For The Love Of Port

Written for relative non-wine folks, the article is interesting nonetheless: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/magaz ... hone-share

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

It's an interesting article and one that is doing exactly what those who make high alcohol, very ripe wines are doing. Pushing their own agenda to sell wines. Personally, for me it's all about balance. While much harder to do, you can have a higher alcohol/riper wine that tastes balanced because it has the acidity to offset the ripeness/alcohol. The flip side being I've had lower alcohol wines that were green, unripe, and out of balance. So in my eyes, these guys can be as bad as those they are preaching against. It's all about balance...

I don't see this article aimed at neophytes at all. Au contraire.

The argument that people make about alcohol levels equating to wines being out of balance and unable to match with food is ridiculous, to a large degree. Sure in parts of Europe it is very possible to achieve greatness with low alcohol levels that provide both balance and the ability to pair well with food.

But in places like Napa or the Douro for example, where heat summation / degree days (aka: Winkler scale) are way different due to the extreme heat and length of the growing season ... it is simply next to impossible to achieve a.b.v. of 12% or so, when it comes to red wines. Andy mentions green or under-ripe wines and I find these even less pleasant than those that are over-ripe. Ultimately, it is all about balance. Last night I had a wonderful Burgundy tasting and nearly everything was between 12-13%, at least on the label. In Douro, how many times have you seen reds with a listed a.b.v. of less than 13%?

I've had 14.5 and 15% reds that were in balance too. You can't go by the number and while I respect Rajat Parr and his ilk, Jasmine Hirsch too ... I think they doth protest too much.

Roy Hersh wrote:I don't see this article aimed at neophytes at all. Au contraire.

The argument that people make about alcohol levels equating to wines being out of balance and unable to match with food is ridiculous, to a large degree. Sure in parts of Europe it is very possible to achieve greatness with low alcohol levels that provide both balance and the ability to pair well with food.

But in places like Napa or the Douro for example, where heat summation / degree days (aka: Winkler scale) are way different due to the extreme heat and length of the growing season ... it is simply next to impossible to achieve a.b.v. of 12% or so, when it comes to red wines. Andy mentions green or under-ripe wines and I find these even less pleasant than those that are over-ripe. Ultimately, it is all about balance. Last night I had a wonderful Burgundy tasting and nearly everything was between 12-13%, at least on the label. In Douro, how many times have you seen reds with a listed a.b.v. of less than 13%?

I've had 14.5 and 15% reds that were in balance too. You can't go by the number and while I respect Rajat Parr and his ilk, Jasmine Hirsch too ... I think they doth protest too much.

I would disagree with the Napa comments. I've had plenty of low alcohol Napa wines that were awesome. Matter fact most were less than 13-13.5% for most of Napa's history until the 90's when it got hip to make high alcohol wines. I've also had plenty of low alcohol non-USA wines that were terrible. You can't cast a wide generality that Napa and the Douro as always super hot, therefore unable to make lower alcohol wines. Because even in the Douro, in the western parts it's stays relatively cool compared to the far east end of the Douro where it's super hot.

Andy Velebil wrote: I would disagree with the Napa comments. I've had plenty of low alcohol Napa wines that were awesome. Matter fact most were less than 13-13.5% for most of Napa's history until the 90's when it got hip to make high alcohol wines.

Agreed...

Other parts of Portugal like Dao offer good wines under 14% alcohol.

Andy Velebil wrote: Matter fact most were less than 13-13.5% for most of Napa's history until the 90's when it got hip to make high alcohol wines.

My comment is off the track, but may be interesting. World temperatures have increased over a period of time -- say from 1980 to 2000, bracketing the 90's epoch you quote, Andy. I began drinking wine in the mid-1970's, and I recall the alcohol levels in European wines were lower then (wines from 60's vintages or early 70's) than they are now. There may be an element of style choice, as you suggest, but there could also be a response to temperature increases.

Michael Hann wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote: Matter fact most were less than 13-13.5% for most of Napa's history until the 90's when it got hip to make high alcohol wines.

My comment is off the track, but may be interesting. World temperatures have increased over a period of time -- say from 1980 to 2000, bracketing the 90's epoch you quote, Andy. I began drinking wine in the mid-1970's, and I recall the alcohol levels in European wines were lower then (wines from 60's vintages or early 70's) than they are now. There may be an element of style choice, as you suggest, but there could also be a response to temperature increases.

Yes, but what people also forget is a significant change in rootstock and viticulture has had a huge effect. I recall working at a vineyard in the Santa Cruz Mtn's and it was always a struggle to get the grapes to 24 brick (roughly 12% abv). As replanting went on with different rootstock it has become much easier. So while there may be some slight changes due to weather changes, the most significant has to do with rootstock changes and changes in viticulture practices in the vineyards.

But what people also forget is there was some very high alcohol wines made in the 60 and 70's. Though usually these came from very hot years. As for European wines, they are far more sensitive (read that as being more likely) to having poor weather during the growing months, where places like Napa typically don't have such issues. Which also explains why those wines tended to be less ripe than wines from Napa. So it's difficult to compare to totally different parts of the world when it comes to alcohol and ripeness issues.

Andy Velebil wrote:

Michael Hann wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote: Matter fact most were less than 13-13.5% for most of Napa's history until the 90's when it got hip to make high alcohol wines.

My comment is off the track, but may be interesting. World temperatures have increased over a period of time -- say from 1980 to 2000, bracketing the 90's epoch you quote, Andy. I began drinking wine in the mid-1970's, and I recall the alcohol levels in European wines were lower then (wines from 60's vintages or early 70's) than they are now. There may be an element of style choice, as you suggest, but there could also be a response to temperature increases.

Yes, but what people also forget is a significant change in rootstock and viticulture has had a huge effect. I recall working at a vineyard in the Santa Cruz Mtn's and it was always a struggle to get the grapes to 24 brick (roughly 12% abv). As replanting went on with different rootstock it has become much easier. So while there may be some slight changes due to weather changes, the most significant has to do with rootstock changes and changes in viticulture practices in the vineyards.

But what people also forget is there was some very high alcohol wines made in the 60 and 70's. Though usually these came from very hot years. As for European wines, they are far more sensitive (read that as being more likely) to having poor weather during the growing months, where places like Napa typically don't have such issues. Which also explains why those wines tended to be less ripe than wines from Napa. So it's difficult to compare to totally different parts of the world when it comes to alcohol and ripeness issues.

One of my old viticulture profs loved to break growing regions into two categories: places where it rains during the summer-harvest and places where it does not (usually). Bordeaux is the latter, Napa is definitely the former. At least in the old days, most famous places (there were many fewer) had threats for rain and so there was big incentive to not risk later harvests. Modern tech and viticulture have mitigated much, though not all, of that risk of having a year where you make total crap wine. Sure, there is vintage variation, but the floor is MUCH higher than it used to be. Add in the fact that many newer quality regions tend to be places where rain isn't an issue, like Argentina, Chile, much of California, etc. and you've got infinitely more ripe wines on the shelf as people look to stand out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U