Robin Garr and Robert Parker on high alcohol wines.

I enjoy Google alerts, and today "Robin Garr" kicked up a Texas article quoting our beloved janitor -- and on equal footing with Robert Parker.

Check it out here.

Extract:

In a column he called "Recent Rants," Robin Garr had this to say. "For most of us who prize elegance and balance in our wines, there's no news, and certainly no good news, in the recent trend toward higher and higher levels of alcohol in table wines."

He went on to say that a high level of alcohol in and of itself is not necessarily good or bad. It's the balance, or lack of it, with the other components, and the character of the grape itself that will make a wine enjoyable or not.

Some will say that the higher alcohol levels are a result of global warming and there may be some truth here. A warmer climate during the growing season does lend itself to making this blockbuster style of wine.

Others, as we have previously discussed, will blame critics like Robert Parker, who likes such wines, and say that he is influencing producers to adopt the "bigger is better" attitude. While he no doubt has influence, I'm not sure this is a valid complaint.

If you like alcohol, and enjoy spirits as well as wine, you may be one who is glad the alcohol levels are increasing. For us purists, who like elegance, style and complexity, it is a trend that hopefully will not continue.

Bobbie:

I really get this argument. However I do not like RO wine where the Alc. has been taken out due to a robotic reaction to ripeness. Some of the issue is that grapes are being grown in the new world. Guess what CA is not France so French clones are not going to grow the same in California. Appropriate varieties in light of heat may be more of the Italian varietals like Barbera or sangiovese. These have acid despite the ripeness. Try an Amador or El Dorado Barbera and see what you think.

For us purists, who like elegance, style and complexity, it is a trend that hopefully will not continue.

I'm not sure I fully understand what is meant by this statement. So, purists never drink port? Some wine is fabulous and is married well on all levels, alcohol content being one -- some are not. For those of us who are not so pure, is higher alcohol content not similar to wines that are too heavily oaked? What is the point that is being made here? Just asking.

One solution, albeit a somewhat radical one, to the problem of increasingly alcoholic high-end wines, is to simply make one's own wine providing that grapes are available or can be grown. This year, among the wines I'm making is a varietal Dechaunac, the grapes for which were picked at around 20 Brix. The wine is nearing completion and I am expecting it to have just over 11% alc. when fully dry - certainly in line with many classic reds before the days of high octane maquillage and the so-called bimbo factor A bit of oak for an added dimension, some cold stabilization, no malo, and it'll be good to go.

Jo Ann, Robin was talking about high alcohol table wines. Not fortified dessert wines such as Port and Sherry.

-Paul W.

Jo Ann, Robin was talking about high alcohol table wines. Not fortified dessert wines such as Port and Sherry.

-Paul W.

What about Amarone?

I guess it's best if we don't get drawn into the extremes, as there will even be relatively delicate wines that Parker likes and big bruisers that Robin likes.

There are very few people who fall exclusively into a
less than 14%
greater than 14% camp.

In reality what we've experienced is a trend, undoubtedly led by Parker, but well supported by plenty of others. In some wine regions this trend has been significant, whilst in others there's been no impact. Not many 15.5% Hunter Semillons out there

The issue is ensuring there is balance and for me that would be a slowing and reversing of the general trend of increasing alcohol %. However I still hope there are mavericks at both ends of the spectrum, as they often flag what is really possible when you push the boundary. As long as they have fans, then there's merit in the wines.

To my mind Parker is supremely confident in his statements (maybe the ex-lawyer never loses the projection of their arguments). A lot of people (drinkers and winemakers) latched onto this. It's interesting however to see how rebellious some of Parkers wine forum members have been in recent times. Quite a few people have realised their palates don't align (wine is after all a personal thing and there is no such thing as a clear quality scale).

regards

Ian

... is higher alcohol content not similar to wines that are too heavily oaked?

