Pox'd Chidaine

[Rahsaan]

It's also worth noting that we don't actually know what causes 'premox' and we don't have a clear definition or way of measuring it. So distinctions among the different dynamics will inevitably be fraught and prone to the perils of idiosyncratic understandings.

I don't keep much Loire chenin for aging anymore. Not because of fears of premox, more because I keep riesling and don't have much space.

But I have a 2015 Chidaine Bournais in the refrigerator and will drink it soon!

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by maureen:
From CT my experience with 02 Huet Le Mont DS, purchased from chambers in 2004 and from crush in 2010:
(Note that apparently at some point I started looking for the pox)

Consumed Size Cost Refund/Resale Type Consumption note
7/31/2010 750ml $28.00 n/a Drank from my cellar w/daniel, michael & michael's parents at tabard - excellent, deep, young but not too closed
12/31/2013 750ml $28.00 n/a Drank from my cellar w/amy, annie, daniel - no premox, quite tasty, perhaps not as good as 08
12/25/2014 750ml $28.00 n/a Drank from my cellar At daniel's w/his sister, alejendro, mark - delicious, bright, woolly - opened with air. No premox.
6/20/2015 750ml $28.00 n/a Drank from my cellar w/daniel and annie and swordfish - totally delicious - unfortunately, I thought I'd opened the 2012 Le mont sec I'd bought this afternoon. Not ahint of premox and totally yum.
6/27/2016 750ml $34.95 n/a Drank from my cellar W/ tom mason at piquette - terrific!
6/3/2017 750ml $34.95 n/a Drank from my cellar With annie and swordfish and terrific. Great next night too
1/13/2019 750ml $34.95 n/a Missing or presumed drunk

Apparently one is unaccounted for - maybe it was oxidised!

Lucky duck.

 

[Brad Kane]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

That's a good question. Wasn't it sort of agreed upon that with 2002 Huët that there was a cork-failure issue?

I've never heard this theory. My understanding was that they backed off on the amount of sulfur they normally used that year, save for the sweeties.

I don't buy your all or nothing theory for pre-mox. Too many examples in Burgundy, Trimbach and '02 Huet.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

That's a good question. Wasn't it sort of agreed upon that with 2002 Huët that there was a cork-failure issue?

I've never heard this theory. My understanding was that they backed off on the amount of sulfur they normally used that year, save for the sweeties.

This was discussed at length on the 2002 Huet post. All my secs from 2002 had very loose corks, which I'm sure contributed to oxidation.

Also VLM hits the nail on the head referring to "... but it is important to realize that wines made 30 years ago were made in substantially different ways and I really think those changes are the primary cause of premox." We never hear about premoxed Foreau because it didn't happen. And, no, their secs are not enjoyable young, but they do age.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
So it sounds like your answer to my question is that yes, your position is 2002 Huet is not suffering from premox. I think that is a minority view, to say the least. I am not aware of any generally accepted view that there was a cork failure problem in 2002, the way there was a problem with TCA in 1989, for example.

I thought that the 2002 Huët debacle was due to the blue corks that had been either washed with something or parafin coated or some such.

 

[Brad Kane]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

That's a good question. Wasn't it sort of agreed upon that with 2002 Huët that there was a cork-failure issue?

I've never heard this theory. My understanding was that they backed off on the amount of sulfur they normally used that year, save for the sweeties.

This was discussed at length on the 2002 Huet post. All my secs from 2002 had very loose corks, which I'm sure contributed to oxidation.

Also VLM hits the nail on the head referring to "... but it is important to realize that wines made 30 years ago were made in substantially different ways and I really think those changes are the primary cause of premox." We never hear about premoxed Foreau because it didn't happen. And, no, their secs are not enjoyable young, but they do age.

Loose corks, presumably, would've affected sweet wines, too, however and there really haven't been reports of issues with them. Plus, I can't say I noticed any loose corks in the demi-secs and I personally opened 4-5 cases worth.

I do agree with the notion that part of what may lie at the heart of the pre-mox issue is modern winemaking. I invited Don and Dougherty to an old Vouvray collectors house for lunch one time and he opened a '75 Huet LM Demi. It showed oxidative at first, though it freshened up with air, but what we all noticed about it was its phenolic strength, which seemed so different from the wines today.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

That's a good question. Wasn't it sort of agreed upon that with 2002 Huët that there was a cork-failure issue?

I've never heard this theory. My understanding was that they backed off on the amount of sulfur they normally used that year, save for the sweeties.

This was discussed at length on the 2002 Huet post. All my secs from 2002 had very loose corks, which I'm sure contributed to oxidation.

Also VLM hits the nail on the head referring to "... but it is important to realize that wines made 30 years ago were made in substantially different ways and I really think those changes are the primary cause of premox." We never hear about premoxed Foreau because it didn't happen. And, no, their secs are not enjoyable young, but they do age.

Loose corks, presumably, would've affected sweet wines, too, however and there really haven't been reports of issues with them. Plus, I can't say I noticed any loose corks in the demi-secs and I personally opened 4-5 cases worth.

They would have, but the corks in my 2002 demis were normal and not loose. Did not buy anything sweeter. Buuuut, I had premox in 90+% of LHL and Le Mont demi in 2002, which clearly was caused by something other than cork.

 

[Brad Kane]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

That's a good question. Wasn't it sort of agreed upon that with 2002 Huët that there was a cork-failure issue?

I've never heard this theory. My understanding was that they backed off on the amount of sulfur they normally used that year, save for the sweeties.

This was discussed at length on the 2002 Huet post. All my secs from 2002 had very loose corks, which I'm sure contributed to oxidation.

