The Auswine Forum

Nothing sophisticated to add to the debate I'm afraid. I'm a fan of the Warrabilla Parolas range - the only down side I see is that sometimes I get just a little too 'tired and emotional' to enjoy just one more glass - too bloody early in the evening!

Allan

TORB wrote:Mike,

You may be a gentleman but you do not live far south enough to qualify as a "southerner."

Ric,
twice in one day I have to correct you. I live about 800Km. "South" of the Queensland border. That should make me a Southerner. Hmmmmm.
MM.

Well I am not a gentleman, southern or otherwise, but am a Western Wascal.
I just hope Smithy ignores all the negatives and keeps on cranking em out the way I like em, and liked em before that peanut Parker started poking his nose into things and pushing the price of my favs up.

And anyone who doesn't realise BIG REDS have been around for ages have not been around long enough temselves, or are still into drinking Lambrusco.

Plus, something they might not have taught you at white whine school. Alcohol is one of the heavier molecules in wine and is a major contributer to the sensation of "weight" in the mouth. This in turn contirbutes to the velvety lushness in the mouth that many of the bigger reds have but the thinner, weedier, lower alcohol reds don't.

Davo wrote:Plus, something they might not have taught you at white whine school. Alcohol is one of the heavier molecules in wine and is a major contributer to the sensation of "weight" in the mouth. This in turn contirbutes to the velvety lushness in the mouth that many of the bigger reds have but the thinner, weedier, lower alcohol reds don't.

So Davo,

What exactly are you saying here?

* The more alcohol in the wine, the better.

* Wines need high alcohol or they will be thin and weedy.

* Wines can not be velvety without high alcohol.

* You hate people that drink white wine.

I don't think anyone is saying that alcohol is not required. The last de-alcoholised wine I had was not great, although it was not weedy either, but yes very thin.

Adair

Davo wrote:Plus, something they might not have taught you at white whine school. Alcohol is one of the heavier molecules in wine and is a major contributer to the sensation of "weight" in the mouth. This in turn contirbutes to the velvety lushness in the mouth that many of the bigger reds have but the thinner, weedier, lower alcohol reds don't.

Sorry Davo that is incorrect.

Weight on the palate is more than likely be adversely effected by ethanol, ethanol being less dense than water (please note this is not always, many wines eg. Smithys sustain alcohol well). Additionally, palate weight is highly dependent on numerous factors, a complex makeup if you wish, such as ameilioration or handling processes. However, one compound that could lead to increased mouthfeel is glycerol, another product of fermentation.

Cheers
Colin.

For what it is worth here is a link to what is in wine.

And for what it may or may not be worth Davo and vinum could be both wrong, or maybe a little bit right, on what influences mouthfeel. Here is what the above site says for glycerol.

It is frequently suggested by winemakers, enologists and wine writers, that glycerol contributes positively to wine quality. The perceived contribution has been defined in terms of mouth-feel and texture properties, and is thought to be strongly dependent on the glycerol concentration in the wine. In general, higher glycerol levels are considered to improve wine quality. To date, the opinions regarding the relationship between glycerol and wine quality appear to be based on anecdotal and empirical evidence. In some instances, clear anomalies exist between the perceptions and actual data that have been obtained through experimental work. No positive relationship between glycerol per se and the mouth-feel attributes of wine has yet been established and several factors other than glycerol have been implicated in mouth-feel. These include the ethanol concentration, the yeast cell wall mannoproteins, barrel maturation, yeast autolysis, the yeast strain used, as well as phenolic compounds in red wines (Ribéreau-Gayon et al., 1998; Deltail & Jarry, 1992). Furthermore, at the concentrations at which glycerol is normally found in wine, the impact that it could have on the viscosity of wine would probably not be perceived by even the most experienced tasters (Noble & Bursick, 1984). Against this background it is quite possible that the perceived contribution of glycerol to mouth-feel can easily be over-emphasized.

Mike

PS It is interesting to note that what is written above has been extracted from here. The author for the quote is listed as Christin Carlson, 2004. But she is not an author of the Wynboer article. Tsk, tsk!

For the geeks the Noble and Bursick citation is Noble, A.C. & Bursick, G.F., 1984. The contribution of glycerol to perceived viscosity and sweetness in white wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 35, 110-112. Abstract.

Mike

Mike,

I am not a scientsist and don't pretent to be one; in fact my science is almost as good as my spelling , but this conerns me "Furthermore, at the concentrations at which glycerol is normally found in wine, the impact that it could have on the viscosity of wine would probably not be perceived by even the most experienced tasters (Noble & Bursick, 1984)."

