Big Reds

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

Agreed. Nice post, Mark.

However, I would argue that the essential issue here is not in creating a over powering wine or even a desert-style wine, but instead a balanced wine which happens to be higher in alcohol content than its predecessors, but with more fruit.


Again, if the market is there why not mine it and see what happens relative to profit? If wine drinkers don't like it then it will go away soon enough. I mean, economics and the preservation of wine were the reasons behind the creation then promotin of the screwcap, right? Seems to me it is the very same argument behind the creation and marketing of the so-called Big Reds.


It seems to be a bit of a dichotomy or dualistic motive to accept one and not the other. Yes?

Mark wrote:
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.

That’s a phrase that really bugs me! There are always wine making decisions being made. Preparing the must, pre-fermentation cold soak, partial crush, full crush, whole berry carbonic, add/omit stems or partial stems; fermentation temperatures; cap management techniques and regime, how many times a day the cap is punched down and must stirred; how long does it stay in the primary; etc; etc; etc.

Salute

Going waaaay back on this thread there was a suggestion that a bottle of wine provides about 4 1/2 glasses and divided among two people this should not make anyone drunk. I usually get six glasses from a bottle (fewer ounces per pour I guess). I also notice that I can drink three or four glasses of a German Riesling at 8% alcohol and not feel the effects as much as I do with two glasses of a Shiraz or Zin at 15.5 or 16% alcohol. I also agree that BALANCE is key. I like Biale Black Chicken Zin which has been coming in at 16% or 16+% but it seems to me that the fruit can carry it and it doesn't taste hot. That is not true of evey 16% Zin or Syrah or whatever. When the wine is particularly high in alcohol it loses some of its adaptability as a food wine. I find this to be true with some Australian Shiraz that I may enjoy as a drink but not with a meal.

Mark wrote:
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.

That’s a phrase that really bugs me! There are always wine making decisions being made. Preparing the must, pre-fermentation cold soak, partial crush, full crush, whole berry carbonic, add/omit stems or partial stems; fermentation temperatures; cap management techniques and regime, how many times a day the cap is punched down and must stirred; how long does it stay in the primary; etc; etc; etc.

Salute

Fair enough.


BUT wouldn't the growers and the winemaker have some say in when the grapes are picked and why or what purpose?


If the answer is yes [and I predict it is] that would lead us back to the original post.

Going waaaay back on this thread there was a suggestion that a bottle of wine provides about 4 1/2 glasses and divided among two people this should not make anyone drunk. I usually get six glasses from a bottle (fewer ounces per pour I guess). I also notice that I can drink three or four glasses of a German Riesling at 8% alcohol and not feel the effects as much as I do with two glasses of a Shiraz or Zin at 15.5 or 16% alcohol. I also agree that BALANCE is key. I like Biale Black Chicken Zin which has been coming in at 16% or 16+% but it seems to me that the fruit can carry it and it doesn't taste hot. That is not true of evey 16% Zin or Syrah or whatever. When the wine is particularly high in alcohol it loses some of its adaptability as a food wine. I find this to be true with some Australian Shiraz that I may enjoy as a drink but not with a meal.

Pardon me for saying so, but if you are getting six glasses out of a 750ml bottle of wine, your glass must be very small.

Agreed. Of course you would feel more of the alcohol with a 15% wine vs. and 8% wine....but who vints a red [Cab, Zin, Syrah, Pinot, etc] under 12%?

I further submit that wine doesn't necessarily have to pair with food to be legit.

[David M. Bueker]

There's nothing abnormal about a 4 oz pour (thus getting 6 glasses out of a bottle with a touch to spare). Sometimes that's quoted as the serving size, other times it's 5 oz.

[Robin Garr]

I further submit that wine doesn't necessarily have to pair with food to be legit.

It doesn't have to, but wine and food are really meant to go together. I would submit that a big part of the issue that underly this thread has to do with some American critics (and the wine lovers who follow them) who don't fully understand this and who think of wine as a sort of adult Coca-Cola.

[David M. Bueker]

I further submit that wine doesn't necessarily have to pair with food to be legit.