Also VLM hits the nail on the head referring to "... but it is important to realize that wines made 30 years ago were made in substantially different ways and I really think those changes are the primary cause of premox." We never hear about premoxed Foreau because it didn't happen. And, no, their secs are not enjoyable young, but they do age.

Loose corks, presumably, would've affected sweet wines, too, however and there really haven't been reports of issues with them. Plus, I can't say I noticed any loose corks in the demi-secs and I personally opened 4-5 cases worth.

They would have, but the corks in my 2002 demis were normal and not loose. Did not buy anything sweeter. Buuuut, I had premox in 90+% of LHL and Le Mont demi in 2002, which clearly was caused by something other than cork.

Same here, though the last three bottles of '02 demi I've had, two from my stash, a LM and CB, have been outstanding. Same casees where most showed pre-moxed between say 2011-12 through 2018.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

So, the wine was just playing possum for 16 years?

 

[Jay Miller]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

Indeed, most of my bottles of Huet were premoxed (I can't say all because I drank some before it set in), or oxed, but not a single one of my Huet bubbly was.

And I was about 50/50 on my sparklers (same case) so my experience doesn’t match Nathan’s at all

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Jay Miller:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

Indeed, most of my bottles of Huet were premoxed (I can't say all because I drank some before it set in), or oxed, but not a single one of my Huet bubbly was.

And I was about 50/50 on my sparklers (same case) so my experience doesn’t match Nathan’s at all

But we are just offering self-reports.

 

[Brad Kane]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Jay Miller:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

Indeed, most of my bottles of Huet were premoxed (I can't say all because I drank some before it set in), or oxed, but not a single one of my Huet bubbly was.

And I was about 50/50 on my sparklers (same case) so my experience doesn’t match Nathan’s at all

But we are just offering self-reports.

Yes, but there were a lot of them, globally. For instance, I had heard from friends in London that the importer there was experiencing problems. Bottles hand carried from France exhibited problems, as did Chadderdon and Gray market bottles from all over the US.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Jay Miller:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
To this day, there are still occasional experiences of pristine bottles of 2002 Huet that are showing well, if not young. Would you say, Nathan, that 2002 Huet has not experienced premox because not every bottle is gone?

Indeed, most of my bottles of Huet were premoxed (I can't say all because I drank some before it set in), or oxed, but not a single one of my Huet bubbly was.

And I was about 50/50 on my sparklers (same case) so my experience doesn’t match Nathan’s at all

But we are just offering self-reports.

Either you're trolling me or you fundamentally do not understand the issues with observational research. This is a very serious issue that people spend their careers on.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I must not understand. Can you explain the difference between other people reporting their experience, your reports of your own experience and the self-reports here, which you seem not to have written off? I do, of course know about the general unreliability of responses to surveys about such things as sexual experience, what we ate during the day, etc. I am willing to stipulate that people reporting on their wine drinking would suffer from the same unreliability. My question has to do with why you think your reports of your wine drinking, or indeed any reports on this bored are any different.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

A datum, fwiw: 2009 Bouchet over several days this week has been rewarding, nary a hint of taint.

I was also lucky with the '02 Huets: of four cases, sec and demi, Haut-Lieu and le Mont, maybe four oxidized bottles in all. But I still have about three, so my average may tank, now that I've bragged.

Jonathan, statistical sampling is a rigorous topic; self-reporting is a thing and relatively more prone to bias and error than more-controlled reporting: there's a Wikipedia blurb on it, and other easy-to-check online references. Have a look. My personal feeling is that Nathan, who does this work professionally, deserves at least a modicum of respect on the subject - as do you, Keith, Mark L., along with others here, when chiming in on topics each has spend years developing specialized knowledge in.

I have about a case of 02 Huet sweeties - Moeleux and 1er Trie - should I be worried?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

As I said to Nathan, I am, of course, aware of problems about self-reporting. One of my pet peeves, more on another bored but here too, is dismissing reports one does not like with concepts like bias confirmations and the unreliability of self-reporting. One is either willing to apply these concepts to one's own experiences or one should not apply them at all in debate, as it's an obvious example of poisoning the waters. And one should certainly be very wary of applying them to all experiences that run counter to one's own as that way your own beleifs cannot be falsified. I wasn't contesting Nathan's use of the concept of unreliable self-reporting, only is contradictory way of applying it.

 

[Brad Kane]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:

I have about a case of 02 Huet sweeties - Moeleux and 1er Trie - should I be worried?

Nope. No reports of issues with the sweeties.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:

I have about a case of 02 Huet sweeties - Moeleux and 1er Trie - should I be worried?

Nope. No reports of issues with the sweeties.

Since sweeties are treated with more sulfur...

 

[Brad Kane]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Brad Kane:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:

I have about a case of 02 Huet sweeties - Moeleux and 1er Trie - should I be worried?

Nope. No reports of issues with the sweeties.

Since sweeties are treated with more sulfur...

Yep and word is they reduced the sulfur on the other bottlings that year.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I said to Nathan, I am, of course, aware of problems about self-reporting. One of my pet peeves, more on another bored but here too, is dismissing reports one does not like with concepts like bias confirmations and the unreliability of self-reporting. One is either willing to apply these concepts to one's own experiences or one should not apply them at all in debate, as it's an obvious example of poisoning the waters. And one should certainly be very wary of applying them to all experiences that run counter to one's own as that way your own beleifs cannot be falsified. I wasn't contesting Nathan's use of the concept of unreliable self-reporting, only is contradictory way of applying it.

I think Jonathan is right to point out one cannot self-police one’s own subjective experience or claim to be above the issues of self-reporting. Just accept the inherent flaws. It’s not a question of professional experience or aptitude.