Big Reds

you drink what you like. I have tried to live by that credo and while it works for me I certainly concede it may not for others.

Tim, the majority of people on this forum drink exactly what they like, and the majority don't like high alcohol wines. It does not make wines tastier, it makes wine that tastes of vodka occasionally, and it usually comes in overly fruity and monolithic wines that have bothersomely hot finishes. Now do go ahead and drink what you like by all means, but you make a big mistake to presume that people whose preferences are different than yours don't.

May I please beg your pardon, then? I obviously expressed myself badly. I apologize for that, but I was not at all pressuming, quite the contrary. I was allowing for differences in how one might approach wine and that it may not follow my tasting habits.

Again, I sincerely apologize if I have offended...it was not my intention.

So this discussion brings up something I've been wondering about. Big wines are just the result of waiting longer to harvest the grapes?? All this "Parkerization" boils down to more time on the vine? No one did this before now? Surely winemakers in the more southern parts of Europe and other warmer climates fooled around with this in the past, or they were forced to by the weather. Did they just decide this made "bad" wines? This trend is the result of a combination of global warming and expanding terroir and changing tastes? I figured that winemakers were using modern techniques and technology to make big wines. I don't mean adding alcohol or anything, but I figured it was a lot more than a late harvest. Obviously I know nothing about wine making, but I'd love to hear more on this from those who know about making wine.

As I understand the gist of the article, it was pointing out the trend of wines going to higher alcohol contents. Specifically, reds that go above the traditional 14% percentage point. The secondary issue, I thought, brought to the table the practice of removing alcohol from wine. That's what caught my attention more that the higher percentages.

Personally, I have more difficulty with this idea of "distilling" wine to get the consistency of alcohol a given winemaker may prefer. I would love to hear everybody's thoughts on this concept of "cooking" the wine.

TBH, I have had very few wines [Zinfandels in specific] where the alcohol percentage interfered with the overall quality of the juice in my glass. In fact, one most notable was a Tobin James Blue Moon Reserve from some 20 years ago. [And I know there are those on this BBS who think of his wines as Jammy Fruit Bombs, but there again, it is all a matter of preference, IMHO.] If left to breathe for several hours the fruit became very intense. In fact, the next day [I opened a bottle and only had a glass so I pumped it out and re-corked it] that same bottle mellowed ten-fold. It was like I was drinking another wine. It was a very nice bottle of juice and at 15.4%. Besides, a Zinfandel ought to be a bit bold, don't you think?


As to winemaking, there are many others on this BBS far more knowlegable than I am on the subject.

I think it’s incorrect to think that the term “hang time” as an “American” or new expression. Surely as Bob H has pointed out even the ancient Greeks and Romans understood that leaving the grapes on the vine longer allowed them to create wines with lots of concentration and “muscle”. Heck they even devised ways of getting the grapes to raisin and concentrate flavors, tying off the stem which connects the bunch of grapes to the vine (this was done while the bunch still hung on the vine). Back than it was “muscular” wines which “lasted longer” and were capable of being transported. I think we all know how Port wine and fortified wines came into existence. So those before us did it for a reason, today we do it to create a different style or type of wine. What’s so bad about that? IMHO it’s the diversity of wine that makes it so interesting.

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

IMHO it’s the diversity of wine that makes it so interesting.

Exactly! I get enough of Yankees/Red Sox from, well, Yankees/Red Sox. I don't need rivalry in wine.

I think it’s incorrect to think that the term “hang time” as an “American” or new expression. Surely as Bob H has pointed out even the ancient Greeks and Romans understood that leaving the grapes on the vine longer allowed them to create wines with lots of concentration and “muscle”. Heck they even devised ways of getting the grapes to raisin and concentrate flavors, tying off the stem which connects the bunch of grapes to the vine (this was done while the bunch still hung on the vine). Back than it was “muscular” wines which “lasted longer” and were capable of being transported. I think we all know how Port wine and fortified wines came into existence. So those before us did it for a reason, today we do it to create a different style or type of wine. What’s so bad about that? IMHO it’s the diversity of wine that makes it so interesting.

Salute

Nice post, Victor.



I concur.

IMHO it’s the diversity of wine that makes it so interesting.

Exactly! I get enough of Yankees/Red Sox from, well, Yankees/Red Sox. I don't need rivalry in wine.

I dunno.


A little friendly competition never hurt anybody. I say let the wine drinker decide.



I vote Big Red

Now then....could we talk a bit about the process of artificially lowering the alcohol content of wine?

Seems a bit too much like cheating to me.


Wine is what it is....why make it do something it shouldn't do naturally?


[And I would like the discussion to go beyond the obvious counter arguments of using preservatives [sulfates] or clarifying/refining the juice or exploding bottles of wine. Thank you.]

