Poll: What alcohol level do you want in your vino?

[David Lole]

Good People,

Thought this poll might engender some healthy debate on a topic dear to my heart. The recent trend towards (much) higher A/V levels in Aussie reds worries me and on a case by case basis some (e.g. Warrabilla) carry it better than others. Without nitpicking, my preferences (in a perfect world) of the wines I cellar/drink would go, roughly, as follows:

Champagne - 12.5 %
Hunter Semillon - 10%
Riesling - 12%
German Riesling (Spatlese and up) - 8%
Chardonnay - 13%
Pinot Noir - 13%
Cabernet - 12.5%
Shiraz - 13.5%
Fortifieds - 18%

Feel free to add any other styles/varieties that you consider worth mentioning.

So what do you think? Do you look at the A/V levels when you buy/drink your favoured wines? Does anyone think higher A/V levels equates to shorter life spans? Do you enjoy a hot finish?

Would be interested to hear your views.

[Lincoln]

These look fine to me David.

[Tim S.]

Good People,

So what do you think? Do you look at the A/V levels when you buy/drink your favoured wines? Does anyone think higher A/V levels equates to shorter life spans? Do you enjoy a hot finish?

Would be interested to hear your views.

A/V levels are totally irrelvant to me and the only time I would look if is there is some "hotness" in the wine or when reading the label. What drives me to a wine is quality first and foremost. I've loved wines at differing ends of the spectrum re: A/V levels.

I'm with Drew Noon MW on the myth of high A/V = short maturation time. What determines longevity is fruit, tannin and oak not A/V levels. He reckons when u have big fruit, oak and tannin and acidity u NEED high alcohol to provide the texture and coating. He doesn't think it is ONLY a function of ripeness levels dictating A/V levels. The porty Bordeaux vintages like 1947 and Pomerol in 1970 and 1975 are still drinking beautiful according to Drew, Parker and most fortunate tatsters who have had the opportunity to taste them (alas unfortunately not me). The 1st Three Rivers and Duck Muck's from 1991-2 are all still in their prime apparently and these hit 17-18% A/V levels.

I know that my early 90s Greenock Creek's and 1995 Noon Solaires are still still drinking strongly (last tasted July 2003).

I don't like hot finishes either - to me this is a fault - not enought fruit. In quality wines, it should not be an issue. Can anyone honestly say that wines like RunRig, Roennfeldt Road, Duck Muck and Three Rivers will not go the distance (say 10-15 years)? This also does not include the fact that if you have a perfect cellar of 12-16C, it won't be an issue anyway as anywine will go the distance (but will it get any better is the more pertinent question IMO).

[markg]

Good People,

The recent trend towards (much) higher A/V levels in Aussie reds worries me....

Correct me if I m wrong, but wasn't alot of the more classic Australian wines of the 50's and 60's (that are still drinking nicely today) high in alcohol ? And wasn't this same topic discussed in many of the magazines and papers of the 70's or 80's, lamenting the high alcohol content of some of the more popular wines ?

[GraemeG]

Can anyone honestly say that wines like RunRig, Roennfeldt Road, Duck Muck and Three Rivers will not go the distance (say 10-15 years)?

There's an interesting thread running on Squires' board about collapsing 94 & 95 Clarendon Hills wines. I think people make the mistake of thinking that just because the very greatest of wines (the famous 47 Cheval Blanc) might have been 14%+, then high alcohol is one of the parameters for aging. It's simply not true IMO. I don't think freak vintages should serve as the model on a yearly basis.

Certainly in this country I've not tasted an old, high alcohol wine that was a knock-me-over experience. (At least, knock-me-over in the correct sense!) But I've had 'low alcohol' ones that were. The 83 Bin 707 is a glorious wine right now, and it weighs in at 11.2%. It's dangerous to generalise, but I've had plenty of high alcohol wines that, to me, simply don't work. 2001 Jasper Hill Georgia's was something like 15.5%, and it was plain hot. I've even tasted a few months ago a Cowra verdelho (14.5%) from which the first glass was very tasty but after that I had no desire for any more.

Maybe some regions can do it - perhaps those with experience of old Rutherglen durifs might like to weigh in here? But a place like Coonawarra I think produces it's best below 14.5%. And I suspect that Margaret River at 14%+ is new territory as well. What is Moss Wood doing these days?

