Be Careful What You Wish For

Be Careful What You Wish For (23 January)

In recent months there has been an increasing momentum, and almost continuous press coverage, demanding wine should be lower in alcohol.

This drive has been pushed by a number of factors. For the last few years there has been a slowly growing backlash against big Australian wines. The most controversial of these is the Mollydooker range that is mainly exported to the US. Just look at any US wine forum and you will quickly see no other brand polarises drinkers more. People either love it or hate it.

The people that love it can’t get enough and ensures that it flies off the shelf in double-quick time. The people that hate it are an interesting mob. Many of them are old world wine lovers. They are convinced they have the God-given right to dictate what people should drink, what they should not drink, and have a divine right to dictate wine tastes. Their arrogance is mind boggling. No one has the right to criticise and dictate what people should enjoy and what they should not be allowed to enjoy. Lovers of wines like Mollydooker don’t tell old world wine lovers that they are frequently drinking, thin, pissy, green, unripe; or hard and tannic wine that lacks fruit and is not fit to be drunk until it is 15 years old, and is overpriced to blazes.

Yellow Tail and other critter wines have become incredibly successful. They are selling in the millions of cases annually, and these entry level wine tipples are attracting a new breed of wine drinkers. Why are people drinking Mollydooker and critter wines? Because people enjoy them!

Most of these wines are 14% alcohol or more; some as much as 17%. This level of alcohol is now suddenly seen as the root of all evil. Why? The answers are as simple as they are complex.

Firstly, as already mentioned, many of the old world “arbiters of taste” think they have the right to dictate not only what people should or should not be drinking, but the alcohol levels they should be consuming too.

Secondly, the political monkeys employed by governments with nanny state mentality, where the government takes responsibility for dictating what is good for people, are starting to listen to some vocal minority groups (in the UK) who are demanding lower alcohol wines.

This has resulted in some elements of the press starting to publicise this supposed push.

Let me ask you, is it the press responsibility to report the news or to make and shape the news? And is it the retailers’ job to shape the industry or to sell wine? The answer to these two questions depends on a number of aspects. In respect to the press, if they are “tabloid” press then they are not interested in reporting facts, they just want circulation. If they are responsible press, whilst reporting the facts accurately, then there is nothing wrong with trying to point out needed improvements or changes. When it comes to retailers, by the same token, there is nothing wrong with them trying to improve the industry, but like tabloid press, when they try and change the industry in most cases it is because it will benefit their vested interests. When the tabloid press and supermarket chains are involved, it has nothing to do with what is good for the industry; it is all about their own bottom line.

Those in favour of lowering alcohol in wines will give the following reasons for their position:

1. High alcohol wine doesn’t go with food.

2. High alcohol wines are not balanced.

3. They can’t drink a whole bottle between two people over a meal (and remain sober.)

4. It is socially responsible.

5. Lower alcohol wine is better for your health.

It should be noted that some of the responsible wine press have also supported the push for lower alcohol in wine but I am not sure their reasons have as much to do with the above five reasons as a sixth reason, which can be summed up in two word, “Parker backlash.” Many wine professionals like Halliday, Oliver, Robinson et al may support the lowering of alcohol, because the lowering of alcohol may result in less “Parkerised” fruit bombs.

Let’s briefly examine these reasons and then look at other factors that also need to be considered.

As far as higher alcohol wine being undrinkable with food is concerned, that’s a load of twaddle. It’s simply a case of what you are used to. If you are used to drinking medium weight, elegant wines with food, then you will struggle with fuller-bodied, riper wine. However most Australians drinking bottled wine are consuming wine that is 14% alcohol or higher with their meals, and the majority don’t have issues with these wines clashing with food. So does that mean that all these people have no taste? Of course not; but the arbiters of taste will say otherwise.

The notion that high alcohol wines are not balanced is also twaddle. Wine at lower alcohol can be unbalanced and wine at 14, 15 or even 16% can be perfectly balanced without the alcohol being noticeable, or the wine showing heat. Just like the wine and food scenario, the alcohol level is very much a matter of what you are used to.