It doesn't have to, but wine and food are really meant to go together. I would submit that a big part of the issue that underly this thread has to do with some American critics (and the wine lovers who follow them) who don't fully understand this and who think of wine as a sort of adult Coca-Cola.

I submit that you don't actually know what he (and admit who you are referring to) understands. If there's a guy who truly enjoys wine & food as a combined experience he's the one (seen both in person and read in his many articles on same). Whether you like the pairings he comes up with is an entirely different matter. I will go on record as saying that I don't like many of his pairings, but he does do the wine and food thing rather than just wine as cocktail.

[Robin Garr]

he does do the wine and food thing rather than just wine as cocktail.

Does he rate the wines he reviews with food? You're making my statement a Manichaean division between good and evil with no shades of gray, David.

Of course just about everybody who loves wine will drink it with food. Yet I think it's not concidental that so many of the high-point wines - specifically the high-alcohol blockbusters under discussion here - tend to work, if at all, as cocktails and don't marry well with food.

While you're correct that I was thinking about Parker - there's no shame in naming him - I would add that I feel the same way about most of the Wine Spectator critics and even, to a somewhat lesser extent, Tanzer. Parker may or may not be the leader of that pack, but he's certainly not the only one, and if I use him as the poster boy for the style, I never meant to say that he stands alone in this.

[David M. Bueker]

he does do the wine and food thing rather than just wine as cocktail.

Does he rate the wines he reviews with food? You're making my statement a Manichaean division between good and evil with no shades of gray, David.

Of course just about everybody who loves wine will drink it with food. Yet I think it's not concidental that so many of the high-point wines - specifically the high-alcohol blockbusters under discussion here - tend to work, if at all, as cocktails and don't marry well with food.

While you're correct that I was thinking about Parker - there's no shame in naming him - I would add that I feel the same way about most of the Wine Spectator critics and even, to a somewhat lesser extent, Tanzer. Parker may or may not be the leader of that pack, but he's certainly not the only one, and if I use him as the poster boy for the style, I never meant to say that he stands alone in this.

You and I both know that there is no way to do what he or any other major critic does with meals. They would all weigh 1000 lbs. Why not just come out and say that you don't like the whole idea of reviewing (let's forget points for now) wines except in one on one dining situations.

Robin - your history on this subject (esepcially where it concerns a certain major critic) leaves no shades of grey. I know we will never come to any happy middle ground here. I'm no fan of the big, extracted fruit bomb style either, but it has its fans & their tastes are just as legitimate as ours. Perhaps they like braised short ribs in hoisin sauce a lot more that you do (one food that seems to do really well with those blockbusters).

I happen to be closely related to someone who likes seriously big wines with his meals (but who also enjoys Lopez de Heredia for instance, though he's not so keen on Muscadet). For my taste the pairings obliterate the food most of the time, but not for his. In my opinion Tim is actually on the right track around the drink what you like argument, and you're just tilting at the same old windmills.

The idea that wine critics/reviewers should review in the presence of food sounds ideal. But just imagine the logistical nightmare that would be involved, especially if the reviewer tastes thousands of wines per year. This is not to say that it can’t be done. As I have mentioned on this forum before the Sydney International Wine Competition does exactly this. They limit the judging to about 2,000 entries and do a cull to about 200-300 wines that are then tasted together with a food dish chosen to suit the wine style. What is interesting about this event is that the judges often have conflicting views about how a particular wine pairs with the chosen dish; example given below. Differences in judging a wine with food are not unexpected. After all we use the same senses to appreciate wine alone or with food and we all know how much variation there can be between individuals with wine. The addition of food may well exaggerate those differences.

Mike

From the 2004 SIWC

OYSTER BAY CHARDONNAY 2002 (New Zealand)
Judges' Comments

Robin Garr (USA)
Faint nose. But better on the palate with fresh, appley fruit and acidity. A good match for this dish which highlighted the wine's flavours.

Edward Finstein (CAN)
Flinty and crisp. Nice with the fish. The acidity in this wine worked fairly well with the shrimp too.

Louisa Rose (AU)
Peachy, light palate. Slight warmth but lighter in style. Quite savoury. It was a gentle wine that went reasonably well with the food. Slightly high acid for the dish, which made it sit a little bit apart.

