Blind Zoom tasting: Dagueneau, Huet, Pavie, SQN, Swan, Laurel Glen, LVD, Huet

A few weeks ago, I took a turn hosting a blind Zoom tasting with three others, pouring wines into 5 oz screw top bottles for the others in the afternoon and then having the tasting that evening. Since I had 10 ounces for myself, I was able to retaste most of these the next night.

The theme, to the extent there was one, was to put one expensive and one pretty moderately priced wine into a two wine flight.

In order, four flights of two wines each:

First Flight:

2007 Huet Le Mont Sec. Pale yellow, perfect condition. Tart pineapple, orange and lemon, pears, green apple, limestone, orange peel and white spice on the finish. Seamlessly put together, all things in great balance, a beauty.

The three guesses were 2014 Puligny, young Chablis, lean style new world chard.

2017 Didier Dagueneau Pur Sang. Very light color. Lean grapefruit, light grassiness, lemon. Some nice density to it, pretty restrained and balanced, very clean overall. Contrary to the modest amount I know about DD, this was much more varietally typical sauvignon blanc than I probably expected. It was very good, but kind of ordinary good rather than something special. Revisiting this on day two, the wine was far more distinctive and interesting, with a beam of salty mineral and some earthiness.

The three guesses were Sancerre x 2, New Zealand.

All three preferred the Le Mont.

Second Flight:

1998 Faiveley Clos de Beze. Nose of old furniture, cloves, dark tobacco leaf. This was long on aged character, with some balsam, plum, tart black cherry, grippy mineral, leather, a bit of burnt sugar. Pretty interesting in a old way on the nose, but kind of tough and stern on the palate, with a tannic drying finish. A rustic old world wine, which probably was better 5-10 years ago if it had more fruit then, but I’m not really sure. It didn’t get any better on day two.

Due to the tannic nature, the guesses were all Barolo or Barbaresco, early 2000s.

2007 Joseph Swan Pinot Noir Trenton Estate. Sweet red cherry, burnt sugar, pine. In a good place, maybe late maturity for a wine from this riper vintage. Not highly complex, but very tasty and enjoyable, with juicy orange acids on the finish.

Guesses were Barbaresco, Brunello x 2. I think probably influenced by the guesses on the Faiveley and thinking the two would be paired that way.

All three preferred the Swan, which was very enthusiastically received.

Third Flight:

2003 Laurel Glen Cabernet Sonoma Mountain. Sweet dark fruit, sweet tobacco, cocoa, mild tannins, leather, menthol. Kind of old world in flavors, but with a little sweeter fruit and more roundness in a new world way. Really just delicious and at a perfect age.

2003 Pavie St. Emilion. I decanted this for about 3 hours, but it really didn’t seem in a very good place. Black fruit, some charred flavors, nose pretty muted. Some vanilla and unsweetened cocoa. Lots of tannin. Not very well integrated or particularly enjoyable. On day two, this showed much better and was good, more purple berry and open knit, if still not anywhere near a level to match the price tag.

All three preferred the Laurel Glen by a lot.

Fourth Flight:

2005 Le Vieux Donjon Chateauneuf du Pape. This had lovely sweet fruit, rocky hints to it, tobacco, coffee, dried fig. Very balanced, delicious, at a perfect age. I’ve had this several times in the last few years, and it’s really a lovely, ageworthy wine with quality well above its price tag, and which combines classical styling and balance with cleanliness and good fruit.

Guesses were early 2000s St Emilion, 2004 Rioja, and old style California cab 20+ years old.

2015 Sine Qua Non Syrah Trouver l’Arene. Decanted for three hours, and it needed far longer. Giant black and purple fruit, olives, vanilla, lots of sweet oak, huge concentration. Impressive if not really all together yet. This dramatically improved to day two, and was really very delicious in its sort of way at that stage, with the fruit shining through and the wine more open and friendly.

Guesses were 07 Napa cult cab, SQN syrah, cult cab.

I don’t seem to have notes of which wine was preferred – I think the LVD was, but I’m not 100% on that.

WOTN: The votes for WOTN (which came at the end of the evening, with all the wines revealed at the end of their flight) were two for the Swan, one for the Laurel Glen. My vote was the Huet.

In the three flights where I have notes, the far less expensive wine was the clear favorite. I think the Dagueneau, Pavie and SQN improved significantly on day two, but I still think Huet and Laurel Glen at least were just better wines.

Thanks for reading.

