So, as we are mostly aware, especially after a recent board discussion, eucalyptus oils from trees upwind of vineyards can lend a eucalyptus note to wines. The winds in the Rhone can carry the flavors of garrigue into wines from that region.
That brings to mind a question – why is it that the addition of flavors, other than those from oak, is generally considered forbidden in the making of wine? We see that adding a hint of eucalyptus or garrigue into the berries can add a positive dimension to wine. Why not other desirable flavors? For example, why not add a bit of black olive to syrah, or add some stones into the fermentation tank for riesling? Or why not add eucalyptus oil to a cabernet, without needing to have a grove of the trees upwind from the vineyard?
Certainly, this is common and not considered heretical with beer and spirits. The world is full of craft beer with orange peel, cayenne pepper or coffee grounds, and vodka infused with fruit flavors.
How did it come to be that quality wine was never supposed to have flavor additives (other than ones that happen semi-naturally like eucalyptus)? Why would it be different if Heitz added an equivalent amount of eucalyptus oil to their 2018 Martha’s Vineyard, now that the trees that used to impart that flavor (up until sometime in the mid to late 1990s) have been removed, as compared to drinking old vintages when that grove was still there?
Before anyone freaks out, I’m not advocating for this practice, but I’ve always been curious why it is so frowned upon, and why it is so different than beer and spirits. Does anyone know?
I would wonder at what point in the winemaking process one would add these flavors? Would fermentation itself, the temperature swings, the activity of the yeast or alcohol affect the final results? Would one add it in barrel? Or only at the very end, just prior to bottling?
Wilson Creek in Temecula makes an Almond Sparkling wine… Not a fine wine by any means, but it’s also the only Temecula wine available here in Utah, so it does have a wide distribution…
I’m also not saying it should be done, but some do it…
I’m coming at this from a very un-scientific standpoint but, rather, that of a consumer. If there were flavors added to wine, I would cease to think of it as wine. Wine, to me, is fascinating because all of these fantastic different flavors come from one thing: grapes. The soil, surrounding flora, etc. etc. all contribute to these flavors, not added ingredients. So, while it might make something interesting, it would be a cocktail to me, or something like that. Not wine.
I tend to agree with Brandon. It depends on what you mean by additive. To me an additive is something that is added by design of the winemaker. Megapurple, oak chips, and powdered tannin are intentionally added to wine and thus are additives. Eucalyptus and garrigue are simply present in the environment and not added by the winemaker. They are thus not additives.
Now if a winegrower were to purposely plant eucalyptus trees on the edge of his vineyard in order to influence the flavor of his grapes, that would be an intervention but would the flavor/aroma imparted to the wine be an “additive”…?
Why don’t more winemakers purposely add fruit or other flavors to wine? Probably because that would be perceived by serious consumers as cheating. Chocolate Port and Almond sparkling wine just sound silly.
Anything flavoured in wine I’ve ever had, sangria, glogg, mulled wine has been nothing more than an inferior gimmick drink to me, so would probably prefer to drink alcoholic beverages that take to flavouring better than wine (vodka, rum, etc.) if the only choice. Thankfully won’t have to worry about that.
My instinct is the same as yours and David’s. I wouldn’t want wines to start having flavor additives. But the point of my post is to challenge our thinking a bit and to try to understand reasons beyond “it’s not traditional” and “it doesn’t seem right.”
What is the difference between (1) Heitz Martha’s Vineyard 1994, with oil that blew onto the grape skins from eucalyptus trees upwind (which are not there naturally nor are they a native species — neither are the grape vines for that matter), and (2) hypothetical Heitz Martha’s Vineyard 2018, with an equal amount of eucalyptus oil as in the 1994 added into the must before fermentation?
If I’m not mistaken, you can petition the ttb to put an additive in your wine as long as they approve it and you disclose it. Perhaps that is how all of these different sparkling wines have flavors in them? Just a guess though. Would love to hear if somebody knows more.
Well I will say, just to be nitpicky, that it isn’t all ok in the beer world. A good proportion of the beer snobs I know (and myself) really don’t like the trend to replace citrusy hops with actual citrus flavoring. Ballast Point has lost a lot of street cred since they sold to Constellation.
Certainly the cynic in me thinks the dissonance is from wine drinkers preference for the “natural” and “pure.” In the end, oak is a flavoring too, as are stems so you’re right to question. Then there’s the perception that you add flavoring to a product when you want to cover up deficiencies, unfortunately you see a lot of examples of both oak and RS being used in that manner.
This isn’t a direct answer to your question, Chris, but there are categories like vermouth and Barolo Chinato that have all sorts of flavorings. Of course, those are also fortified. I’d guess the brandy helps extract some of the flavoring essences. Perhaps that’s why I can’t think of a serious flavored wine that isn’t fortified.
To answer your question, Chris, I don’t think have any other justification for my feelings other than exactly what you said: it’s not natural / traditional / “right.” Now that you pose that, though, I am thinking about how I feel about beers with added flavors. I love them. For example, I had a sour the other day with apricot and it was lovely. Did that bother me at all? Not one bit. Why? Hmmm…I need to ponder that for a bit and will post later…
I am not a fan whatsoever either from a winemaker for wine consumer standpoint. I am in a merge with the process that takes beautifully grown grapes to a finished wine and I’m not a fan of too many things getting in the way of expressing those Grapes as clearly as possible. One can Define what I’m saying quite differently, but I think you know what I mean.
I am wondering if our purists know the list of adulterants already being added to our “expression of what’s on the vine” beverage?
Anybody remember the show Northern Exposure and the episode called The Big Feast?
Wine is like that.
If winemakers can toss in eggs, Mega Super Duper Purple, sugar (oops, I mean ‘grape concentrate,’) milk products (casein, pasteurized whole, skim, or half-and-half,) Isinglass (dried swim bladders of fish,) gelatin, porcine or bovine trypsin, porcine or bovine p-epsin, calcium carbonate, Tartaric Acid, Malic Acid, Citric Acid, Acetaldehyde, Dimethyl Dicarbonate, and sulfur, just to name a few, what the heck if they tossed one drop of Eucalyptus oil into a barrel?
Mark me down as being on the ‘final outcome’ side of this. For purists, wine already has more ingredients than the average ‘cocktail!’