Sue Van Wyk (SAF)
I thought the wine on its own wasn't so great. It was so much better when tasted with the food.

Paul While (NZ)
A dirtiness to it. Fairly loose knit nose. The wine became overly oaky against the food. There was astringent tannins and a kind of separation of smoke and sweetness. It wasn't very pleasant.

[Robin Garr]

From the 2004 SIWC

OYSTER BAY CHARDONNAY 2002 (New Zealand)
Judges' Comments

The notes float around structure and acidity, but with one out of five judges so far from the rest of the pack in evaluating the wine and the food pairing, if I were running the competition, I'd cull his notes.

[Robin Garr]

The notes float around structure and acidity, but with one out of five judges so far from the rest of the pack in evaluating the wine and the food pairing, if I were running the competition, I'd cull his notes.

Thomas,

How do you know your one judge is an outlier, and not representative of the diversity of smell and taste?

To me the five judges show quite different responses to the wine and food pairing.

No.1) The food improved the flavors of the wine.
No.2) The acidity of the wine worked with the food.
No.3) Good combination, but the acidity appeared a little too high for the dish.
No.4) Food improved a not so great wine.
No.5) Not a pleasant wine and didn't go with the food.

Mike

The notes float around structure and acidity, but with one out of five judges so far from the rest of the pack in evaluating the wine and the food pairing, if I were running the competition, I'd cull his notes.

Thomas,

How do you know your one judge is an outlier, and not representative of the diversity of smell and taste?

To me the five judges show quite different responses to the wine and food pairing.

No.1) The food improved the flavors of the wine.
No.2) The acidity of the wine worked with the food.
No.3) Good combination, but the acidity appeared a little too high for the dish.
No.4) Food improved a not so great wine.
No.5) Not a pleasant wine and didn't go with the food.

Mike

Mike, none of the others said anything about prominent oak or tannin, or dirtiness, for that matter. And every one of the others except #5 thought the food and wine was reasonable to good together. 3 of the 4 pointed out acidity and the one who didn't specifically said the food made the wine better.

Number 5 surely shows a different response, but I'm left to wonder one of three possibilities about his response: he tasted a completely different wine from the others; he isn't trained to evaluate wine or wine with food; he had a head cold

Mike, none of the others said anything about prominent oak or tannin, or dirtiness, for that matter. And every one of the others except #5 thought the food and wine was reasonable to good together. 3 of the 4 pointed out acidity and the one who didn't specifically said the food made the wine better.

Number 5 surely shows a different response, but I'm left to wonder one of three possibilities about his response: he tasted a completely different wine from the others; he isn't trained to evaluate wine or wine with food; he had a head cold

Well Robin was there, so I'm sure he'll remember if Paul White had a head cold and/or the ability to evaluate wine; they have misspelt his name, its White not While! If you look at the notes for different wines it seems clear that Paul White does have a sensitivity to oak, and seems to describe its influence more than other tasters.

Mike

Mike, none of the others said anything about prominent oak or tannin, or dirtiness, for that matter. And every one of the others except #5 thought the food and wine was reasonable to good together. 3 of the 4 pointed out acidity and the one who didn't specifically said the food made the wine better.

Number 5 surely shows a different response, but I'm left to wonder one of three possibilities about his response: he tasted a completely different wine from the others; he isn't trained to evaluate wine or wine with food; he had a head cold

Well Robin was there, so I'm sure he'll remember if Paul White had a head cold and/or the ability to evaluate wine; they have misspelt his name, its White not While! If you look at the notes for different wines it seems clear that Paul White does have a sensitivity to oak, and seems to describe its influence more than other tasters.

Mike

The idea behind evaluating wine on its merits is to suspend one's bias. For that, you need some training--preferably technical. If 4 out of 5 didn't even mention the oak, it's likely the oak component--if there--was in balance.

In one or two wine evaluations where I participate, his notes would have been culled for being way out of whack with the rest of the evaluations.

Big thread drift, and I need to get back to work, but just wanted to add that, in my view, critics evaluate wine for their aesthetic and personal likes--that's not the job of a judge at a competition.

I further submit that wine doesn't necessarily have to pair with food to be legit.

