The Auswine Forum

Jane Faulkner article in the Saturday Good life section of the Age reviews Sergio Carlei and his Green Vineyards.They don't like wines at or over 15% alc.
To quote

"Producing high alcoholic wines is an annoying trend at the moment-such wines are not enjoyable and will not improve with age.
Critics regard this as Parkerization of wines, as a result of his influence such wines sell very well.

Most wines at or above 15% are jammy cloying inelegant and downright awful. The alcohol sears the nasal passages and burns the back of the throat.

Those that make such wines are prostituting themselves for the quick buck".

Wow, so thats where I've been going wrong all these years.

All you people that enjoy big reds-- apparently your wrong too.

The fact of the matter is that ripe fruit gives you a different flavour profile. as grapes go through 3 phases (green, red and then black).
I like making wines with black red fruit tones with associated dark fruits dark chocolate and incredible depth with softer tannins. I'm heading to the Dark Side.

I can't believe the venom that some people show to makers of bigger red styles. Is it jealousy or a passion to protect their own styles?

James Halliday rates my 16% Shiraz at 95 points suggests drinking it in 2024 and my 17.5% Durif at 95 points suggests drinking in 2029.
Obviously faulty wines....that won't live.

Perhaps James has a bit more experience in looking at these wines.

As far as being a prostitute for the quick buck.

Nobody who crops at 5t/Ha, dries fruit on the vine like we do,buys oak like we do, charges $22 for their Reserves and $30 for their absolute best,
is really after the quick buck.

Some people will apparently say anything for their 15 minutes of fame with a journalist.

To be very fair to Jane, I think I met her at Vic Winemakers exhibition and she was very taken with the bigger styles.... I don't think she was being polite.

If I was being Petty I'd say that Green Vineyards makes green wines,
but hey, I'm above that!

Cheers
Smithy

I tend to side with Serge here, though I think the big, high alcohol wines do have their place they provide instant satisfaction and wow factor at the expense of structure and elegance.

Personally I cannot imagine drinking those sort of wines with food and sometimes struggle with them after a meal.......I'd prefer a wine around 13-13.5% ....but that is just my opinion.

I do not agree with Serge's claim of money grabbing though.....and can see why you got your back up

Cheers

Dave

I for one enjoy wines for what they are , whether they be big rich warm climate wines or an elegant leaner style from the cooler areas. I think it is great that our country can produce such a diverse range of styles and it is my intention to try as many of these styles as posible.I even enjoy see throughs occasionally.

Cheers
Petros

I am finding, except in exceptional case ( Kalleske for example ), high alcohol South Ossies tough drinking and totally unsuited to food.

I tend to be buying more elegant Victorians or Northern Rhones these days.

I have limited expereince with monster Rutherglens but like Petros am a great fan of the diversity of Australian wine.

Can anybody recommend a few cellarable Rutherglen table reds for the cellar?

And the alcohol debate rages on...

To quote Halliday - "There is nothing inherently bad in high alcohol wines any more than their is in their low alcohol opposites....High alcohol reds can be hot and coarse or luscious complex and mouth filling; low alcohol wines may be thin tasteless and hard, or fresh lively and of diamond like purity". A fence sitter of an answer if ever there was one, but he's right.

So much commentary on this issue seems to revolve around the alcohol percentage rather than the sensory evaluation or merits of the wine in question. Certainly there are some hot spiky horrors out there carrying high alcohols, and IMO these are generally from overcropped vines with confected sugar ripeness rather than physiological ripeness. These are not the benchmarks that all high alcohol wines should be judged on. I have to agree with Smithy that a wines destiny is forged in the vineyard. Low cropped, physiologically ripe, well handled fruit, regardless of potential alcohol, will consistently deliver.

And I have to disagree with Dave. High alcohol is not at the expense of structure and elegance, just as low alcohol is not always at the expense of depth of fruit and intensity. Crack a 91 Calliope, and then lets talk about elegance and structure. Same with the early Warrabilla's. Wines do not drink well a decade down the track if they lack structure and balance. They just dont.

So yes there are pretenders out there trying to con the consumer, as there is in just about every region. I mean who among has not cursed at a pricey Mornington Pinot or Yarra Valley Cabernet for being an anaemic, weedy, piss thin, god awful excuse for fermented grape juice! . Good wines and bad wines exist in all regions, in all styles at all pricepoints. Finding the good ones is what its all about.