Jo Ann, I think that's a good analogy. It's about balance. Also (though there have always been exceptions), the relative climb in alcohol levels is a recent phenomenon in California wine history and is associated with certain styles. (When I looked at the labels on California wines that my parents drank with dinner a few decades ago, 12% was the norm, sometimes 12.5 or 13, sometimes 11. I saw them climb fairly recently.)

The topic prompted a long thread on the Parker wine forum starting in April, on news Darrell Corti (a longtime and respected California specialty food and wine purveyor) declared he would stop selling high-alcohol wines. Robert Parker posted, characterizing this as "stupid ... arbitrary ... a police state's mentality." What Parker thought of the countless other product-line decisions retailers make, including whether to sell wine at all, he didn't say. The forum administrator, Mark Squires, added that despite being a serious collector of California wine, touring the area, and writing articles about wine, he'd never heard of Corti. (N.B.: Corti and the Corti Bros. business are familiar names among longtime food and wine enthusiasts here in northern California, I've heard them for many years; Corti also is respected enough to be invited as a wine judge internationally.)

Good Points Ian!!

I am certainly often wrong, but I wonder if the trend is enhanced by the double edged sword of new wine drinkers. Watching people in a tasting room and you can kind of tell how new they are to the wine world. It is human taste to like drinks (our soda culture) that are sweeter rather than sourer. The balance in new drinkers will be tilted to low acid wines which will be higher alc. wines.

A local wine maker's son took over the wine making for their winery. The father made wine more European and acid. The son followed the trend and made the current style higher alc. wines. The winery developed a buzz and sold out of many wines. The son said it is obvious what the off the street drinking public likes.

Jo Ann, Robin was talking about high alcohol table wines. Not fortified dessert wines such as Port and Sherry.

-Paul W.

Yes, I understand that. But, port and sherry are still classified as wines, albeit fortified, often with abv contents reaching 20% and above. Regardless of how the alcohol makes it into the wine, it is still high alcohol content wines. My question is a purely academic one -- just where do you draw the line when calling yourself a purist? From a technical point of view, is it when the wine starts out with a high enough sugar content and appropriate yeast marriage, with the intent of fermenting a high abv content wine (rocket fuel as some have called it) that makes it unworthy of consideration? What is the tipping point where the alcohol content is so high that it destroys all opportunities for the wine being considered elegant, complex and balanced? I want to know what to look for -- I'd really like to become a member of that club.

[Robin Garr]

Bob, one thing that may not be immediately clear from your post. Only the first two paragraphs have to do with the article I wrote:

In a column he called "Recent Rants," Robin Garr had this to say. "For most of us who prize elegance and balance in our wines, there's no news, and certainly no good news, in the recent trend toward higher and higher levels of alcohol in table wines."

He went on to say that a high level of alcohol in and of itself is not necessarily good or bad. It's the balance, or lack of it, with the other components, and the character of the grape itself that will make a wine enjoyable or not.

At that point, the author goes back to his own commentary. I might agree with much of it ...

Some will say that the higher alcohol levels are a result of global warming and there may be some truth here. A warmer climate during the growing season does lend itself to making this blockbuster style of wine.

Others, as we have previously discussed, will blame critics like Robert Parker, who likes such wines, and say that he is influencing producers to adopt the "bigger is better" attitude. While he no doubt has influence, I'm not sure this is a valid complaint.

If you like alcohol, and enjoy spirits as well as wine, you may be one who is glad the alcohol levels are increasing. For us purists, who like elegance, style and complexity, it is a trend that hopefully will not continue.

But in fact, I placed a much stronger emphasis on balance, and specifically addressed the issue of high-alcohol wines that <i>do</i> achieve it. His summation is a bit different than mine was.

Here's a link to the column.

Sorry, Robin, I should have tracked down your column -- the guy I quoted didn't do so, and I was a bit lazy.

Thanks for clarifying your contribution.