It doesn't have to, but wine and food are really meant to go together. I would submit that a big part of the issue that underly this thread has to do with some American critics (and the wine lovers who follow them) who don't fully understand this and who think of wine as a sort of adult Coca-Cola.

And I humbly submit that comparing Coca-Cola to high alcohol wines is a bit of an unfortunate overstatement, Robin.

Pardon me for saying so, but wine is also enjoyed as an aperitif before dinner. So I will suggest that any traditionally mandatory pairing with food is negligible at the most.

Besides, who gets to decide if a 15% Zin pairs well with food? Mr. Dunn?



I vote consumer.

I further submit that wine doesn't necessarily have to pair with food to be legit.

It doesn't have to, but wine and food are really meant to go together. I would submit that a big part of the issue that underly this thread has to do with some American critics (and the wine lovers who follow them) who don't fully understand this and who think of wine as a sort of adult Coca-Cola.

I submit that you don't actually know what he (and admit who you are referring to) understands. If there's a guy who truly enjoys wine & food as a combined experience he's the one (seen both in person and read in his many articles on same). Whether you like the pairings he comes up with is an entirely different matter. I will go on record as saying that I don't like many of his pairings, but he does do the wine and food thing rather than just wine as cocktail.

Indeed.


I also submit it all comes down to a matter of taste and prference.

I mean, economics and the preservation of wine were the reasons behind the creation then promotin of the screwcap, right?

Wrong. Just the preservation of wine. The resurrection of the screwcap was a very big financial gamble by a number of Australian (& kiwi) wineries who had to retool their bottling lines, buy more expensive French bottles than the locally-made ones there were previously using, and fly in the face of market research who told them that people wouldn't accept the closure.

To the extent they felt that the continuing poor performance of cork was a danger to their entire business model - customers turned off their wines by frequent mouldy or oxidised aromas/flavours - then there was an ecomonic aspect to it, but the notion that "a screwcap is x cents cheaper than a cork" is utterly, completely, totally wrong.

Now, eight years later, I suspect cheap corks have almost completely vanished from the Australian market, as there is virtually no demand for them anymore. Current economies of scale probably do favour screwcaps. And they certainly would when you factor in the large chunk of wines no longer destroyed by obsolete packaging.

Graeme

If the wine tastes better, what could be the problem? Further, in order to remove the "excess" alcohol, the winemaker must "cook" the wine. That is, artificially remove the alcohol through a distillation/filtration process which remove water from the wine, distills it and replaces the water. Personally, I prefer the wine as is even if it means higher alcohol content [which, at 1.5%, seems rather negligible at best, IMHO>]

There are natural techniques which avoid excess alcohol in wine, involving work in the vineyard to ensure that phenolic ripeness occurs at an earlier stage before excess sugars arise. These techniques are already being successfully used by some producers in the warmer parts of France. We discussed this in the following thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12712&p=105214&hilit=jamie+goode#p105214 .

Obviously once excess alcohol is already in the wine, its removal must involve artificial techniques which risk replacing one imbalance with another. And you are quite right in saying that some high alcohol wines are well balanced, e.g. the best Châteauneuf du Pape.

I sense that in the English speaking world, there is a widespread tolerance and even liking for high alcohol wines and that lower alcohol and "elegant" wines are more a geek taste. In a lot of mainland Europe, particularly the French speaking part, there has never been a great affection for "heavy" wines and this is being reinforced by health and safe driving concerns. The onset of global warming gives an added spur to producers like Gauby to produce lower alcohol elegant wines from his warm Roussillon region.

The idea behind evaluating wine on its merits is to suspend one's bias. For that, you need some training--preferably technical. If 4 out of 5 didn't even mention the oak, it's likely the oak component--if there--was in balance.

In one or two wine evaluations where I participate, his notes would have been culled for being way out of whack with the rest of the evaluations.

Big thread drift, and I need to get back to work, but just wanted to add that, in my view, critics evaluate wine for their aesthetic and personal likes--that's not the job of a judge at a competition.

