivery), if you are not a member then Nickolls and Perks have it for £89 a bottle (excl. delivery).

Champagne Clos des Goisses 1996, Philipponnat: This single-vineyard Champagne is really another one for the cellar, they are beautiful when mature. This is quite a big-styled Champagne that is unusually high in alcohol at 13%. Top stuff, though. £75 from Fortnum and Mason.

Champagne Brut Chardonnay 1996, Pol Roger: This is far prettier than the two wines above, and more approachable to drink now. It has very good ripe fruit and a rich, creamy character. It'll also age very well. £48.95 (less if you buy a case) from Berry Brothers and Rudd. It is not 14% as they claim on their website.

Champagne Cuvée Nicolas François Billecart 1996, Billecart-Salmon: Until I had the Churchill, this was the best 1996 Champagne I had tried. I preferred it to Bollinger. It is light-bodied which may make one think it'll drink well young, but really this will improve greatly with age. A note is here. The Wine Society have it for £40 a bottle or you can get it here for £48.72 a bottle.

Champagne vintage 1996, Gratien: A reasonably full-bodied, oaky Champagne that has quite a lot of style and class for the price. A brief note is here. £35 from the Wine Society.

I visited Domaine Vincent Dancer last summer and was very impressed. So when I saw some of his wines for sale from Four Walls Wine I thought they would be worth shelling out for. This is a damned-good bottle of white Burgundy, so I think I'll be buying more...

Chassagne-Montrachet Premier Cru la Romanée 2002, Domaine Vincent Dancer
An opulent, expressive nose of ripe lemon fruit, rich minerality and some spice. A bit of wood is noticeable on the nose, but it seems in perfect harmony with the exotic hedonism it also displays. The palate is quite dense with good intensity and fine acidity to balance its opulence. It is big, but has real finesse and precise mineral flavours that linger with the fruit on a very impressive finish. This is a very sexy, stylish wine that I enjoy very much; for all its luxurious flavours it is not short on complexity or sophistication. The quality comment that I really want to use for this wine is that it is 'tits', but I am too polite and non-sexist to use the word 'tits' quite so gratuitously.

I had a guest yesterday afternoon. Traffic delayed his arrival until it was time to start cooking so he ended up staying for dinner.

Riesling Spätlese Serriger Schloss Saarstein 2005, Schloss Saarstein
This still had fermentation aromas on the nose, along with a bit of citrus fruit and that was pretty much it. On the palate there was some good acidity and reasonable richness, but it was staggeringly dull. No complexity, no vineyard character, nothing to grab you. It was wallpaper wine, it merged un-noticed into the background without providing any thrills at all. How disappointing.

Riesling Grand Cru Brand 2001, Domaine Albert Boxler
Corked! Bugger, bugger, bugger!

Riesling Auslese Eitelsbacher Karthäuserhofberg 1999, Karthäuserhof
The nose was reasonably mature, with obvious petrol hints but still plenty of citrus fruit. It was quite a lot more mineral than the Schloss Saarstein, a reasonable degree of complexity here. The palate had ripeness and density, but it had the elegance and delicacy of a good German Riesling. Very good minerality on the finish which was reasonably long. Quite a good bottle.

Collioure le Séris 2003, Domaine de la Rectorie
The nose was very heroic, booze-tastic blackberry liqueur and cough medicine. It was a full-throttle, ripeness-bomb. The nose seemed a touch too butch, really. So did that palate. It was very ripe and booze-fuelled, with lots of ripe tannins and not much in the way of acidity. I can see this would provide a lot of pleasure to people who like big wines, but I like elegance, refinement and balance, so no thanks.

Chambolle-Musigny Premier Cru les Gruenchers Vieille Vigne 1999, Domaine Fourrier
A lovely, perfumed nose of fresh Chambolle fruit, not in the least bit closed or awkward. Good complexity and a real old-vines depth of concentration. The palate was quite lovely: plenty of fruit, a good mineral character all framed within a stylish tannic structure. Whilst it had concentration there was real Chambolle refinement to it. This was a quite lovely wine with a good future ahead of it. Delicious!

The first offers for 2005 Burgundy are coming out around now. All I can say is, "Fill your boots, this is a great vintage". For those who missed them I reported on a few domaines that I visited last summer. They were (in no particular order): Comte Armand/Domaine des Epeneaux, Domaine Roulot, Domaine Vincent Dancer, Bernard Moreau et Fils, Frédéric Mugnier, Domaine Arlaud, Domaine Christophe Roumier and Domaine Dujac. All of these are top addresses and you'll be safe buying from them.

We had a dinner party last night which was not entirely successful. Our guests brought some lovely wines, but most of the stuff I opened was either awful or downright weird.