[David M. Bueker]

Now then....could we talk a bit about the process of artificially lowering the alcohol content of wine?

Seems a bit too much like cheating to me.


Wine is what it is....why make it do something it shouldn't do naturally?


[And I would like the discussion to go beyond the obvious counter arguments of using preservatives [sulfites] or clarifying/refining the juice or exploding bottles of wine. Thank you.]

Once the grapes are removed from the vine everything that happens is an intervention. Using a spinning cone to reduce alcohol
may strike people as artificial, but last time I checked grapevines don't bottle the wine themselves.

This article really does cover some very old ground, but it probably comes about because of a post by Alan Goldfarb on Appellation America about another salvo by Darrell Corti at the end of January. I'm with the diversity crowd, and have stated (quite bluntly according to some) as much in some of the discussions on this post.

And to be honest I'm unconvinced that most wine drinkers don't like high alcohol wines, but then one needs to define what is meant by wine drinkers (all, or just those that frequent wine forums), and high alcohol (>14.5, or >15, or >16%).

There is a lot of comment on the growith in the numbers of "high alcohol" wines, but I've never seen any of those that complain provide any real numbers, except to note that average alcohol levels have increased (usually over several decades). The only thing I have found is a recent post also by Alan Goldfarb on Appellation America which stated "At the recently concluded ZAP (Zinfandel Advocates & Producers) annual Zin Drench at Fort Mason in San Francisco, an informal survey by this reporter of about 140 wines revealed some startling statistics. Of the approximately 140 presented at the event exclusively for the press, 54 Zinfandels stated on their labels that they contained alcohol levels of 14 to 14.5 percent. Another 11 listed their alcohol content as less than 14 percent. That’s an astonishing 46 percent of wines that have relatively low levels of alcohol in a varietal category that consistently registers alcohol percentages to the 15 to 16 plus mark. (For the record, five of those 140 wines indeed had stated alcohol numbers of 16 to 16.9 percent - yikes!)"

For me this is a case of a glass half full, half empty. Of the 140 wines 65 (46%) were 14.5 or less, and so 54% were greater than 14.5%. Only about 4% were outrageously high. So I find it interesting that the variety that many would consider can handle high alcohol really only has a little more than half that might be considered "high". But then I'm sure that there are others who will argue that, for them, 129 (92%) had high alcohol.

Mike

Now then....could we talk a bit about the process of artificially lowering the alcohol content of wine?

Seems a bit too much like cheating to me.


Wine is what it is....why make it do something it shouldn't do naturally?


[And I would like the discussion to go beyond the obvious counter arguments of using preservatives [sulfates] or clarifying/refining the juice or exploding bottles of wine. Thank you.]

Once the grapes are removed from the vine everything that happens is an intervention. Using a spinning cone to reduce alcohol
may strike people as artificial, but last time I checked grapevines don't bottle the wine themselves.

No doubt.

They don't uncork the bottles or choose the entree, either.

My concern is with the manipulation of the wine relative to its natural fermentation process. Seems to me winemakers are doing just a little too much to create a wine. Consistency is overrated, IMHO.


Gallo is famous for this and that is what concerns me more than any increase in alcohol content.

This article really does cover some very old ground, but it probably comes about because of a post by Alan Goldfarb on Appellation America about another salvo by Darrell Corti at the end of January. I'm with the diversity crowd, and have stated (quite bluntly according to some) as much in some of the discussions on this post.

And to be honest I'm unconvinced that most wine drinkers don't like high alcohol wines, but then one needs to define what is meant by wine drinkers (all, or just those that frequent wine forums), and high alcohol (>14.5, or >15, or >16%).

There is a lot of comment on the growith in the numbers of "high alcohol" wines, but I've never seen any of those that complain provide any real numbers, except to note that average alcohol levels have increased (usually over several decades). The only thing I have found is a recent post also by Alan Goldfarb on Appellation America which stated "At the recently concluded ZAP (Zinfandel Advocates & Producers) annual Zin Drench at Fort Mason in San Francisco, an informal survey by this reporter of about 140 wines revealed some startling statistics. Of the approximately 140 presented at the event exclusively for the press, 54 Zinfandels stated on their labels that they contained alcohol levels of 14 to 14.5 percent. Another 11 listed their alcohol content as less than 14 percent. That’s an astonishing 46 percent of wines that have relatively low levels of alcohol in a varietal category that consistently registers alcohol percentages to the 15 to 16 plus mark. (For the record, five of those 140 wines indeed had stated alcohol numbers of 16 to 16.9 percent - yikes!)"

