Which Is Better in Wine: Power or Balance?

Hi Berserkers,

I had the pleasure of opening two very different German Rieslings last night and wanted to offer my tasting notes and open up a discussion on whether you feel its better for a wine to take a chance and be supremely powerful in one aspect to make it stand out or to play it safe and be balanced out? Here are the wines that brought up the question for me:

BALTHASAR RESS 1998 RIESLING SPÄTLESE – I had to get this because I was dying of curiousity as to how a 13 year old medium-sweet German Spatlese would taste. Nose is a highly uplifting somewhat but not too floral lemony petrol, way more fragrant and pleasant than any I’ve smelled in my limited Riesling and overall experience. If Riesling petrol nose were music, this would be a high note.

Beautiful gold color indicates excellent aging and great skill and care by the winemaker. Medium body. Strong taste of sour lemons and apricots. Extremely powerful classic Riesling acidity and minerality, but not as much balancing sweetness as I was expecting in a Spatlese. Again, like the nose, this went for the high notes and hit them. Really long finish too.

This is not a dry wine. I’ve had dry Trocken before and this is not that. There’s definitely a hint of some sweetness here but it’s been carefully controlled as best I can tell through the winemaking and aging. The acidity and minerality rule above all else.

GUNDERLOCH 2006 RIESLING SPÄTLESE – I was going to save this but I opened it immediately to compare it to the Balthasar Ress. A completely different story here.

Two surprises for me right off the bat: Despite being much younger, this Rielsing had a darker golden color and a much stronger and heavier petrol note in the nose.

Medium body. Tastes of just ripe peaches and apricots. Of course there’s acidity, but nowhere near as much as the Balthasar Ress. Much better balanced, but nowhere near as powerful as the Balthasar Ress. Using the music analogy again, it’s in the middle notes. Not too high (acidic) and not too low (sweet).


*** So this brings me back to my question – do you think its better for a wine to be risky and powerful or safe and balanced?

I have to be honest, I have never had a Riesing like the Balthasar Ress ever before, it was really unique. It definitely stands out but it’s not my favorite. My preference was for the Gunderloch. The great balance between the sweetness, the minerality and the acidity is the key factor for me. If I had to buy a second bottle, it would be of this Riesling.

The Balthasar Ress was not my style personally because of my sweet tooth, but it’s got my total respect for the total craftsmanship that clearly went into it. I salute it but I don’t love it. For what it’s worth, the LCBO staff who always get free preview tastings of every wine they bring in absolutely raved to me about it because it was so different from all the many Spatleses they bring in.

So how do you all feel about power vs. balance? Is there a wine in your collection that you love that takes a chance and clearly puts its power behind one aspect? Or do you prefer your wines to be more balanced? Love to hear your thoughts.

They each serve a different purpose, which is usually the intent of the winemaker assuming it turned out as planned. Different foods, different temps, etc, etc.

But all things being equal I will take balance. Lots of it.

Is length important or will breadth suffice

I always like balance. I sometimes desire power. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

From your notes, it seems to me that the Gunderloch is aging a bit too quickly. That said, I prefer balance to power.

Balance for me is key, too much upfront anything is a flaw in my opinion. For instance I really like cabernets and bought and cellared alot of them over the years especially from Napa. In the last 10 years or so the trend (modern) is to make them too intense on the front end, some to the point where it is painful to taste, at least at their early age. I think a lot of this is due to certain critics being impressed at this style but to me ruins the whole idea of wine being made to enjoy with food.
BTW those rieslings do sound pretty good.

Balance + Complexity =

David

All balanced wines have power, but not all powerful wines have balance.

In any wine, red or white always BALANCE

Balance.

Balance…always balance…Danielson…Sorry, i keep hearing Mr. Miyagi …

Seems to be clear favor towards balance with an appreciation for some power.

Sarah, I unfortunately don’t have the palate or experience yet to tell if the 2006 Gunderloch is aging too fast but I do have two other 2007 Riesling Spatleses from Frederich Becker and Markus Moltor that will enable me to tell better once I crack those open.

Dave, very Jack Handey Deep Thought perspective, I like it.

What’s interesting is that since joining the board and learning more and trying new and different styles of wine, I realize that I was previously leaning heavily towards power myself with my affinity for icewine and Aussie stickies and actually had no true appreciation of balance in a wine. I really didn’t come to appreciate balance until tasting dry French Old World wines and Sauternes and German/Austrian Rieslings.

I actually haven’t had icewine in a while, having sipped on TBAs, Moscato D’astis, Brachettos and Late Harvests recently as per my recent noble (sweet) wine notes but it will be interesting to see now how icewines stack up with this newfound appreciation of balance.

Grace…

Both. One is sufficient for a drinkable wine, both are necessary for a great wine.

IMHO, of course.

If a powerful wine isn’t balanced, its still crap. Even those of us who like us some big wines have all had some pretty awful if powerful wines. I’ve had some great Martinellis but some of those wines are simply not balanced, much less graceful.

What Roberto’s gently hinting at (I think) is that balance alone does not make a wine pleasant to some – i.e. if everything is big–fruit, tannin, acidity, etc., it’s still a really big wine, just a balanced big wine.

I often like those, up to a point. Not to harp on the Martis (they are just the first that come to mind), but I’ve also had some that, while balanced, were still too much. The 2005 G&L Zin is an example, at least at this point in its life. I remember liking it a good deal a few years ago. But the other night, even once you let some heat blow off, it’s balanced, but it’s still too much, IMO. I seriously thing you could sneak it into a LBV Port tasting if you gave the Ports a 3-5-year head start.

Complexity.

You can have a wine with power and balance, and have a great wine. But power without balance is usually not too enjoyable to me. I would rather have a light-bodied wine with balance than a big wine without balance. Balance is always at the core of my favorite wines, but power is optional.

“What Roberto’s gently hinting at (I think) is that balance alone does not make a wine pleasant to some – i.e. if everything is big–fruit, tannin, acidity, etc., it’s still a really big wine, just a balanced big wine.”

One of my favorite words is “grace”. In Brasil if you make a stupid suggestion or a bad joke the response will be “não tem graça!” (that lacks grace) and the first line to the Girl from Ipanema is NOT “Tall and tan and lean and beautiful…” it’s “Olha que coisa mais linda Mais cheia de graça” (look at that most beautiful thing, so filled with grace). Thelonious Monk had grace, Oscar Peterson not so much…

Hmmm, but who says that everything being big is balance? High-acid and high alcohol is not balanced to me, it’s out of balance. It is like saying that playing the Sex Pistols at 10 on the loudspeakers can be balanced out by playing Chopin’s Ballade No.1 in G at 10 on the speakers. They are both out of balance, regardless of their opposing qualities, imho.

definitely power!