The Auswine Forum

Last night I opened a bottle of 2004 Barossa Valley shiraz from a highly regarded producer which has been the subject of good reviews, not only by members of this forum but also reviewers such as Halliday and Mattinson (both of whom had scored the wine at 94 points). The wine seemed to be quite balanced except that there was noticeable alcohol on the nose and considerable warmth on the palate which, for me, spoiled the wine almost completely.

I checked the alcohol content and it was 15%. My queries are:

1. A lot of the red wine I am currently drinking is 14% or 14.5% and I don't find the alcohol a problem. Can an increase of 0.5% to 1.0% be significant in the overall scheme of things?

2. If I had cellared this wine for some years, what effect (if any) would this have had on the impact the alcohol had on the wine?

Cheers,
Jimmy

It is not always alcohol that makes the nose and palate hot. And other faults in the wine, such as low level TCA, can strip the fruit and make the alcohol dominant.

ie, it may have been your bottle, and not an aberration by the reviewers.

Also the temperature at which you serve the wine. I make sure high alcohol wines are quite cool.
GW

Remember also there is a +/- 1.5% tolerance for alcohol labelling on wine (still and sparkling) for domestic sale.

So, what you think is a 13% wine, may be up to 14.5% or as low as 11.5%.

Not just high alcohol that is the problem ,but the type of alcohol. I'll spare you the lecture on alcohol chemistry, but there is more than one type of alcohol formed from fermentation, not all of it desirable.These are sometimes perceived as 'hot' sometimes not..It's all about the yeast used for fermentation that determines the ratios of alcohols formed. Then, if you pick grapes that are not fully flavour ripe, this adds to the perception of 'hot', because there is no fruit weight/flavour to balance the wine..It is true though, that even 0.5% alcohol can taste so differently, because if you consider that the range of alcohol encountered in table wine is between, say 11-15%, 0.5% is a significant amount.

I found that the too high alcohol is one of the most serious problems of the wine industry.
Some wineries are acting to reduce the alcohol levels in them wines, but when you are reducing the alcohol level you are also reducing some other stuff…..
One other aspect of the higher level of alcohol is the legal aspect.
Nowadays consumers are more aware of the legal limits of alcohol concentration in blood, and because of that they are they will drink less glasses of wine ( in a restaurant) if the alcohol level of the wine is higher.
Because restaurants make living from selling wine – the restaurant will prefer to put on menu wines with lesser alcohol level (I am talking on restaurants overseas).
So, the higher alcohol percentage is more marketing problem than taste. Most Australia full body wines can handle high alcohol very well.

Wine Girl wrote:Remember also there is a +/- 1.5% tolerance for alcohol labelling on wine (still and sparkling) for domestic sale.

So, what you think is a 13% wine, may be up to 14.5% or as low as 11.5%.

I equally wonder, given, say, a d'Arenberg vintage (2002 springs to mind)where 15 consecutive red wines all boast a label announcing them at 14.5%, just how many of them are in fact nearer to 16% than 14.5...
cheers,
Graeme

I suspect there are quite a few 16% wolf wines being released under 14.5% sheep labels.

Wine Girl wrote:I suspect there are quite a few 16% wolf wines being sed under 14.5% sheep labels.

I wonder what is the problem of a wine that contains 16% alcohol.

By using the descriptors "wolf" and "sheep", I was not implying there is a problem with 16% wines...or 14.5% wines for that matter.

I was merely having a play on words, but given the response from the audience, I will save my (attempt at) humour for another time and place.

Wine Girl wrote:I was merely having a play on words, but given the response from the audience, I will save my (attempt at) humour for another time and place.

"The audience" was only one person so keep on playing with those words, I appreciated them and sure most others do too!

707 wrote:

Wine Girl wrote:I was merely having a play on words, but given the response from the audience, I will save my (attempt at) humour for another time and place.

"The audience" was only one person so keep on playing with those words, I appreciated them and sure most others do too!

Zackly

Thanks boys!

Wine girl,

We only have ourselves (as winedrinkers) to blame. We asked for the "green" unripe flavours to be driven from our wines - and we demand that they be ready for drinking immediately.

As a consequence, winemakers leave the fruit on the vine until the phenolic structure ripens - but often this is at 26 brix in a hot climate as the brix accumulates faster than the phenolics in the berries can mature.