I think Croser and Oliver have a point with their 'dead fruit' comments...

cheers,
Graeme

[Red Bigot]

David,

I'm a lot more tolerant of high a/v than many, perhaps from many years of spicy hot food and drinking neat brandy / malt whisky. I don't find many wines that others describe as 'hot' to have that impression for me.

I don't particularly take a/v into consideration when buying a wine, if I try it and like it enough to buy, it will slot into the appropriate drinking profile in my cellar depending on the complete characteristics of the particular red. As some of the others have said, I've also had some heavenly mature reds of both high (16.5%+) and low (around 12.0%) a/v and I've had some of both that didn't turn out as hoped/expected.

As I aim more for wines of around 8-10 years to maturity for my taste, 15-20 year longevity is of little importance to me, and becomes of even less relevance with every year of advancing age.

[Davo]

Alcohol content? Who gives a fat rat's back end?

If the wine is in balance and I like it I could not give a stuff about levels of ethanol. And to say it won't age well because of a high a/v level is pure bunkum. I have had many NE Victoria, and indeed Barossan reds over the years with a/v greater than those quoted above at over 15 years of age that were drinking superbly, and quite a few over 25 years that were also still doing just fine, if you like bucket loads of licorice and leather.

Just my 2c

[Noel]

Interesting views. From a consumers point of view i am not interested. Balance is as many people have said is the key word. I want flavour and complexity, and this only comes from flavour ripe grapes. From a winemaking point of view certainly in the Barossa, it is a question of yield and ripeness. Long hang time is important. Quite frankly Barossa Shiraz only becomes interesting at 13.5% potential and in reality dependent on vintage 14-15% potential will give the most flavour. Late ripening varieties like Grenache desperately need ripeness to give colour and flavour. Again 14%+ is a must. This however is the Barossa, the first Malcolm we made came in at 17.2% and was bottled at 16.7% it is drinking extremely well now showing no hotness. This however is the exception rather than the rule, this was a great vineyard, the fruit was super ripe but healthy. I think too many wineries picked too ripe in 1998 and you really can see the heat and rasin/prune like characters-dead fruit.
BALANCE is everything! Hunter Semillon would be disastrous at 13%+ for example. I tend to drink wines fairly high in alcohol but well chosen. Take Italy for example. Producers are picking their fruit riper. Previously searingly high acid Barbera at 12-13% is now coming in at 13.5%-14.5% and the wines are spectacular-so well balanced. However South Africa is aping Australia and we are seeing many hot unbalanced 15%+ wines...
Impossible to generalise. However i shall not be stocking up on too many sub 13.5% Australian Shiraz!!!

[Phil Shorten]

David

I think Noel has it in one - balance in the key. Over the past year two of the best wines I've tasted have been a Gruner Veltliner from Austria weighing in at 15% and a dry Furmint produced by Istvan Szepsy which weighs in at near enough to 15%. The 1998 Grosset Polish Hill is also a very healthy 13.5%. However, in all cases, the wines were in balance, with sufficient fruit and acidity to carry the alcohol.

To Noel's example of S African wines hitting alcohol levels they can't carry I would add some of the new wave wines coming out of Spain, in particular, Priorat. While there's some really good (and often expensive stuff) coming from this part of the world, some seem to be excessively alcoholic "Parker point chasing" wines.

Cheers
Phil

[markg]

However i shall not be stocking up on too many sub 13.5% Australian Shiraz!!!

Actually Noel, the 2000 Greenock Creek 7 acre weighs in at around 12.5% and (when we had it the other night with Gavin, Steve, etc.) it was certainly no lightweight.

[Noel]

It's all about physiological ripeness. Maybe Greenock were lucky in the difficult 2000 vintage and got sugar and flavour without excessive alcohol. It can ceratinly happen but i am sure you will agree this is the exception rather than the rule and their are always anomalies. I was just generalising. By the way the wine in question must have evolved when i last tasted next to the 15% 2000 Alice's from Greenock-it seemed quite capsicum- like. good to see it has come round!

[markg]

It's all about physiological ripeness. Maybe Greenock were lucky in the difficult 2000 vintage and got sugar and flavour without excessive alcohol. It can ceratinly happen but i am sure you will agree this is the exception rather than the rule and their are always anomalies. I was just generalising. By the way the wine in question must have evolved when i last tasted next to the 15% 2000 Alice's from Greenock-it seemed quite capsicum- like. good to see it has come round!