The third reason given, that consumers can’t drink a whole bottle between two people over a meal (and remain sober) is an interesting one and raises many issues.

If I open a bottle of Malt Scotch I can’t drink the whole bottle between two people over a whole evening and remain conscious, let alone sober so maybe I should call for all Single Malt Scotch distillers to lower the alcohol so that I can drink more volume. Does that sound stupid? Good! Because it is exactly that; but that is the same logic used by those who complain they can’t finish a bottle of wine. I could keep banging on with a heap of other reasons to refute this point but it won’t be necessary as later points will make the case.

The fourth reason, “being socially responsible” is important, but that does not mean consumers should be treated like children by a nanny state. People must take to take responsibility for themselves and their own decisions. Low alcohol beer is a great idea, but those low alcohol beers were not produced as a replacement for traditional strength beers. Low alcohol beers gave people a choice. There is nothing wrong with the idea of low alcohol wine, but people should have a choice about what they want to consume. They should not be dictated to on this issue. Moreover, if the people who are advocating lower alcohol in wines are serious about it, then why are they not advocating wine at between say 6 and 8%? From a responsible consumption of alcohol perspective, it makes more sense to lower it to say 6-8%. Why reduce it only by only a couple of percent?

This question is the root of the whole issue and one that is never asked. Why? Because the proponents of lowering alcohol in wines won’t like the answers. To understand why, first we need to quickly look at why alcohol levels have risen, and then the consequences of making changes.

Over the last few decades both improvements in viticulture and the use of irrigation have both been factors in rising alcohol levels. More efficient yeasts have also made a contribution. In Australia today, grapes are picked with better phenolic ripeness than was the case before the late 1980’s when many wines were made from grapes that were under-ripe. (One criticism that can reasonably be made is that phenolic ripeness was pushed to far and could be cut back.) Climate change and global warming have also made a contribution to the rise in alcohol in wine.

So the alcohol in wine has gone up; now how do we get it to come down? There are many ways.

1. Plant vineyards in cooler climate areas

2. Use less effective viticulture

3. Use less efficient yeast

4. Pick grapes when they are not as ripe as they should be

5. Use reverse osmosis

Planting vineyards in cooler areas is easy and using less effective viticulture, as well as less efficient yeasts can be arranged, but these changes will have implications. Firstly, it’s a heck of lot less expensive to produce wine in warm climates that have an appellation like “South East Australia” than it is to produce wines in cool places like Tasmania. So if alcohol is lowered by these methods then the price of many wines will rise. The critter wine drinkers won’t drink these lower alcohol wines because they will be cost prohibitive; this segment is incredibly price sensitive. The premium wine consumers already have the option of purchasing wine produced in cool climate areas, so this will not add much to the consumption of low alcohol wines.

You will get no argument from me that for years phenolic ripeness has been pushed too far, which has resulted in wines that have either dead fruit or over-ripe blackberry dominant characters. However, there is a very fine line between under-ripe, perfectly-ripe and over-ripe fruit. Pick at the wrong time and you are in trouble. Thinking that reducing phenolic ripeness is the “silver bullet” answer to lower alcohol in wines is pure folly. Playing with phenolic ripeness can make better wine, but by itself will not make lot of difference to alcohol levels overall.

That leaves reverse osmosis. The technology to remove alcohol in wines is there already. Dropping the alcohol level a couple of percent and finding the “sweet spot” can be done and a number of wineries are already playing with the concept. Critter wine drinkers are used to drinking wine that has about as much in common with the manufacture of soft drinks as it does with making wine, so drinking reverse osmosis manipulated wine should not bother them. This group will probably, happily buy these lower alcohol wines, but what about premium wine drinkers?

Here is where it gets interesting. A large proportion of premium wine lovers like the idea of traditional winemaking and prefer to buy wines that have been made with minimal intervention. Will these premium wine buyers, (many of whom in the US and Europe have trouble accepting screwcaps,) be prepared to buy wine when they know it has been manipulated by reverse osmosis? Frankly I doubt it will be a huge success with this group.