Since 1984 much has changed in the way wine is made so that may have been the case then, but much of the wine made today is very different now.

TORB wrote:Mike,

I am not a scientsist and don't pretent to be one; in fact my science is almost as good as my spelling , but this conerns me "Furthermore, at the concentrations at which glycerol is normally found in wine, the impact that it could have on the viscosity of wine would probably not be perceived by even the most experienced tasters (Noble & Bursick, 1984)."

Since 1984 much has changed in the way wine is made so that may have been the case then, but much of the wine made today is very different now.

Ric

I don't have the Noble & Bursick artilce to hand but the last part of the abstract states.

Hence, at levels at which glycerol is normally found in wine, from 1.0 to 9.0 g/L, its primary contribution to the sensory properties of wine is to sweetness. Further, in the wine used in this investigation, below a concentration of 25.8 g/L, glycerol does not produce a detectable increase in perceived viscosity.

So instead of the 7000 mg/L that Waterhouse lists or the 9000 mg/L that Noble & Bursick state are in wine, what you would need to feel the glycerol would be 25,800 mg/L. Of course that is in the wine they used, and being white its obviously not representative of the wines favored on the forum. But have glycerol levels increased almost 3 fold? The Waterhouse site is recent, but if anyone has real numbers for reds with different alcohol levels I'd be interested to see them. According to the Wynboer article you would get the higher levels in late harvest whites. I don't know of any dry reds that sweet.

Mike

Mike,

unfortunately a great deal of research in glycerol overproduction and yeast has not been oenologically applied (this has been my principle research focus for the past three years, aside from the winery - unfortunatley small wineries make little money - there was I thinking it was the way to riches...). Only recently has there been large scale analysis on such things. As I mentioned in my previous post it really is a network of interactions. However, I have found that in both my research and industry work (trialling of different yeasts, winemaking procedure blah blah blah, at various different wineries I have worked), there is a descernable difference in wines with an elevated glycerol content. If anyone is interested, I can elaborate on either oenological or scientific basis for either.

FYI; over the years there has been a great deal of conjecture as to the concentration of glycerol which leads to perceivable mouthfeel (upto 35 g/L has been reported).

I think that oenological research is highly important for the development of the Australian wine industry, however the applicability of some research is limited due to the scope of the project and the understanding of oenological processes.

Cheers
Colin.

KMP wrote:

TORB wrote:Mike,

I am not a scientsist and don't pretent to be one; in fact my science is almost as good as my spelling , but this conerns me "Furthermore, at the concentrations at which glycerol is normally found in wine, the impact that it could have on the viscosity of wine would probably not be perceived by even the most experienced tasters (Noble & Bursick, 1984)."

Since 1984 much has changed in the way wine is made so that may have been the case then, but much of the wine made today is very different now.

Ric

I don't have the Noble & Bursick artilce to hand but the last part of the abstract states.

Hence, at levels at which glycerol is normally found in wine, from 1.0 to 9.0 g/L, its primary contribution to the sensory properties of wine is to sweetness. Further, in the wine used in this investigation, below a concentration of 25.8 g/L, glycerol does not produce a detectable increase in perceived viscosity.

So instead of the 7000 mg/L that Waterhouse lists or the 9000 mg/L that Noble & Bursick state are in wine, what you would need to feel the glycerol would be 25,800 mg/L. Of course that is in the wine they used, and being white its obviously not representative of the wines favored on the forum. But have glycerol levels increased almost 3 fold? The Waterhouse site is recent, but if anyone has real numbers for reds with different alcohol levels I'd be interested to see them. According to the Wynboer article you would get the higher levels in late harvest whites. I don't know of any dry reds that sweet.

Mike

Sorry for the double post, contribution of berries to glycerol content is minimal, thus it is fermentation derived. In stickies, the viscosity is largely dependent on polysaccharides and glucans and the like.

Cheers
Colin.

I am a constant lurker for a number of wine forums. At times I marvelled at some of the excellent topics and comments in this forum. However, I am sick and tired of the anti Parker feelings expressed by a majority of the contributors.
Honestly, there are wines you love, there are wines you accept and are wines you donÂ’t like.
The bottle line is: alcohol level, structure and complexity donÂ’t really mean a thing.
Mr Parker is at the forefront of the wine world. He is well respected by the wine industry and millions of consumers around the world. If some of you guys are so good, where are you placed?
You can look for structure, you can look for complexity, but as far as I am concerned, nothing beats an orgasm. WOW Â… thatÂ’s what I want.