It has. I opened a bottle in June and it seemed very subdued, although it opened up with elegance the next day. The wine I tasted on Saturday night was in another class entirely.

Actually, I found the 2000 Alice alot like the 1999 Creek Block .

Have you tried the latest 2002 Noons Eclipse yet? I think that is an excellent example of integration. The alcohol is high yet is in fantastic balance and adds to the experience rather than stands out as the main component.

[David Lole]

Greetings Mark G,

I've checked with a couple of my (older and wiser) drinking buddies re your comments on the 'classic' wines from the 50's and 60's and, to the best of their (fading) memories, alcohol levels were mostly in the 12.0 -13.5% range. Max Schubert's finest efforts over these decades were always in the 12.0% - 13.5%, I was told. Other top labels that picked reasonably early - Woodley's Treasure Chest, Wynns were mentioned as mostly being relatively low (as a general rule).

In fact, I have just received the A/V's of the two decades (in question) of Grange from Langtons as I type this post. Interesting set of numbers

1951 - 13.5
1952 - 13.6
1953 - 12.8
1954 - 13.2
1955 - 12.6
1956 - 13.0
1957 - 12.6
1958 - 12.6
1959 - 12.5
1960 - 12.8
1961 - 12.7
1962 - 12.2
1963 - 13.3
1964 - 12.8
1965 - 13.2
1966 - 13.4
1967 - 12.7
1968 - 12.1
1969 - 12.4
1970 - 11.5
1971 - 12.3

Hope this helps.

[markg]

Veeeeeeeeery interesting David.

I am sure there must have been a study done sometime to compare the various components (Alcohol etc) of the different vintages of the various classic wines to see if there was any correlation between these components and ageing.

[MartinC]

David,

Me think OZ should stick to what they do best being blessed by god given climatic cond. instead of trying to imitate the leaner cooler climate style.
Btw. the bordelais in Bordeaux were so impressed with hotter 2003, claimming it be like '47 which is norm in AUS 8 out of 10yrs.

If I wanted an elegant wine, I can choose fr the O'World.

Big Alc. wines have more viscousity(oily mouthfeel) as long as there r enough of other substances to balance it.
As for aging, alc along with tannins r important peservatives and I've seen enough rant stating big alc. wines doesnt aged well which is a fallacy.

Casas'99 Cabernet fr M.River is a damm good Cab, extremely varietal without any deadfruit characters despite of weighing in @ 16+%

[GraemeG]

...I've seen enough rant stating big alc. wines doesnt aged well which is a fallacy.

Casas'99 Cabernet fr M.River is a damm good Cab, extremely varietal without any deadfruit characters despite of weighing in @ 16+%

Martin, I'm not sure that offering a 1999 cabernet is suitable proof of "aging well"...

cheers,
Graeme

[kenzo]

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of balance stated here, I would prefer to have lower alcohol levels in the wines I drink - quite simply because of the affect it has on me. I have been really knocked about by some of the bruisers, and I'm by no means a light weight myself when it comes to drinking. Personally I think the levels David quoted are close to spot on for me, with the exception that I would also accept (not prefer) cabernet blends up to 13.5% and shiraz up to 14.5% at a push.

When I drink bigger or higher alcohol wines, I rarely pair them with food, but drink them mainly on their own (or occasionally with cheese). I think the "big" (in flavour or wieght) wines suit this style of drinking well.
When I drink wine with food I rarely go for the big bruisers, instead prefering more medium-bodied wines with the right set of flavours for the meal, and (importantly) the correct acid levels for the food in question.
I think the market is big enough to handle both styles, and I enjoy both but am moving towards the more medium bodied, less syrupy (both in sweetness and consistency) wines.

I don't believe that high-alcohol wines that are made to be aged with the appropriate balance of fruit, tannin, and acid in place will age any worse than lower alcohol examples with the same sort of balance.
I think Australian winemakers can make excellent examples of high alcohol yet well-balanced wines. The Wild Duck Ck Springflat shiraz is one that instantly springs to mind.

