Old style rot gut versus modern plonk

[TORB]

Hi Good Peoples,

I went to a wedding on Friday night at the Manly Pacific Hotel. Everything was great except for the wine. The place looked first class, the food was not only edible it was very good, veges cooked to perfection etc but the wine..... OK lets face reality here, you don't expect great wine at these things for a number of reasons.

Firstly it costs a fortune.
Secondly the young people there are out to drink as much as possible.
Thirdly Marion and I were probably the only ones who would have noticed the difference so I am not criticising the hosts (my sister and brother-in-law) but posted this as background to the central point of this post.

The wine served, red, c-through and bubbles was all Lindemans - the stuff that sells for about $7 a bottle in the bottle shop.

I had one sip of the red and at that stage had no idea what the wine was but here are my thoughts. Ample weight, full of fruit, soft, easy drinking to the point of beyond being a crowd pleaser, no discernible tannins, plum and blackberry fruit flavours but the thing that struck me most was the residual sugar sweetness at the end. The soft drink I had after tasting the wine was not as sweet.

So on the positive side its full of fruit and easy drinking. On the negative side its a bit flabby, has no character and bloody sweet. BTW, I thought it was a Merlot, Cabernet Shiraz blend but it turned out to be a Shiraz Cabernet blend.

If I think back to the plonk served at wedding in days gone by, the wines tended to be very harsh with rough tannins and frequently green and not very attractive.

Micro oxygenation, oak staves, reverse osmosis and a host of industrial manufacturing techniques are employed to manufacture wines like these now but are these wines better than their predecessors?

If you are the average Joe or Jane wine drinker that drinks casks or only drinks wine occasionally then I am willing to bet that 98% of the wine drinking population would think so; therefor the wine companies are on a winner and so is the general public. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective I am one of the 2% and from that position, plonk is still plonk!

What do you guys think?

[ChrisH]

I don't think anyone would disagree that techniques in the vineyard and winery have evolved over time, and the bottom-level wines have improved as a result.

Must admit I curse every time I go to a function and spot the Lindemans catering range being served - sound but just boring

regards
Chris

[Wizz]

I paid $165 a head for a Chirstmas Lunch at a 5 star hotel last year, and also found the same Lindemands Catering range being served.

I think these have come a long way for their price point, and are a big improvement on the cr@p you once got served at this level. Soft and flabby, yes. The bubbles in this range is sweet and very spumante like, but pleases the crowd (it was in fact a good drink on a 33 degree odd Christmas day!).

Thumbs up from me, but I wont be looking to pick any up for the cellar...

cheers

AB

[Kieran]

I had the same Lindemans red at a set-menu dinner recently...I think it would be handy if I need my oven cleaned. I was wondering if it might be actually capable of removing red wine stains.

Looking forward to getting a kitchen again so we can get back into dinner parties and decent stuff from the cupboard.

Kieran

[GraemeG]

Well, 2 issues here. Yes, plonk has just changed its nature. It used to be rough (mostly before my time), but these days it's just bland but sweet. It does often retain that thinned-out quality, but that's exaggerated I think because although the sugar gives the wine some body, it does nothing for the length of the finish. Mind you, even some wines more expensive than those Lindemans specials carry a heap of sugar, even if the fruit is a little better - the Wyndham 444/555 range comes to mind.

The second issue is the struggle for a wine lover who's getting married. What do you do? We were faced with around 100 guests to water, and I couldn't bear the thought of feeding everyone swill - and we really couldn't afford to serve the sort of wines I thought appropriate in the right quantity. We cheated, in a way, by having a breakfast wedding. 8.45 at the church, and then all sitting down just after 10am at a decent Sydney hotel for a big buffet breakfast. Thus we were able to ditch the beer, the spirits, pretty well everything except bubbly. I had previously examined the sparkling wines on offer on the hotel's own list, and just couldn't take at the prices. Fleur de Lys nv at $30?? They had other options, but the value-for-money didn't really improve until you got to Moet @ $110. But they would allow corkage for the extortionate sum of $16/bottle. Doing the sums still made it for me, so we shipped in 18 magnums of NZ Deutz nv which fitted the bill very nicely. (I was interested to see if they would still only charge $16 corkage each - no-such-luck! $32! But still, overall, a better wine for a better price).

Ric, sorry to hear about your suffering!

cheers,
Graeme

[Adair]

Any Australian red wine that I can notice residual sugar within in unequivocally, unarguably and unforgivingly CRAP!

I don't care if they use micro-this, reserve that, woodchips here, praying to the moon-gods there, residual sugar totally disarms an Australian red wine of its ability to show character and disallows its flavours to shineÂ… and I donÂ’t care if it is a $5 or $50 wine.

I have yet to find an exception to this rule, at least where my palate is concerned.

Kind regards,
Adair

[TORB]

I have yet to find an exception to this rule, at least where my palate is concerned.

Two word mate "sparkling shiraz"

[TORB]

I have yet to find an exception to this rule, at least where my palate is concerned.

Two words mate "sparkling shiraz"

[Adair]

I have yet to find an exception to this rule, at least where my palate is concerned.

Two word mate "sparkling shiraz"

As soon as I saw a reply to this thread come up on my email, I thought to myself: "Shit, Sparking Shiraz".

Haha. Well done but it was an easy target. I must crack another Black soon!