Thomas

I’m not convinced that Paul White was showing his bias by noting the oak; he may just as easily have been displaying sensitivity to oak. Differences in sensitivity in terms of small and taste are quite common and its pretty clear now that genetic differences in a single odor receptor can result in quite dramatic odor descriptions. If we were all equivalent in our sensory abilities then I can see the validity for removing outliers in order to reach consensus. But as we are not all the same I’d have a real problem with removing the assessment of a single judge, especially one with the apparent experience of White; unless there was an obvious explanation – bad bottle, dirty glass etc.

I would have thought that the real challenge to wine judges would not be in the presence of differing opinions on an individual wine, but rather in their ability to reproducibly judge the same wine. If a judge has difficulty in repeating his assessment especially with a wine judged twice against the same wines that should be a serious concern.

Mike

I mean, economics and the preservation of wine were the reasons behind the creation then promotin of the screwcap, right?

Wrong. Just the preservation of wine. The resurrection of the screwcap was a very big financial gamble by a number of Australian (& kiwi) wineries who had to retool their bottling lines, buy more expensive French bottles than the locally-made ones there were previously using, and fly in the face of market research who told them that people wouldn't accept the closure.

To the extent they felt that the continuing poor performance of cork was a danger to their entire business model - customers turned off their wines by frequent mouldy or oxidised aromas/flavours - then there was an ecomonic aspect to it, but the notion that "a screwcap is x cents cheaper than a cork" is utterly, completely, totally wrong.

Now, eight years later, I suspect cheap corks have almost completely vanished from the Australian market, as there is virtually no demand for them anymore. Current economies of scale probably do favour screwcaps. And they certainly would when you factor in the large chunk of wines no longer destroyed by obsolete packaging.

Graeme

Sorry to disagree, but the main argument was to help the consumer/wine collector and the wine shop owner/retailer so that he would not lose money on tainted wine. Hence, economics played a major role.

If the wine tastes better, what could be the problem? Further, in order to remove the "excess" alcohol, the winemaker must "cook" the wine. That is, artificially remove the alcohol through a distillation/filtration process which remove water from the wine, distills it and replaces the water. Personally, I prefer the wine as is even if it means higher alcohol content [which, at 1.5%, seems rather negligible at best, IMHO>]

There are natural techniques which avoid excess alcohol in wine, involving work in the vineyard to ensure that phenolic ripeness occurs at an earlier stage before excess sugars arise. These techniques are already being successfully used by some producers in the warmer parts of France. We discussed this in the following thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12712&p=105214&hilit=jamie+goode#p105214 .

Obviously once excess alcohol is already in the wine, its removal must involve artificial techniques which risk replacing one imbalance with another. And you are quite right in saying that some high alcohol wines are well balanced, e.g. the best Châteauneuf du Pape.

I sense that in the English speaking world, there is a widespread tolerance and even liking for high alcohol wines and that lower alcohol and "elegant" wines are more a geek taste. In a lot of mainland Europe, particularly the French speaking part, there has never been a great affection for "heavy" wines and this is being reinforced by health and safe driving concerns. The onset of global warming gives an added spur to producers like Gauby to produce lower alcohol elegant wines from his warm Roussillon region.

Good post, Tim.


Nice to get a European perspective. Thanks for the information.

[Robin Garr]

I would have thought that the real challenge to wine judges would not be in the presence of differing opinions on an individual wine, but rather in their ability to reproducibly judge the same wine. If a judge has difficulty in repeating his assessment especially with a wine judged twice against the same wines that should be a serious concern.

Mike,

I completely agree with your final statement about duplicating results. But I have a BIG problem with the first potential scenario.

If someone is professionally judging wine and does so with a particular sensitivity to a particular component, that someone ought either to learn how to allow for it when evaluating, or recuse him or herself from judging wines that include the particular component. Call it what you will--sensitivity to or allergy--but if a judge can't get past a personal problem with one or more wine components, it is bound to show up in the scoring as a bias, not to mention the fact that it isn't fair to the wine.

I'm generally no fan of a number of styles of wine, but I've been trained to evaluate them in competitions on their merits, not on mine, and I think all wine judges need that kind of training.

I'm not talking about wine critics; their job is to judge by whether or not they like the wine; they usually show a bias, which is why I never follow wine critics .