I said before that the market is big enough to handle both styles, however I do wish that some of the amazing fruit that is clearly going into the high-alc / blockbuster styles was channelled into a more medium-bodied style of wine (yes I know there are already some out there) - the result would be simply amazing.

Which leads me to a question for Noel who obvioulsy seems to know his stuff (are you the same Noel working/worked with Rolf or Michael T?) - is it possible for grapes to be physiologically ripe without reaching these high levels of baume? If so, what is done in the vineyard to achieve this?

Many thanks,

S.

[Noel]

Which leads me to a question for Noel who obvioulsy seems to know his stuff (are you the same Noel working/worked with Rolf or Michael T?)
Just to put you straight on this one. I co-own Magpie Estate with Rolf Binder and am actively involved in all aspects! Though Rolf is the winemaker.
I agree that not all wines should be bruisers. I often shy away from the 15%+ wines unless a few people are round to share. I would rather have 2 bottles of well balanced wine at 13-14.5% even though some of my favourite wines are 15%, balanced of course!!

[Guest in abbag]

Does fruit purity occour at 15%? Is is mainatained? No. You get caricature of fruit....super plum,raison, prune, heavy chocolate.....if you like these characters and the tannin is there with some acidity then maybe you'll like the balance. With cabernet you almost lose all varietal character(no bad thing?).

Check out the Granges of the old days, the Brilliant Balgownies at 12.5% with purity, vitality, intensity. How many wines at 15% have vitality and purity? They may have richness, volume, roundness and weight. If that turns you on more than varietal fruit expression and vineyard character then go for it.

Taste the Jasper Georgia's from 1986....brilliant wine aging well. Taste the late 1990s wines....round and weighty and sometimes hot....So what if they may age well for 15 years....are they as delicious as the power ripeness years?

And what do we consider delicious? 'Cos this is what wine should be.

Something you drink one glass of and are overwhelmed by or something refreshing and drinkable to the end of the bottle?

And what can you drive home on?

[edrobins]

David, while I agree with people's comments about balance (which is the key), I think your numbers are pretty close. Maybe it's age (mine, not the wine's!), but lower alcohol means I can drink a bit more of the marvellous stuff with paying the penalty next day!

[Red Bigot]

GIAB,

What's wrong with liking both low and high a/v wines? Or even liking mostly high a/v reds? Just because many people including yourself don't does not make it wrong for everyone, wine drinking is not a dictatorship or even a democracy, more like a state of anarchy of personal preference. You may wonder why people like some wines that you call 'caricatures', I wonder at the strangeness of those that obsessively follow the elusive pinot and/or drink thin ungenerous wines and call them 'elegant'.

I certainly have a mix of reds at all levels of alcohol from 12.0% to 17.5% in my cellar. I don't have many problems finding the right wine for my mood and the food we eat, sometimes it's an elegant mature 12.5% cab, sometimes it's a 15.5% shiraz blockbuster that fits the requirements.

I haven't had a hangover due to high a/v reds for many years, I think I've finally learned to pace my drinking and eating to avoid severe after effects, besides everyone knows good wine doesn't cause hangovers.

[Guest in a bag]

Nothing wrong at all.

Of course not. All types and styles are welcome.

It's just if you appreciate the talents and personality of Adam Gilchrist perhaps you may find the style and presentation of Shane Warne, despite his richness of character and scores, a little over the top and lacking grace, charm, grace and subtltey. And of course you can enjoy both but the deeper you search, thegreater you investigate the more you will settle on what suits your taste. And it seems to me it's pretty easy to settle on a refreshing character like Gilchrist as a more exciting character and cricketer than Warnie.

Perhaps those who gorge on McDonalds can claim that it holds equal grace with the fine cuisines respecting purity, intensity, complexity and preservation of inherent ingrediant value. Who can say they have no claim if we say shrivelled fruit expresses variety and place?

Perhaps you either get it or you don't.

But please, yes indeed, enjoy whatever you drink, all is valid, but some wines desire to express more than some others because of what has gone into them, both grape and thought. It is impossible to question, unless you argue Bin 65 is grown and made with the same objective in mind as d'Yquem.

GIAB (...nice touch, thanks)

[David Lole]

I wonder at the strangeness of those that obsessively follow the elusive pinot

Brian,

I didn't know you thought I was that strange

One day, my friend, one day.

[Davo]

GIAB

You start off with this:-

Nothing wrong at all.