Reducing alcohol in low cost wines will probably sell, but if the proponents of low alcohol wines were truly serious, they would be pushing for wines at 6-8% alcohol, or possibly even lower. If there was truly a realistic demand for these wines, the technology which is already there would be improved to make it happen. At the top end, I can’t imagine wine that has been heavily manipulated will be all that popular with wine lovers. Can you imagine First Growths or Grange being sold after half the alcohol has been removed? Not bloody likely!

Matthew Jukes in Decanter Magazine recently wrote, “I would go so far as to say that the biggest and most important time of improvements in viticulture, winemaking distribution and downright deliciousness that the wine world has ever witnessed has been in the last decade. These have been Australia’s years. Australia has been pivotal in this seismic change.

The extraordinary potential of Australia and its wines is staggering. There is a long way to go in fine tuning this country’s incredible wines….”

The operative words here are “fine tuning.” We don’t need to screw the whole thing up by trying to pander to a bunch of vocal wingers who are probably won’t buy the end product anyway.

Low alcohol wines may be a good idea but it should be offered as an added option, not as a substitute for what is available today. If it is an option rather than a replacement, it will take off at the low end, but if it’s going to be offered, make it real low alcohol wine rather than mucking around in a pretend fashion.

Feel free to submit your comments!

From: GraemeG

01/24/2008 19:02:53 Ric,

I reckon you're set up a lot of straw-man arguments here. Right at the very end, Jukes is close to the money. It is about "fine-tuning" That's the difference between ripe, powerful wine at 13.5%, and going too far at 15%. It's what it does to the wine that's the problem. It ages in a less balanced fashion, I believe.

No one gives a hoot about the abv% of Mollydooker. If they're not at 16% they've probably got no identity at all! (not having tasted them myself.)

No, sweep away all your "misguided" arguments and address this. Plot the last 10-12 years of abv% of the following wines: Langhi Ghiran Shiraz, Jasper Hill Georgia's, St Henri, Kay's Block 6, Wolf Blass Black Label. Try the same exercise with other long-standing, well-respected reds. Why are these wines better at 14.5% minimum than they were at mid-13%s? Why does this trend seem to be irrespective of vintage conditions?

No-one's arguing for wines at 6-8% (unless they're very expensive German rieslings!). Much of the argument about alcohol is wrongly directed and ignorant. But there is an important issue here - and it's one of fine tuning.
I'll be drinking a Penfolds 1980 Bin 80A in ten days. I see it's 12%. It'll be interesting to see how it fares...
cheers,
Graeme

From: Dave Lehmann

01/24/2008 19:22:58 Hip bloody hoo bloody ray! Ric you've put it perfectly!

I was just having a chat about high alcohol wines with a mate over a few gurgles last night. Now I was actually on the side of "Why???" and he was defending the big babies for all he was worth. We left at a stalemate (at this point I must say that I consider high alcohol to be 16% plus and the wines we were discussing were in the 17% to 18% range). But you are absolutely right with the live and let live stance.

Thanks for reminding me that if it sells and the producer can survive then by definition it is a successful wine. Sometimes we (the collective human race) get into the mindset that launched crusades in the Dark Ages or the Holocaust of the 40's in Europe.

Get over it! If you don't like high alcohol wines don't buy them and get a life.
Thanks again for reminding me Ric... choice is the bottom line.
Cheers here's to a great "08"
Dave

From: Paul Starr

01/27/2008 20:45:33 Ric, you are confusing sugar ripeness and phenolic ripeness in this article. As most commonly used, phenolic ripeness is about development of polyphenols, mainly tannins, anthocynanins (for colour) and flavour compounds and does not refer to sugar development. The high alcohol challenge on the viticultural side is less about pulling back on phenolic ripeness than it is about holding the sugars back while getting the polyphenols through.

From: Mike Pollard

01/28/2008 13:28:55 Hi Ric

This alcohol level argument is getting bigger over here in the USA with lots of complaints about high alcohol wines. Like you, I can’t see the problem. It's a matter of choice and let's face it for the average wine drinker a bottle of [yellowtail] is much better drink than something with 1 or 2% less alcohol from Europe in the same price range.

