WTN: 16.0%

I bought the Mollydooker The Boxer Shiraz 2008 based on a recommendation by Wine Spectator. I had it last night with a herb crusted steak. My only impression was overpowering alcohol (listed at 16%). Wow - I don't think I've ever had a wine that strong. My wife and kids could actually smell the alcohol wafting from my glass. There was only the slightest hint of fruit (meaning it wasn't a fruit bomb laden with alcohol). I've had wonderful Shiraz and Zinfandel at 15% and the alcohol blended in nicely but this was too much. If I hadn't paid $35 for it, I would pour it down the drain. However, I'm going to get my money's worth, however painful.

Dave

There was only the slightest hint of fruit (meaning it wasn't a fruit bomb laden with alcohol).

So more an alcohol bomb accented with a bit of fruit? Yuck, either way.

I'm getting tired of out-of-balance, high alcohol wines. I look at the abv numbers with the same interest I look at everything else on the label - it seems that it used to never matter because everything was 12 to 13 %. Friends brought a Zinfandel over several weeks ago that was just under 17%! I think I could have flambled the steak with it.

I'm getting tired of out-of-balance, high alcohol wines. I look at the abv numbers with the same interest I look at everything else on the label - it seems that it used to never matter because everything was 12 to 13 %. Friends brought a Zinfandel over several weeks ago that was just under 17%! I think I could have flambled the steak with it.

Agree with Jon. It's almost getting to point where you can't find a New World wine that is less than 16%.

[Jenise]

David, someone once poured me a wine from Sparky Phillips' brand-before-Mollydooker. He'd acquired his bottle direct from Sparky who admitted that where the alcohol was listed on the bottle at around 15.5% it was actually closer to 17%. It smelled, to me, like it had vodka in it. Anyway, lots of winemakers are guilty of fudging the numbers to the low side these days, and I'm surprised at the degree to which critical reviews (like the Spec) fail to note it as a flaw or speculate that the alcohols are higher than stated. Sitting around tasting with a bunch of geeks, I know we do.

My POV is very simple: if the ABV is over 15%, I don't care if I can or can't smell/taste/sense it, it's there and I don't want any part of it.

It saves me a lot of headaches, pun intended.

I have a couple of Gigondas in my fridge weighing in at 15% and the wine actually handles it quite well, but I still shy away from a re-taste. Other than than, 14.5% is my limit and even that gives me cold feet.

Anyway, lots of winemakers are guilty of fudging the numbers to the low side these days, and I'm surprised at the degree to which critical reviews (like the Spec) fail to note it as a flaw or speculate that the alcohols are higher than stated. Sitting around tasting with a bunch of geeks, I know we do.

It is legal to have some discrepancy in the alcohol stated. Most wine label regulations, I believe, allow for a 1.5% variation. With those Aussie blockbusters I take it for granted that the abv on the label is on the low side.
Do your bottles state the standard drinks? There is no variation allowed in this statement and this is where you can do the calculation.

Cheers,
Sue

It is legal to have some discrepancy in the alcohol stated. Most wine label regulations, I believe, allow for a 1.5% variation. With those Aussie blockbusters I take it for granted that the abv on the label is on the low side.
Do your bottles state the standard drinks? There is no variation allowed in this statement and this is where you can do the calculation.

Cheers,
Sue

Sue, I must admit that I do not know the term "Standard Drinks" could you elucidate?

[Jenise]

My POV is very simple: if the ABV is over 15%, I don't care if I can or can't smell/taste/sense it, it's there and I don't want any part of it.

Agreed. I don't knowingly buy over 14.5% myself, and I religiously look for wines in the 13's. Even when you don't think you taste a lot of alcohol, when you compare a high alc wine to a similar wine that's lower, there IS a taste difference.

[Jenise]

It is legal to have some discrepancy in the alcohol stated.

Yes, I realize that. And I look at all new world wines these days with the same suspicion. Oz is no more guilty than California or, heck, even many Washington wines these days. Hard to find anything under 14%.

No, no reference to standard drinks.

Standard Drinks - it is now law to have this on wine labels in NZ. If they come from overseas without it, then a label is added to it by the distributor.
The regulations says, "All wine must bear a standard drink declaration. The form of the standard drink statement is: “contains approx. X.X standard drinks”. The formula for calculating the number of standard drinks is: 0.789 x the actual alcohol content x the volume of the container (in litres)."

The law for the alcohol declaration is, "All wine must bear an alcohol declaration. The acceptable form for the declaration is ‘ml/100g’ or ‘ml/100 ml’ or ‘x% alcohol by volume’ or words or expressions of the same or similar meaning – i.e. “% vol” will suffice. Tolerances of the declared alcohol content from that actual alcohol content are: cider +/- 0.3%, fortified fruit or vegetable wine: +/- 0.5%; fruit wine (incl sparkling) and fruit or vegetable wine products containing > 6.5% alcohol by volume: +/- 1.5%".

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/wine/all-docum ... age-19.htm

It's interesting comparing bottles with the same alcohol stated, to see the standard drinks statements varies between them.

Also in lower alcohol wines, you may see the alcohol elevated. Who wants a 12% Chardonnay these days?

Cheers,
Sue

Some might find the following link interesting.

http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccalcoh3.htm

Salute