Your palate is becoming Parkerized. 
In a few years, it will take 15% + to get you off like lower ABV used to.
I would be very interested to see if your palate changed with a 6 month period of abstinence, but I couldn’t do that and you need to for work!
The same seems to happen with becoming habituated to sugar or salt.
Should never have sold off the Amarone.
All roads lead to SQN
This
I’ve found the new wave of California producers over the past 15-20 years who’ve aimed for more restrained and (to my palate) balanced wines quite exciting. But some went too far in the other direction, and some of their wines were a bit thin and underripe to my way of thinking.
Personally, I have no problem with a Southern Rhone at 14.5%, and much Barolo has come in at that level for many years. Those wines can take that.
I’m still baffled when I’m served an old Napa cab that is marked at 12.5% and is gorgeous. Were they just taking advantage of the +/- 1.5% margin of error for labeling, or did they really achieve physiological ripeness at that level?
My confession is that I don’t really pay too much attention to the ABV when purchasing and/or drinking. If I feel a burn or get alcoholic fumes I might note the ABV. Otherwise it’s either good/interesting or bad/uninteresting. ABV is just information. That said, I remain fairly oak averse particularly when the wine is slathered in it. I consume wine on its own as much if not more than with a meal.
Same here. Typically over a number of hours. I tend to like to reflect on each mouthful, to often experience the aromas by swirling and sticking my nose in the wine glass, again and again, often before ever taking another sip. And while I still like the occasional very rich, intense and BIG cab and/or blend, I’ve gravitated to the less-fatiguing Oregon Pinot Noir I’ve been drinking these past couple of years. But I would hate to give up the diversity I enjoy with the occasional “big” wines.
They just put 12.5% on all the wines to cover the tax category, so if the label says 12.5%, it should not be considered a data point. Its rare to see a '70s or older CA wine that has anything different. Ridge was an exception.
100% agreed but I suspect that they were also at least much closer to achieving physiological ripeness at 12.5%. It would be interesting to check some of the abvs on those old California wines.
Still love burgs and German wines (esp from the MSR) and just really liked a 2021 Bordeaux. Guess I have not gone to the dark side yet even at 69.
This is what I’ve found, too. I found myself enjoying the more middle-of-the-ground offerings more and more rather than the too restrained ones. They say that wines that are too ripe lack a sense of place and variety, but I also find that can be true on too lean wines. As with everything, seems like middle ground is where things come together.
That said, Syrah is the magic one that can take both a very lean and early picking window as well as a late one - it seems to excel in both. I’m also starting to think Zinfandel is built in a similar way. Whereas Cabernet isn’t. It kind of needs a certain threshold to get away from its own herbaceous self.
I’ve never had a Spanish trousseau.
It often goes by other names in Spain such as Merenzao and Maria Adona, or Bastardo in Portugal.
Most NR are still around 14% or below?
I just checked the last ten bottles I’ve tasted, mainly newer vintages. Highest ABV was 13,5% (2015 Levet Maestria and 2017 Farge Cornas)…
Look for the Merenzao from Algueira.
I’d be curious who is routinely clocking in over 14% in the north these days. I haven’t bought any since the 2015 vintage so maybe things really have taken a jump. In the cellar today and checked a 2013: 13%. I think my 2015s come in at 13.5%.
Again, assuming (which you probably shouldn’t IMO) that those curiously-round numbers on the label are correct.
They aren’t
EU demands increments of 0.5% anyway, so most wineries who export, will round down to nearest 0.5%. I’m sure some do a bit more… 