Of course not. All types and styles are welcome.

Fill the middle with piffle posing as analogy and end up with:-

Perhaps you either get it or you don't.

Again asserting the superiority of any palate that agrees with yours and that the rest are either uneducated or stupid.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with alcohol levels.

Guest in a bag, I think it is time you got back in your box.

[David Lole]

To all those who have contributed to this discussion thus far,

Thank you.

As expected, a great diversity of views have been expressed on this subject with much vigour and, depending on how you see it, a varying degree of merit. I've gained a lot from it, hope you all have, too.

With all things wine, there will always be such a divergence of opinion, and so it should be. This is the beauty of the grape, with all its' fascinating variations, guises and nuances. Who can categorically state 'who' or 'what' is right or wrong, or, better or worse? Basically, it comes down to the old catchphrase - "it's not a matter of what (wine) you drink, just how much you like it." Taste every bottle you drink without the benefit of knowing the 'label' (and for the case of this argument, substitute 'alcohol level'), a lot of us may drastically change our opinions on many a 'fancied' wine that's 'hard to get 'and 'worth a small fortune'. But it may just come down to the cellaring, when you drink it, who and what you drink it with, what temperature etc. etc.

For me, the integral qualities of a wine relate to the basics - fruit and balance. If technology and intellectual hindsight can produce higher alcohol wines without the detriments that concern me, so be it. Such is the evolutionary nature of the medium. For the time being, I'll stick to the 'rough' parameters of my original post and be done with it, until someone comes up with a better set of numbers, that looks, smells and tastes better than what gives me the most pleasure I seek in the wine I like to drink.

Let the debate continue.............if that's what you want?

[Red Bigot]

Perhaps you either get it or you don't.

I think I get it. You don't agree what I was saying at all and think I should follow YOUR preferences, which are the one true way of experienced, sophisticated palates? How arrogant (and more bigoted then any red bigot) .

FWIW I do think SW is a boring oaf as well as a talented spinner, but your cricketing analogy has no relevance with wine preferences...

[Red Bigot]

I wonder at the strangeness of those that obsessively follow the elusive pinot

Brian,

I didn't know you thought I was that strange

One day, my friend, one day.

Strange? Why would I think a jolly green giant strange?

The "one day" encapsulates it all doesn't it? The eternal hope for that superlative pinot, undampened by the many potholes in the road to the holy grail. I'm too lazy to be such a masochist and not rich enough to afford the PN I do like.

[Red Bigot]

As expected, a great diversity of views have been expressed on this subject with much vigour and, depending on how you see it, a varying degree of merit. I've gained a lot from it, hope you all have, too.

David,

Coincidently a vocal minority of my Monday tasting group last night asked me to put on a bracket of 'the most alcoholic reds from my cellar'. This group fairly consistently ranks the wines with higher alcohol very highly. They recently bought heaps of the cleanskin Warrabilla Durif/Shiraz 2002 as a summer BBQ quaffer at about 15.5%.

Then occasionally a brilliant 13.0% Coonawarra or MR cabernet blows them out of the water...

[Lincoln]

Sheeesh, I haven't been here for a few days and was very surprised to see all the animated discussion. Reminds me of film I saw recently:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107050

Oops, forgot to add the smiley , coz that makes everything ok, doesn't it (There I go again!)

More seriously, I think it's agreed that balance is the key, and often a higher alcohol wine can be balanced because it has a truckload of fruit flavour to compensate. The question then is a personal one: do you want a truckload of fruit with your wine. And dressing this up with flowers and sophisication is condescending to say the least. Personally, I don't often eat rich meat meals nowadays, and unfortunately I have bought a lot of this style of wine that will have to be disposed of next few years.

[Red Bigot]

I don't often eat rich meat meals nowadays, and unfortunately I have bought a lot of this style of wine that will have to be disposed of next few years.

Linc,

I aspire to be a very old grumpy man, enjoying the wines in my cellar. Luckily my tastes in food and wine haven't changed that much in the last 10 years, I'm still very happy with what is in my cellar. I'm probably too old to change my habits now, health issues willing, so I'm continuing to buy whay I like now and can afford.

(Sipping on a 12.7% Aquila Estate MR Cabernet 1995 that is doing pretty well at 8 yo for a cheapy)