Riesling Serriger Schloss Saarsteiner Kabinett 2005, Schloss Saarstein
Still a bit yeasty on the nose. It had some good fruit and acidity, but not much in the way of minerality. It was also quite short. A passable drink but really quite dull.

Riesling Bernkasteler Lay Spätlese 1997, Wwe. Dr H Thanisch - Erben Thanisch
Lovely fruit on the nose, real minerality here too. This smells quite ripe but it has a pleasing purity of flavour. Great acidity on the palate, with good fruit and great minerality. Despite its good acidity this seemed reasonably buxom for a Thanisch wine. It didn't show much in the way of maturity, it'll last years yet. Quite delicious.

Chassagne-Montrachet Premier Cru Grandes Ruchottes 2000, Château de Maltroye
This had a really odd nose of unripe pear fruit and children's glue. It was really unattractive. It tasted of glue too which didn't make it terribly enjoyable to drink. So we didn't drink it.

Gevrey-Chambertin Premier Cru les Cazetiers 2002, Armand Rousseau
A beautiful nose of pure, refined Pinot fruit. The purity and harmony of the nose was most pleasing. On the palate the fruit was nice and ripe, with perfect acid levels and a good, long finish. It was really quite complex with a good harmony between its flavours. This had a really good Gevrey character, and it was very Rousseau too. A lovely wine, great fun to drink now but clearly has the potential to age very well.

Volnay Premier Cru les Caillerets 2002, Michel Lafarge
The nose of this was extremely refined and sparkled with lovely fruit and a real Volnay purity. It was clearly extremely complex and completely charming. On the palate there were lovely, detailed, refined flavours and it had a wonderful silky texture. The balance was superb and it had a very long, complex finish. Very stylish too. I really like Lafarge wines and this was certainly up to his very high standards.

Brunello di Montalcino Riserva Poggio All'Oro 1997, Castello Banfi
This smelled just like a super-ripe, extremely oaky Syrah, this didn't inspire confidence that it'd be good. There was no harmony or refinement to the nose, it was simply big. The palate was bloody awful, hugely extracted with dry tannins and frightening levels of acidity. It was certainly lacking fruit and was not balanced. No.

Gevrey-Chambertin Premier Cru Clos St. Jacques 2002, Sylvie Esmonin
Really ripe on the nose; blackberry fruit. The palate was quite a mouthful: loads of fruit, good extract and plenty of acidity. This was a lot bigger than I would have expected, but it seemed in reasonable harmony, though. I thought the finish was really pretty good with reasonably complex flavours persisting. Even though this was not typical, I thought it was quite a good wine.

Vintage Port 1983, Taylor's
For a Taylor's Port this had a very refined nose, it wasn't the usual explosion of intensity. The fruit was good, and quite mature. Again there was refinement on the palate, not fiery at all. Good mature fruit and nice length. This was very enjoyable and fully mature.

Today marks five years since my partner and I moved in together; a bottle of Champagne seems in order. The wine merchant I got this from claimed on their website and shelf-sticker that this was was an old vines cuvée, yet there is no mention of this on the bottle. Perhaps they are trying to over-sell it. I was not terribly worried when I looked at the bottle as I have had plenty of Legras fizz before and they have generally been acceptable drinks for the money.

Champagne Brut Grand Cru Chouilly Blanc des Blancs 1998, R et L Legras
This smells of lemonade and bread, and that is it. Is there any complexity here? Any style? Any interest? No, it seems incredibly dull. The palate has some harsh acidity and a bit of citrus fruit, but it too is stunningly dull. No minerality, not much fruit, nothing nice, really. I'd be hard-pressed to guess this was Champagne if I were presented it blind so lacking in character is it. This really is wallpaper wine, there is nothing here to grab one's attention and put a smile on one's face. Yawn-a-rama. This merits a 'piss-boring' quality comment. And to think I opened this for a celebration. Oh how I have failed. But not as much as Legras has failed.

This bottle was an impulse purchase; I like Chenin Blanc and it hangs around forever.

Vouvray le Haut-Lieu Demi-Sec 1985, S.A. Huët
The nose smells of old Chenin Blanc, damp and woolly with not much fruit. It also smells quite rich and earthy. I can see how the nose would not appeal to someone who likes ripe, fruit-bomb Australian wines, but I rather like it. The palate is light and has loads of damp, rotting wood flavours, no real fruit to speak of. It has some concentration, though. There is good acidity and minerality on the finish, which is quite long. I think this might be a tiny bit too old, but I find it oddly pleasing. Not a wine for everyone, I admit, but it is a valid, and good, expression of its type.