For me this is a case of a glass half full, half empty. Of the 140 wines 65 (46%) were 14.5 or less, and so 54% were greater than 14.5%. Only about 4% were outrageously high. So I find it interesting that the variety that many would consider can handle high alcohol really only has a little more than half that might be considered "high". But then I'm sure that there are others who will argue that, for them, 129 (92%) had high alcohol.

Mike

My point exactly, Mike.



Thank you.

Tim whats up. Not watching the Oscars?

Tim whats up. Not watching the Oscars?

Popularity contest.


Not interested.

“California used to be experimental and innovative" were Darrell Corti's own words.

Now why he has a problem with wineries going to higher alcohol reds is beyond me.

Wouldn't this be [ahem] "experimental and innovative"?

Tim whats up. Not watching the Oscars?

Popularity contest.


Not interested.

Not even going to crash some of the parties later Tim. Are you close to the action?!!

Tim whats up. Not watching the Oscars?

Popularity contest.


Not interested.

Not even going to crash some of the parties later Tim. Are you close to the action?!!

Nah.


I live some 250 miles to the North of La-La Land.

[Jenise]

Again, I sincerely apologize if I have offended...it was not my intention.

No apology needed, I wasn't offended. I just thought your comment was rather, oh, situationally unaware.

As for why Darrell Corti has a problem with wines going to higher alcohol levels, he's been around a long time. And one hears bemoaning frequently from many like him who have seen wineries whose products they once loved change their style to attract a different kind of wine drinker. Pretty understandable, at least to me.

Coming out of retirement briefly, to give you, Tim, winemaking/grapegrowing info.

I believe one point that is missing from the discussion is the purpose of extended grape hang time. There's two types of grapes ready to be harvested--mature and ripe. The former refers to the overall character of the grape variety, and not just its ability to produce alcohol; the latter does that.

With that in mind, the question is: why are the grapes hanging to increase sugar? To increase alcohol may be the answer, but then it's also to increase depth of fruit, which is ripeness too, but not necessarily well-rounded maturity. You get dangerously high pH, and that's another reason the alcohol may be necessary, and a reason that may mean having to acidify a crop that was allowed to lose its acids.

In my view, the higher alcohol situation is a consequence of seeking more intense fruit (whether good or bad consequence is not my call), but you may also be interested in the fact that some of the 16% alcohol wines fermented to even higher alcohol that were lowered by adding water back to the wine.

All of this high alcohol stuff would likely not be possible had the weather and the cultured yeast industry not cooperated. Yes, you needed new yeast strains to get beyond 15-16% alcohol in wine, and yes, adding cultured yeast is another intervention (whether good or bad intervention is not my call). In all, it's a stylistic decision.

I'm not posting this for an argument--just so that you, Tim, can maybe get a better picture. Back to retirement for me--lots of work to do...

Thanks Thomas P for the “cameo appearance”!

Salute

Again, I sincerely apologize if I have offended...it was not my intention.

No apology needed, I wasn't offended. I just thought your comment was rather, oh, situationally unaware.

As for why Darrell Corti has a problem with wines going to higher alcohol levels, he's been around a long time. And one hears bemoaning frequently from many like him who have seen wineries whose products they once loved change their style to attract a different kind of wine drinker. Pretty understandable, at least to me.

Jenise,

I'm in the other camp, in that I don't see how one can fault wineries for changing the sytle of their wines to suit the consumer. They are in the business of making and selling wine, not making wine just for Darrell Corti and his customers. Many of us bemoan aspects of life that have been lost to the past. Most of us keep the memories but get on with life because we know that "everything changes and nothing remains the same" (I think that's from Siddhartha), but there are some who pick up their bat and ball and go home. And are left with just memories. A bit philosophical I know, but hey its the start of a new week.

Mike

Coming out of retirement briefly, to give you, Tim, winemaking/grapegrowing info.

I believe one point that is missing from the discussion is the purpose of extended grape hang time. There's two types of grapes ready to be harvested--mature and ripe. The former refers to the overall character of the grape variety, and not just its ability to produce alcohol; the latter does that.

With that in mind, the question is: why are the grapes hanging to increase sugar? To increase alcohol may be the answer, but then it's also to increase depth of fruit, which is ripeness too, but not necessarily well-rounded maturity. You get dangerously high pH, and that's another reason the alcohol may be necessary, and a reason that may mean having to acidify a crop that was allowed to lose its acids.

In my view, the higher alcohol situation is a consequence of seeking more intense fruit (whether good or bad consequence is not my call), but you may also be interested in the fact that some of the 16% alcohol wines fermented to even higher alcohol that were lowered by adding water back to the wine.