3 Likes

564CCCA4-82AD-4440-8CAF-5CD4208AEE83.jpeg

Thanks for the notes. The Huet sounds fresh and young still. I have a lot of 2007 Huet (youngest son’s birth year, and I want him to have something to drink in his 50s to 80s), but I see I only have 1 bottle of this sec. Maybe I’ll have to find a couple more.

Great notes. Curious whether you decanted any of these before filling the smaller bottles? And how long did you sit with each pair? Based on your notes, it seems most improved over time . . .

Cheers

The theme for your tasting sounds like something I would like to try! Excellent notes. I always thought the Laurel Glen is undervalued.

Chris, we tried a bottle of this last month and I thought it was fantastic, although about 5 years young. . We didn’t have it blind, obviously, but I thought it showed like a textbook Huet Sec, although still about 5 years too young. I’d look for more of this if I wasn’t worried about where it was stored…

I decanted the Pavie and SQN for about three hours each in a wide glass decanter, and it was not nearly enough for either wine. I also decanted the Faiveley for maybe two hours, but that wine didn’t really end up having the potential to get any better through aeration. I think I splash decanted the Dagueneau briefly before putting it into the small bottles – I think a few hours in the decanter would have made it more interesting.

We probably spent 30 minutes or so with each flight, and there were retastes later on.

1 Like

It was in a terrific spot, but gave no indication of being near to any sort of decline.

I served this blind to another group last December, and the esteemed Frank Murray wrote this:

Tasted blind on first night, then revisited the following night (at which time I knew the wine’s identity). This 2007 was paired with the 2019, so we had that cool contrast. One of our tasters in our Zoom group called out the wine as Chenin Blanc, and it was spot on. The 2007 is showing fresh with good color and no oxidation. Peach, orange, pineapple, lightly oily, with zippy citrus acid and cut apple in the finish. This is spot-on delicious and holding up well, forecasting a great future ahead. I’ve got one bottle of this left in my own cellar, and I am happy to know I can save it for the right moment, to enjoy the beauty that this vintage of Le Mont shows.

The one I served last December I’d had a long time, but the one I served in the tasting that is the subject of this thread was one of two I bought early this year from some reseller/retailer in Nashville, and it was the same and just as good. Which doesn’t prove a whole lot being just one bottle, but since you mentioned your worry about buying aged Huet secondhand, I thought I’d mention it.

Great notes on what sounds like a really fun blind tasting Chris! I dont have any 07 it doesn’t look like…but damn do I love Huet. Every time I open one, I always ask myself why I don’t do so more often. One of the best values in the world of wine, period.

The prices are creeping up – Le Mont Sec runs $40 and up, though WS Pro shows a few just under that. I think 8-10 years ago it was high $20s?

Still good value, and while aging the bottles seems variable and with some risk, when you get a good aged bottle, it’s amazing and worth multiples of what you paid.

Yep, they’re going up some…but still a great price for what’s in the bottle. Especially since you can drink em young and with age!

Why? I know this is a repeat conversation on the Board, and I’m not trying to bust your chops. But the only risks I know of under Gaston Huet and then Noel Pinguet occurred in 1989, when they got unlucky and received a bad batch of corks with high TCA rates, and 2002, when the secs, demisecs, and petillant tended toward premox for still unknown reasons. Otherwise, I find the track record for aging from 1921 (before the Huets owned the property but they later bought or acquired the older wines) to 2010 (Pinguet’s 40th and last vintage in charge) to be remarkable.

1 Like

First, let me say I’m not at all pursuing any anti-Huet agenda. I buy their wines pretty regularly, and actually just bought seven older bottles (04s, 09s and 14s) today.

But I have had a couple that were advanced at a fairly early age, and others seemed to share experiences like that. Premoxed 2010 Huet Vouvray Le Mont - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers
2012 Huet secs have shit the bed - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers

Also, in looking around during my decisions of which older bottles to buy, I saw a decent number of notes on CT about corked, advanced and oxidized bottles. For example, here are the CT notes on one I considered, the 2009 Clos de Bourg Sec.

Of the last 10 notes, three are oxidized and one was corked.

Obviously, I’ve put my money where my mouth is buying past vintages, and holding a portion of my new release purchases for aging. But I do think a realistic view is that there is some variability and risk from bottle to bottle, even at 5-12 years out. At least, that’s my experience.

Great tasting and quite revealing.

Nice tasting.

That generation of Huets was one of the best value wines I can recall. I bought cases of the stuff and I think it was in the $20’s. A bargain for what you got.