A question about clarity

[Wycroft]

Forumites, I have a query: to what degree does the clarity of a red wine matter to you?

Aside from any general thoughts, I’d be interested in comments based on the chain of events that has led to my asking the question.

A friend of mine grows pinot noir and he raised the following issue with me. He submitted a bottle of a recent vintage for evaluation to a noted wine critic. The critic responded thus:

Soft and charming pinot noir, with seductive scents of wild strawberry, red cherry and plum. Subtle, yet powerful with a silken texture and considerable length. It will no doubt develop greater complexity with bottle age but is drinking so well now that keeping it will require considerable restraint. 90 points.

Good news, he thought, but soon after the following email arrived:

I tasted the wine in a room that was fairly dark then noticed that the wine is unacceptably cloudy when I took it upstairs. I’m afraid I’ll have to knock a few points off for being out of condition. I wonder whether the wine might be fermenting in the bottle. If not it really should have been properly fined and filtered.

My friend has been in touch with his winemaker, who thinks the comment about the wine possibly fermenting in the bottle is absurd. He also says there have been no concerns about colour or clarity from local retailers, their buyers, restaurant clients or the wine’s UK importer, who reports that the vintage in question is hugely popular with his buyers.

Indeed, as the critic alludes, the wine is clearly labeled as neither filtered nor fined. This, the grower says, is because his winemaker believes fining and filtration strip a lot of character out of pinot noir, and he tends to agree.

I guess my question is this: the critic clearly enjoyed the wine, so barring it actually being really opaque (at which point one would expect there would have been comment from other quarters), should it be marked down as faulty?

[Matthew Moate]

Interesting news. I have had similar reviews on a Barossa shiraz I retail which I do think is fairly mirky. But as you will see it is approached very differently from each reviewer that has been kind enough to give it a go:

..............................

Review 1

The bouquet shows off-sweet dark fruit notes with hints of dusty oak, blackberry and black pepper. A muscular-weight, firm and solid wine with noticeable dusty tannins; the acid is fresh but the fruit appears to be slightly under ripe. With sour black plum on the uptake followed by hints of black pepper and chocolate, it finishes with sappy tannins. The brand has potential and could be one to watch.

Review 2

Good strong colour. Aromas of plum and berries with a bit of pepper and spice backed with perfumed dill/dried mint and coconut oak. On the palate medium bodied with flavours of plum, tart berries, spice and minty oak. It has some astringent slightly green tannins and sappy acidity but on the positive side it is quite refreshing. Falls away on the back palate. Best with a BBQ and lively conversation.


Review 3

Deep, murky purple colour. Soft nose of a hot summer's day, dark ripe berries with hints of anise and crushed granite. But there's a touch of alcohol that jarrs the nose. Quite smooth going into the mouth, with clear plum flavours on the mid palate. I think flavour-wise, it's a relative lightweight, and I feel that this could be bigger and bolder. A big wine does not mean a brute and can still retain elements of elegance. There is room to pack in more tannins, to give it a more robust structure. Up to this point, it's a good drink and it was in the aftertaste that left me disappointed as it was weak and left me with an empty feel

Review 4

...Inky dark purple but slightly cloudy, this Shiraz smells distinctly of the Barossa with dark plum and cherry fruit aromas, a hint of chocolate and some dusty earthyness. Full flavoured and well balanced, tart dark fruits and spices are complemented nicely by chewy fine tannins and hints of charry oak...

.......................

So I don't think that necessarily your friend should be penalised for this style and each reviewer will place their own importance on this aspect of the wine. And hey, after all that's why we send the wine out, to see someone elses opinion.

In terms of fermenting in the bottle I wouldn't think this is the case and most people could pick this...

[TORB]

A few points.

Firstly a review is nothing more than one persons opinion on a particular day - no more or no less.

It is subjective, not objective.

If you are going to use the 100 point system then you have to put up the negatives as well positives.

