The Auswine Forum

A serious question, believe it or not.

High-alcohol reds have been around for a lot of years now and some red wines have perceptible (to some) alcoholic warmth at 13.5% or 14% whereas others at 14.5-16% may not always appear warm.

I'm not particularly sensitive to this "warm" character that some people detect on particular wines and a bit of warmth has never really bothered me in red wines as long as the package is nicely balanced. Being an occasional neat spirits drinker and registered chilli addict may have something to do with that. I suspect the ones I do find particularly warm have other problems as well that accentuate the alcohol, such as out of balance acid (too much or too little) or oak.

Finally getting to the point. Who was/is it that decided that a little warmth on the finish of a red wine is a bad thing?

Anything thing that stands out in a wine, except:
1) Beautifully ripened fruit or terroir characters, or
2) Something that accentuates or carries these fruit or terroir characters, such as:
i) Integrated (ripe, etc.) tannins, or
ii) Integrated (soft, powerful, refreshing, etc.) acidity;
takes the wine out of balance and is not desirable.

If you feel that the alcohol "warmth" on the end accentuates or carries the fruit or terroir characters, then I am happy for you to comment that the alcohol does not take the wine out of balance. However, I will not agree with you.

Just my thoughts in the context of what I believe are the characteristics of a good wine.

Adair

Red Bigot wrote:
Finally getting to the point. Who was/is it that decided that a little warmth on the finish of a red wine is a bad thing?

Not sure, Brian, but I guarantee you, it weren't Smithy.

It's interesting isn't it, that we are happy to detect the fruit, the oak, the tannins and the acid and judge them balanced, but as soon as we actually detect the alcohol it is deemed unbalanced.

I'm curious to know how long ago this became the norm. Obviously after the days when fortified wines were drunk with meals? It's not just a "New World" thing, there are some quite high a/v warm and cuddly reds from southern France and other warm-climate European wine producing areas, most probably regarded as lesser or rustic wines.

I went to a Seppelt fortified dinner at Seppeltsfield about 11 years ago, all the wines served with all courses were fortified wines and I can't remember anyone complaining about the warm finish on the wines.

I'm not trying to prove a point, it's just that it's never really been a big issue for me, but I seem to notice it being mentioned more and more, yet I don't remember how far back it started. Certainly there are plenty of awful high alcohol wines to complain about, but they are usually just awful wines apart from the high alcohol content.

dlo wrote:

Red Bigot wrote:
Finally getting to the point. Who was/is it that decided that a little warmth on the finish of a red wine is a bad thing?

Not sure, Brian, but I guarantee you, it weren't Smithy.

Or Drew Noon.

The question was actually prompted after a dinner last night when we had 4 Noon reds from 98 and 2002, none under 15.5%. Some of them were undoubtedly a little warm to some people, but they went pretty well with the Italian-themed food and I wouldn't call any of them unbalanced. (The 98 Reserve Shiraz is about ready to drink, the 98 Reserve Cabernet will probably go another 10 years or so).

As Drew says, he doesn't set out to make high alcohol wines, but that's what happens when he lets the grapes get properly ripe in his part of the wine-growing world.

Red Bigot wrote:A serious question, believe it or not.

High-alcohol reds have been around for a lot of years now and some red wines have perceptible (to some) alcoholic warmth at 13.5% or 14% whereas others at 14.5-16% may not always appear warm.

I'm not particularly sensitive to this "warm" character that some people detect on particular wines and a bit of warmth has never really bothered me in red wines as long as the package is nicely balanced. Being an occasional neat spirits drinker and registered chilli addict may have something to do with that. I suspect the ones I do find particularly warm have other problems as well that accentuate the alcohol, such as out of balance acid (too much or too little) or oak.

Finally getting to the point. Who was/is it that decided that a little warmth on the finish of a red wine is a bad thing?

Me. Sorry, I'm not trying to be facetious, but wine is an individual thing. It's a personal experience, and (stating the obvious, here) everyone has different tastes. So if I think it's "warm" then you know what I mean, at least.

cuttlefish wrote:Me. Sorry, I'm not trying to be facetious, but wine is an individual thing. It's a personal experience, and (stating the obvious, here) everyone has different tastes. So if I think it's "warm" then you know what I mean, at least.

