Under reporting alcohol content in 57% of samples

[Roy Hersh]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... nderstated

[Andy Velebil]

An interesting article. Of course grossly lying (ok, thats a strong word....mis-stating ) alcohol content has more to do with taxation than anything else. Yet I still prefer lower alcohol wines (talking dry wines here) as I can enjoy an extra glass when out with friends and not be over the legal limit to drive home. Other than that, the manipulation for wines to be these super jammy high alcohol fruit bombs needs to stop. I'm not saying all wines need to be under a certain percent, but lets face it, in the old days it wasn't very common to have a wine over 14-14.5% wine except the odd one here and there. Now it seems thats the norm, which is scary. We're already learning that almost all of these expensive super jammy high octane wines don't age for shit. I know people will counter that arguement, and I'd agree that there is always exceptions, but it comes down to balance. A well made Vintage Port is a great example, it's high in alcohol, but has the fruit, tannin, AND acidity that allows it to age for many decades. You take away any one of those things and you've got a Port that won't last that long before reaching its peak and probably won't be very good at the end either.

[Roy Hersh]

I'd agree, except even with very modest tannins in the Port, typically they have enough structure to age to at least twenty years anyway. Rarely have I found a decently made VP that can't make it to 20 years of age.

[Moses Botbol]

I'd agree, except even with very modest tannins in the Port, typically they have enough structure to age to at least twenty years anyway. Rarely have I found a decently made VP that can't make it to 20 years of age.

If a VP can't make 20 years, the Producer should be embarrassed. 20 years is not asking much for port.

I do not intend to age high alcohol dry wines in my collection past 10 years and go from there. They’re not intended for the long haul for me.