All of this high alcohol stuff would likely not be possible had the weather and the cultured yeast industry not cooperated. Yes, you needed new yeast strains to get beyond 15-16% alcohol in wine, and yes, adding cultured yeast is another intervention (whether good or bad intervention is not my call). In all, it's a stylistic decision.

I'm not posting this for an argument--just so that you, Tim, can maybe get a better picture. Back to retirement for me--lots of work to do...

Excellent post, Thomas....and thank you for that information. Very interesting, indeed.


And no worry, you won't get an argument from me when a post is written as eloquently and unassailing as yours. You allowed for and gave credence to both sides of this issue. Thank you.

Again, I sincerely apologize if I have offended...it was not my intention.

No apology needed, I wasn't offended. I just thought your comment was rather, oh, situationally unaware.

As for why Darrell Corti has a problem with wines going to higher alcohol levels, he's been around a long time. And one hears bemoaning frequently from many like him who have seen wineries whose products they once loved change their style to attract a different kind of wine drinker. Pretty understandable, at least to me.

Jenise,

I'm in the other camp, in that I don't see how one can fault wineries for changing the sytle of their wines to suit the consumer. They are in the business of making and selling wine, not making wine just for Darrell Corti and his customers. Many of us bemoan aspects of life that have been lost to the past. Most of us keep the memories but get on with life because we know that "everything changes and nothing remains the same" (I think that's from Siddhartha), but there are some who pick up their bat and ball and go home. And are left with just memories. A bit philosophical I know, but hey its the start of a new week.

Mike

And who's to say those same wineries won't keep vinting the wine people know them for as well? If Samuel Adams can have two dozen different varieties of beer to choose from, why can't the wineries?


I agree, Mike...past is past. I will never be able to taste that gorgeous 1989 Groth Cab Reserve or the Far Niente 1990 Cab ever again. That moment in time is gone forever. Everything which comes after will be as different as each wave in the ocean.


I think that is a good thing.

Now then....could we talk a bit about the process of artificially lowering the alcohol content of wine?

Seems a bit too much like cheating to me.


Wine is what it is....why make it do something it shouldn't do naturally?


[And I would like the discussion to go beyond the obvious counter arguments of using preservatives [sulfates] or clarifying/refining the juice or exploding bottles of wine. Thank you.]

Once the grapes are removed from the vine everything that happens is an intervention. Using a spinning cone to reduce alcohol
may strike people as artificial, but last time I checked grapevines don't bottle the wine themselves.

No doubt.

They don't uncork the bottles or choose the entree, either.

My concern is with the manipulation of the wine relative to its natural fermentation process. Seems to me winemakers are doing just a little too much to create a wine. Consistency is overrated, IMHO.


Gallo is famous for this and that is what concerns me more than any increase in alcohol content.

Here's the problem for me, Tim (and David): you can remove the excess alcohol from a wine by RO or spinning cone, but that still leaves behind a wine that tastes overextracted or overripe. I enjoy freshness in wine, and enough acidity to offset the oils in the foods that I eat. Wine made from raisins will often (but not universally) lack enough acidity for me to find it interesting. Moreover, if it tastes of raisins and prunes more than it does of fresh fruit, I lose interest. There are exceptions, of course. I've had some Amarones that were marvelous, and even one or two late harvest style Zins from Draper that were OK. I also have a major problem with "mouthcoating" wines in all but a few circumstances. I don't want the wine to overwhelm whatever I'm eating with it -- I want it to harmonize. For the same reason, I rarely use even a fraction of the 200 W of power that my stereo amplifier puts out: music that is pleasurable at 65 dB ceases to be at 80.

That being said, manipulations such as RO or spinning cone are not the only ways of controlling alcohol in wine. Other techniques such as clonal selection, root stock choice, trellissing, canopy management, picking time, yeast choice and open vs. closed fermenter have an impact as well. The rising alcohol levels being decried by Darrel Corti, Randy Dunn and Adam Tolmach have as much to do with conscious choices being made in the vineyards and wineries as they do with global warming.

Mark Lipton

p.s. When I worked in Modesto for Shell Development's ag division in the early '80s, we occasionally hired lab techs who'd worked at Gallo: the stories they told of what went on there were truly fascinating in a grim sort of way.

Once the grapes are removed from the vine everything that happens is an intervention. Using a spinning cone to reduce alcohol
may strike people as artificial, but last time I checked grapevines don't bottle the wine themselves.

That argument is a tad disingenuous, David. You can pick a bunch of grapes, put them in a water-tight vessel and wait for a few months and end up with wine, even if it is does use carbonic maceration. Modern winemaking is largely about intervention, it is true, but wine can and sometimes does make itself, too. I'd hazard a guess that most of the winemakers you respect the most would tell you that there major work is done in the field, and that their job once the grapes are picked is not to mess things up.

Mark Lipton