Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
I'm especially interested in some winemaker and chemistry prof feedback on this topic (though all others are welcome). What makes this article interesting (https://www.the-buyer.net/insight/h...transform-quality-of-low-and-no-alcohol-wines) is that two very experienced professional palates I know think that the Bolle NA wines are good, well above others in the category.
My own personal experiences with NA wines do not include Bolle, but are as follows:
>>Good - Leitz Ein-Zwei-Drei Riesling. Fully delivers a mid-Rhine Riesling nose, pretty good on the palate, although a short slightly watery finish. Tasted a couple of times, including alongside a very good Mosel Kabinett, which was superior but the Leitz was not at all obviously NA or significantly inferior in quality.
>>OK - the Geisen and another NZ Sauvignon Blanc (don't recall whose), and NOOH La Coste Provence Rosé. These had true varietal/regional character in the aroma and foretaste, but somewhat bland and thin in the middle/finish.
>>Eh - a range of NA wines and "wine analogs". Some of them are just weak, crappy wines, some of them are wine-like but not very tasty, some are quite tasty but not at all wine-like.
As you can see in the article, the Bolle wines claim a superior technique, described as "We start with a normal alcohol wine, and then we put it through a delicate de-alcoholisation process. This process still damages the wine, so we then put the wine back into the fermentation tank, with more fresh grape juice and yeast and we run a secondary fermentation" and "...one essential aspect involves the use of a proprietary yeast that minimally creates alcohol during fermentation."
I presume the secondary fermentation involves only a small amount of grape juice, since they don't mention dealcoholization after that fermentation. But what do you make of the "proprietary yeast that minimally creates alcohol." Some winemakers and at least one chemistry instructor I know have scoffed at the notion of dramatically reducing the sugar-to-alcohol conversion rates in yeast. although admitting some tweaking is possible.
My own personal experiences with NA wines do not include Bolle, but are as follows:
>>Good - Leitz Ein-Zwei-Drei Riesling. Fully delivers a mid-Rhine Riesling nose, pretty good on the palate, although a short slightly watery finish. Tasted a couple of times, including alongside a very good Mosel Kabinett, which was superior but the Leitz was not at all obviously NA or significantly inferior in quality.
>>OK - the Geisen and another NZ Sauvignon Blanc (don't recall whose), and NOOH La Coste Provence Rosé. These had true varietal/regional character in the aroma and foretaste, but somewhat bland and thin in the middle/finish.
>>Eh - a range of NA wines and "wine analogs". Some of them are just weak, crappy wines, some of them are wine-like but not very tasty, some are quite tasty but not at all wine-like.
As you can see in the article, the Bolle wines claim a superior technique, described as "We start with a normal alcohol wine, and then we put it through a delicate de-alcoholisation process. This process still damages the wine, so we then put the wine back into the fermentation tank, with more fresh grape juice and yeast and we run a secondary fermentation" and "...one essential aspect involves the use of a proprietary yeast that minimally creates alcohol during fermentation."
I presume the secondary fermentation involves only a small amount of grape juice, since they don't mention dealcoholization after that fermentation. But what do you make of the "proprietary yeast that minimally creates alcohol." Some winemakers and at least one chemistry instructor I know have scoffed at the notion of dramatically reducing the sugar-to-alcohol conversion rates in yeast. although admitting some tweaking is possible.