At least the readers in the NY Times comment realized that Asimov was not recommending those wines but merely wanted to elicit comments on them. It was pretty clear he didn’t think highly of them, which is why some of the comments accused him of snootiness. The hoi polloi who read the NY Times may like mass produced wines, but they do at least read accurately.
It’s part of his Wine School series. He picks a region or style or variety, with specific recommendations, people comment, and then he follows up with another article about the tasting.
Enjoyed the comment of I’d like to know how sweet the wines are as they dont think they are that sweet. Quick check of LCBO says…
Prisoner 8g/L
Meiomi 9g/L
Apothic 17g/L
According to the chart from the Wine Folly Prisoner and Meiomi are in the off dry category and the Apothic is pushing the sweet.
but just at retail
Dennis Borczon wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:40 pm
Eric Asimov is dead to me now.
but just at retail
Actually the 3 wines he lists are in the top ten! Maybe there was a big advertising spread for Constellation and Gallo next to this latest article.
Does the g/L RS tell the whole story of a wine’s “perceived” sweetness? Don’t the other components of a wine such as , tannins, ph/acid , oak, etc. have an influence? I know I need more sugar in my tea than in my coffee, and even more in my lemonade to hit my sweet spot.
Yup, Jim…the article by KelliWhite talks about that.
Tom
Ha ! What I thought was an insight was really a nearly vanished short term memory. What’s a guy to do . . . EFF-IT ???!!!
There are other factors, such as acidity, pH, etc, but the residual sugar g/l info can allow you to do some reasonable generalizations, particularly when it comes to the brands being pushed by these mega-producers (which largely aren’t acid-driven, tannic, etc).
Only I would say 99.9%
larry schaffer wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:12 pm
I love the fact that he covered these wines - and I think he will gain greater ‘respect’ from the general NYT readership.This is not about ‘you or I’ - this is about the ‘other’ 99% of the wine drinking community that really does enjoy these wines, and no, I do not think it’s because they do not have ‘refined’ palates. Some folks just dig these wines - period. And many in our industry ‘laugh’ at these wines and those who enjoy them . . . why?
The only way our industry will grow is to continue to embrace ALL palates and tastes - and not ‘judge’ based on wines like these. Period . . .
Cheers!
Only I would say 99.9%
It can’t be that high. How can there be all the great wineries in Oregon if only .1% of us are buying these wines? You can do the same in Washington and those two are not even close to the production of overall wine in the US. I would say the better wine being produced is being purchased by about 10% of the wine consumers in the US. Not too many people buying Meiomi are buying alot of St. Innocent or Cayuse wines. I would say a buyer of Caymus (newer vintages) would be very likely to buy the Prisoner where as a buyer purchasing Antica Terra, Beaux Freres, Walter Scott, etc. would not buy it.
Marc,
Regarding safety, I’m not suggesting they are harmful in a direct manner for everyone, but can be for some.
Wines with high RS but marketed as dry is a threat for those living with acute diabetes. At over 15 g/l of RS, these wines have a higher GI and needs to be countered with additional insulin. But how would one know how much RS is there, especially if its marketed as dry? This information might be trivial to many but is the question of life and death for some. I don’t have this issue but I was a group dinner years back where some of these supermarket wines were served; the guy noticed his blood sugar levels rise and had to inject himself with additional insulin.
Given that diabetes is on the rise in the country and sugar/carb management is critical (its critical even otherwise); its preposterous that this information is not offered. Information is critical, for-example, What if someone is allergic to mega-purple or other chemicals that are added? What is someone is vegan and had wine that’s clarified with fish bladders?
Living in a world where ingredient labeling is key. Most items in our grocery bag have ingredient labeling, wine shouldn’t be any different!
Subu, thank you for clarifying, but the argument you’re making has nothing to do with so-called “supermarket wines”, but instead just applies to “wines”. Maybe a handful of wineries label r/s. And you think only large producers use other methods to achieve specific outcomes? And what about other food products that use “natural and artificial flavors and colorings”? How is that useful for a person to figure out what’s in their food?
If your beef is with the regulations, that’s perfectly fine (I personally like regulation and disclosure!). But don’t single out large wine producers for something everyone else in the industry does to a certain extent, which also happens to be perfectly legal.
(Disclaimer: not legal advice)
Artificial products are common in food as in wine. Food has more regulations, wines should follow the same. I don’t eat McDonalds burgers or food at Ikea. I avoid similar products in wine.