Regards, Bob

I whole hearted agree on the statement about balance. I don't think it's the alcohol per se. But rather that the grapes are increasingly being picked at overripe levels, and that seriously affects the winemakers ability to make a balanced wine. Used to be that the 22-23 brix range was the "sweet spot" for wines. Now I'm seeing most Cabernets and Pinots picked in the 24-25% brix range. All the while winemakers are saying (just as they always did) they're picking the fruit based on ripeness and not sugar. What changed? Are the grape different? Two things that have changed...are the age of the vines (much younger) and the yield per acre (higher). As for Global Warming's impact. Probably some, but it's the new emphasis on Super-Ripe grapes achieved via longer hang time that's doing it. They could easily pick in the 22-23 brix range...but they don't. Most of the vines are too young and would produce crappy fruit. Or at least not worthy of a $50 Pinot. After all, Joe Heitz produced the 1996 Martha's from 3.5 year old vines...at $120 a bottle no less.

Hey, Steve: I live in Vacaville and work in Fairfield. Good to see another Solano County wine obsessive.

As I posted on my tasting notes for Ravenswood this weekend, the 2005 Todd Vineyard has a nominal label abv of a searing 15.7%.

I am very sensitive to acohol-especially fumes, and I don't like the heavy, almost syrupy Zinfandels that are now the rage. (The heavy fruit covers up the alcohol). The Todd did not seem hot at all-medium body, light and delicious on the fruit, nice mouth feel, and black pepper, not "sweet". A very nice wine-one of the better Zins I've had recently, in fact. That 15.7% number is staring at me-is this wine going to fall apart all of a sudden?

Brian, with Zinfandel I'm not as concerned about the alcohol...since I rarely try to age them. My two favorate Zins (73 Swan and 73 Burgess) were both about 13% and aged beautifully). But few Zin age with any grace. There are exceptions, but almost always these are under 14%.

But recently I two have found some rather interesting Zinfandels that are significantly ligher in color than I've seen in many years. The 2004 Montevina "Terra d'Oro" shows as 14.5%, but is loaded with sweet Boysenberry fruit and slides right down (all too easily). Good for current drinking. I paid $11 at Costco. The 2004 Renwood Old Vine (also 14.5%) is also rather light in color, though not nearly as sweetly ripe as the Montevina. Much higher percentage of press wine.

I had a friend who subscribed to and loved many of Turley Zins. But I usually found them hot and rather tannic. Most of his were fading (and becoming somewhat mean) by the age of 5 or 7. Some did a bit better. But these are not cheap. I feel they are vastly overrated.

Back in 2001 I had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with Paul Draper (with a group led by Tom Hill)...and he poured the 70 Occidental (non-LH version) along with several Pagani's...and the 80 Coast Range. The big surprise was the 80 Coast Range...and how much fruit was left and what great balance it had. It was a 13% (or so) Zin. The 70 Occidental was amazing in the denity of fruit. Despite being a bit high-toned, it was a marvelous Zin. Must have been a huge wine in it's youth.

Two of my regular Burgundy groups have been blind-tasting steadily through 2005 red Burgs as they landed (with surprising results having wide consensus -- I hope to post upshots). Anyway, the other day in the latest flight of 10 of these wines, just one of them elicited from me the note that it tasted "hot" (alcoholic), and other people noticed this too. Unveiled* after evaluation, the label said 13.6% alc. which one taster quipped meets Corti's requirement, barely. (That taster by the way has dealt with Corti Bros. for years and is acquainted with the case of an earlier wine under the Corti label that Parker cited on his forum as ironically high in alcohol. I understand Parker got his facts wrong, confusing the wine -- maybe relying only on memory, always dangerous!)

The point is, 13.6 is not all that high in absolute terms. But it stood out, blind, as an issue of balance in this wine, compared with peers.


* Charmes-Chambertin (Grand Cru), Domaine les Varoilles, $85 in California. Popular, on average, among this group of 12 tasters evaluating 10 wines, though I didn't like it as much.