The aging argument is also hard to fathom. Over the decades that I have been drinking wine I've not taken much notice of alcohol until all the complaints in the last couple of years. But in the last two years I've had good and bad examples of aged wine of different levels of alcohol. One of the best was a ten year old zinfandel from Hop Kiln (California) that was 15.5% and that was transformed by food in a even better wine.

The food concern is also difficult to follow. As evidence that the higher alcohol wines do go with food I've been posting on my blog about The Sydney International Wine Competition; (founded 1982) where wines are assessed together with food. The big winner in 2007 with a trophy for its category "Fuller Bodied Dry Red Wines" and trophies for "Best Red Table Wine of Competition" and "Best Wine of Competition" was the 2004 Neagles Rock One Black Dog Reserve Cabernet Shiraz - a 15% wine.

In terms of GraemeG's comment: I'm not sure what point he is trying to make by saying one should look at alcohol levels over time in certain wines. The wines I have looked at in the past (Grange, Moss Wood Cab, St Henri) have all seen increases, and I would hazard a guess that if the climate suits a hotter ripening season then most wines with any history will show an increase in alcohol levels. How the more recent vintages will age is a question that we won't answer for a decade or two.

The questions GraemeG raised were "Why are these wines better at 14.5% minimum than they were at mid-13%s? Why does this trend seem to be irrespective of vintage conditions?" My answer to that is that wine drinkers like the wines better at 14.5% than 13%, and therefore Penfold's makes the wines as consistently as they can in the style that is appreciated. After all, they are in the wine business to make money, not to satisfy those of us (the minority of wine drinkers) to want to cellar wine for 10-20 years.

I don't want to be critical of GraemeG as I appreciate his input on the various fora. But its unfortunate that he has not tried the Molldooker wines. Yes they are high alcohol; according to Sparky even higher than what's on the label. But they are fun wines that are not meant to be aged but drunk whenever you feel like you need something big and bold. What's more important is that the Marquis' understand their consumers. And I for one appreciate Sparky's approach to his wines. Which simply stated is "People are always asking me, When should I drink this wine? How long should I cellar it?" "And you know what I say to them? I'm making another one next year! When should you drink it? How long will it take you to find a corkscrew?!! Or now that we're going screwcaps, how long will it take you to get a glass?!!"

Mike

From: Chris Robinson

01/29/2008 00:42:21 To say that a lot of the key arguments about high alcohol wine are "twaddle" beggers belief. Your own article argues that there are very marked differences between the attitudes of individual wine drinkers - and that is surely the point.

As an apparent blockbuster wine drinker you may indeed be in a minority, or even a majority of todays drinking public. Who knows? The fact is however that a lot of drinkers and writers are seeking lower alcohol wines for good reason - to them. The reasons are the masking of the varietal and fruit structures by high alcohol and their experience that big reds and whites too often dominate elegant food, which they prefer to eat. Simple as that really.

No one is going to say a 14-15% will not go with a curry or a steak off the BBQ. In my own personal view when the bloody wine is crawling out of the glass, I avoid it like the plague. This isn't only about high alcohol though and it certainly is not a reaction to Parker directly. It is a desire for wines that deliver varietal character, acidity and freshness. Some high alcohol wines are able to deliver this, most I personally think not.

There are therefore exceptions to any rule. But Ric, trust me the world is moving towards lower alcohol for one major reason, they taste like the grapes they are made from. And yes, Zin is one exception. It can carry high alcohol, but so also can Touriga Nacional, its just called port.

From: Dave Lehmann

01/29/2008 01:50:31 Hi Ric,

Mate I really enjoyed you last article and (as you know) was moved to throw a quick comment off appreciation in. Anyway I've been mulling over your points and other points put forward by various camps of opinion over the last couple of days. The question that has niggled away is the "why' of the increase in alcohol over the last decade, in the Barossa in particular.

