From Wt, 2004:
What gives that greenish tint to the rim of the light gold of well-stored very old Vouvray? I’d be very curious to know, but I’m not willing to donate any of mine for pigment analysis.
The 1936 Huet Le Haut Lieu Moelleux (recorked, purchased ex-cellar at Christie’s in 2004) is a beautiful greenish gold with a very slight haze and a few floaters (the end of the bottle also had a trace of dark sediment and a half teaspoon of tartrate crystals). There is an expansive nose of old honey, elderberry, and a stony flower garden. There is a bit of earth, but mostly it’s flowers and stones with a touch of v.a. The wine is medium weight on the palate, with a nice earthy complexity, and of course more flowers and minerals and also a perception of chlorophyll. More small wildflowers than anything tropical—this is 70 year old off-vintage Vouvray, of course. The wine is remarkably young and vigorous. It could conceivably evolve a bit, and will certainly hold for decades in good storage. Perhaps off-vintage is a little harsh, eh? The wine has a long, rich finish, but I’d note that the acid structure outlasts the sugar and fruit on the palate, and the wine would probably have shown better with an occasional bite of cheese, or matsutake risotto if you had some handy and were jaded enough to combine the two. It is much less sweet than great vintages like ’47 or ’45, and also than 1919. The finish makes me wonder if the structure will continue to become more prominent as the wine ages, and whether I’d better hurry up and drink the other bottle or two during my lifetime rather than waiting for my next incarnation.
The wine is a bit richer and sweeter than the 1935 of the same source, which I have been lucky enough to have had twice recently (with, as they say, consistent notes). The ’36 is a little darker, but you wouldn’t call either of them dark or terribly sweet. Nor would you begin to hint that either of them might be getting anywhere near to OTH. The ’35 might be a bit more aromatically expressive, and the ’36 a bit richer and longer on the palate. I haven’t had the ’34 or the ’37, both of which have a higher repute than the ’35 and ’36. One of the reasons for this is that 3 bottles of the ’34 sold at Christie’s for £1450, which seemed a mite high at the time even to this mad bidder. But what a treat it’s been to have a spectrum of old Huets this year, including obscure vintages from the ‘30s.
Note that this wine has the new label reflecting that it comes from retained family stock rather than the domain, which of course has new ownership.
What gives that greenish tint to the rim of the light gold of well-stored very old Vouvray? I’d be very curious to know, but I’m not willing to donate any of mine for pigment analysis.
The 1936 Huet Le Haut Lieu Moelleux (recorked, purchased ex-cellar at Christie’s in 2004) is a beautiful greenish gold with a very slight haze and a few floaters (the end of the bottle also had a trace of dark sediment and a half teaspoon of tartrate crystals). There is an expansive nose of old honey, elderberry, and a stony flower garden. There is a bit of earth, but mostly it’s flowers and stones with a touch of v.a. The wine is medium weight on the palate, with a nice earthy complexity, and of course more flowers and minerals and also a perception of chlorophyll. More small wildflowers than anything tropical—this is 70 year old off-vintage Vouvray, of course. The wine is remarkably young and vigorous. It could conceivably evolve a bit, and will certainly hold for decades in good storage. Perhaps off-vintage is a little harsh, eh? The wine has a long, rich finish, but I’d note that the acid structure outlasts the sugar and fruit on the palate, and the wine would probably have shown better with an occasional bite of cheese, or matsutake risotto if you had some handy and were jaded enough to combine the two. It is much less sweet than great vintages like ’47 or ’45, and also than 1919. The finish makes me wonder if the structure will continue to become more prominent as the wine ages, and whether I’d better hurry up and drink the other bottle or two during my lifetime rather than waiting for my next incarnation.
The wine is a bit richer and sweeter than the 1935 of the same source, which I have been lucky enough to have had twice recently (with, as they say, consistent notes). The ’36 is a little darker, but you wouldn’t call either of them dark or terribly sweet. Nor would you begin to hint that either of them might be getting anywhere near to OTH. The ’35 might be a bit more aromatically expressive, and the ’36 a bit richer and longer on the palate. I haven’t had the ’34 or the ’37, both of which have a higher repute than the ’35 and ’36. One of the reasons for this is that 3 bottles of the ’34 sold at Christie’s for £1450, which seemed a mite high at the time even to this mad bidder. But what a treat it’s been to have a spectrum of old Huets this year, including obscure vintages from the ‘30s.
Note that this wine has the new label reflecting that it comes from retained family stock rather than the domain, which of course has new ownership.