Lurker wrote:I am a constant lurker for a number of wine forums. At times I marvelled at some of the excellent topics and comments in this forum. However, I am sick and tired of the anti Parker feelings expressed by a majority of the contributors.
Honestly, there are wines you love, there are wines you accept and are wines you donÂ’t like.
The bottle line is: alcohol level, structure and complexity donÂ’t really mean a thing.
Mr Parker is at the forefront of the wine world. He is well respected by the wine industry and millions of consumers around the world. If some of you guys are so good, where are you placed?
You can look for structure, you can look for complexity, but as far as I am concerned, nothing beats an orgasm. WOW Â… thatÂ’s what I want.

Actually, I would prefer to make my wines with structure and complexity, but I guess thats not everyones cup of tea. I personally don't have anything against RPJ, however none of my wines to date have been put under his scrutiny. However, it is a discussion forum, everyoneis entitled to their own opinion - including you Lurker...

Cheers,
Coin.

Lurker wrote:I am a constant lurker for a number of wine forums. At times I marvelled at some of the excellent topics and comments in this forum. However, I am sick and tired of the anti Parker feelings expressed by a majority of the contributors.
Honestly, there are wines you love, there are wines you accept and are wines you donÂ’t like.
The bottle line is: alcohol level, structure and complexity donÂ’t really mean a thing.
Mr Parker is at the forefront of the wine world. He is well respected by the wine industry and millions of consumers around the world. If some of you guys are so good, where are you placed?
You can look for structure, you can look for complexity, but as far as I am concerned, nothing beats an orgasm. WOW Â… thatÂ’s what I want.

I was really enjoying this post, especially noting it for the quality of its content, until "Lurker" brought this thread back to normality. ...Parker was hardly mentioned previously in this thread, and when he was, it was only a side comment. I don't see the necessity to defend him here!

Now, back to glycerine...

Adair

Lurker wrote:Mr Parker is at the forefront of the wine world. He is well respected by the wine industry and millions of consumers around the world. If some of you guys are so good, where are you placed?
You can look for structure, you can look for complexity, but as far as I am concerned, nothing beats an orgasm. WOW Â… thatÂ’s what I want.

Lurker,

I have just searched through this entire thread and bescides an initial quote from a journalist, what Parker has been mentioned, only one has been negative and that was " before that peanut Parker started poking his nose into things and pushing the price of my favs up."

Davo's biggest beef in that statement is the influence of Parker and the effect it has had on the wine he likes to buy but can no longer afford, due to Parker's influence.

As wine lovers, we have just as much right to be anti Parker as as we have to be pro Parker; even on the Mark Squire Forum, which is hosted on Parker's own web site, there are frequently anti-Parker sentiments expressed. In answer to your question, "If some of you guys are so good, where are you placed?" the answer is simple. As wine lovers, we don't need to be "placed anywhere."

From my personal perspective, I dislike Parker's hundred point rating system, but then I dislike every objective point rating system. Like Davo, I also dislike the level of influence that Parker has in the marketplace, that is not Parker's fault, that is power that has been vested in him by his readership.

I also think that Parker sometimes does not understand Australian wine perhaps as well as many of his followers thinks he does. Yes, he certainly does have an excellent palate, there is absolutely no doubt about that, but I still frequently question both his scores and his drinking windows on Australian wine. I would also question his ability to accurately judge wines other than warm climate Shiraz, believing that people like Jeremy Oliver can do them better and have a deeper understanding of the wine styles.

If that makes me anti-Parker, then so be it.

You also state "alcohol level, structure and complexity donÂ’t really mean a thing" but love to have the wow factor in your wine. I totally disagree with your comment about structure etc, not being important, without those factors, it is extremely unlikely for a wine to ever have wow factor, for it is when all those components come together that you can truly say wow.

To some of us those factors are also important, because we want to know what makes that wine go wow.

vinum-unlogged wrote:Mike,

unfortunately a great deal of research in glycerol overproduction and yeast has not been oenologically applied (this has been my principle research focus for the past three years, aside from the winery - unfortunatley small wineries make little money - there was I thinking it was the way to riches...). Only recently has there been large scale analysis on such things. As I mentioned in my previous post it really is a network of interactions. However, I have found that in both my research and industry work (trialling of different yeasts, winemaking procedure blah blah blah, at various different wineries I have worked), there is a descernable difference in wines with an elevated glycerol content. If anyone is interested, I can elaborate on either oenological or scientific basis for either.

