by David from Switzerland » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Agree 100%. It's not a secret that an out-of-proportion alcohol level has been a favourite scapegoat subject of mine for years (nor even that I come from a cultural background and/or grew up in the belief that anything over 12.5% is exceptional). The fact that some high-alcohol wine miraculously manages to taste balanced enough (the occasional top of the crop Amarone, the odd bottle of Henri Bonneau Châteauneuf-du-Pape etc.) has never seemed to me to prove much to the contrary - high-alcohol wine of which people beg for a refill or that go well with food remain an exception. There is disagreement as to what's cause and symptom, but I keep wondering why huge, full-bodied, highly-concentrated, late-picked dry reds, legendary wines of the twentieth century included, could be made in the past mostly without the alcohol levels or then at least the alcohol disintegration of modern wines (all right, all right, let's not forget about 1947, but then I said "mostly"), whereas today, winemakers claim it's "unavoidable", "due to climate change", earlier/later harvesting, "what the customer wants", or - some are as candid as that - what one "needs to do in order for one's product to stand out in blind tasting and get high ratings" from certain, primarily American wine critics. I'm sceptical on the verge of cynical, and believe it's got more to do with the latter than the former - cannot help being reminded of what one Châteauneuf producer I spoke to earlier this year exclaimed when I asked about the connection of climate change and the "apparent necessity" of making high-alcohol trophy cuvées: “Mais, il a toujours fait chaud en Châteauneuf-du-Pape!” (= “But it's always been hot in Châteauneuf-du-Pape!”)
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti