High Alcohol Wines: Over 14%

[jbonne]

long and a touch wonky, but certainly provocative, is this screed in Wine Business Monthly.

the 2-cent version: California wines have gone overboard, using uber-ripe fruit that comes off the vine at high brix and results in high-alcohol bottlings. these monster wines get great ratings from RP and WS, among others, so other wineries have tried to copy that style. now everyone's in an upward spiral toward mega-alcoholic wine.

none of this is new, but the above author (George Vierra) argues that the high alcohol throws these wines out of balance and makes them "social wines," not "table wines." which i interpret as: serve 'em to get your date drunk, not to enjoy over dinner.

thoughts?

[GoodEater]

If the wines were so out of balance they would not sell and the producers would be forced to modify their techniques. My taste in wine has changed over the years and I really like a full bodied powerful wine. I think the big reds zinfindels go extremely well with spicy foods and beef dishes. Of course- everyone knows that a great deal depends on what food is on your table if a wine will work with it or not.

Perhaps their is some snob appeal to drinking European (read French) wines and they simply are not competing as well against the Californians. Especially in the $10 to $15 "table" priced wines. For everyday table wines they simply cannot compete in price, quality and taste- especially with the Euro being so high against the dollar.

Edit: Last night I opened a 2001 Ravenswood (Lodi) Zinfandel. Cost $13.98 including tax. Very nice wine indeed. This morning the only thing off-balanced was me!

Edited July 28, 2004 by GoodEater (log)

[Julia'sChild]

I don't think anyone can argue that ripe, fruit flavors (and the riper the

fruit, the higher the alcohol) are popular among New World producers. I

don't think it's fair to say these wines are "preferred" among the

critics--balance is always key--but it's certainly easy (and obvious) to

point out the obvious wines that are in that style and get good scores.

But for every ripe, high alcohol wine that gets 90+, there's 10

more behind it that let the ph levels get out of wack and wines full

of brett, or with searing volitile acidity running through them, that don't

do so well. Imitating the successful ones doesn't make an amateur winemaker

suddenly great.

Another thought in this argument is, why not? We simply have warmer

temperatures in CA (and Australia) than they do in France and other parts of

the world. Why should we pick the grapes before they're really ripe just to

imitate the Old World style? Isn't it more of a "purist" California style to

make these wines ripe and fruit-centric?

That being said, I should have mentioned that over-ripe, high alcholic

wines aren't always the best ones to serve with food. But there are other

reasons to crack open a bottle of wine besides just complimenting your food.

[winesonoma]

We all tend to drink what we like. It's only lately that I would even taste Pinot. It's only lately that Merlot which was an early favorite has some body to it again. I remember when it was the red wine for people who didn't like red wine.

[britcook]

This morning the only thing off-balanced was me!

And there you have the problem. I like a glass of wine...or two... with my evening meal, with an 11% wine that's OK, no problems the next day; try a 14+% blockbuster and things get "kinda wobbly". That's fine if you don't have a full day's work ahead of you, but for those of us trying to earn an honest crust to pay for our vinous enjoyment then over alcoholised wines are best avoided.

Edited July 28, 2004 by britcook (log)

[jbonne]

I don't think anyone can argue that ripe, fruit flavors (and the riper the

fruit, the higher the alcohol) are popular among New World producers.

oh, i think many folks could and would argue that. the styles are readily apparent when doing a by-country comparison, with the possible exception of pinot grigio. in fact, many Old World producers are now being criticized for not devising wines that meet the New World palate. and for optimizing their wines for the often perilous realm of long-term storage, rather than short-term drinkability.

I don't think it's fair to say these wines are "preferred" among the critics

hard to say, but many winemakers i've spoken with do feel this way -- especially with chameleon grapes like syrah, which can easily express both styles.

this is not to say i agree with Vierra, or that there isn't a value to bold, high-alcohol wines. but i do find more and more CA wine creeping toward 17 percent and increasingly hard to pair with food. hence why i think his argument is one that's (groan) ripe for discussion.

[GoodEater]

Hey Britcook-

I was just kidding about being off-balanced. I only had two glasses, which is not that much for me. I was at work by 8:00 AM this morning earning an honest living.

Edited July 28, 2004 by GoodEater (log)

[Brad Ballinger]

There has certainly been a trend, and it's not all about what happens in the vineyard. There are modern winemaking techniques that make it easier to produce this style of wine. It should be pointed out that this wasn't always the case in California, and certainly the "why now?" question is deserved. On the other side of the coin, though, about a century ago, wines in France were high alcohol (often over 16%) and that trended in the opposite direction.

I find that the high alcohol wines don't age as well. That's not necessarily good or bad. Many people like the vibrancy of a younger wine. Many people like the complexity the development of a well-aged wine reveals. Many like both. It is up to personal preference.

Where I think there is the most legitimate knock against the style of many wines coming out of California, Australia, South America, and other areas where it's all about amping up the fruit and the alcohol, is in the homogeneity of these wines. That is, they can be made anywhere in the world and it doesn't matter. That doesn't bother some people, but is a major sticking point for others. Overly ripe fruit, high alcohol, and modern winemaking that increases extraction only helps to muddy the borders. This reduces wine to pure technique and gets the public going ga ga over star winemakers because it's no longer the character of the vineyard, it's the influence of the winemaker -- even though every winemaker will continue to tell you 95% of the wine is made in the vineyard.

But I digress. It is all about balance. I've had wines with 16% alcohol that have been well balanced and others at 12.5% that have tasted alcoholic.

The "critics love them" argument has been around for a long time. It is sometimes thought that these wines "stand out" at large tastings because they are so concentrated and so powerful. And when your palate is shot from tasting through a lot of wines, that bodes well for these powerhouses. And yes, if the critics love them, the lemmings will follow. And that will result in more being made. Last I checked, this was still a business.

The social wine v. table wine resonates with me, though. With many of these suped up wines, the question is often "but what food would you serve with it?" And spicy and high alcohol are not a good mix. Hot and spicy foods only emphasize the alcohol in wine.

Personally, many of these wines are not for me. If that makes me a French wine snob, I've been called worse.

Edited to add. A while ago I posted a WTN thread on some nice California Cabernet wines. The vintages were 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1995. All of us at the table asked in one form or another: "How come California doesn't make these kinds of wines anymore?" Even the same producers.

[Julia'sChild]

I don't think anyone can argue that ripe, fruit flavors (and the riper the

fruit, the higher the alcohol) are popular among New World producers.

oh, i think many folks could and would argue that. the styles are readily apparent when doing a by-country comparison, with the possible exception of pinot grigio. in fact, many Old World producers are now being criticized for not devising wines that meet the New World palate. and for optimizing their wines for the often perilous realm of long-term storage, rather than short-term drinkability.

I think you misunderstood my post

I never said that *every* New World producer is making wines in a ripe

style, I said that it's "popular", which agrees with the premise of the

article that started this discussion.

As I said, I think it's easy to point to a couple producers of ultra-ripe

wines that seem to be favorites among national critics to use as examples

about how this trend is supported by the media. But I've also seen a couple

articles by Jim Laube of Wine Spectator criticizing this trend. And Parker

has scolded some California producers for making highly volatile, overripe

wines as well.

I've never read anyone claming that a 17% Zinfandel would be a great

compliment to a lightly poached salmon dish. But it would be fun to drink on

a cold night in front of a fire. Just as I don't drink ports as an

aparatiff, I don't expect these non-food friendly wines to be. . .food

friendly. And unlike other information, the alcohol % is printed right on

the label, guiding consumers in the right direction.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's terrific that

there are all kinds of styles of wines out there and I don't think it's fair

to take a particular style out of context and then say it's a bad trend and

the California wine industry is self-destructing.

If we were forced at gunpoint to drink Chardonnays with steak dinners and

mountain-grown Cabernets with oysters, I'd be screaming a different tune.

But we're not.

[winesonoma]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's terrific that

there are all kinds of styles of wines out there and I don't think it's fair

to take a particular style out of context and then say it's a bad trend and

the California wine industry is self-destructing.

If we were forced at gunpoint to drink Chardonnays with steak dinners and

mountain-grown Cabernets with oysters, I'd be screaming a different tune.

But we're not.

If we were forced at gunpoint to drink Chardonnays with steak dinners and

mountain-grown Cabernets with mountain oysters, I'd be screaming a different tune.

[GoodEater]

There has certainly been a trend, and it's not all about what happens in the vineyard. There are modern winemaking techniques that make it easier to produce this style of wine. It

With many of these suped up wines, the question is often "but what food would you serve with it?" And spicy and high alcohol are not a good mix. Hot and spicy foods only emphasize the alcohol in wine.

I hate to disagree with you on this one point. I think the higher alcohol works well with spice. Everyone likes something different. There was a thread about weird food combinations that worked even though nobody thought they would.

[Craig Camp]

I don't like high alcohol wines with spicey foods. The heat just makes the alcohol stand out more and then the wine seems even more unbalanced.

For heat look for wines with moderate alcohol, bright fruity flavors, low tannin and a little sweetness.

[Rebel Rose]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's terrific that there are all kinds of styles of wines out there and I don't think it's fair to take a particular style out of context and then say it's a bad trend and the California wine industry is self-destructing.

Thank you. Must have been a slow news day at Wine Business Monthly. . .

But seriously, it is a silly trend right now. I mean, we make comparatively high alcohol wines, 13-14%, but I've tasted recent zins that approach 17% and taste prunier than our zinfandel port! Blech.

(Although it seems the wine industry is always getting something wrong--a few years ago it was overoaked and overbuttered chardonnays.)

And Brad is right about balance, of course. I love low, high, dry, sweet, white and red wines. For me, it's all about varietal character.

Here in Paso, we have a long, warm growing season and it's very easy to get fruit ripe. Just the opposite of many European countries. (Although our average temperatures are cooler than the southern Rhone, but then who isn't?) Our difficulty is that autumn is generally warm too, and late season heat can jump Brix up quickly. Grapes can be 22 one day, and suddenly poof! through the roof two days later. Zinfandel, which must be picked quite ripe and will have a few raisins, is particularly susceptible. Another potential difficulty is that ripe fruit may measure 23 Brix just after crushing, but after fermenting or cold soaking for two days, the Brix can jump up alarmingly because any raisins in the crop will rehydrate and release more sugar. An experienced winemaker knows to anticipate this and watch the vineyards closely during harvest.

So I look at these over-alcohol wines as inexperienced and sloppy winemaking. And a put-it-in-the-bottle-the-masses-will-buy-it-anyway attitude.

Mind you, I'm talking about the 15-17% prune bombs here.

We still love our 12-14% alcohol wines. As long as the zins sing pepper, pepper, pepper, and syrahs sound like Hall of the Mountain King, I'm happy!

Another thought in this argument is, why not? We simply have warmer

temperatures in CA (and Australia) than they do in France and other parts of

the world. Why should we pick the grapes before they're really ripe just to

imitate the Old World style? Isn't it more of a "purist" California style to

make these wines ripe and fruit-centric?

And to support Julia'sChild's comment, here's a interview with Stefan Asseo of L'Aventure by the LA Times. Although I completely disagree with his comment about zin, of course! He's happy as a pig in slop to be making wine in a warmer climate, and his wines are just as bold as anyone else's here.

[Brad Ballinger]

For me, it's all about varietal character.

I knew we'd be hearing from you, Mary.

But I have a question about this comment of yours that will undoubtedly take this thread in an entirely different direction. I don't know if we will ever have a meeting of the minds on it, and that's okay. But what is true varietal character? And who decides? How can you take terroir out of the equation entirely? I'm sure one response is that certain terroir contributes to true varietal character, but that's having it both ways IMO.

Okay, it's more that one question, but...

Oh, and that 2003 Hanson Vineyard Viognier of yours is 15%.

[Julia'sChild]

Whenever I hear someone asking about true varietal character, I usually find myself shrugging my shoulders and saying "eh".

It's not that I'm a fan of innocuous, homogenized wines--believe me, I'm getting sick of tasting blah white wines with nothing but oak on them and finding out it's supposed to be Viognier. Or dilute, uninspiring wines that bear the name Merlot.

But I've met enough winemakers to really come to appreciate the different perspectives it comes to making really quality wine. Sometimes it's all about terrior--those winemakers who call themselves winegrowers and drop to the ground to run dirt between their fingers when they talk about the soil. Their emphasis is on place.

Others are having fun blending and experimenting. The kind that get all wide-eyed and excited about co-fermenting Pinot Noir and Syrah and show you where they hide the barrels that the imported from Russia or China. The mad scientist guy who wants to transcend their own knowledge and skills. Their emphasis is on pushing the envelope.

There are others that just want to make the best frickin wine they can and will spare no expense to try to find the most radical, extreme, gentle way to make wine--in gold-lined tanks, no less (not even making this up). Their emphasis is on quality.

Then there are winemakers who just love a grape. (it's often a Burgundy nut who fell in love with Pinot Noir) and will moan and tear their hair out because they feel there is an Aristotle-like ideal, some sort of Jungian archetype that lives inside each soul of a grape. These are the people who are trying to find the holy grail of varietal character. They may or may not subscribe to ideals about terrior or experimentation or quality. They may be doing things simply because of tradition.

So I think it's unfair to evaluate the mad scientist winemaker or the terrior winemaker or the no-expenses barred winemaker with the soul who believes they are a purist in winemaking traditions. Of course, it's more complicated than that--winemakers are not that delineated.  The mad scientist may also have access to resources to push the level of quality. The traditionalist may be a terrior-ist. And there are many other ways to look at winemaking. I’m just trying to simplify things for the sake of discussion.

So, when I hear about someone who is horrified because they recently tried (Pinot is such an easy example here) a new world Pinot Noir that tasted absolutely nothing like a Burgundy--well, there I go shrugging my shoulders again. So what? Was it a good wine? As with art, you may never know what the winemaker’s (artist’s) intentions were, of if they achieved them, but there is value enough, I believe, in trying something that blows your mind a little bit. Certainly, these will be some of our most memorable wine experiences.

[jbonne]

For heat look for wines with moderate alcohol, bright fruity flavors, low tannin and a little sweetness.

quite agree. in the back of my head, i keep hearing a little voice saying, "Riesling and Thai, Riesling and Thai."

though for acidic spice, those light Italian reds are perfect.

[jbonne]

But what is true varietal character?  And who decides?

the many faces of syrah alone seem to make this one impossible to answer. ditto pinot grigio/pinot gris.

and in the "no accounting for taste" department, there's the matter of over-oaking viognier, an unfortunately common practice these days. we were drinking a bottle of just that last night when my co-taster looked up and said, "well, it's a nice chardonnay." i thought she was being charitable.

[Rebel Rose]

For me, it's all about varietal character.

But what is true varietal character? And who decides? How can you take terroir out of the equation entirely? I'm sure one response is that certain terroir contributes to true varietal character, but that's having it both ways IMO.

What, me? An opinion? God forbid.

This is an interesting question, and you're right, it would make an interesting thread in its own right. I'm not sure I have an answer, even, but I do know what I've been taught to look for. I think of the core flavors of each varietal as being the basic varietal character. I don't really think of terroir as affecting that much--in fact, I believe it shouldn't--but I do believe that terroir affects the expression of varietal character, so they go hand in hand. Varietal character is the little black dress, terroir is the choice of shoe--a little black dress with ballet flats or with fu-me shoes. Elegance and restraint vs. sensuality and daring. Everything else is an accessory. Some accessories are magic, and some just don't work at all.

So, to bring it back to zinfandel, there are conservative zins, and there are Mae West zins, and part of the allure for zinfanatics is the extreme versatility of this grape, but I feel that all zins should have a strong raspberry/black pepper profile first. Without that, it might be a nice wine, but I would think it's not varietally accurate. After that, I can usually guess whether the wine came from a cooler or warmer climate, whether it's dryfarmed or not, and sometimes the precise region, based on the terroir and winemaking style of that region. That's where the whole terroir thing gets really confusing, because winemakers in a particular region tend to gravitate toward certain techniques that they find best expresses their fruit--and since 90% of a wine's quality is based on the vineyard, the winemaking style is often the most successful menu of methods for dealing with a particular terrain's challenges. I like the word 'terroir' though, and my favorite definitions place man squarely inside the concept, not separated from the sun and soil, but part of the whole picture.

I recently blind tasted 23 syrahs, and was disappointed to find that only five in the group really stood up and shouted, "I am a Syrah!" Most lacked the bacon, licorice, blueberry profile that I look for from syrah, and I felt they were too cab-like.

Eh, I forgot about the viognier. It's usually high, but not THAT high. Oh well, I think I've drunk 1/3 of our inventory so it won't be around long enough to matter.

[CtznCane]

[

But seriously, it is a silly trend right now. I mean, we make comparatively high alcohol wines, 13-14%, but I've tasted recent zins that approach 17% and taste prunier than our zinfandel port! Blech.

So I look at these over-alcohol wines as inexperienced and sloppy winemaking. And a put-it-in-the-bottle-the-masses-will-buy-it-anyway attitude.

Mind you, I'm talking about the 15-17% prune bombs here.

We still love our 12-14% alcohol wines. As long as the zins sing pepper, pepper, pepper, and syrahs sound like Hall of the Mountain King, I'm happy!

[

I just took a quick peak at some of my Zins:Zin Alley, Rosenblum Richard Sauret Vineyard, Murphy-Goode Lars Dice, Frank Family VIneyards, Paradise Ridge, & Quivira. Only the Quivira, at 14.2 was under 15% To me none of these wines taste like alcohol. Though I've found quite a few lower% wines (not just zins) that to me taste like alcohol, or maybe it is just they don't have the fruit to back up the alcohol.

I consider myself lucky in that I enjoy all styles of wines. My SO is quite different and doesn't care for the spicy zins. (Of course I don't mind that since there is more left for me on those wines!) If the publc though did not enjoy these higher alcohol wines they wouldn't buy them. Does that mean their taste is 'bad' or 'unsophistcated'or that they just don't know wines? No, it means they are just different.

As to varietal character, that is another story. I still may like a varietal though it doesn't taste like I expected. I won't like it in terms of being a classic x,y, or z, but I may like it as just a pleasant wine to drink.

Case in point. I had a rouge champagne last sunday. 100 percen pinot. It had a lot of berry flavor to it. If I sit down to have a glass of champagne it wouldn't fit the bill. I did like it though for what it was and will drink it accordingly.

I do not know the answer to this, but why do I find low alcohol wines that taste like alcohol/gasohol when I can drink a huge alcohol wine and have no alcohol taste come across in it?

[LOS]

If the wines were so out of balance they would not sell and the producers would be forced to modify their techniques.

Nope. They are sold and drunk as "cocktail wines" and trophies and wines to win tastings. The more out of balance they are, the better they serve these purposes.

Indeed, it is many European producers who are modifying their style to compete.

I think the big reds zinfindels go extremely well with spicy foods and beef dishes.

If that works for you, cool. But I don't know many people who do like that pairing; a touch of sweetness and high acidity is the classic match. Or beer.

Perhaps their is some snob appeal to drinking European (read French)  wines and they simply are not competing as well against the Californians.  Especially in the $10 to $15 "table" priced wines.  For everyday table wines they simply cannot compete in price, quality and taste- especially with the Euro being so high against the dollar.

I'll ignore the ad hominem and get on to the substance of what you said -- in fact, you've got it exactly reversed. There are precious few wines coming out of CA that can compete with the vast sea of better-made cheapies from France, Spain, Italy. And nothing at all that can compete with sub-$15 (even these days) wines like the Clos des Briords Muscadet, or the Coudert Clos de la Roilette Fleurie.

Last night I opened an $11.90 (net) JP Brun Beaujolais. It was very very nice.

Edited July 30, 2004 by Craig Camp (log)

[jbonne]

I do not know the answer to this, but why do I find low alcohol wines that taste like alcohol/gasohol when I can drink a huge alcohol wine and have no alcohol taste come across in it?

there's certainly plenty of unbalanced low-alcohol stuff out there that's showing its alcohol because there's nothing else there, or else the gasohol taste comes from plain lousy grapes. and there's some very good high-alcohol stuff that doesn't taste terribly alcoholic because it's balanced (as balanced as it can be).

to that end, i don't know that i have a de facto bias against high alcohol; i just have found plenty of high-alcohol stuff that isn't pleasant to drink while i'm dining -- which isn't to say it tastes bad. it's just not food wine.

[ctgm]

I have a friend who makes wine in Argentina and he is regularly getting over 15% (pinot, CS, Merlot, Malbec). Short of adding water what is he supposed to do to lower the alcohol? If he picks to get 12.5% then the fruit would not be ripe. These guys are not doing late harvesting but it is the natural level of alcohol when the grapes are ripe.

I think that a lot of new vineyards have been planted in areas where the high alcohol comes when the grapes are ripe.

[GoodEater]

If the wines were so out of balance they would not sell and the producers would be forced to modify their techniques.

Nope. They are sold and drunk as "cocktail wines" and trophies and wines to win tastings. The more out of balance they are, the better they serve these purposes.

Indeed, it is many European producers who are modifying their style to compete.

I think the big reds zinfindels go extremely well with spicy foods and beef dishes.

If that works for you, cool. But I don't know many people who do like that pairing; a touch of sweetness and high acidity is the classic match. Or beer.

Perhaps their is some snob appeal to drinking European (read French)  wines and they simply are not competing as well against the Californians.  Especially in the $10 to $15 "table" priced wines.  For everyday table wines they simply cannot compete in price, quality and taste- especially with the Euro being so high against the dollar.

I'll ignore the ad hominem and get on to the substance of what you said -- in fact, you've got it exactly reversed. There are precious few wines coming out of CA that can compete with the vast sea of better-made cheapies from France, Spain, Italy. And nothing at all that can compete with sub-$15 (even these days) wines like the Clos des Briords Muscadet, or the Coudert Clos de la Roilette Fleurie.

Last night I opened an $11.90 (net) JP Brun Beaujolais. It was very very nice.

I knew that I could get some people on a roll. I was being a provocateur to stir things up. I am really a wine novice (as I'm sure you can all tell from my simplistic posts) but I really am learning a great deal as I have been reading the wine forum over the last few months. Please forgive me because I have a "New Jersey" sense of humor- I can't help it as I was born here.

[Rebel Rose]

Good for you! I love it when someone jiggles the boat.

[Brad Ballinger]

I have a friend who makes wine in Argentina and he is regularly getting over 15% (pinot, CS, Merlot, Malbec). Short of adding water what is he supposed to do to lower the alcohol? If he picks to get 12.5% then the fruit would not be ripe. These guys are not doing late harvesting but it is the natural level of alcohol when the grapes are ripe.

I think that a lot of new vineyards have been planted in areas where the high alcohol comes when the grapes are ripe.

I don't have an answer for this, except that I'm a little surprised that growers in other parts of the world harvestripe fruit and make balanced wines with 13.5% (or lower) alcohol. Likely, the plot (valley floor or hillside) as something to do with it. Maybe they're mislabeling the alcohol percentage, which has been known to happen. I'd love to hear from a grower on this issue because I'm totally clueless and wouldn't mind being enlightened.

My experience with some wines from Argentina is that they are 15% alcohol and there is still an off-putting amount of residual sugar in the finished wine. Now that's too ripe for me.