Yes, but why is "warm" bad? Did you decide that by yourself or did someone influence you?

Red Bigot wrote:

cuttlefish wrote:Me. Sorry, I'm not trying to be facetious, but wine is an individual thing. It's a personal experience, and (stating the obvious, here) everyone has different tastes. So if I think it's "warm" then you know what I mean, at least.

Yes, but why is "warm" bad? Did you decide that by yourself or did someone influence you?

1) That 1982 Wynn's "John Riddoch" Cabernet Sauvignon tasted in the late 1990's, early in my "wine life", at around 11.3% from memory would be part of the reason.

2) My love for tasting intricate and defined structure (that carry the "flavour" to good/great length) as opposed outright fruit flavours, as found in many great Rieslings and lower alcohol Pinot Noir and Cabernet Sauvignon would be another part. That 1965 Lindemans Hunter River Burgundy (Shiraz) at around 15% shows that it can be done at "higher" alcohol, while, on the other hand, my favourite Grange is the 1983 at 13.3%. And to show that I am not against Shiraz, Wendouree Shiraz (with blends) is the largest representation of any wine/grape combination in my cellar... but not one of these would be greater than 14%... none more than 13.5% probably.

I think it comes back to what you want in a wine. I laughed OL when White used the fact that gin has high alcohol to favourably comment on the Greenock Creek Apricot Block at 18.5%. From my point of view, noticeable alcohol and, in fact, dominating strong fruit (blackcurrant, raspberry, blackberry) also hides, in most cases, what I want to experience in wine. I write "in most cases" because I thoroughly enjoyed the 2004 Greenock Creek releases (although these were not more than 14.5% from memory, not the 17%-18% of 2006s) as they combined fruit power with great texture (that is, texture that I enjoyed).

But in the end, I don't want "warmth" from my "table" or "dry" wine. I will open a bottle of Muscat, Tokay or Tawny (on a cold evening) when I want that.

Adair

Adair wrote:
I think it comes back to what you want in a wine. I laughed OL when White used the fact that gin has high alcohol to favourably comment on the Greenock Creek Apricot Block at 18.5%. From my point of view, noticeable alcohol and, in fact, dominating strong fruit (blackcurrant, raspberry, blackberry) also hides, in most cases, what I want to experience in wine. I write "in most cases" because I thoroughly enjoyed the 2004 Greenock Creek releases (although these were not more than 14.5% from memory, not the 17%-18% of 2006s) as they combined fruit power with great texture (that is, texture that I enjoyed).

But in the end, I don't want "warmth" from my "table" or "dry" wine. I will open a bottle of Muscat, Tokay or Tawny (on a cold evening) when I want that.

Adair

Yeah, I'm starting to like Philip White, or at least find his writing amusing. But I haven't bought any Greenock Ck reds post 1998 aother than a few 2001s when a local shop cleared them out cheaply.

Thanks for the well-considered and detailed answer. I also grew up with a lot of low alcohol reds in the 70's and 80's and 82 JR showed what could be done. However I still shudder when I remember all those other thin, weedy Coonawarra cabernets of that era and that probably colours my attitudes as well. I still have a couple of bottles of the 91 Bullers Calliope Shiraz @ 16.0% and the 1962 Calliope tasted in 1972 was a seminal wine for me, I have no idea of the a/v it wouldn't have had it on the label back then.

Alcohol content isn't really a factor in my buying decision, I tend not to look at the a/v level until after I've tried a wine.

Looking at some asian cultures where whisky/spirits (usually diluted with water) or sometimes potent rice wines are often drunk with meals (is Sake "warm"? They seem to be 14.5-16%) I sometimes wonder why it is regarded as such a bad feature in table wines. Maybe we should be flogging all these "warm" ones in Asia?

I don't mind a bit of warmth, on the odd occasion. Sometimes, all technicalities of 'balance' aside, it can suit a wine/flavour profile. The 02 Kays Amery Shiraz I wrote of earlier was a fitting example - just a hint of warmth but not overpowering, just helped impart a sense of roundness to the palate.