I have had heaps of red wine that is unfiltered and unfined, and I cant remember many of them being noticeably cloudy.

Reviewing wine has nothing to do with weather the critic enjoyed the wine or not. It is about judging the inherent qualities of what is in the glass.

Bottle variation does happen and it is possible the reviewers bottle was cloudier than the norm.

In Matthews Review Number 1 above, I did notice the lack of clarity, but as the wine was rated as Acceptable with *** but given the already not exactly glowing comments, there was no need to "put the boot in" as there were other more important short comings.

If a basically good wine is cloudy, it is a technical fault and deserves to be treated accordingly.

(Brian is sneaking up - he only has 4 to go!)

[Wycroft]

Thanks guys.

Torb, I suspect there may be something in the suggestion that the critic got an off bottle, from a clarity perspective anyway. I understand the winemaker opened and checked numerous bottles following this feedback and found no cloudiness.

Good points too, as ever.

Cheers.

[Gary W]

Colour not really that important (with pinot) although clear and pretty is best. Reviewer sounds like one of those arse clenching wine show types but the question is if they are so concerned about colour why would they taste in a dark room when forming an opinion? Bit amateur.

On the other lot - Review 3 is odd! Looks like they are wishing the wine to be a different style than the one presented. i.e. 'I want Barossa shiraz to be heavier. This is my expectation and therefore not what I want. ' The problem is with green tannins - adding more won't fix it.

GW

[Gavin Trott]

Had a few Bass Phillips Pinots, especially the Villages, noticeably cloudy.

Noticeably cloudy, and quite delicious.

So for me, unless re fermenting, not a problem.

Although, a bright clear wine does look pretty in the glass!

[Red Bigot]

Noticeably cloudy, and quite delicious.

You've been drinking too much Coopers!

[Craig(NZ)]

Reviewing wine has nothing to do with weather the critic enjoyed the wine or not. It is about judging the inherent qualities of what is in the glass.

disagree, if the weather is sunny you seem to enjoy cool whites more (people in glasshouses and all im not commenting on spelling anymore hehe)

jokes aside, i review wines based on whether i personally enjoy them. not gonna get into reviewing on a technical basis in a heartless souless way. if i really enjoy and am impressed by a wine it gets a great write up and great score (out of 109 of course). Bias in my reviews? you bet! Do I care? Not in the slightest

[Gregoire]

Cloudy might just mean sediment.

Bass Phillip is a fine example. The sediment in them thar pinots is very, very fine. Disturb the bottle, and hey presto.

I find that if I drag a bottle from horizontal and pour, there's often a noticeable cloudiness. But if I stand upright for two days, then carefully decant, it's as clear as a bell.

And when a wine is "cloudy", I often find it more bitter than when it's been properly decanted.

[river]

If a wine is to be critiqued then any inherent faults will count against the final score, colour and appearance are always part of the final result.

Are wine writers biased towards certain styles, most definately, all we ask is that they be consistent so if need be we can use the information to assist in purchasing decisions.

[Craig(NZ)]

Are wine writers biased towards certain styles, most definately, all we ask is that they be consistent so if need be we can use the information to assist in purchasing decisions.

absolutely

its a good idea that a writer knows what they like and tries to communicate it clearly to give people a basis. hopefully everyone knows for example that parker loves fruit bombs. if you dont like fruit bombs then why complain about his scoring? go shop off your own palate!

Again maybe a few know that i like elegant complex bdx reds, zany off dry rieslings, subtle pinots, compact and brooding syrah etc etc

If a wine is to be critiqued then any inherent faults will count against the final score, colour and appearance are always part of the final result.

The biggest fault I find in a wine is the 'i dont like it' fault, which may be driven by technical problems or purely stylistic preferences.

[SueNZ]

A friend of mine grows pinot noir and he raised the following issue with me. He submitted a bottle of a recent vintage for evaluation to a noted wine critic. The critic responded thus: ........