I didn’t single out any specific producer. Your claim is everyone is doing, so will I argument doesn’t hold merit. Mine is a moral argument. I hope someday it can become legal too.
Have any actual proof?
Of not labeling residual sugar, potential additives, etc.? Ridge I know discloses that kind of info. I can’t think of anyone else who doesn’t that extent, though I’m sure there are. I believe this has been discussed before on this board.
If your question is about adding stuff, aka “spoofing”, I’m not saying that everyone does it. I’m saying that it’s not just wineries distributing thru supermarkets.
You didn’t say “… something everyone else in the industry does to a certain extent…”? Immediately above?
On the disclosure point, why should a winery that does not do any of manipulation/additions have anything stated on a label? I know a bunch who do not manipulate/add, why should they be forced to state anything? To many people a positive disclosure kind of leads to assuming a negative connotation. I know it would mean that to me, as in “Why would they state that if they do not partake?”
You’re correct - I should have said “nearly everyone” when referring to the labelling.
I’m not sure I fully understand your second question. Sure, if wine is completely untouched, then why should a winery be required to say they don’t do anything? I thought the problem was wineries not disclosing, say, levels of residual sugar (even if natural?), or using egg whites to refine, or using a specific yeast, or bottling with sulfur etc.? None of this is required to be disclosed. Very few choose to do so.
I guess you get ALL the info when you buy your favorite cheese, or fruit, or whatever. Chems used to keep fruit orchards healthy, or whatever they feed cows, etc. And don’t forget that ALL cases of recent food poisoning came from “organic” farms, so yes, you got a full disclosure of “organic farming”, but yes, you also got all the food poisoning in the process. Welcome to real world.
I am also saying that having a law on books already, in regard to, say, alcohol level in wine, does not mean you get an honest disclosure by a winery, or importer for that matter, in full knowledge they knew they were lying and breaking the law, at times to escape proper taxation in the process. A wine with 15.6% alc should never say 13.9%, IMO, but hey, we only want New World wines to comply, right? Because that’s the implication I get from your thoughts, and every other such discussion in the past.
Just curious, did you get all the vaccinations to protect yourself? Do you take medicine when in need? Why do you think wines should not be adjusted in substandard vintages, for example? When native yeast fermentation may be in question, why not add yeast of your choosing, its a natural product by any measure. As one example. Not pointing out any winery out there, simply want to know why you want yourself protected, but not a wine you drink? When you buy alcohol that had a water adjustment, as most do, do you also require producers to disclose where that water had come from and if it had any adjustments to it, prior to dilution? Should brett be disclosed? Because its a natural by-product, but by your rules it would not be, right? When wineries manipulate trapped CO2, as even some of this board’s darlings do, are they to disclose such, since, you know, its a natural product? What and how much is required to be disclosed to make people happy when vast majority of wine is consumed by people who really do not care and the only real by-product will be an extra cost on small wineries who do not even practice much of the “spufication”? Wineries already with razor think profit margins.
This labeling discussion pops up often for a good number of years by now, and it is always just wine that seems to be in “need of disclosure”, no one demands nor verifies any other product out there. For the record, pretty much most of the “adjustments” in discussion came from Old World, and yet it always seems to be New World, and CA specifically, that “must be regulated”. Really? RO, chaptalization, etc, all came from Old World. You name any high end Bord out there and I say, RO. Or, spufication, as you call it. Many a Rhone is brett factory, and yet wine reviewers treat it as a positive, when any rational person knows that brett equals spoilage. I don’t buy spoiled fruit, why should I be buying bretty wine? But I see nothing on a label even for those labels that always have brett to warn me of the pitfall. Yeast used, many came from Old World, are saying that even though they were extracted in Old World no one in that same Old Wold is using them? I am more than fine with labeling laws for wine just as long as every winery is playing by same rules, something I seriously doubt will be the case after observing a number of players in the industry for the last 25 odd years.
Feel free to point out just how you propose to enforce labeling in wine when wineries of all sorts and size, and regions, have been abusing it for decades now, and openly lying. And why those who do not practice manipulation will be forced to spend on something they are not even involved in, and forced to recoop the cost via higher prices to consumers. Never even mind the negative connotation of “no additives were used” statement on a label.
What’s up Greg!
It’s been a while.