Bloody good question RB!

Like Brian, I don't mind a little warmth on the palate (or in bed ) provided it falls into the "warm and cuddly) rather than noticeably hot end of the spectrum.

Warmth in wine is a bit like being pregnant and Brett. You either are or you aren't. And like Brett, it can be at the "add character level" or at the "this is a fault." Each person has to draw their own line.

As to when it started, before the anti booze wowser brigade started to have a go at all and sundry. In some ways, it could be traced to an anti Parker backlash by some of our scribes. From there it gathered momentum.

I feel that some alcohol warmth on many a-red wine finish actually improves:

- it's finish (aromaticity and flavour duration)
- it's mouthfeel
- it's cellerability (structure).

Over time, this warmth often will settle. The ability to appropriately balance this character with flavour, acid, residual and tanin is a refined skill of few winemakers.

I would argue however, that this style of warmth has been excessive in too many white wines in Australia for many years resulting in acrid wines with a burning sensation. Why do you think so many of us love a red these days?

The problems with high alcohol wines aren't limited to the sensation of heat. I find the throat-searing quality of high alcohol wines irritating, but others may not. Other issues with high alcohol however include a spirity aroma or the overt taste of ethanol, both of which I think are overpowering and unpleasant.

I wasn't taught to find these qualities unpleasant. When I first started drinking wine, I (like many people) gravitated towards punch-in-the-face styles of shiraz, high alcohol and high oak. Over time I came to recognise that these were intruding on balance and harmony in a wine.

RB, do you think over-oaking is a fault in wine? If so, why? I think if you can answer that, excessive alcohol will have the same answer

ChrisV wrote:The problems with high alcohol wines aren't limited to the sensation of heat. I find the throat-searing quality of high alcohol wines irritating, but others may not. Other issues with high alcohol however include a spirity aroma or the overt taste of ethanol, both of which I think are overpowering and unpleasant.

I wasn't taught to find these qualities unpleasant. When I first started drinking wine, I (like many people) gravitated towards punch-in-the-face styles of shiraz, high alcohol and high oak. Over time I came to recognise that these were intruding on balance and harmony in a wine.

RB, do you think over-oaking is a fault in wine? If so, why? I think if you can answer that, excessive alcohol will have the same answer

Chris,
I agree there are some over-ripe, flabby, high-alcohol wines around that are not balanced. I'm not talking about those.

Certainly dominating alcohol is a fault as is dominating fruit-killing oak, although I've seen a lot of reds I thought over-oaked when young that have turned out to be well-judged as the fruit soaked up the oak and triumphed.

When I see people complaining about warm or hot wines at 14.5%, 14% or even less I wonder more. Although I don't drink white wines, I do taste a few and I think the ones some people find hot (burning) are as much bad acid balance as anything else and I've found 13.5, 14% red wines that have a similar burning character on the finish and I'm fairly convinced some of that sensation relates to acid as much as alcohol.

You obviously don't drink neat spirits. I can certainly understand why many people don't like the 15% - 18% wines, but some of them are nicely balanced wines and I wonder how people would react in a completely blind tasting to a range of alcohol levels. I do try this occasionally with my Monday wine group and it is interesting to guess who will favour which wine. I'm often wrong, as it appears to be about individual wines, rather than a blanket a/v level. There is one member who un-erringly hones in on the wine with the highest a/v as his favourite. Another who is renowned for liking more delicate, elegant wines surprised my by loving the sweet-fruited voluptuous Centenary Hill shiraz 2002 that isn't at all hot with it's 15.0%.

I'm not in any way defending the caricature Parker-inspired wines that most people have woken up to by now, but I'm still trying to understand why a little "warmth" at whatever level people perceive it is inherently bad and how it got to be that way.

Just as oak levels can vary hugely in balanced wines, commensurate with the fruit concentration and acid levels, some wines cope better with higher alcohol levels and to many people appear at most warm, not spiritous or tasting of ethanol. It is these wines that I find harmonious and balanced (and slightly warm) that I'm happy to buy and cellar, yet see some people rejecting them simply because of this "warmth". In the words of JS Miller: "Why is it so?"