Hmm, not many noted kiwi wine critics that dish out points on the 100 point system rather than medals or scores based on 20 point system, or stars. A popular critic that people like to send wine to with a downstairs tasting / evaluation / work room and upstairs for enjoying wines later. Rather narrows down who the critic could be.

In the 20 point show system the colour and clarity are only worth 3 points. Clarity is a very minor component. I still can't work out how the 'points' system works, but wonder how many points were 'knocked off'. That second email sounds a bit odd, IMO.

Furthermore, what would a blind man have thought. The same as the critic in the dark room, or a consumer in a dark restaurant. Probably.

I remember writing about a Pinot Noir that was so light and see-through, it was lighter than Esk Valley Rose in appearance. But a blind man would have loved the wine for its pinosity of flavour, texture and length. Of course, the wine never did better than a bronze in wine shows. It was just too light. I used the blind man analogy in my review, as I enjoyed the wine very much. It was nice to drink, and that really is the bottom line.

[river]

Under the 100 point system colour and general appearence are 5 points so 2 points could be knocked off for a cloudy wine.

Just depends how you use the system, I'm more comfortable with 100 points I think it should be standardised internationally though.

[Gary W]

Under the 100 point system colour and general appearence are 5 points so 2 points could be knocked off for a cloudy wine.

Are they? I am not aware of anyone who uses it that way.
GW

[river]

Under the 100 point system colour and general appearence are 5 points so 2 points could be knocked off for a cloudy wine.

Are they? I am not aware of anyone who uses it that way.
GW

Parker.

[Gary W]

You can bet he does not use it that way.
GW

[river]

You can bet he does not use it that way.
GW

Got the book in front of me.

Every wine gets a base of 50 points.

General colour and appearance merit up to 5 points.

Aroma and bouquet up to 15 points.

Flavour and finish up to 20 points.

Overall quality and potential for further development up to 10 points.

[Gary W]

I know. But it is not how he would apply it. He would taste and then just go...' that's 89'
GW

[river]

I know. But it is not how he would apply it. He would taste and then just go...' that's 89'
GW

Haha there is no doubt.

[KMP]

I know. But it is not how he would apply it. He would taste and then just go...' that's 89'
GW

Haha there is no doubt.

According to his biography (by McCall) a number just forms in Parker's head. But the numerical scoring mentioned is correct from his website, where he also says that he tastes blind!


In terms of color and clarity, I'm from the old school and score both, and I do think about it when I write down the scores. However winemaking these days removes all the old problems that used to lower a score. I rarely score a wine down but that does not mean that color should be ignored; a young wine stored or shipped (esp. across the pacific) improperly may have a faded color which should be noted and scored appropriately.

I seem to remember reading somwhere that unnatural colors like blue and green did not generate positive responses from consumers.

In terms of Pinot we compared a Moorooduc and a TerraVin last week and the color difference was obvious. If you were a real hard nose you could have argued that the TerraVin looked more like Shiraz than Pinot and graded it down on that, but that would be inappropriate - I do know someone who was a wine judge who would probably do that; in Zinfandel tastings he has marked a wine down based on its color not being typical for the region.

Mike

[beef]

Ummm... isn't wine a smelly beverage that's meant to be taken orally? Who gives a toss what it looks like?

I would no more enjoy staring at a glass of wine, than I would enjoy eating a penthouse magazine.

Stuart

[tarraleah]

Ummm... isn't wine a smelly beverage that's meant to be taken orally? Who gives a toss what it looks like?

I would no more enjoy staring at a glass of wine, than I would enjoy eating a penthouse magazine.

Stuart

The problem I have with your analogy, is that its a bit like saying it doesn't matter what the outside of your house looks like; it's the inside where one lives. Most people think presentation matters. Clarity has an aesthetic appeal. The operations to achieve clarity might sometimes strip colour and character from the wine but this remains a debatable issue, I understand.