Me too, just can’t handle alcohol levels of those CDP, anything more than one glass is tough work.
Well said! If the wine is balanced and if you enjoy the wine, what does it really matter? I have yet to buy any wine based on its alcohol. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
1 Like
Personally my sweet spot is definitely 12% to 13.5%.
I have a lot of Pinot Noir, Red Bordeaux and Syrah based wines in the cellar and I have noticed that the wines from these grapes with lower alcohols on the labels generally (for me anyway) have much more florality on the nose and tend towards red fruits - both of which I strongly prefer.
I mostly find alcohol levels a reliable indicator of whether I am going to like the style. Same for Nth Rhone Syrah vs Aussie Shiraz, same Red Bordeaux vs Ca Cabs. It is very consistent for me
Having had California and NZ PNs at 14.5% , I can tell you I do not like the aromas or flavour profile of Pinot Noir over 13.5%.
So I do not buy into the the “if the wine is balanced” argument at all. It just does not work like that for me. I don’t drink Zinfandel hardly at all but have enjoyed examples at 14%.
Brodie
2 Likes
O.K. And then what? Become a psychic? Not gonna happen, Larry. And you and Greg and others continue to persist with your assumption that consumers are making assumptions re: alcohol. When I put that 15%+ wine back on the shelf, I am not making an assumption, rather I am making a percentage play. It’s the same as poker: sure, sometimes 2-7 offsuit wins a hand, but when that’s the hand you’re dealt it’s always the statistically correct move to fold. You don’t criticize the player who folded 2-7 offsuit for folding because she could have maybe won the hand. How is this point not clear? Or, is it simply an inconvenient truth, so we’re going to try to sweep it under the rug?
What assumption, Greg? Where is the assumption? You keep saying there is an assumption, but I don’t see it.
Really don’t care what people believe, simply pointing out that MANY drink MISLABELED wines and automatically assume their beliefs. I implore you, and so many other self appointed ‘experts’, to listen to David Ramsey’s really great interview. Pay lots of attention. Not a secret to many of us in the industry with access to labs and equipment, but still eye opening to us when consumers refuse to listen and simply go by their “beliefs”, FACTS be damned.
Wow. Condescending a little? (1). I never declared myself an expert, so stop with that garbage; (2). how about you actually go back and READ what I wrote, because if you do you will see I have already acknowledged/made the points you seem to think I don’t understand; (3). what FACTS do you think are being ignored?
Believe whatever it is you want to believe, just do not assume you’re actually drinking 12-13% alc wines only because a label says so. You seem to forget that RO was developed in France, FOR A REASON, though seemingly unable to put the 2 and 2 together. As one example.
Wow, you really are condescending, aren’t you? SHOW ME where I made the assumption you are accusing me of. You must be high, or something. Go learn to read, Greg.
I spent a good amount of time observing those on the interwebs claiming they hate oak. And then pretty consistently go for an oak heavy bottles in a blind tasting.
We’re not talking about oak, and you fail to draw this back to the topic at hand; this is what we call a non sequitur.
I understand that my views are not “popular” on this board, as they weren’t on Parker’s, but, well, reality sucks. And I’ve seen a good number of professionals in wine business refuse to participate in blind tastings. Simply personal observations on subjects of alcohol and oak based on real world facts and experience.
Which of your views are you talking about? You seem to be creating this huge conspiracy against your beliefs where none exists. You know what might be unpopular: you being condescending and putting words in the mouths of others.
Heck, one board denizen is not only guilty of greatly misstating alc numbers for years both here and in EU, but then once called a wine, deliberately picked at 32-33Brix year in and year out, as one having a great balance. As I said, believe whatever it is you want. Just do not assume that those who know have to go along, not should stay silent. I see plenty of reviews, both for domestics and imported, mention DARK FRUIT while finishing with a “great low alc under 12-13% bottle!”. Yeah, right. I’ve seen high 15s, Ramey tests way more and mentions 16+, and I believe that.
O.K… “Balance” is a subjective term; I assume you know that since you’re “in the industry with access to labs and equipment,” so I’m confused why you would attack someone for having a different opinion than you on this subject.
Balance is the only measurement, everything else means absolutely nothing.
Oooops! I was wrong. I guess you don’t know that “balance” is subjective. My bad.
1 Like
Brian,
Okay, I guess I’ll play . . .
I understand that the ‘general consumer’ has to depend upon certain ‘markers’ to help guide them - but I assume most folks on this board are more ‘open minded’ and realize that there are so many other variables at play rather than a single alcohol number.