Adair

[simm]

The way my wife and I dealt with this problem was to just do a reception for around 120 people. We knew a lot of people were going to be drinking bubble so I think we went for Chandon number, and then spent reasonable amounts on the table wines. We managed to get reasonable prices on Isobel (I know the spelling is wrong) Chardonnay (I think) from NZ, and went a Mitchell Cabernet 1998. The MItchell was exceptional and all the whites were demolished. I still have a bottle of the Mitchell waiting for an anniversary but sadly my wife no longer drinks red

Regards,

[Blake]

Sorry hear it TORB, but I went to a wedding last weekend too. It was a mate of mine who is also a wine nut. 130 people attended. The wines were as follows :

1. Croser 2000

2. Leo Buring special release 1999 Eden Valley riesling

3. 1998 reds : Limey, 389, Taylors St Andrew, Kalimna, Annies Lane Copper Trail, Art Series Cabernet.

Pretty flash eh ! BTW he and his wife asked anyone who wished to bring a gift to make it a bottle of wine. Nice one.

[The Grey Ghost]

Adair,

You're not drinking any of the cheaper reds then? Nothing under $AUS 30?

Look mate, you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think you can crop 13 tonnes an acre shiraz and NOT bolster it with a little sugar! Yet this is not at all a high tonnage in some areas. How do you think they can put wine on the shelf for $7.. retail?

If you want to be desperately disappointed, go to a chemist and buy a chemtest kit for urine-sugars.

It's hard to catch the "flash" of orange in a red wine, but I'm willing to bet that you'll see it in just about every commercial wine under $15 and in most upt to $20.00.

I'll be interested to read your results.

Please note that almost all wines have about 1 to 1.5 grams per litre of unfermentable sugars.

[Pelican]

I always take the effort to occasionally try some industrial wine - usually at my parents place when I'm not visiting on the push bike ( er , I don't drive so don't worry ! ). My Dad ( God bless him the contrarian par excellance ) despite in the past buying Hill of Grace in the 1970's now denies all knowledge of anything about wine and buys Cask Wine. Recently had a Yalumba Dry Fresh White and a De Botroli Red of some sort. As TORB said they are not , prima facie , Rot Gut , but just lack interest and anything like Length etc. Nice reinforcement that it is worth squandering my hard earned Cash on Fine Wine.

TORBS observation is spot on.

[Adair]

Adair,

You're not drinking any of the cheaper reds then? Nothing under $AUS 30?

Look mate, you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think you can crop 13 tonnes an acre shiraz and NOT bolster it with a little sugar! Yet this is not at all a high tonnage in some areas. How do you think they can put wine on the shelf for $7.. retail?

If you want to be desperately disappointed, go to a chemist and buy a chemtest kit for urine-sugars.

It's hard to catch the "flash" of orange in a red wine, but I'm willing to bet that you'll see it in just about every commercial wine under $15 and in most upt to $20.00.

I'll be interested to read your results.

Please note that almost all wines have about 1 to 1.5 grams per litre of unfermentable sugars.

Hello Grey Ghost,

I think you are being overly harsh on me but that is fine. Let me explain. I stated that "Any Australian red wine that I can notice residual sugar" (excluding, as established, those of the sparkling variety). I am aware that almost all wines have some residual sugar left. However, I do not believe such levels, 1 to 1.5 grams per litre, are detectable by the normal human palate, mine! My experience of tasting wines and talking to winemakers has led me to believe that my palate starts noticing residual sugar not far above 2 grams per litre, especially in whites, which I understand to be pretty sensitive. I will not be taking up your offer/suggestion to do chemical testing of my own diluted sugar source!!!

With regard to your comment about commercial wines having residual sugar, and let me slightly change your definition to be "noticeable residual sugar". I agree that the majority of commercial, large company red wines have noticeable residual sugar - and I hate it. As you might have read previously, I travel interstate a fair bit and am subjected to such wines on planes regularly. Lindemans Bin 50, Rothbury, Penfolds, etc. are nearly unbearable wines to my palate for this reason, yet I still found one, the Wolf Blass Red Label, that I was able to enjoy as it let fruit and not sugar shine. Although not a great wine, it offered some interest.

Now, if you define "commercial" wine to mean from a large company, I concede that your statement that "just about every commercial wine under $15 and in most up to $20" has noticeable residual sugar to be in the most part correct. However, if you define "commercial wine" in what I suggest to be its true sense that being a wine made by a company that is trying to make a buck, then no, I do not agree. Wineries such as Tahbilk, Kurtz, Heritage, Chateau Francois and many other "smaller players" make commercial wines that are good and enjoyable and provide interest - at less than $20 and many less than $15.

So, finally, to answer your question: You're not drinking any of the cheaper reds then? Nothing under $AUS 30? You are wrong. I am just not drinking wines made by the larger companies whose total focus is on increasing the wealth of shareholders (and attempt to crop at 13 tonnes an acre). In fact, last night I opened a bottle of 2002 Chateau Leamon Cab Sauv/Cab Franc/Merlot. I rate it Highly Recommended and at $22 per single bottle, 3 & 1/2 stars on the TORB value scale!!! I assure you that the grapes for this wine were not cropped at 13 tonnes per acre and they still made a buck out of me.

I hope this clarifies my comments.

Kind regards,
Adair