Big Reds

The Associated Press ran this article today regarding winemakers testing the market for higher alcohol wines- http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BIG_WINES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-02-23-04-22-50

Pros: The grapes are picked later in the season thus providing a "tastier" wine with a fuller mouth and showing more fruit. Big, bold and chewy reds, in other words.

Cons: Randy Dunn of Dunn Vineyards will tell you that with two people sharing the same bottle of a higher alcohol content wine of 15.5% to 16% [a mere 1.5% increase from a typical 14.5% or so now] will cause you to be"...lying on the floor." Presumably, drunk.

Typically, a 750ml bottle of wine will yield 4 1/2 glasses of wine so, sharing that bottle would allow for roughly two glasses apiece. Now, unless you are a complete teetotaler or a light-weight, I fail to understand the justification for his stand against higher alcohol in wine.

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>]


I dunno...sounds to me like much ado about nothing. What do you think?


Tim

[Robin Garr]

The Associated Press ran this article today regarding winemakers testing the market for higher alcohol wines ,,,

Tim,
Somehow, I think that this premise of the higher the alcohol the better if it make the wine tastier. Tastier to who? I like my syrah not so damned jammy, or fruity. I like Nalle zinfandel, I like Tahbilk syrah, I like Northern Rhone syrah. IOW, I like a wine that is not so full of sugar that it walks on the other flavors and I like a wine with a little femininity to it. I like some nuance rather than a sledgehammer to my palate. Now I fully agree that that my tastes are not for everybody, but neither is the other side of the coin. Personally I buy very few Australian shiraz or cabernet just for this reason.

[Robin Garr]

Tim,
Somehow, I think that this premise of the higher the alcohol the better if it make the wine tastier. Tastier to who? ...

That's fair, but to answer your question: Tastier to whomever likes it, I would pressume.

It just seems to me that 1.5% isn't all that much to get worked up over. You know? I like a good Syrah myself [in fact, I plan to open a Clo du Bois 2003 tonight] but I also like a big, bold Zinfandel. Depends on my mood. I also think that if a vintner prefers to let the sugars rise in his grapes before picking them and in full knowledge of the alcohol increase, that is his right. And if there is a market for it, why not? Personally, I have a bigger objection to an artificial distillation process in an effort to lower the alcohol content. Too much like brewing whiskey, IMHO.


I just think the over-exaggeration on the part of Mr. Dunn and his call-to-arms, so to speak, opposing higher alcohol wines rings rather hollow in that regard.

Thanks for posting the article Tim. I agree with you, every wine style, even those “Big Reds” (when in balanced) have their place. BTW hopefully I’ll be enjoying one of these with a BBQ (- ya, it snowed on the east coast, but that never stopped me) 1 3/4 inch thick rib steak, mushrooms, onion rings and potatoes today.

Salute

That's fair, but to answer your question: Tastier to whomever likes it, I would pressume.
It just seems to me that 1.5% isn't all that much to get worked up over. You know? I like a good Syrah myself [in fact, I plan to open a Clo du Bois 2003 tonight] but I also like a big, bold Zinfandel. Depends on my mood. I also think that if a vintner prefers to let the sugars rise in his grapes before picking them and in full knowledge of the alcohol increase, that is his right. And if there is a market for it, why not? Personally, I have a bigger objection to an artificial distillation process in an effort to lower the alcohol content. Too much like brewing whiskey, IMHO.
I just think the over-exaggeration on the part of Mr. Dunn and his call-to-arms, so to speak, opposing higher alcohol wines rings rather hollow in that regard.

To be honest Tim, I didn't even read Mr. Dunn's "call-to-arms" and I am not saying that anyone who does like these jammy wines (I've heard them referred to as "blueberry shakes") has a bad palate. I merely say that they are not for me. Would you say that if a grape grower or a wine maker decided to let the grape get to a point of ripeness that he can make a 20% ABV wine, then it is fine? Yes I guess it is fine, but far be it from me to buy it. I also think that if he does, I will look at any other wines he makes with a bit of a jaundiced eye.

I don't know.

I think there might be something non-linear in the effect that alcohol has on us.

Granted, a 16% ABV wine has only 33% more booze than a 12% ABV wine [or 25%, depending on your point of view], but it sure does seem to get people a lot drunker a lot faster.

Could just be a subliminal/hypochondriacal kinduva thang, yet you gotta wonder...

PS: I like big reds, but, if you're not careful, they can take a heckuva toll on your health.

Good way to ruin a couple months of dieting is to get out the big reds and the fried food.

[David M. Bueker]

Methinks the AP is a little late getting to this story.

That's fair, but to answer your question: Tastier to whomever likes it, I would pressume.
It just seems to me that 1.5% isn't all that much to get worked up over. You know? I like a good Syrah myself [in fact, I plan to open a Clo du Bois 2003 tonight] but I also like a big, bold Zinfandel. Depends on my mood. I also think that if a vintner prefers to let the sugars rise in his grapes before picking them and in full knowledge of the alcohol increase, that is his right. And if there is a market for it, why not? Personally, I have a bigger objection to an artificial distillation process in an effort to lower the alcohol content. Too much like brewing whiskey, IMHO.
I just think the over-exaggeration on the part of Mr. Dunn and his call-to-arms, so to speak, opposing higher alcohol wines rings rather hollow in that regard.

To be honest Tim, I didn't even read Mr. Dunn's "call-to-arms" and I am not saying that anyone who does like these jammy wines (I've heard them referred to as "blueberry shakes") has a bad palate. I merely say that they are not for me. Would you say that if a grape grower or a wine maker decided to let the grape get to a point of ripeness that he can make a 20% ABV wine, then it is fine? Yes I guess it is fine, but far be it from me to buy it. I also think that if he does, I will look at any other wines he makes with a bit of a jaundiced eye.

I can appreciate the objections.....I really can. Some folks just don't like the jamminess of a Big Red wine. But I don't think we're talking about even approaching 20%. That would be more akin to a Port or Late Harvest desert style wine.

I'm not saying the alcohol content should be something which ought to burn all the way down. I just think if the vintner is attempting to appease a more "adventurous" palate/market then so be it. I would be one of those in that market. My position? Show me what you got. I'll take it from there.


Honestly, I have had some marvelous Reds which are big, chewy and bold. All a matter of preference, I figure.

I don't know.

I think there might be something non-linear in the effect that alcohol has on us.

Granted, a 16% ABV wine has only 33% more booze than a 12% ABV wine [or 25%, depending on your point of view], but it sure does seem to get people a lot drunker a lot faster.

Could just be a subliminal/hypochondriacal kinduva thang, yet you gotta wonder...

PS: I like big reds, but, if you're not careful, they can take a heckuva toll on your health.

Good way to ruin a couple months of dieting is to get out the big reds and the fried food.

Good point.

But I submit, one shared bottle [which was the example Mr. Dunn used] is vastly overstating the issue....more than just a little bit. I'm not talking about downing half a case worth here, so the health issue is moot, IMHO.


But again, to each his own.

Methinks the AP is a little late getting to this story.

Perhaps, but it appeared in today's paper so I thought it was somewhat germane.

I just opened a bottle of what I was thinking of as a "big red" tonight, with spaghetti. Quivira Standley Ranch Zin '01. It sure tasted big. Black, lots of nose, a WHAM of fruit, all that stuff. 14.7% alcohol, not way up there for Zin. (BTW, it really benefited from laying around for a few years. Two years ago it was a tannin bomb.)

well, 1.5% more alcohol doesn't seem so much to get worked up over, huh? but that is over and above the 2% increase in the past 20 years from the traditional 12.5%. have you heard of 'the straw that.... etc'

i think it should be pointed out that the harvest numbers being talked about for these big reds - supposedly dry table wines - are very close to that of beerenauslese in germany and above those for SGN in alsace.

[Robin Garr]

Methinks the AP is a little late getting to this story.

Perhaps, but it appeared in today's paper so I thought it was somewhat germane.

The point he's making is that this story was all over the news, getting a lot of coverage over statements by Darrel Corti and Randy Dunn last July, about seven months ago.

There were a number of forum discussions on the topic. Here's one.

This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with bringing it up again. But it's hardly news.

[David M. Bueker]

but that is over and above the 2% increase in the past 20 years from the traditional 12.5%.

Not that I am fond of high alcohol wines (anything but...), but it was traditional because it was so hard to get the grapes ripe. Tradition is not always a good thing. I've had some great wines from 1966, 1970, 1975, etc., but way more misses than hits.

I don't want 2003 every year, but a little extra ripeness seems to me to be a good thing. Now there is a concept of too much of a good thing, but I would not want to go back to the days of 3 good vintages every decade.

Methinks the AP is a little late getting to this story.

Perhaps, but it appeared in today's paper so I thought it was somewhat germane.

The point he's making is that this story was all over the news, getting a lot of coverage over statements by Darrel Corti and Randy Dunn last July, about seven months ago.

There were a number of forum discussions on the topic. Here's one.

This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with bringing it up again. But it's hardly news.

Oh, I am very certain this was discussed before, Robin [Thanks for the link, BTW ]...but there seemed to be a new wrinkle in the whole issue. That is, should wine making artificially lower alcohol in wines? In other words, shouldn't the process indicated in the AP article be left up to the natural production of sugars present in a grape harvested for the fruit eventually found in a "tastier" [for want of a better term] red wine?

I think it is fair to say a lot of what happens to wine is relative to nature [too much rain, not enough rain, too hot, too cold, etc] and changes the wine from vintage to vintage anyway. So it would also seem fair to assume that the sugar content in grapes harvested later will rise and fall, too.

Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I seriously do not know what the objection could be relative to producing then marketing Red wines in the 15-16% range. And as it was pointed out in the thread you linked to: "It is all about balance."

well, 1.5% more alcohol doesn't seem so much to get worked up over, huh? but that is over and above the 2% increase in the past 20 years from the traditional 12.5%. have you heard of 'the straw that.... etc'

...broke the camel's back?

Yes, of course. But I will humbly suggest that this isn't a case for a Chicken Little-esque "The sky is falling" scenario, either.

but that is over and above the 2% increase in the past 20 years from the traditional 12.5%.

Not that I am fond of high alcohol wines (anything but...), but it was traditional because it was so hard to get the grapes ripe. Tradition is not always a good thing. I've had some great wines from 1966, 1970, 1975, etc., but way more misses than hits.

I don't want 2003 every year, but a little extra ripeness seems to me to be a good thing. Now there is a concept of too much of a good thing, but I would not want to go back to the days of 3 good vintages every decade.

Good point, David.

For me, it all comes down to taste and aroma.

I was told long, long ago by winemakers and winery owners much wiser than I, that 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. I am just a fan of the grape, not a vitculturalist or collector of fine wines.


BTW...that 2003 Syrah I opened last night was excellent

well, 1.5% more alcohol doesn't seem so much to get worked up over, huh? but that is over and above the 2% increase in the past 20 years from the traditional 12.5%. have you heard of 'the straw that.... etc'

think it should be pointed out that the harvest numbers being talked about for these big reds - supposedly dry table wines - are very close to that of beerenauslese in germany and above those for SGN in alsace.

You make my point much better than I did David. I just don't think that wines need that much alcohol. And this from a guy who in the past twewo years has spent about $400 on Turley wines.

well, 1.5% more alcohol doesn't seem so much to get worked up over, huh? but that is over and above the 2% increase in the past 20 years from the traditional 12.5%. have you heard of 'the straw that.... etc'

think it should be pointed out that the harvest numbers being talked about for these big reds - supposedly dry table wines - are very close to that of beerenauslese in germany and above those for SGN in alsace.

You make my point much better than I did David. I just don't think that wines need that much alcohol. And this from a guy who in the past twewo years has spent about $400 on Turley wines.

And that's fair, too.


OTOH, it still seems to me to be a question of preference...assuming the balance between the alcohol and the subtlties of the wine still exists.

[Jenise]

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.

[Robin Garr]

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.

Generally agree, but crossing over from another thread, it might be worth noting that the 2004 Geyserville label claims 14.9%.

It sure doesn't taste like vodka and Coke, though ...

[Jenise]

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.

Generally agree, but crossing over from another thread, it might be worth noting that the 2004 Geyserville label claims 14.9%.

It sure doesn't taste like vodka and Coke, though ...

You're right--I should have used a qualifier like "often". But I wasn't thinking of wines under 15% when I said this, though I prefer under 14% personally I've had a number of wines in the next range up that don't show the heat, like those Elk Grove pinots I posted on a few days ago. It's the 15% and up range where the alcohol flavors are almost always present and problematic to me, and which was generally the area I thought this thread was talking about.

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.