Looks amazing - and a bit overwhelming but happily not insane crowds pushing up to tables … what a great time you’ll have!

Regarding my earlier comment on reds/whites, the idea of starting with whites comes from multi-course Victorian meals where you started light and got heavy towards the end. Now Americans have this idea that it’s the only way to drink wine but they’re wrong unless you’re eating. If it’s just taste, the typical white has a lot of acid, not much tannin, and usually not a lot of sugar, although that depends. When you take a sip of a big red after that, especially a young and tannic wine, the tannins are overwhelming and the fruit is hidden by the lingering acid. After a few sips you’re OK but if you’re selling wine and you pour in that order, that first red is a hard sell.
If you do it the other way, the acidity cuts through the red and doesn’t affect your judgment so much, at least in my experience. We often open a white after dinner, just because they’re usually lighter and I can sit and sip.
So, I gave this a try the other night during a lineup of Italian whites and reds. The last one was a heavenly Amarone. So I decided to go try a white I liked and go back to the Amarone. Just as you described, the lingering acid obliterated the fruit. It was awful. Then I went back to the white and was able to appreciate it even more. So, of course, different palates react differently so I might just be in the same bin as you. Not sure if I’ll successfully manage the split at a huge event like this but I’ll think of maybe doing reds before lunch and whites after.
Thanks for putting this on my radar though!
The argument of white then red or vice-versa is easily sidelined if you take a break and have a bite to eat inbetween. It then becomes personal preference.