Censorship by Huet?

WINE TALK
101

Let me join the chorus to sing praise of both Jim and Chris as excellent writers and critics of wine.
They are passionate, measured and informative in their writing.
As for the team at Huet, much less can be said for them in their move here other than to call this a very clear case of terrible PR.
Wine writers always get their share of wineries getting peeved with them when they write negative reviews. But winery reps could send an e-mail to invite the writer in question to re-visit the wine. Or to question the writer’s conclusions. Or even post on their own website about the critique(s).
But to ban evidently highly qualified people like Jim and Chris always backfires.

[smileyvault-ban.gif] NON!

102

I am inclined to recant on this (but only for you, Jay, since I see that Brennan has been given a timeout above :slight_smile: ) , having noticed that I have the 2009, 2005, 2002 and 1997 Cuvee Constance in my cellar!

I could probably quibble about use of the term “classic” for the vintages mentioned, save the Constance, as I would have trouble putting anything post-1989 in the pantheon of the great Huet moelleux from the last century, and there is clearly no pressing demand for even the best Huet wines from any of those vintages, but it does go too far to say that the wines are not worth drinking. My point, better stated, would be that I would let the wines of the 5 vintages that you mention go in a heartbeat if I got to keep the 1989s and everything pre-1975, especially since there were no legendary Huet wines produced between 1989 and 1971 (something that should not go unnoticed by the new owners as they go forward and experience some hard vintages). Seems to me that one 1989 Constance or 1947, 1945 or 1935 Le Haut-Lieu moelleux figures to be worth case quantities, if not pallets, of some post-1989 Huet sec and demi-sec wines. Also, for the secs and demi-secs, I am not sure that Huet has made wines as good as Chidaine’s for a good while, although both, along with Foreau, are surely competitive at the top of the sec and demi-sec heaps. For those of you old enough to remember “Hill Street Blues”…Huet, let’s be careful out there!

103

Exactly - there’s an entirely different wine board for that! :wink:

104

To apologize for Huet when they punish two of the leading critics of the region, at least for the english-speaking markets, by pointing at the Baumard fiasco, makes it no less of an affront to journalistic integrity. Compared to that story this was, if anything, a chance for Huet to take an even clearer step away from Baumard. Baumard was clearly using manipulative technique in a bad vintage to produce large quantities of wines that would reasonably pass for their top wines as they used to be. No one hinted that Huet had done any such thing. If anything, this move makes them look far more suspect in that regard. It raises the specter that they have more to hide. Or at best they just punish any critic who doesn’t like a couple of their wines in a single vintage, in which case they just look like fools and as***oles.

105

Of course this is true. To take it one step further, why should Huet need an apologist in the first place? They have a web page, a Facebook page, and a Twitter feed (although the latter has been dormant for a while). Until a few days ago, I would also have assumed they have a media relations representative on staff, but as we have seen that part is somewhat in doubt.

Regardless, Huet can surely speak for itself on this matter if it so chooses. The silence speaks as loudly as the initial wrongheaded actions.

106

Bill, I think you’re perhaps waxing a bit poetic about vintages of old and not giving the vintages post '89 their due. The Moelleux and sweeter from '90, '95, '96, '97, '05, '08 and '09 are stellar and I would easily include the '09s right up there in the top ten, maybe top eight, of the past 100 years. The '08 demi-secs, along with '02s prior to premox, were certainly in the top tier of demi-secs. The secs, admittedly, are in a very different style than they have been in the past as their sugar levels tend to be more in what was traditionally considered demi-sec range and their alcohol levels are much higher. While Chidaine and Foreau have also been making great wine and I’m big fans of both, I think saying they’ve been making better wine than Huet lately is a bit of an overstatement, but ymmv.

Btw, a word about Huets '89s. While, I too, find them absolutely stellar, indeed the '89 Cuvee Constance may be my favorite wine of all time, as has been reported frequently, they’re a minefield due to an unfortunate high rate of tca taint. My personal experience with them has been over 30% corked. Some have reported a higher rate.

107

Brad, you could be right, but with some of the wines in question, I am one of those guys who needs the jury to stay out a while on wines that have demonstrated the capacity to age 50-100 years. (Not surprising for somebody whose cellar is half Nebbiolo!) I am sure that I am right about relative availability and pricing of young vs. old. And as to the secs and demi-secs, i am not saying that Huet has gone to hell, but rather, only that Chidaine and Foreau are making wines every bit as good as Huet’s, and surely sometimes better. I do not welcome the Huet shift in sec style, although I am sure that many do…

108

Noel Pinguet doesn’t either! [stirthepothal.gif]

109

I think the jury is out on this one simply because the wines aren’t sulfured as heavily as they used to be.