All of the point you made I agree with, but I still feel there is more than pure Parker Pandering, efficiency and taste driving them up. Then... a mini flash hit me today. We are about to start picking our first grapes in the next week or so. I've busily run around the vineyard with my hand refractometer taking readings of the shiraz an am amazed to see that sugar levels are already creeping into the 14 Baume (26 brix) range in a few patches. This is just sugar however. The phenology (if such a word exists) of ripeness in grapes as you well know relies on so much more than mere sweetness. The tannins, anthracynins (again spelling sorry), Phenol Structure, etc must also reach their maturity, which in my opinion just doesn't happen this early in the season.

It seems that the vintages in general are starting earlier and earlier. The winemakers that are really chasing the true "balance" point of their wines are having to allow the grapes to become much sweeter (in sugar value) to achieve the ripe sweet tannins and phenolic structure that is making our wines the super stars they are. Now whether these early vintages are due to global warming, cyclic factors or even just plain old "shit happens" I really cant say.

Perhaps there is some correlation between actual vs. average vintage start dates for a region and overall average alcohol percentage in the reds produced.

I must say that as a winemaker that isn't producing wine by the numbers but rather making my initial pick decisions based on the flavour balance of the grapes I suspect there will be a correlation.

I keep going back to the fact that Dad and I'm sure his contemporaries were making 14.5% plus wines in the sixties and seventies. It's not actually a new thing! They were picking when the fruit was ripe too. 2002 was a great year. There is no arguments there. It was also a cool and late year. The alcohols were in general a little lower than say 2004 or 2003 but there was a great balance of ripeness in the wines. We could pick at a lower baume because the while grape was ripe, not just the sugars.

Well, I don't know whether this'll give you any food for thought, I was just moved to share.

From: GraemeG

02/01/2008 00:24:50 I'm not trying to have an argument, but I'm obviously not explaining myself very well, if Mike's response is a guide!

Although I haven't tasted Mollydooker, I don't have a problem with it, at all. I suspect I wouldn't like it much (after the first glass!) but that hardly matters. I certainly wouldn't suggest that it be made any other way - all of Sparky’s remarks made perfect sense – if you like the wine.

I don't have problem with Yellowtail either. You can drink it if you like - if you find the alcohol too high, then find something else. You can drink some insipid swill from the south of France, if YT is too strong.

And I’m sure there are plenty of young, or youngish, high alcohol wines that pair well with food. Heck, I had a 2002 Clonakilla Hilltops shiraz (15%) a few weeks ago that was very good indeed at six years of age.

But I don't believe Penfolds have upped the alcohol % of the 50-year old St Henri style in the last 5 years as a response to consumer demand. If so, they're doing a mighty fine job of anticipating it four years in advance, given its age at release. You didn't answer my question, Mike. Why are the wines better, I asked; you said because consumers like them better that way. That's not an answer!

Why have so many wines with long pedigrees undergone this hike in alcohol? There have always been high alcohol wines in the past – as Dave mentioned. Bin 3110, do I hear? But they seemed then to be the product of freakish – or at least unusual – vintages. Nowadays, it's just par for the course – turn the bottle round, and there it is – 14.5%, 8.6 std drinks. Or more…

Dave's comments make me wonder whether it is in fact something that has snuck up on us, do a degree. Balancing the sugar and phenolic ripeness of grapes has become more of a high-wire act than before. I think that's a concern, because it will lead to fewer well-balanced wines which reward aging. We know those existed in the past. We know the odd high alcohol wines from the past aged well too. But making wines, year-in, year-out, that knock on the door of 15%? I'm not convinced that we'll look back on many of these wines with any great fondness. It's not universal – Tyrrell's & Mount Mary, for instance, still make wines at 13%-ish. But has anyone in Australia made wine at 12.x% in the last five years? Lots of those wines aged well – Grange, for instance.

We shall see. I'm not saying all high alcohol wines are lousy. Or that they won't age. But the number of wines that fall into the less-than-14% category seems to be shrinking all the time, and I’m not aware of any quality-based reasons to justify it. And none of Ric's comments or any others above have supplied them either.
cheers,
Graeme

From: Mike Pollard

02/04/2008 16:17:24 Hi Ric

A response to GraemeG’s comments in his second post. I see no problem with much of what he has written, except that there is a little confusion in terms of the point being raised about St Henri. Graeme asks “Why are the (higher alcohol) wines better?”

