Survey says . . .

Florida Jim

Florida Jim

Florida Jim
"The Low Alcohol Craze Goes Overboard
By Charles Olken

Something has to give. The newfound lust for low alcohol wines is about to destroy the wine business as we know it.

A recent study out of Germany, looking at consumer preferences around the globe, has uncovered the most bothersome of truths. People want wine to be less than 12% alcohol. This would not be such a bad thing if it were possible to make our favorite wines at that reduced level and still deliver full and balanced flavors.

Who would not want rich, layered Cabernets or supple, silky, nuanced Pinot Noirs with low alcohols? Bring me the flavor, bring me the texture, bring me the balance, bring me the sympathetic partnership with great meals, or even with hamburgers, and I will join the amen chorus in a heartbeat. But there is a reason why our favorite wines do not exist at 10.5% to 12% alcohol. The do not taste as good at those levels. It is simply a matter of fact. One cannot find any grand Pinot or Cabernet or Chardonnay or Zinfandel at those kinds of alcohol levels.
People want lower alcohol so they can drink more. I get that. I like low-alcohol ciders when I am in Normandy. I like most beers and ales because they are closer to 5% than 10% and one can take a healthy mouthful to wash down that pizza or lamb vindaloo or kung pao prawn. So why would I not want a 5% alcohol Cabernet that was rich, deep and balanced and was still a perfect accompaniment to a standing rib roast? In point of fact, I do. We all do.
The late Louis Martini, in the very first interview I ever did after starting Connoisseurs’ Guide back in the dark ages, put it this way, “I love wine. I don’t like alcohol. The perfect wine would be one that had no alcohol at all. So far that wine does not exist”. He went on to explain that alcohol limited the amount of wine he could drink and also the amount of wine that he could sell.
But Mr. Martini knew better, and if you look into your heart of hearts, you know better as well. The same survey that says Americans want alcohols under 12% and that says the Chinese want alcohols closer to 10% also reflects this contradictory fact. The two favorite varieties in both countries are Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay. If ever there were varieties that simply cannot, in today’s world, produce high quality wines at those low alcohol levels, those two must stand near the top of the list.
It is unfortunate, but it is time to admit that our brains tell us one thing and our palates tell us another. And sadly, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot drink our favorite tipples in unlimited amounts. Wine just does not work that way.
So, until the world invents a better grape or a useful yeast that ferments great wines at less than the normal conversion ratios or technology that will reduce alcohol without changing body, flavor or balance, we are stuck with that great bugaboo we call moderation. Sorry about that winelovers, but someone needs to tell you the truth. Now, perhaps we can get back to drinking great wine in whatever amounts our bodies and the law will allow. It is the price we pay for being winelovers."

Loading…

www.cgcw.com

Evidently, getting drunk is the raison d'être of wine lovers.
And don't you just love these "surveys" that get cited in such articles?
Best, Jim
 
last night i had a really pretty, saline chardonnay that was fully ripe at 11.5%, and a selection massale pinot fin that oozed class and complexity and excited me like no pinot has done in years. alcohol? 12%. (the dude that made it also makes a lesser cuvee that came in at 12.5%).

"in today's world." horseshit. it's only true if one thinks like it is still yesterday's world.

fb.
 
What's curious is that Olken's been around long enough to remember/know the wines of the 1970s from CA and elsewhere that were substantially lower in alcohol than their counterparts are today. I guess he likes the newer versions better; not all of us always do.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
What's curious is that Olken's been around long enough to remember/know the wines of the 1970s from CA and elsewhere that were substantially lower in alcohol than their counterparts are today. I guess he likes the newer versions better; not all of us always do.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I suspect these guys just need a red herring to keep their names in the game.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Yeah, I was musing about the glorious '87 Ridge Monte Bello, 11.6%. In that there California place, to boot.
Click to expand...
In what was a pretty warm vintage, even by today's standards.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Andrew Zachary:
I believe the '49 Mouton came in at something like 11.5% alcohol. Great wines do not require high alcohol!
Click to expand...