Without going into Wine Chem 301, take a spoonful of green tea and wet it; likewise take a spoon of black tea (pref a good Keemun) and wet it. Let them stand for ten minutes or so and then taste the leves - chew them around before spitting them out. Rinse between with fresh water.

The phenolics in the green tea are 'unresolved" or immature. In the black tea (a fully-fermented-leaf tea), you may see that they are softened, rounded and have ceased to be bitter (i.e. "green").

This is what the makers are aiming at. In a cooler climate, it takes longer for the brix to accumulate and the phenolics then tend to mature at about the same time. Get it wrong though and you have that leafy-character - and no one will buy your wine.

So, what is the answer. Well the Americans have one answer and it has been done (illegally) in Australia for many years too.

Unfortunately this is by adding one of the most toxic substances on Earth. Dihydrogen oxide. It is a natural substance of course, but as with all chemicals even small amounts can be toxic (in a good malt or cognac for example). However, the Americans, being more practical than southern bureaucrats, acknowledged that no one was obeying their food purity laws and have authorised the addition of this chemical into any of their wines that are over strength.

That should read - into any of their "musts" that are over strength.

Grey Ghost,

You (and DI) have wrongly assumed I am criticising high-alcohol wines. I am not. I am merely pointing out that consumers who pick up a bottle of wine with an X% label and think "Gee, that wine tastes like it has more alcohol than that", may be bloody right!

By the way, thank you for that beautifully dumbed-down explanation of grape ripening and water addition, I mean volume correction.

WG

Showing the wine the old black snake (often late at night) apparently happens quite a lot. Maybe you could just chuck blocks of ice in to cool down the ferment too (even after it has stopped). I have no real problem with having water added to wine by the winemaker if it improves the wine.
GW

Alcohol adjustment has also been done legally in Australia for a long time as well, by using Reverse Osmosis.In fact, while Australian wines have been the subject of criticism for their high alcohol/sunshine in a bottle/clean image, it was our 'amis' in the Old World that were the ones that turned Aussie winemakers on to the technolgy. We would have figured out eventually anyway .... Unfortunately, using technology to improve the quality of wines seems to invoke some sort of image problem. Are these wines less because they have been worked on with technology?Is a wine less of an indication of it's sense of place because the winemaker has used for example, cultured yeasts,sulphur dioxide or MLF cultures?
You be the judge; I'd rather know my hard earned $$$ had been spent on a bottle of booze that showed regional, varietal, and seasonal character.

Wine need to be made only from grapes.

And a wine should be reflecting the grapes character, not to be change dramatically by chemist (or winemakers).

As winemakers we aloud to add some water in to the wine because it is a part of the winemaking process (preparing bentonite….).
Not like some of the people in that forum, my firm opinion is: water should be out of the wine!

It is not the question if adding 1% more will make the different in my opinion , it is a slippery slop situation , if adding water is legal what about addition of red colour… what about flavour ….. and much more.

For a winemaker the benefits of making the rules more "elastic" are obvious, but for the consumers and the Australian wine industry it is a different story.

Wine Girl wrote:I suspect there are quite a few 16% wolf wines being released under 14.5% sheep labels.

Hmmmm... I often find the serving temperature makes a big deal of VA and high acid combinations as well. The VA really does your head on the nose and then the acid rips into your throat, the two combined simulating nasty alcohol burn.

And FWIW, I am high alcohol intollerant and see no problem with criticising wines above 13.5 if they show it.

Gary W wrote:Showing the wine the old black snake (often late at night) apparently happens quite a lot. Maybe you could just chuck blocks of ice in to cool down the ferment too (even after it has stopped). I have no real problem with having water added to wine by the winemaker if it improves the wine.
GW

Dirty O'Sheaiste!

simm wrote:The VA really does your head on the nose and then the acid rips into your throat, the two combined simulating nasty alcohol burn.

And FWIW, I am high alcohol intollerant and see no problem with criticising wines above 13.5 if they show it.

Acid rips into the throat?

You've been watching too many horror movies, son.

Serge Birbrair wrote:

simm wrote:The VA really does your head on the nose and then the acid rips into your throat, the two combined simulating nasty alcohol burn.