110

The Baumard fiasco was mentioned because of the comment from Chris that reflected his puzzlement at being asked whether he had taken photographs of the Huet estate. Was the quizzing about photos really nonsensical, when framed in the biggest local drama of the past year? Given the fact that the Baumard witch hunt began with Jim Budd using a series of vineyard photos to make his case against Dom. Baumard, and this story took place just last year in the very same small region, and it appears that only the two journalists that gave the Baumard story legs are being singled out here; are those facts all just coincidental to Chris being asked if he had taken photos of the Huet estate?

Maybe, maybe not. But when everyone here seems to be scratching their collective heads about the ‘why’, it seems reasonable to step back and look at what exactly caused such a strong reaction from Dom. Huet. Fear can certainly be a cause of irrational and ill-considered behavior. If the Dom. was truly concerned about managing critic’s comments, why single out just these two journalists? Other writers that attended the same event were allowed to taste the wines and comment as they pleased.

It wasn’t just any critic two critics being punished here, it was the two critics most closely associated with what may have felt to some locals, like an unrelenting campaign to knock one of its best known Domaines down a peg or two. A Domaine, likewise at the top of the local food chain, very well may harbor fears that they will be the next victim of such treatment. Such fear would likely be amplified for a foreign investor, in a place where outsiders aren’t always welcomed with open arms.

I’m certainly not apologizing for what Dom. Huet did, as there can be no doubt this was very poorly handled. I am trying to understand what elicited such a strong reaction from Dom. Huet. Perhaps if you had just spent a lot of money to buy a legendary brand and you were handed a couple of challenging vintages to start, you might very well be hyper-vigilant in trying in trying to protect your investment? Absent clarification from the Dom., or some solid investigative reporting, we are all left to speculate and wonder why these two journalists were snubbed.

111

Yes, it was nonsensical and paranoid. And pointless – If memory serves, anyone can drive 300 meters up past the winery and take as many vineyard pictures as they want.


hmmm. I would not describe the reporting in those terms.

I think we all agree on this. Glad to see you think this is “irrational and ill-considered behavior” Totally agree.

I’m forced to assume that it is because she does not understand how ham-handed her efforts are.

Glad you are making this clear because most people would read your earlier postings and assume you were being an apologist.

To mutilate a quote…“hyper-vigilance in the defense of moelleux is no vice”? neener Sometimes smart people do stupid things. This was a stupid thing. The reasoning behind it ultimately doesn’t matter. It shows a glaring lack of maturity and wisdom on the part of Ms. Hwang.

112

I admonish the reviewers if they did not taste blind before they went polemic …

To taste blind to resolve issues is the highest form of resolution I know of … The truth in blind tastings …

So to be fair I would like a response from the new owners before I throw daggers at them … I also would like to say that to complain publically lamenting about the snub without submitting your skills to tasting blind over the vintages in question … Is premature to judge, when the true fault may be in fact the reviewer -s at hand and their biased opinion to the new owners… I truly do believe we need to temper judgement until all the facts have been taken into account …

113

More like next week.

114

It was pointed out multiple times in the thread that the photos weren’t all that relevant. I can only imagine that he’s continued to beat that horse because he thinks it’s a good distraction from the weather data, other QdC producer yields, etc, that indicates that it was highly unlikely that Baumard achieved the required yields.

115

Not sure if it’s kosher to copy from another wine board (not erp), but here are Neal Martin’s somewhat contrary thoughts on this issue (if this is inappropriate, I ask the “powers that be” to delete this please):

I agree that Huet should have acted more professionally towards Chris, who has always had a level-headed view towards Huet and indeed other growers. From a PR perspective, why not arrange a blind tasting of offending wines to see if Chris came to the same conclusions and if so, to accept and act upon them. Chris obviously cares about the domaine and wants them to do well - he’s not in the business of trashing for publicity. They should recognise that.

At the same time, I respect the right of a winemaker not to show their wines to whoever they choose. No wine-writer has a divine right to taste whatever they want, myself included. Some writers (not Chris I might add) appear to believe that is the case. I’ve witnessed a couple of infantile strops down in cellars when (insert well-known scribe) has been politely informed that the wine is not available for tasting.

It’s easy to chastise Sarah Hwang for the way she acted but supposing she put her heart and soul into those wines that are subsequently disparaged. Is it so easy to put your emotions to one side and act rationally on the spur of the moment? Remember when you yourself might have been on the wrong end of criticism, even if, as I think it was in this case, well-founded. What was your reaction?

I’m not defending the way she acted, but I can understand it. I hope that she is given the chance to put her side of the case forward. At the end of the day, the truth will be in the wines.