So Smithy I say just put up with the odd bit of stodgy journalism, and start worrying when red wine lovers stop lining up to buy your wines.

LL

smithy wrote:8)

If I was being Petty I'd say that Green Vineyards makes green wines,
but hey, I'm above that!

Cheers
Smithy

Concurred!

But when alcohol levels approach that of port, should they be drunk like port- after dinner?

I am confused as to how high alcohol wines are balanced. Does richfruit soak up the sensation of mouthwash once you start throwing a mouthful around the roof of the mouth?

Genuine questions. I do enjoy well made, high alcohol wines- but I find they have to be good because it's hard to mask the ordinary ones with food.

Dear Rough red,
Good post!

What gets me is that as a maker I'd never criticize other wine styles. Drink whatever you enjoy, your'e not being simple or uneducated or overly influenced by Mr Parker.



Cheers
Smithy

JamieBahrain wrote:But when alcohol levels approach that of port, should they be drunk like port- after dinner?

Jamie I should have brought one of Smithy's best over with me. They are bloody beautiful with a good bit of beef and you really do not notice the alcohol.
MM.
PS - Did you get my PM

Mike

Where you been?

Tried hunting you down the night of the rugby at the SpotBar.

I will check for your PM's.

I remember over dinner you talking about Smithy's wines. Have been meaning to source some- hard in HongKong.

JamieBahrain wrote"But when alcohol levels approach that of port, should they be drunk like port- after dinner?"

No more than you should drink a Beaumes de Venise like a Fino because they share similar alcohol levels. There are similarities between Port and some High Alcohol reds, such as viscosity and richness but I think the comparison ends there, they are completely different styles of wine. High alcohol reds with perceptible residual sugar and oxidative winemaking may look porty, but these styles should be the exception not the rule.

IMO they should be drunk before, during and after dinner. Whilst doing the dishes, brushing the teeth (do away with your mouthwash) and occasionally whilst making love. Then have a port.

LL

Some excellent points have been made, some I agree with and some I don't. Halliday pretty well nailed it, it depends on the individual wine.

I haven't seen the article in question, but the author did not make that quote, so there is no point in blaming her for it. She was merely reporting one person's opinion.

From my perspective, as much as I do enjoy these monster wines from time to time, they may be balanced, but they are rarely elegant. As far as roughred is concerned, as he lives in Aubrey I can't call him a Mexican as he lives on the right side of the border, but even so, I still partially disagree with his comments on me 91 Calliope, a wine of which I have drunk over a dozen. Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed this wine, and it does have the balance of fruit, tannin, and acid that has enabled it to last, it is certainly not elegant wine by any description, nor is it particularly complex. It also shows its alcohol by being a touch porty, but I still enjoy drinking it immensely.

As far as drinking high alcohol wines with food are concerned, it's like anything; it is what you get used to. If you are used to drinking low alcohol wines all the time, then it may be a little difficult, if you drink them all the time you hardly notice it.

My concern is not so much the alcohol content as with the balance. I have had wines at 14% alcohol that seemed hot and porty because the alcohol sticks out. I have had wines that 16% where there is no sign of heat and alcohol. Even more concerning, far too many wines, even at 14% (and sometimes more) frequently show a combination of ripe and unripe fruit. My biggest bugbear with high alcohol wine, is not the alcohol per se, it is the flavour profile; far too many of them are into the prune spectrum, are overripe and unlikely to mature well.

Hi all,

When early release '02 reds started coming out a year ago I found some 1 dimensional with serious in your face fruit, some oak, a hot finish and not much else. Since then there have been many good '02 reds that confirm what TORB is saying; if balanced they can carry the extra load of alcohol.

I read an article recently where winemakers are using a particular yeast to promote higher alcohol. Why this is necessary I don't know apart from the RP factor.

Chuck

Apart from the discrepancy with the Calliope I agree with all TORB and Chuck have said. And in a manner I can see what Serge is trying to say. But such rash generalisations are never in danger of being mistaken for a sound argument.
I share TORB's dislike of the jumbled styles that are simultaneously over and underripe, and i'll add that many display massive acid additions that never seem to integrate. And I agree with Chuck that many of the hyped 02's are not living up to expectation. As primary fruits begin to soften I am noticing an underlying green character in many of these wines. As alluded to earlier I think this is a result of relatively high baume fruit, without the corresponding physiological ripeness.
I just get frustrated with these high alcohol arguments that many of the reputable established producers, who have been making these styles for some time get lumped in with the newcomers who are responsible for the poorly made wines.
In response to Chuck's query I can only imagine that when producers harvest fruit at such ripe levels stuck ferments are always a concern, and as such a hardier strain of yeast is req. to keep chowing down on the ample sugars, and hopefully result in a (relatively) dry wine. Smithy this question should be right up your alley
LL

Violent agreement with recent posters!