And FWIW, I am high alcohol intollerant and see no problem with criticising wines above 13.5 if they show it.

Acid rips into the throat?

You've been watching too many horror movies, son.

Never had heartburn Serge?... and don't call me son.

simm wrote:Never had heartburn Serge?... and don't call me son.

There are several reasons for the heartburn,
and according to WebMD none of them are caused by "Acid rips into the throat", grandpa.

21 posts on a topic about alcohol in wine... and no sight nor sound of Smithy. Could someone go round there to check he's ok and not fallen into the vat or something

Otherwise, admirable self-restraint from the man

regards

Ian

simm wrote:Hmmmm... I often find the serving temperature makes a big deal of VA and high acid combinations as well. The VA really does your head on the nose and then the acid rips into your throat, the two combined simulating nasty alcohol burn.

And FWIW, I am high alcohol intollerant and see no problem with criticising wines above 13.5 if they show it.

simm, I'm very glad I don't have your problem, the alcohol level in red wine is seldom a problem for me although I certainly don't like wines that have excessive unbalanced acidity. I'm looking forward to trying smithy's 2006 Parola's Durif to see if he's done his usual trick of achieving a balanced wine that clocks in at 18%.

I'm actually curious as to who it was who first decided a little warmth on the finish of a red wine is bad. Especially on cooler climates/winter I don't find anything wrong with a little warmth on the finish (as long as there is a little clean acid there as well), or maybe that's just the long-term neat spirits drinker in me talking.

Ian S wrote::? 21 posts on a topic about alcohol in wine... and no sight nor sound of Smithy. Could someone go round there to check he's ok and not fallen into the vat or something

Otherwise, admirable self-restraint from the man

regards

Ian

I think he may well be harvesting...

OK
Lurking no more!

ONYA winegirl for pointing out that with the +/- 1.5% a 16% wine can be labelled 14.5% quite legally.
I too think it happens all the time.

Agreed that wines with excessive alcohol are faulty if out of balance'''just the same as if they show hard green unripe charachters. They are both out of balance!

For the record..Parola's Durif 06 is 18% (i prefer to think of it as 82% alcohol free!)
Parola's Shiraz 17%
Reserve Shiraz 16
Reserve Durif 16

Cheers
Smithy

D.I wrote:Wine need to be made only from grapes.

And a wine should be reflecting the grapes character, not to be change dramatically by chemist (or winemakers).

As winemakers we aloud to add some water in to the wine because it is a part of the winemaking process (preparing bentonite….).
Not like some of the people in that forum, my firm opinion is: water should be out of the wine!

It is not the question if adding 1% more will make the different in my opinion , it is a slippery slop situation , if adding water is legal what about addition of red colour… what about flavour ….. and much more.

For a winemaker the benefits of making the rules more "elastic" are obvious, but for the consumers and the Australian wine industry it is a different story.

DI

Winemaking is intervention. If you want grapes, go to the fruit market not the winery.

As a consumer I am happy to let the winemaker do his job, if he can make a better product that is safe to consume good on him.

Can you imagine if Chefs had the same restrictions? They take great produce and turn it into a feast. Would you ask a chef not to use salt or pepper to 'season' in their cooking?

I see winemakers using their skills in the winery to 'season' a great raw product, grapes. Using water in winemaking to balance a wine is happening. It is happening all over Australia and will continue to happen, legal or not.

To think that winemaking is non interventionalist is ignorant, how much influence needed is up to the winemaker.

There is also no law that says wine should solely reflect the character of the grapes. I would prefer a better wine, no matter what the grape is.

As Smithy keeps saying, it is about balance. Water can be used to balance high alcohol wines and make them better. Why deny ourselves a better wine?



Billy B

I just saw this news item.

http://www.decanter.com/news/109271.html

I assume they are not referring to your wines Smithy.



Billy B

Hi Billy B.

We all want better wines, that are safe to drink and for a reasonable price to pay.


You remind me that a few years ago I been in a wine show overseas. I mate a wine colleague and we had a chat about some wine issue, one subject was very problematic, he said that if I bring him a glass of mineral water he will invert it (very easily) to a red wine and 95% of the consumers will not notice that it is not wine at all.
I am sure that all of reader will think that that is too extreme, for me it is not.