I think it comes down to how we look at the world in general. How we look at the world is a product of our genetics (which determine the basic function of our senses and probably also to our perceptions at least to some extent) and our environment, which may interfere with the basic function of our senses due to various pathologies or altered physiologies. Our environment (ie the sum total of our experiences) also contributes to our perceptions by the conditioning it produces. It also contributes enormously to our cognitions.
I think the real thrust behind RB's question is how much is conditioning and possibly cognitions involved?
I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect it is involved at least to some extent, but this would probably vary from individual to individual. It would be a difficult thing to tease out but it is a great question.
I hope all this doesn't sound too geeky- I'm just trying to put what other have said in a different context.

If your point is simply that warmth in and of itself isn't a fault, then I agree I guess. I think you'll find people are using warmth as shorthand for the other alcohol related faults - spirityness, harshness etc. Also agreed that people often mischaracterise other faults as alcohol, but the same could be said about oak.

Alcohol contents at (at least according to the label) 14.5% can certainly be offensive to me if the wine isn't up to containing it. An example is the '06 Glaetzer Wallace, which at a recent tasting I found unbearably hot and spirity.

I don't drink neat spirits, but I don't think that's relevant. Alcohol contents like 14%, which I would almost always find acceptable in a wine, would be completely unacceptable to me in a beer. (I actually know this from experience). It's a matter of the alcohol being in balance for the type of drink being consumed. As you say, some wines can certainly cope with alcohol levels up to 16%. In general however I would expect them to be even better with less alcohol. An example is the Kaesler Old Vines Shiraz. It's clearly a well made wine and a lot of people love it, but for the vintages I have tasted (the last two) I have found it unbearably alcoholic (the label says 16%).

As a final note, temperature plays a HUGE, largely unacknowledged role in this, as indeed it does in wine in general. Wines which have been unacceptably spirity to me have scrubbed up fine if I chill them a little first.

Chris, I haven't tried the Wallace, but I've seen a few reviews, mostly positive, some a little negative, but none of them mention obvious alcohol. The Kaesler 2002/2004/2005/2006 OV Shiraz are in my cellar, I love them. BTW I don't think Kaesler fudge their a/v levels on labels.

I think a person who enjoys good spirits neat (Brandies, Whiskys etc) is more likely to find a little warmth in table wines acceptable or even attractive.

You are obviously more sensitive to alcohol than many people, but I'm still pretty sure most of the reviewers who write about "warmth" in 14.5% wines don't find then hot or spiritous, they generally say so when it is that extreme. Even Philip White said so, even if he didn't regard it as a fault.

Re temperature, I agree completely, it only takes a few degrees to change the character of a wine. What temp do you chill the wines to for them to become acceptable?

Re temperature, no idea. Two wines stick in my memory. One was the 2004 Dead Arm, which I opened with friends on a hot summer's day. It was horribly spirity, but 20 minutes or so in the fridge did the trick. The other was a Brunello di Montalcino, where the problem wasnt alcohol but harsh volatile acidity. I had all but written the wine off, but again a bit of time in the fridge and I was singing its praises.

Regarding the 2005 Kaesler OV, I actually bought a bottle at a tasting, so I enjoyed it there, but when I opened the bottle I really disliked it. I was at a restaurant in a big group so I couldn't really experiment with temperature, but it's possible I would have enjoyed it more chilled. Nowadays my tastes in reds run more to pinot noir, Italian wine and restrained Cabernets, so I have very little patience for over the top Shiraz.

ChrisV wrote:I don't drink neat spirits, but I don't think that's relevant. Alcohol contents like 14%, which I would almost always find acceptable in a wine, would be completely unacceptable to me in a beer. (I actually know this from experience). It's a matter of the alcohol being in balance for the type of drink being consumed.