FYI; over the years there has been a great deal of conjecture as to the concentration of glycerol which leads to perceivable mouthfeel (upto 35 g/L has been reported).

I think that oenological research is highly important for the development of the Australian wine industry, however the applicability of some research is limited due to the scope of the project and the understanding of oenological processes.

Cheers
Colin.

Hi Colin

Certainly the components of mouthfeel are complex and I for one would like to hear what you have been working on.

In regard to my comments above. These were made in reference to the sensation of viscosity particularly as it concerns glycerol. What constitutes mouthfeel is a difficult subject. For example in recently purchased copy of the 2nd edition of Margalit’s Concepts in Wine Chemistry it is stated on page 184 “ The higher the alcohol content, the higher is the wine viscosity and its body.” On the same page is a graph of the viscosity (in centipoise) of mixtures of water/ethanol solutions at 25C. At 15% alcohol its about 1.6 centipoise while at 10% its about 1.3 or 0.3 centipoise less. Also on the same page is a statement regarding glycerol “At its concentrations ranges in wine it increases the viscosity up to only 0.90-0.91 centipoise, which is insignificantly small.” And later “The conclusion is clear, that glycerol does not contribute directly to wine body, but because sweetness is associated with body, and glycerol contributes to wine sweetness, the perceived sensation is of higher body.”

Now it can’t be both ways. If 0.9 centipoise is insignificant and does not contribute to body then how does the 0.3 increase of 10-15% alcohol make such a difference? Well clearly in real wine there is more than water, alcohol and glycerol. And so the question becomes is mouthfeel different between a 10% and a 15% wine. A lot of folks will probably say “yes” but whether the perceived difference is due to alcohol or glycerol or other constituents would be hard to determine given the complexity of wine. I know I harp on this in many posts but to my simple way of thinking it would be incredibly difficult to do this with wine because the experimental controls (i.e. excluding all the possible variables) would be difficult to list let alone prepare. This is one reason why so much of this type of experimentation is done in relatively simple solutions (e.g. water/ethanol mixtures). So while they may not seem relevant to wine they are a valid approach to getting some, albeit incomplete, answers.


Now everyone can go back to their orgasm, uhm I mean wine.

Mike

Oops Never read quickly and have bad math. Water is 0.89 centipoise and average glycerol in wine increases viscosity by 0.02 centipoise (to 0.90-0.91). From Noble and Bursick the viscosity threshold is 0.141 centipose. That would make a 0.3 centipoise difference between alcohol solutions of 10-15% detectable.

Mike

Sorry guys

Alcohol is detectable as mouthfeel. Try reading Peynaud the taste of wine.

Also glycerol at levels found in wine also contributes to mouthfeel.

Its just that wine is a complex media and a lot of the threshold work is done in water.

Also I'm glad i'm not having to prostitute myself as at 105 Kg I don't think I'd make wages!

Thats the second really poor form article recently....along with Micheal Twelfthtree's tasting a 5 day old bottle of someone else's wine and comparing it to his own. Are some winemakers finding it tough out there and getting bitchy?

Cheers
Smithy

smithy wrote:Also I'm glad i'm not having to prostitute myself as at 105 Kg I don't think I'd make wages!

105kg - same here.

Adair

Adair wrote:
So Davo,

What exactly are you saying here?

* The more alcohol in the wine, the better.

I don't think I said that, but having not said that I do prefer big meaty reds to thin weedy ones, but that is my personal preference.

Adair wrote:* Wines need high alcohol or they will be thin and weedy.

I don't think I said exactly that but from my experience reds that have a higher etoh level usually come with a bigger body than lower etoh wines. A bit of a generalisation but near enough to the truth in my experience.

Adair wrote:* Wines can not be velvety without high alcohol.

Hmmm, now there is a conundrum. I don't think I said exactly that either, but certainly I believe that all this goes together with bigger bodied wines. Again my palate experience.

Adair wrote:* You hate people that drink white wine.

Yep, so I guess I must hate myself.

vinum-unlogged wrote:
Sorry Davo that is incorrect.


Cheers
Colin.

Colin, This was told to me by Bill Crappsley, ex senior winemaker from Sandalford some years ago, and as I am not a wine magician I had no reason to doubt his words.

