Anyone with news on the 2nd release of '02 Huet Petillant - now with bonus tasting note

originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
No, I just want Johnathan to go drink that second release Huet and tell us about it.
Click to expand...

First you have to learn to spell the name that he and I share.

On this whole Huet second and third release business, can anyone in (as I say to my senior thesis students) explain in 3 or fewer crisp, clear sentences how later releases differ from earlier ones with regard to taste and aging capacity? I know I'm supposed to keep my cotton picking hands of the 02s that I bought (which I'm really not succeeding at doing) but I'm an Huet sparkler newbie and need instruction. Am I looking to buy to restock or am I looking to buy a new version of the wine or both?
Click to expand...

Your 1st-batch '02s are for the ages. I bought and held and consumed in mass quantities, and still have quite a few in the cellar. I am in zero hurry, and I like them so well I don't expect to have them displaced in my affections by subsequent wines. Supplemented, perhaps.

The next batch will be that much closer to its recent disgorgement. And was, what, an extra 15 months on the lees, I suppose? I doubt there will be a huge difference in ageability of the wines, but let's try them and see.

The Reserve has a quite different dosage, and still more lees time. I expect it to be more distinct, shall we say?
Click to expand...

Ok, this is more information. I'm still a little baffled by the history of expectation of release of this wine. It gave me the impression that Huet afficionados had been through such a series of releases before. I take it that this is a new thing?
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
more distinct
Click to expand...

How about "more unique"?

You're all about the discursive slippage today, here. Must be the Huet bubbles.

Can you give more information about the difference in dosage? I was fascinated when you posted some time back that they were using a moelleux of the domain for same. What had they used before? And had they used less? And why?

And it was a joke about RD. Eight years seems but a blip in the leesy park.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by SFJoe:
more distinct
Click to expand...

How about "more unique"?

You're all about the discursive slippage today, here. Must be the Huet bubbles.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's just an errata [sic].

Can you give more information about the difference in dosage? I was fascinated when you posted some time back that they were using a moelleux of the domain for same. What had they used before? And had they used less? And why?

And it was a joke about RD. Eight years seems but a blip in the leesy park.
Click to expand...

Dosage:
1st release, 2002 Le Mont 1er trie to 10g/L.
2nd release, unknown but I presume same as above.
Reserve, 2008 Le Mont demi-sec to 10g/L.

Other vintages, etc--I believe it was typical to use moelleux of the vintage, but frankly I never tortured them until they confessed.

Jonathan, the 2002 petillants were highly anticipated. 2002 was such a fine vintage for every wine chez Huet that expectations were very high for the fizz, but we had to wait several additional years for it to find its way out of the cave. Also, the new regime had begun holding the sparkling wine longer on the lees, which seemed like an excellent idea considering the handful of delicious anecdotal long-aged Vouvrays of my experience. So the two good things coincided here.
 
It's funny.

As I think about the dosage, it doesn't make sense as I've described it. The 2008 Le Mont demi-sec can't be more than, say, 20 g/L. So there is no way the 2002 Reserve Petillant is 10g/L and half 2008.

Hmmmm.
 
I learned today that there is a second bottling of the 2002 from the upper rows of Le Mont. This wine was held back from both the first and second bottling of Le Mont and is still not in bottle!

Extremely limited and to be released in time for Christmas 2010.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
I learned today that there is a second bottling of the 2002 from the upper rows of Le Mont. This wine was held back from both the first and second bottling of Le Mont and is still not in bottle!

Extremely limited and to be released in time for Christmas 2010.
Click to expand...
Damn!

How big is the price premium?

Not that I care, of course.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
I learned today that there is a second bottling of the 2002 from the upper rows of Le Mont. This wine was held back from both the first and second bottling of Le Mont and is still not in bottle!

Extremely limited and to be released in time for Christmas 2010.
Click to expand...

Hey, fool me once (Javernires), shame on you.... I'm not falling for it this time, as my son would say.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
The next batch will be that much closer to its recent disgorgement. And was, what, an extra 15 months on the lees, I suppose? I doubt there will be a huge difference in ageability of the wines, but let's try them and see.
Click to expand...

Bought one today. Popped and poured with dinner. Finished up over 5 hours.

Pale gold. Fizz is very light, even for petillant. Beautiful wine. Long. If I recall the first batch correctly this is slightly more fresh-bread-y and slightly gentler acidity. Overall, a less pin-point-sharp experience. Did I mention that it's beautiful wine?

(And that DL. What a salesman.)
 
Hmm, I wonder if I ended up with second release wine - I was struck by how bready it seemed, in the direction of blanc de noir Champagne.

Does additional lees time for fizzy wine affect potential to age, or just the flavor?
 
originally posted by VLM:
Where do I get the 1st release?
The second one sounds like bullshit. I want the good stuff.
Click to expand...
There you go tossing a VLM wrench into this VLM business.

I ordered three bottles based upon the doctrine of preemption, now what I ordered has been declared neither here not there (the VLM in the middle release).

Who's Orin Swift you ask? apparently a magnet for blog consolidators.
 
Two more Huet fizz questions:

1. Can the first and second releases of the 2002 be distinguished by their label or bottle markings?

2. How are the 2000 and 2001?
 
The back label of the 2nd release, in the lower right corner, has a copyright dated 2009. I think the first bottling was >1 year ago.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:

Jonathan, the 2002 petillants were highly anticipated. 2002 was such a fine vintage for every wine chez Huet that expectations were very high for the fizz, but we had to wait several additional years for it to find its way out of the cave. Also, the new regime had begun holding the sparkling wine longer on the lees, which seemed like an excellent idea considering the handful of delicious anecdotal long-aged Vouvrays of my experience. So the two good things coincided here.
Click to expand...

In my case I had hesitated too long on buying up 1997s (they sat in the stores for a while and my purse was smaller in those days). I spent years regretting that mistake and once the 2002 vintage arrived I then waited with bated breath for the Petillant. And waited. And waited. And badgered Joe to try and find out when it would be released. After that it just became a habit.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Two more Huet fizz questions:

1. Can the first and second releases of the 2002 be distinguished by their label or bottle markings?

2. How are the 2000 and 2001?
Click to expand...

Hi Ian,

There has been some discussion of 2001 here lately -- it sounds good. I haven't heard anything about Y2K in some time, save some disparaging remarks on an inventory site on the inter-tubes. While I'm dubious about said comments, they were motivation enough to pull one from storage to see what's what. I shall report back sooner, or later if we don't get to it before holiday travels.
 
No time like the present. Having enjoyed the bottle over a couple of hours, I still have no idea where exactly it is headed. It hits the glass with a quick rush of bubbles, and then appears to go flat. Was it just a shitty cork, or is the stuff going flat fast? Dunno. Color is light medium gold, nothing too alarming one way or the other. Now the good news: it's really interesting, tea-like aromas, quince, even a little honey. Nothing too obvious -- nicely delicate. But, as I say, what to do with the info? There's no hint of oxidation here, no sense, other than the lack of fizz, that it's falling apart. I'm inclined to open my remaining few bottles in the realm of soon. If you've not tried it and see some, I'd say, what the heck, why not? Can't comment on 00 vs. 01.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top