Rgds
Neal

116

You still don’t get it. The point was not made to hash out the details previously debated during the whole Baumard debacle, but rather, it was to hazard a guess as to what the Ms. Hwang was getting at with her pointed quizzing of Chris about taking photos of the Huet vineyard. The photos of Dom. Baumard vineyards (closeup shots of the fruit - not tourist photos) by Jim Budd were not the entirety of the case he was trying to make, but it was one very important and visually impactful element that seems possibly related to why she might have felt compelled to ask Chris about taking photos. Why else would she care about such things?

117

With respect to Neal; I think he gets this one a bit wrong.

First, this was not an emotional spur-of-the-moment action. She had months to talk herself out of this silliness.

Secondly, putting your wine out there and having people comment is a universally accepted part of the deal. You don’t get to enjoy the praise in good times and avoid the criticism in bad times. She needs to put on her big boy pants and understand that she is running (badly) a flagship winery and international brand.

Finally, nobody is putting a gun to Sarah Hwang’s head and forcing her to provide samples to a critic. But this was a “public” tasting wherein all of the other folks who were invited got to taste the wines. This just smacked of petulance and amateurism.

118

Peter and Z., I haven’t purchased Huet since the 2010 vintage. Since then, I’ve only been buying Huet library releases (95s and 96s most recently), more '10 demis and secs when I can find them, as well as more '09 moelleux. I even passed on Noel’s last vintage, preferring to spend my clams on his last “great” vintages. Again, let me repeat: Huet remains my second largest holding.

But as far as I’m concerned, Huet at this stage is a very large question mark. I think Bill’s comments regarding Giacosa are instructive, though I suspect the impact here is somewhat mitigated due to Huet being (arguably) better known, having wider distribution, producing a greater volume of wine (even in the lean years), and having more moderate pricing. So the fall certainly couldn’t be as quick and dramatic, but that’s a far cry from being an impossibility.

Add in the Hwang’s much publicized intent to concentrate on Secs, even if that doesn’t seem to have occurred as yet (and which I think is the accepted reason for Noel’s departure, or at least among the most important factors), and many of we longtime buyers have been harboring some serious questions about the trajectory of this domaine for some time now.

If I’m not mistaken, I believe Muller-Catoir took more than merely a critical hit when Hans-Gunther Schwarz retired, though I have no idea if their sales were actually impacted. Again, all the mitigating factors (MC is smaller, less distribution, etc.), but transitions like this strike me as being incredibly significant.

I’d argue this episode has intensified all these concerns, at least in the English speaking wine world. And having read Chris rather religiously over the years - prior to the paywall - I recall reading his own expressions of concern about Huet’s direction. Interesting intrigue about the photographs, Baumard, etc., but it seems to me that the Hwangs simply don’t like the public expression of doubt regarding their stewardship and direction.

And instead of addressing those doubts, they attempt to stifle them? Like I said, my concern is only intensified. My doubts have only grown. And if this little episode is intended as a warning shot to wine critics, then one can rest assured that I’ll be reading all future reviews by the “non banned” reviewers with more than a little suspicion. I won’t trust them, just as I don’t trust the Hwangs.

Which brings us to Neal Martin, who seems to have misread the whole situation. Nothing at all spur of the moment here that I can see. Rather pre-meditated by all accounts. I’m not familiar with Neal’s writing and so haven’t developed any degree of trust in him as a wine reviewer, but I suspect he’s an intelligent guy who can read these accounts as well as any of us, so I’m inclined to file his statements under the category of “Sucking up to the Hwangs”.

119

+1

In agree with Neal and on that BB noted that … His idea the resolution of the wine done blind is what I have come to preach this very year … Blind tastings, especially with regard to poorly scored wines-vintages need to be given this one last honest chance to show if biased disdain is seeping into the scores-reviews as I suspect …


This sums it all up and I agree with this statement as the purest form of truth …

Mauss Francois

GJE

“Whatever is said about the necessity to avoid sometimes blind tastings, most of the time the reasons behind are simply to “protect” our tiny confidence in our own capacity to judge clearly a wine and accepting the results”.

120

I’m disappointed by the lack of outrage from other professional wine critics, regarding Huet’s granting access to only those who praise. If, in solidarity, significant critics/publications boycotted reviewing Huet’s wines, would Huet’s position change?

Of course, if Huet’s position did not change, then the readers/subscribers to these boycotting-publications would be left without reviews on which they might previously have based buying decisions; if these readers then cancelled their subscriptions, it might suggest that the publications, at least in the short term, need access to the wines more than a famous producer needs professional reviews.