But are we conditioned to a certain level of alcohol (or other taste component) in a particular drink? e.g. When I started drinking coffee or tea as a teenager I used a lot more sugar than what I do now - none. I have conditioned myself to use less. Drinking the same level of sugar now as I did then would taste vile.
A lot of people have similar experiences in their wine drinking histories.
Another example- The sodium content in Vegemite was slowly reduced over some years without the consumers realising it. I understand it is now half of what it was in 1971. A dramatic change or a message to consumers indicating this was happening may well have brought about a totally different and probably negative response.
I am not saying that taste is all about conditioning, but it must play a significant part.

The observation that drinking the wine at a higher temperature brings out the alcohol in the wine is an interesting one.

It may be that temperature plays a larger part in the drinking of red wine than is often realised. Room temperature can vary from 15-30 degrees or so. If the wine is at or close to room temperature (or say between 20-27 degrees), that is quite a big range of temperatures.

Maybe all those conducting tastings should have a thermometer that they put in the bottle at the start of the tasting, and the temperature recorded in the tasting notes

I am starting to think whether some of the wines I have objected to as being "hot" may actually have been too hot, literally.

orpheus wrote:I am starting to think whether some of the wines I have objected to as being "hot" may actually have been too hot, literally.

I have no doubt about this. I have a group of friends that regularly get together to share great wines. Over the years I have noted that we are more often disappointed with the reds rather than the whites (especially taking into account of the price:pleasure ratio), so much so that we are doing a "Whites Only" dinner very soon (although I am sure a few reds will slip in). My only conclusion is that temperature is the most likely cause (especially given Sydney room temps), which I know can be fixed easily with a little care, but care goes a little out the window by the time reds are served given the Champagne and White flights beforehand.

However, at home I cool down most of my reds for 15 minutes in the fridge before serving, then leave the bottle out to judge whether I need to put it back in after the first glass or two gets to room temp.

Adair

I become obsessive about this temperature issue when I visit Noosa in January and indulge in al fresco dining. I try and avoid licensed places generally for the usual reasons but also because only a few there have wine fridges for the reds. If I take my own wine I can maintain its temp and have it served the way I want. I have spent too much time in Noosa restaurants with a bottle of red sitting in an ice bucket waiting for it to reach a reasonable drinking temperature.

Scary as it may seem I have similar tastes to RB, I like hot chilli and don't mind the odd single malt or brandy. I have wondered a bit as well on the red wine being to hot thing. I have a lot of Warrabilla in the cellar so I am obviously not shy of high alc wines. I have however found some wines that I have tried certainly have an unpleasant burn to the pack of the throat, but as pointed out by others it is mostly due to a combination of things being wrong with the wine not just high alc. I also think with the tolerance in labeling that reading the alc content off the label to judge whether you will like the wine is just plain dumb.

Glen

I think that there are two issues being discussed here. One is about the level of alcohol in a wine and the other is about the sensation of alcohol in the finish.

The level of alcohol in a wine, by itself, won't tell you if a wine is balanced or flawed, just as the amount of oak aging mentioned on the back label won't tell you if the wine is over-oaked.

A "hot", or "warm" sensation in a fortified wine like port is okay, but not in a wine. This is not a new idea and older books on wine will describe a wine as "hot" if it leaves an unpleasantly hot sensation in the finish. Such wines are considered unbalanced. In the past relatively lower alcohol wines from Bordeaux, Barolo or Chianti would be described as "hot" if it had a spirity finish. Thus the level of alcohol by itself is no indicator of whether a wine is unbalanced.

My guess is that some people use the level of alcohol as a short-cut to judging a wine and will assume that a 15% a/v wine is unbalanced or flawed. Although a high alcohol wine may be more likely to be hot it is not a certainty.

My question is what do people mean when they say "warm" and whether it is something new and different from the previously used "hot". If by "warm" it means that there is an alcoholic or hot finish to the wine, then yes, the wine is unbalanced and it can be considered a flaw. And whether a person drinks scotch and brandy has nothing to do with the issue as I drink my scotch straight.

Cheers........Mahmoud.