Ian

roughred wrote:I just get frustrated with these high alcohol arguments that many of the reputable established producers, who have been making these styles for some time get lumped in with the newcomers who are responsible for the poorly made wines.
LL

What's interesting is that many 'reputable established' producers are going along too. Take Penfolds, a company who used to be immune to changing fashions. The 2002 Bin 138, 28, 128, 407, 389 all rated 14.5% alcohol. I'll bet this has never happened before, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the same happens for the 2003 releases. Henschke has gradually pushed the envelope as well. Cyril used to come in regularly between 12-13%. Not any more. You don't have to even look at the back label of a d'Arenberg wine to know it's gonna be 14.5% minimum these days. Doesn't matter what the wine is - red, white, whatever. 14.5% is the bottom line. Yet the 1994 d'Arrys Original was a lovely wine at 13.5%. Never again. These are not 'natural vintage cycles'. I believe too many makers are sacrificing balance for (apparent) size.

I reckon in 10 years we'll look back on this high-alcohol phase exactly the same way we regard the Croser-inspired 'thin, weedy, green red phase' of the early 80s and the Rosemount-driven '90s oaky, buttery vanilla-slice chardonnay' phase. As an exaggerated dead-end created by the misconception that 'if a little is good, a lot must be better.'

Good to see a few exceptions remain. Mount Mary still feels 12.x% is enough, Wendouree seem happy with 13.x%. A great Hunter semillon bumps along, occasionally reaching 12% in a hot year...!

cheers,
Graeme

I will look for a 13-14.5% wine to complement a meal but I love a big massive high alcohol wine on its own if its still got the fruit sweetness it needs.
I hate week wines that try to be something they are not.Coriole Lloyd 01 style was a recent dissapointment in style for a classic SA red.

Is it really possible to determine how well a wine might complement a meal based solely on alcohol? Low-alcohol wines are 'elegant" and high-alcohol one are not? And I thought I was simplistic.

Guess i was just reacting to the "prostituting myself for the quick buck" line which really got up my snoot.

I think these wines are here to stay.
We now have the technology to do them fairly reularly, we are seeing different flavour profiles, they will last, and they taste good!

Higher levels of alcohol are pretty much across the board in Aussie red compared to 5 years ago, the AWRI would suggest the average is a full % point higher.

We do use specific yeast, but we do push it to some amazing levels occasionally.
I'm with TORB, its all about balance.

Which is why the article was so full of self opinionated cr@#$$%p

Cheers

Smithy

Bob wrote:Is it really possible to determine how well a wine might complement a meal based solely on alcohol? Low-alcohol wines are 'elegant" and high-alcohol one are not? And I thought I was simplistic.

I have tried to struggle through a glass of big arse red with a meal on many occasions-and many times I haven't made it through the glass.

Nothing simplistic about it...I would rather something I can actually drink...if you enjoy them with food thats great.

13.5% wines are not exactly "Low alcohol' either are they?

In regards to the 14.5% on the '02 Penfolds Bin range, Peter Gago readily admits that that isn't where he wants to be and would prefer the range to be around 13-13.5%.

Graeme wrote "What's interesting is that many 'reputable established' producers are going along too."

Good points Graeme. I probably didnt explain myself well as Carlton were winning and I was distracted. What I mean is that a handful of producers have made the high alcohol styles for some time and done it well, and created a point of difference in the market. I agree that plenty have jumped on the high alcohol bandwagon and I too hope that this imbalance corrects itself in time. But ultimately I think it will be consumers, and not winemakers who decide.

Graeme wrote "Good to see a few exceptions remain. Mount Mary still feels 12.x% is enough, Wendouree seem happy with 13.x%. A great Hunter semillon bumps along, occasionally reaching 12% in a hot year...!"

In full agreeance. A 98 707 last week at 13.5% had all the depth and intensity I need from any wine. But if great reds are so few and far between (and expensive) at these alcohol levels, and so many great wines available at higher alcohol levels (say 14.5%+), I cannot see this particular trend going away in any great hurry.