Davo wrote:

vinum-unlogged wrote:
Sorry Davo that is incorrect.


Cheers
Colin.

Colin, This was told to me by Bill Crappsley, ex senior winemaker from Sandalford some years ago, and as I am not a wine magician I had no reason to doubt his words.

Davo,

that wasn't meant to be a malicious statement, apologies if it was taken so. I should probably have worded it... in my opinion blah blah blah...

Working as both a winemaker and in wine yeast molecular research, this field is one that I find particularily interesting.

Cheers
Colin.

Lurker wrote:I am a constant lurker for a number of wine forums. At times I marvelled at some of the excellent topics and comments in this forum. However, I am sick and tired of the anti Parker feelings expressed by a majority of the contributors.
Honestly, there are wines you love, there are wines you accept and are wines you don’t like.
The bottle line is: alcohol level, structure and complexity don’t really mean a thing.(GG - emphasis added)
Mr Parker is at the forefront of the wine world. He is well respected by the wine industry and millions of consumers around the world. If some of you guys are so good, where are you placed?
You can look for structure, you can look for complexity, but as far as I am concerned, nothing beats an orgasm. WOW … that’s what I want.

Nice troll! But the fish in this pond don't bite too readily...
Luckily your last remark rather suggests you're capable of amusing yourself anyway...
Graeme

GraemeG wrote:Nice troll! But the fish in this pond don't bite too readily...
Luckily your last remark rather suggests you're capable of amusing yourself anyway...

GG,

Very good play on words- No doubt whilst typing with one hand.

wines that are not big rich alcoholic monsters are not necessarily "thin and weedy". don't know why Davo keeps saying that. it's not very nice, or respectful of other people's tastes.

other than that, I agree with TORB. Replace Oliver for Halliday and WFM for me, but the notion that Parker is a very good palate but with limited knowledge of Australia seems about right to me.

J2.

The other little question this raises is

Why does "Parkerisation" mean the practice of making big ripe oaky red wine styles?

RPJ also rates highly Bordeaux and Burgundy styles, which are hardly that as well as ports Champagnes etc.

This smacks to me of abusing the scorekeeper or a poorly performing company sacking its accountant!

Perhaps some winemakers who don't do well with RPJ might do some soul searching as to why.

Also James Halliday has given my big stuff some big points (95's)
Are winemakers who follow these style guilty of "Hallidation"?


No, both of them just appreciate a very wide range of styles and can pick out the good ones from the also rans.

Cheers
Smithy
Cheers

Anonymous wrote:wines that are not big rich alcoholic monsters are not necessarily "thin and weedy". don't know why Davo keeps saying that. it's not very nice, or respectful of other people's tastes.

J2.

This is what I actually said, and I said it only once.

"This in turn contirbutes to the velvety lushness in the mouth that many of the bigger reds have but the thinner, weedier, lower alcohol reds don't".

You can now tell me how I "keep" saying what you think I said, or go away until you learn to understand what you are reading.

If a wine is high in alcohol due to the natural sweetness of the grapes, I say it's perfect but if the excess alcohol is "created" by dosing, chaptaliztion or other means, a big NO! The must for the German trockenberenauslese for example is extremely high in natural sugar and yet the wine rarely exceeds 14% alcohol. Why? Answer: It's made naturally or with little or no manipulation to please the market trend.
Ray

rchhchan wrote:If a wine is high in alcohol due to the natural sweetness of the grapes, I say it's perfect but if the excess alcohol is "created" by dosing, chaptaliztion or other means, a big NO! The must for the German trockenberenauslese for example is extremely high in natural sugar and yet the wine rarely exceeds 14% alcohol. Why? Answer: It's made naturally or with little or no manipulation to please the market trend.
Ray

It might be nearer the truth to say that the yeasts just don't survive long enough in all that sugar to get the alcohol far along the scale. I tasted a TBA at the Heymann-Lowenstin cellars in Winningen in 2003 and the proprietor reckoned the wine barely made 7%. I rather doubt any TBAs get much over 8-9% max, and more would be around 7.5%

I'm sure most local recent reds weighing in at 14.5%+ were not interfered with in any way to get the alcohol to that level; the problem is what was lost in the grapes in order to get the sugar...

cheers,
Graeme

graeme
Its not whats lost.....acid is pretty easily replaced.
Its what changes occur to tannins flavour profiles etc.

If thats what your seeking its a good thing.

Cheers
Smithy

Smitty, ever thought of buying a vineyard in Barossa?