There is one thing that irks me regarding alc and that is the recent (say last 3 years) where it has become the 'thing' to state the alc in tasting notes, as if its now a predominant factor that you should assess even before you taste a wine. There are some wine writers today who seem to write their notes by first reading the label to check the alc. Recently I noted a tasting of Dutschke wines where the reviewer stated the alc on all the wine, in the heading i.e. Dutschke 2006 Oscar Semmler, 14.8%. Why it is important to do that I have absolutely no idea. You might as well write Dutschke 2005 Oscar Semmler 7 days in fermenters, 1 yo French oak, racked, returned to original oak casks for 22 months.

Surely, alc is an attribute of the wine, as is its fruit, complexity, oak balance, tannin structure, bouquet, length, acidity, etc. I believe that when you taste a wine you are assessing the entire suite of its inherant attributes, one of which is alc. If the alc overpowers the flavours then its a negative, as would over oaking, sappy fruit, harsh tannins, too little acidity, etc. I have tasted wines of 12% that were overpowered by the alc because there was nothing else there to compete. I have also had 17% alc wines that were awesomely structured powerful and delicious, with no hint of alc on the nose or palate.

So as to 'hot' wines, overtly hot is a fault, but 'heat' mingled with fruit power, compexity and length is a necessary character and provided it fades and is lost in the final memory of the wine then it's to be applauded.

Taking your points out of order.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:My question is what do people mean when they say "warm" and whether it is something new and different from the previously used "hot". If by "warm" it means that there is an alcoholic or hot finish to the wine, then yes, the wine is unbalanced and it can be considered a flaw. And whether a person drinks scotch and brandy has nothing to do with the issue as I drink my scotch straight.

Cheers........Mahmoud.

Mahmoud, I personally distinguish between "warm" (pleasant to me) and "hot" (unpleasant to me) and I'm talking about those wines that to me are balanced but to some people have a "warm" (unpleasant to them) finish.
To me a small sensation of warmth on the finish is just as acceptable as the discrete sensations of fruit, tannin, oak and acid that are the other major discernible components even in a nicely balanced young wine. I am trying to understand why as soon as alcohol is detectable (as warmth rather than the extremes of hotness or spiritous character) it is still in many quarters classed as a fault when to me it is no more a prominent or undesirable feature than the other characters I can detect to a similar degree. Certainly many wines described as having a "warm" finish by numerous people are not unpleasant for me, even if I can detect a small degree of alcohol on the finish, or even a hint on the nose.

Amongst all the reasons people drink wine I don't think they drink red wine (or white wine for that matter) for a cooling sensation.

Statistically we cancel each other out on the spirits front. I only have limited evidence from friends and acquaintances, but those who enjoy neat spirits I have found to be more tolerant of a degree of alcohol warmth in red wines than those that don't. Maybe we should run a poll.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:A "hot", or "warm" sensation in a fortified wine like port is okay, but not in a wine. This is not a new idea and older books on wine will describe a wine as "hot" if it leaves an unpleasantly hot sensation in the finish. Such wines are considered unbalanced. In the past relatively lower alcohol wines from Bordeaux, Barolo or Chianti would be described as "hot" if it had a spirity finish. Thus the level of alcohol by itself is no indicator of whether a wine is unbalanced.

That is really my question. Why is a bit of warmth in a table wine considered bad these more enlightened days?

Ignore the "hot" bit, I can agree that such a sensation would be considered a fault by most people other than Philip White, although the sensations different people would describe as hot will vary a lot. Even further back (and possibly still) a lot of people drank fortified wines or spirits with food. I can't see how you can have a wine at 11% or 12% that is hot on the finish from alcohol. I've had plenty of reds at those levels, some were searingly hot on the finish from unbalanced acid, but I don't think I've ever seen a spirity finish on a 12% wine, or even at 13%, maybe a bit of warmth on some at labelled 13.5% (maybe more with the 1.5% Aus leeway).

Roscoe wrote:But are we conditioned to a certain level of alcohol (or other taste component) in a particular drink? e.g. When I started drinking coffee or tea as a teenager I used a lot more sugar than what I do now - none. I have conditioned myself to use less. Drinking the same level of sugar now as I did then would taste vile.