LL

Some people just have to make statements to justify what they themselves happen to do. OK so producers like Carlei prefer to make a particular style and that's fine, but why can't they accept that there other equally valid styles of wine out there? I had a Green Vineyards 2002 Heathcote Shiraz last week and enjoyed it. Similarly in the same week I also tried the 2002 Gnadenfrei Estate St. Michaels Shiraz, which weighs in at 15.3 per cent alcohol. The two wines are polar opposites but it is actually possible to like them both.

Furthermore, the argument that higher alcohol wines cannot be in balance is a myth. How many fans of Warrabilla would say they find the wines hot and out of balance? Not me. Yes the wines are at the upper end of the alcohol scale but their inherent balance means the potential negatives of that alcohol are not present. And you can hardly accuse Smithy of greed given the prices.

Can someone point me in the direction of an " inbalance " table wine pushing 16%?

I would like to try one. I have had no luck in the past.

Perhaps I should redefine my thoughts and recalibrate the palate on what is balanced.

JamieBahrain wrote:Can someone point me in the direction of an " inbalance " table wine pushing 16%?

I would like to try one. I have had no luck in the past.

Perhaps I should redefine my thoughts and recalibrate the palate on what is balanced.

Jamie,
any of the Warrabillas especially the Parolas.
MM.

My related thoughts on the topic:

1) If alcohol is obvious, it is a negative. There is no such thing as "balancing" alcohol, like there is with fruit, tannin and acid.

2) If a wine needs high alcohol to have the depth, power, character, etc... desired by the winemaker, so be it. Such wines can and are great if the wine holds the alcohol. If the alcohol starts to become noticeable and obvious in order to create such wines, then a trade off starts to occur which results in the wine being less than "ideal", the ideal being if the alcohol did not need to be noticeable and obvious to create the other desired facets of the wine.

3) I am certain that no one is saying that all producers of high-alcohol wines are doing it for greedy purposes, and definitely not Warrabilla.

4) Sergio Carlei is a amusing person, a bit like Julian Castagna based on my impressions. I spent a fair bit of time with Sergio on the weekend whilst tasting his wines. I really enjoyed them, as I have also enjoyed the few Warrabillas I have had, but the styles are as far apart as East is to West. In fact, Sergio is open about being strongly influenced by Old World styles. A few of his wines were truly lovely with great balance and harmony and one in particular, the 2001 Carlei Estate "Tre Rossi" Shiraz from Heathcote, was brilliant, yet I note that RPjr. only rated it 89/100 whilst I have it as 93 or 94/100.

Just my thoughts,
Adair

Dear Adair

Guess your'e right about not being able to balance alcohol. What would you balance it against?

However, you can have big alcoholic wines in balance with all the other things in there...fruit, tannin, structure oak and tannin. Its a total picture sort of thing.

2 things from the original article though,
a) there is an underlying thing that if you like big reds you have been conned by the Parker factor. As if everybody in Australia has heard of him. We just don't care for the most part about points or writers....we like what we like and will sometimes use a wine writer as a guide...but thats it!

b) " Makers of such wines are prostituting themselves for the quick buck" is bloody savage. Not much room for debate there.

I like lots of styles of wines, and would never dream of bagging what other people enjoy.

Perhaps some people should take ETHICS101 again.

Cheers
Smithy

Just finished reading Nicholas' faith Liquid Gold: The Story of Australian Wine & Its Makers (can be found in $4 bins in some bookshops) and smile when i read that even in the 1850-1880s, Australian wine (especially from the Barossa) was regularly over 15% in alcohol for granche and shiraz varietals, and the English were complaining back then! Just goes to show that this is NOT a new phenomenon nor a Parker effect!

Danny
Excellent!
Not much new in wine,even if we think we invented it !

I debated Sergio Carlei in Melbourne a few years ago on the subject of cool vs warm climates.
His wines were from Heathcote in a warm year so the excercise was pointless, apart from a herbaceous vs fully ripe style debate.

I was too polite to point out the futility of some of the debate/tasting but then again I am the last of the deep southern gentlemen.

Chees
Smithy

smithy wrote:8)
I am the last of the deep southern gentlemen.

Chees
Smithy

Ah say boy, you ain't the last. Ahm still around.
MM.

Mike,

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