Do I think that St Henri at 14.5% is a better wine than a vintage less than 14%? That is a little difficult to answer, given that I like to leave the wine for at least 5 years. Certainly the more recent vintages seem more approachable when young, and in truth less St Henri in style (IMHO), but does more approachable equate with better quality? In terms of the average drinker, be they those who think [yellow tail] is about as much as they want to spend or the well-heeled trying to impress, I’d say yes. As a generality higher alcohol does mean a riper wine with a more open flavor profile; something that most average wine drinkers find appealing. So yes, even though St Henri is held back, I still believe that the increase in alcohol is an attempt to influence the drink-now consumer. But then St Henri hasn’t been 12.5% for some time. In fact from 1993 to 2003 St Henri has only been at 13% once (1995), all the rest have been 13.5 to 14.5%. You could argue that there has been an increase in alcohol over that time, but St Henri is not a wine I consider to be hot. It has far more balance and refinement than many other wines of the same alcohol content. Hopefully this is a measure of wine making, but it may also be a consequence of the late release of the wine. But for me that only highlights the aging potential of well made wines around 13.5 to 14.5%.

GraemeG wrote: “But has anyone in Australia made wine at 12.x% in the last five years? Lots of those wines aged well – Grange, for instance.”

I’m not entirely sure that an alcohol of 12.X% is a recipe for successful aging. I have had some 12.X% red wines that have aged well for decades, however I don’t believe we have enough age on most 14.5%ers’ to comment on them yet. Grange is a wine that has had its alcohol all over the place. Breaking alcohol levels down to how many vintages/decade were greater than 13% reveals that there were two in the 1950’s (’51 and ’54), three in the 1960s (’63, ‘65’ and ‘66), four in the 1970s (’75, ’76, ’77 and ’78), eight in the 1980s (all but ’80 and ’81), and all wines in the 1990’s were above 13%. Is this evidence of increasing alcohol levels? It appears so, especially if you consider the period from 1970 onwards.

Is Grange made with consideration of the vintage conditions or to a recipe? I think that depends on who was wine maker. Schubert kept alcohol levels at 13.5% or below. On close inspection he seems to have been trying to reduce alcohol over time, and only the 1951, 1954, 1963, 1965 and 1966 vintages were above 13%. When Don Ditter took over in 1975 alcohol levels jumped up to 14% but then progressively fell until 1980 when they again increased and the first 14+% wine was made in 1984; I've seen figures of 14.2 and 14.5. John Duval began to make the wine in 1986 and he seemed content to maintain alcohol at 13.5% until the last few years of his tenure when 14.5% was reached again. Peter Gago took over in 1998 and has kept things at around 14%. Figure here http://shirazshiraz.blogspot.com/2005/10/alcohol-creep-has-there-been-increase_25.html

I’m not convinced that Grange is a good example of a lowish alcohol wine, after all that first wine was 13.5% and described as a “good port”. When young, Grange has always seemed to me to be a big wine; caveat, I’ve only had between 8-12 vintages of different ages and most have been from the 1980’s on.

Is the reason for higher alcohol related to balancing the sugar and phenolic ripeness? I’m not a wine maker nor have I looked at information that might contribute to this explanation. It would be nice to see the data though, but are there wineries that have been gathering hard, analytical data for enough time to arrive at a conclusion?

Mike

From: TORB

02/23/2008 15:48:48 In the above article I suggested that if the politically correct police and nanny state was serious about reducing alcohol in wine they would not be calling for a reduction of a couple of percent. They would be calling for "real" low alcohol wine that would be around half the strength (or less) than the current average level, just like low alcohol beer.

Interestingly enough, a Spanish producer has just launched the worlds first low alcohol (real) wine. It's 6.5% and it will be sold in the UK. But here is where it gets interesting. Are the producers extolling the virtues of low alcohol wine as being a socially responsible alternative? Not on your nelly! Its being promoted as a "diet wine."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=516242&in_page_id=1811