Yes. You're conditioned to basically everything in your life. Japanese people have miso soup for breakfast. That you would likely find this unpleasant is nothing but conditioning. What I can say, however, is that I don't believe that the conditioning in me that finds high alcohol unpleasant is a result of lecturing. It's the result of drinking a number of unpleasantly high-alcohol wines.

Red Bigot wrote:Statistically we cancel each other out on the spirits front. I only have limited evidence from friends and acquaintances, but those who enjoy neat spirits I have found to be more tolerant of a degree of alcohol warmth in red wines than those that don't. Maybe we should run a poll.

Using the standards of wine assessment, all spirits are in my opinion totally unbalanced by the amount of alcohol. I would have thought most of us on our first taste of neat spirits have found the alcohol quite a standout. Those who go on later to enjoy neat spirits have been able to condition themselves to this burn. (More expensive versions have less of this burn, of course.) This is just another way of saying that neat spirits are an aquired taste.
Many of those who can't or who don't go on to condition themselves to this level of alcohol, may have self selected themselves as people who are in some way more sensitive to the taste of alcohol. Possibly these people have a major overlap with people who prefer lower alcohol wines, but I don't have any evidence to support this.
I think it is a reasonable hypothesis.
But I also think that it is most likely that the roles of sensory differences, conditioning, experience and cognitions are all going to be of variable importance depending on the individual.

JohnP wrote:There is one thing that irks me regarding alc and that is the recent (say last 3 years) where it has become the 'thing' to state the alc in tasting notes, as if its now a predominant factor that you should assess even before you taste a wine.

The alcohol volume when taken in account with region, grape, vineyard and winemaker assists in understanding a wine. I am sure you can concede that some wine writers state alcohol volume without it being a "predominant factor that you should assess even before you taste a wine".

JohnP wrote:I have also had 17% alc wines that were awesomely structured powerful and delicious, with no hint of alc on the nose or palate.

Seriously, please give me an example. I have enjoyed many 17% alc wines but I have never been able to say in my tasting note that it had no hint of alcohol on the nose or palate. This would also help to compare palate sensitivities to alcohol.

Kind regards,
Adair

Personally I think there is far too much hand wringing about temperature, taste and "conditioning". Certainly we should all be drinking wines at the right temperature, and of course people have different tastes and there are people who do and don't drinks spirits. But surely this discussion should revolve around an objective analysis of wines and their quality.

If we reduce the discussion to the level of what people are conditioned to, or their likes and dislikes, then we may as well throw wines criticism out the window and allow wine like Little Penguin its place in the sun as a great wine to those who love it. However, I am assuming that most people in this forum are interested in what makes a good quality wine and the standards by which wine professionals/wine enthusiasts judge them.

I also think we can agree that there is such a thing as too much oak but that each person may have a different response to that level of oak. However we should agree that too much oak in a wine (keeping in mind it's style and evolution) is a flaw. Similarly, too much alcohol in the finish is also a flaw though tolerance levels may differ.

It is disingenuous to talk about spirits and "conditioning". Spirits are a different drink, just as beer is a different drink. Would anyone accept a whisky drinker suggesting that beer is dilute because it has less alcohol? In the same way I think it is silly to say that a Scotch drinker is used to high alcohol levels and therefore may not be able to discern a hot wine. Much as I like single malts at 40%+ a/v, I do occasionally find that a port at 20% a/v can be hot. The whole Scotch/Brandy thing is a red herring.

RB, I quite agree with you about warmth in a wine, however to me it has a different meaning. I associate "warm" as a quality I find in wines with richness and complexity. I tend to use the descriptor "warm" not as an alcohol sensation but rather as part of a rich, ripe, warming quality in an older mature wine.

Drinking a wine at a "cool" 16-18 degrees, if you detect heat or warmth as a distinct, separate sensation then my guess is the wine can be described as hot, a little or a lot depending on the degree to which it makes itself known. If the wine is rich, fleshy, ripe and warm, all together in an integrated way, then you needn't worry about talking about alcohol levels or the "warmth" of the wine as a separate quality.

Methinks that the effort to distinguish a difference between warm and hot is perhaps an attempt to defend the the rise of so many high alcohol wines and the predictable reaction to them.

Cheers.........Mahmoud.