ACIDITY - what´s the matter ...

[Ian_Sutton]

Hi Robert
I’m also intrigued as to why you started the thread. If it’s an attempt to represent a different view to some recent posts, then that’s cool. Your palate, your palate preferences.

Regards
Ian

[Michael_S_Monie]

I’m sure that he had some dark, nefarious motive.

[JulianD]

Go have some 2015 GG’s and you’ll learn about too much acidity.

[Robert_Sand]

@Ian Sutton

Hi Robert
I’m also intrigued as to why you started the thread. If it’s an attempt to represent a different view to some recent posts, then that’s cool.

Yes, that´s one reason.

It also amuses me very much to read such a high number of critical replies to my OP – I seem to be the “black sheep” in a herd of acidity freaks -

btw: in reply to Fred´s posting (which I apprechiate):
Nebbiolo wines seem to have both in excess: acidity and tannins -

In white wines very high acidity can be balanced with residual sugar - the “German way”.
In red wines that´s hardly common (except for Lambrusco lovers) -

@Michael S. Monie

I’m sure that he had some dark, nefarious motive.

Last (nefarious) reason: there were so many quite silly “question threads” recently here - why not add another one

[Michael_S_Monie]

Robert, haven’t you heard? There is a new paradigm with Barolo.

[Ian_Sutton]

Hi Robert
The replies have not been critical of your palate preferences. Indeed the majority have rather rallied round to say palate differences are fine. The criticisms are of the original post being a bit of a straw-man.

You aren’t the black sheep, even if you want to be.

Regards
Ian

[Dave_McCloskey]

My palate is probably more sensitive to acids than others and I tend to shy away from wines with this characteristic. I look for well balanced wines where the acid and tannins are in harmony. As some have pointed out it can be of benefit to consume wines with elevated acidity to pair with certain types of food.

[Kim_Z]

@Claus Jeppesen

KXXDC5FarhE

Love this flick. Buffers one’s acid, methinks.

[Barry_Paul_Price]

@Fred Scherrer

I need to look at things simply. I see ‘angles’ in wine on one side of the fulcrum and ‘rounds’ on the other side. ‘Angles’ are acidity and tannin. ‘Rounds’ are sugar (if present) and glycerol. As grapes go from underripe to overripe the rounds get more prominent and the angles become less so. [Fruit flavors vs vegetal flavors change along this pathway, but that is a tangent.]

Wine types with lots of tannin (Cab/Syrah) tend to need less acidity to act as the ‘angles’ side of things. The more collective angles they have the more ‘rounds’ are needed on the other side. That will probably be supplied mostly by glycerol which tracks natural alcohol levels very closely (alcohol in of itself is not a very ‘round’ thing).

Wine types with little tannin (whites and pinks in general) need more acidity to provide ‘angles’. With likely less total ‘angles’ these types of wine need less ‘rounds’ to be balanced (less glycerol/lower alcohol level). Wines with residual sugar (rounds) tend to need more acidity (angles) to achieve balance (Riesling, for example).

We all have our preferences for where the balance point lies. But I think this simple model works pretty well.

Love this Fred. It also helps me explain why I am not a huge fan of Barbera which has high acidity and then ANY oak on it makes it too ‘angular’ for me.

[John_Morris]

@Barry Paul Price

@Fred Scherrer

I need to look at things simply. I see ‘angles’ in wine on one side of the fulcrum and ‘rounds’ on the other side. ‘Angles’ are acidity and tannin. ‘Rounds’ are sugar (if present) and glycerol. As grapes go from underripe to overripe the rounds get more prominent and the angles become less so. [Fruit flavors vs vegetal flavors change along this pathway, but that is a tangent.]

Wine types with lots of tannin (Cab/Syrah) tend to need less acidity to act as the ‘angles’ side of things. The more collective angles they have the more ‘rounds’ are needed on the other side. That will probably be supplied mostly by glycerol which tracks natural alcohol levels very closely (alcohol in of itself is not a very ‘round’ thing).

Wine types with little tannin (whites and pinks in general) need more acidity to provide ‘angles’. With likely less total ‘angles’ these types of wine need less ‘rounds’ to be balanced (less glycerol/lower alcohol level). Wines with residual sugar (rounds) tend to need more acidity (angles) to achieve balance (Riesling, for example).

We all have our preferences for where the balance point lies. But I think this simple model works pretty well.

Love this Fred. It also helps me explain why I am not a huge fan of Barbera which has high acidity and then ANY oak on it makes it too ‘angular’ for me.

That seems like an odd take to me. Usually the oak on barbera adds a sweet quality to the acids (vanillin in the oak, I assume). People age barbera in barriques to offset the naturally high acids and make it more approachable for people who find straight barbera tough slogging.

[John_Morris]

@Fred Scherrer

I need to look at things simply. I see ‘angles’ in wine on one side of the fulcrum and ‘rounds’ on the other side. ‘Angles’ are acidity and tannin. ‘Rounds’ are sugar (if present) and glycerol. As grapes go from underripe to overripe the rounds get more prominent and the angles become less so. [Fruit flavors vs vegetal flavors change along this pathway, but that is a tangent.]

Wine types with lots of tannin (Cab/Syrah) tend to need less acidity to act as the ‘angles’ side of things. The more collective angles they have the more ‘rounds’ are needed on the other side. That will probably be supplied mostly by glycerol which tracks natural alcohol levels very closely (alcohol in of itself is not a very ‘round’ thing).