Penning-Rowsell wrote that it was 10.7º -- The Wines of Bordeaux (6th ed., 1989, p. 24).

David Peppercorn, writing in 1991 (Bordeaux, p. 34), lamented that the great wines of the 1940s were 11 to 11.5º, but by the late 1980s, 12.5º was what the top producers aimed at. I suppose it's 13.5-14º now, no?
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Yeah, I was musing about the glorious '87 Ridge Monte Bello, 11.6%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that was a wine that initially in the bottle was one of the most severely brett-infested wines I've ever experienced. So much for brett never goes away.

In that there California place, to boot.
Click to expand...

Well, at 1300-2700 feet above sea level with sea breezes and fog.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
What's curious is that Olken's been around long enough to remember/know the wines of the 1970s from CA and elsewhere that were substantially lower in alcohol than their counterparts are today. I guess he likes the newer versions better; not all of us always do.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I suspect these guys just need a red herring to keep their names in the game.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Makes sense.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
What's curious is that Olken's been around long enough to remember/know the wines of the 1970s from CA and elsewhere that were substantially lower in alcohol than their counterparts are today. I guess he likes the newer versions better; not all of us always do.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I suspect these guys just need a red herring to keep their names in the game.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

I wonder if, in Charlie's case, he isn't feeling like the ship has sailed and he's not on it. When Asimov is writing paeans to Kevin Harvey's wines in the NYT and Darrel Corti proclaims that he won't buy wines over 12.5%, Charlie feels that he has to man the ramparts, as evidenced by this blog post from last year.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
What's curious is that Olken's been around long enough to remember/know the wines of the 1970s from CA and elsewhere that were substantially lower in alcohol than their counterparts are today. I guess he likes the newer versions better; not all of us always do.
Click to expand...
He has written glowingly about some of the old, low-alcohol wines, and he has dissed some overripe monsters; so I don't think it's a case of preference. I think he's just reacting against: (a) the notion that you can predetermine a wine's quality or style by its alcohol level; (b) the implication that warm regions should target under 12%, which he thinks would hurt wine quality. He may be over-reading the press release in this respect, but certainly some people are spinning the study this way.

As for the research itself, my BS detectors are flashing red on this one. Determining people's preferred alcohol levels in wine is a very tricky piece of both perceptual and sensory research. There is the question of how people react to changes in the stated alcohol level of a wine they are considering buying (my one project in this area implies: "not much"). There is the issue of whether consumers think alcohol level is an indication of wine style or an independent variable (past research suggests the latter). There is the question of what kinds of wines they actually prefer with respect to alcohol levels (multiple studies on other flavor dimensions suggest consumers typically cluster into 2-4 clumps). And so on.

To me, the press release on this research suggests that theirs was a very crude approach; i.e. someone asked “what level of alcohol do you prefer” on an open-ended basis or on a scale where people gravitate to the middle. In other words, it probably doesn’t say anything about how people perceive alcohol in their taste and usage, or how they actually choose wine. Maybe the research was better than that, and this is just the usual press ignorance of research procedure on display. I would like to get ahold of the actual question structure or methods; but strangely, there is no further information on either the Wine Intelligence or Prowein website.
 
originally posted by Andrew Zachary:
I believe the '49 Mouton came in at something like 11.5% alcohol. Great wines do not require high alcohol!
Click to expand...
The terrific Lytton Springs 78 Zin was 12.8% (Zin under 13%!) On the other hand, wasn't the renowned 47 Cheval Blanc pretty high in alcohol?
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Yeah, I was musing about the glorious '87 Ridge Monte Bello, 11.6%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that was a wine that initially in the bottle was one of the most severely brett-infested wines I've ever experienced. So much for brett never goes away.

In that there California place, to boot.
Click to expand...

Well, at 1300-2700 feet above sea level with sea breezes and fog.
Click to expand...
Pretty cool up there as I recall. When one tastes at the Rhys warehouse, you look straight across to the Ridge Winery...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top