I’ve had the opportunity to taste the 08/09 southin and 08/09 ten and there is nothing high alcohol or fruit bomb about it. I can certainly agree for prior vintages, but with the new winemaker it’s a shift in a much better direction.
OMG…a “Premium Selection”…when will it all end?? Wonder what happened to the other 3,769,421 gallons that didn’t meet
the premium selection process. Ole Fred bulk the stuff out, you suppose??
Tom
I must admit that I haven’t tried the 2009 version of “Da Southing”.
Like you say, they have been high octane in the past.
But if you notice on the label, it DOES say 14.5% alcohol.
And if it’s typical for CA callouts, the Alc is likely higher than listed.
I’m pretty much thru with CA Pinots above the 14.5% threshold. (Much prefer <14%)
I wasn’t aware you had tested many yourself…did you use your ebulliometer or desnitometer? And since you specifically mentioned California, you found the non-CA wines to be more accurate?
I’ve tested them with my highness level for a given volume of wine.
While Burgs (for instance) may (Or may not) be accurate, they start at a lower claimed Alc % on the bottle.
So, if it’s higher (or lower) it doesn’t matter as much.
You misunderstood me…
For instance:
CA Pinot claims to be 14.5% alc. Let’s say it’s 1% higher in reality. That’s 15.5%.
Burg claims it’s 13.5% alc. Let’s say it’s 1% higher in reality. That’s 14.5%.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter as much for a Burg because it typically starts from a lower baseline as compared to a CA Pinot.
Let’s say CA Pinot claims to be 14.5% alcohol but is actually 14.1%. Let’s say Burgundy claims to be 13.5% but is actually 14.0%. Not even making anyone illegal here…what’s the difference?
Jeezus. I certainly did not want this thread to devolve into the “bang head against wall” argument of high ETOH California Pinot Noir. Paul, I imagine that blinded you could not tell the difference in 13 to 16% ETOH ABV Pinot from either CA, Burgundy or NZ.