Wine types with little tannin (whites and pinks in general) need more acidity to provide ‘angles’. With likely less total ‘angles’ these types of wine need less ‘rounds’ to be balanced (less glycerol/lower alcohol level). Wines with residual sugar (rounds) tend to need more acidity (angles) to achieve balance (Riesling, for example).

We all have our preferences for where the balance point lies. But I think this simple model works pretty well.

I think your take is basically right, but I’m not sure why you need to invent your own vocabulary. “Angles” seems like just a synonym for structure, which means tannin and acid and alcohol.

“Rounds” as a term seems to combine and confuse several elements. In part, it seems to encompass fruitiness, which is partly a function of ripeness (though some grapes have more intense fruit flavors than others – e.g., zinfandel v. tannat).

You also include sweetness under that heading. Sugar fulfills several functions. It balances/counteracts acid and tannin. That’s why highly tannic wines like Barolo and Sagrantino historically were off dry. But it also accentuates fruit flavors. Compare a dry and a sweet riesling from the same vineyard and producer if you need proof: The sweet version will be wildly more fruity. I assume that’s why some producers leave some residual sugar in chardonnays and other whites.

I think it would be clearer if you used the conventional terms.

[Fred_Scherrer]

@John Morris

@Fred Scherrer

I need to look at things simply. I see ‘angles’ in wine on one side of the fulcrum and ‘rounds’ on the other side. ‘Angles’ are acidity and tannin. ‘Rounds’ are sugar (if present) and glycerol. As grapes go from underripe to overripe the rounds get more prominent and the angles become less so. [Fruit flavors vs vegetal flavors change along this pathway, but that is a tangent.]

Wine types with lots of tannin (Cab/Syrah) tend to need less acidity to act as the ‘angles’ side of things. The more collective angles they have the more ‘rounds’ are needed on the other side. That will probably be supplied mostly by glycerol which tracks natural alcohol levels very closely (alcohol in of itself is not a very ‘round’ thing).

Wine types with little tannin (whites and pinks in general) need more acidity to provide ‘angles’. With likely less total ‘angles’ these types of wine need less ‘rounds’ to be balanced (less glycerol/lower alcohol level). Wines with residual sugar (rounds) tend to need more acidity (angles) to achieve balance (Riesling, for example).

We all have our preferences for where the balance point lies. But I think this simple model works pretty well.

I think your take is basically right, but I’m not sure why you need to invent your own vocabulary. “Angles” seems like just a synonym for structure, which means tannin and acid and alcohol.

“Rounds” as a term seems to combine and confuse several elements. In part, it seems to encompass fruitiness, which is partly a function of ripeness (though some grapes have more intense fruit flavors than others – e.g., zinfandel v. tannat).

You also include sweetness under that heading. Sugar fulfills several functions. It balances/counteracts acid and tannin. That’s why highly tannic wines like Barolo and Sagrantino historically were off dry. But it also accentuates fruit flavors. Compare a dry and a sweet riesling from the same vineyard and producer if you need proof: The sweet version will be wildly more fruity. I assume that’s why some producers leave some residual sugar in chardonnays and other whites.

I think it would be clearer if you used the conventional terms.

Actually, I did have to invent another term in order to NOT confuse things normally associated with conventional terms. There is a lot of baggage attached to those terms. You yourself attached ‘fruitiness’ to ‘rounds.’ My intention was to separate balancing forces according to specific aspects - I’d call these axes of balance.

You are spot-on with the idea of sugar balancing/counteracting highly tannic (angular) wines. However, the attachment of sugar to fruitiness is an effect separate from the fundamental angle/round axis of balance.

Primary axis of balance: Angles vs rounds
Secondary axis of balance: fruit vs non-fruit Each of these has its own axis of balance according to the variety/varieties involved.
Fruit axis for say, Pinot Noir: red vs black
Non-fruit axis for Pinot Noir: Earthiness vs Oak
Fruit axis for say, Riesling: green vs golden
Non-fruit axis for Riesling: petrol vs petrichor

One can use descriptors that seem most meaningful to oneself.

I can’t count how many times people have told me that the ‘angles vs rounds’ idea has given them a starting point for visualizing the interplay of major wine components. It makes it easier to then move to a more three-dimensional and interrelated view of wine with all its many co-dependent aspects.

But my point was to use terms without baggage for the sake of clarity.

[Fred_Scherrer]

Love this Fred. It also helps me explain why I am not a huge fan of Barbera which has high acidity and then ANY oak on it makes it too ‘angular’ for me.[/quote]

That seems like an odd take to me. Usually the oak on barbera adds a sweet quality to the acids (vanillin in the oak, I assume). People age barbera in barriques to offset the naturally high acids and make it more approachable for people who find straight barbera tough slogging.[/quote]

John, I agree that oak can have an angle softening effect for the reasons you give above. It also actually deacidifies wine to a degree (one can measure pH of new vs used barrels).

However, oak can also accentuate the angles of a wine if the qualities of its tannins match up with the same places on the mouth as the wine tannins. I have seen many cases where one kind of barrel makes a wine softer and rounder and another kind makes it seem harder. So new oak can be both a ‘round’ and an ‘angle’ maker.

It’s complicated and non-linear.

[Matthew_King]

Fred-- thanks for your unfussy metaphor about the fulcrum.

It provides a visual cue to help people understand the concept of balance.

And in my opinion, your choice of descriptors is spot on.