Greg’s point - albeit made with a regular vs a velvet hammer - is that some who DO choose to select and purchase based on alcohol levels might be ‘mislead’ based on that number - and it’s unfortunate that some wines may not be chosen because of this one fact.
And to me, this thread is quite ‘biased’ based on those responding - check out the SQN or Saxum or some other threads featuring wines that are way above 12-13.5%, which when I peruse this thread, seems to be the ‘sweet spot’ most mentioned.
And you KNOW that some of us are just natural devil’s advocates, right? I guess when you’re a winemaker, you’re not supposed to be?
Keep the conversation going, folks . . .
Cheers!
Truth in labeling is always a wonderful thing, it allows the consumer at least some basic information about what they are buying. Sure, some people like me will walk away from it, but I’m sure other people do not care at all. You would probably want the people like me to stay away anyway, because if it is blowing past 15%, there is a strong chance I will not like it. Now I will concede, there are some grapes and blends that can handle 15%, it just still is not my preference. Even with Zinfandel, hence me adoring that recent 2013 Sky that is at 13.4% that some folks thought too lean.
Hard not to. Especially with 1.0-1.5% margin.
This conversation reminds me of one of the Falltaculars a number of years back. There were a couple of very low alcohol syrahs that were being poured that were, at least in my and others around opinions’, out of balance - so low that the wine lacked any kind of body and had screeching acidity, but did have beautiful aromas.
I’ll never forget talking to folks afterwards, and seeing notes posted that were quite favorable - and the one measure they pointed to was the fact that the alcohol was under 11.5% - NOT the flavors or aromas or anything else.
To me, that’s a problem with just looking at a number or ‘assuming’ that you’re going to find what you’re looking for in a wine based on that number.
Cheers
I agree with this.
Having a consumer pick up a bottle that “might” not be against their taste and then be disappointed by it is far more damaging than having that consumer not buy a bottle at all.
People talk, people post, and people create an awareness of a region based upon damn few actual samples(in the larger view of regional production quantities even the sample size of serious vinophiles is still minute).
If you buy a 15% abv Willamette Valley Pinot Noir, it may be balanced and a well made wine but it’s unlikely to actually wow someone who prefers lighter wines.
I like wine (or not) based on how it smells and tastes. I’d be surprised if there were many people on this board who liked or hated a wine based solely on the ABV, but that may be true more broadly.
When there are higher ABV wines (or beers) that I like, I just pour a smaller glass. SQN often falls into this category.
Thanks for this. One of my wine epiphanies was a 1983 Mouton; it was beautiful and rich and straddled that red/dark fruit border wonderfully. Next day, I took a look at the alcohol percentage on the label: 11.5%. Wow, what a revelation!
If it is possible to make Bordeaux like this at this alcohol level, I argue that winemakers have a duty to try, for their consumer’s health if nothing else. I sympathize with those ITB who do not want their hard work to be reduced to a single metric, but a wine at 14.5% is fully 26% more alcoholic than a wine at 11.5%, and that means a lot especially to us lightweights
Surprise! 
I made Syrah from a vineyard in the Willamette Valley from 2008 to 2016. I had a bunch of fun and with the Valley’s climatic variations in that set of vintages the wines covered a huge range of parameters.
The cool vintages; 2010, 2011, and 2012 were wines that were VERY difficult to sell, along with the 2013(a warm growing season but 7” of rain over three days in the midst of harvest). All were high acid, low fruit, and what most Syrah lovers(especially the typical new world drinker, and SQN/Saxum lover) would call out of balance.
Excepting 2011, those vintages are my favorites now and the most exceptional of the vintages along with 2008(which barely ripened).
The warm vintages, 2009, 2014, 2015, and 2016 are all much more typical. They sold reasonably well, especially 2015 and 2016. But the 2009 has aged in a very, very meh way. Not badly but a slog next to the low abv vintages. I think the 2015 is perhaps the best warm vintage of my career for both Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, and have hopes for the Syrah to age well. But I am very, very, very glad to have cases of the “unbalanced” vintages.
By chance we opened the 2013 for lunch and it’s more of a Syrah meets the “Loire Valley” experience than anything else that I can use to describe the wine. But it took 4-5 years to start to show itself.
I wouldn’t say solely on abv, but high abv is enough. And many wines with high abv are trying to be powerful in other ways too, and just become overwhelming to me.
Everyone’s palate is subjective do I am not criticizing the wines, just saying that it’s not for me. I also stopped drinking things like Abyss and other high abv beers as well. Generally speaking I look for 5.5% and under beers.
2 Likes
Good point about beer, Marcus. ABVs on craft beers have gotten stoopid.
This is lunch for us.
And while it’s not wrong for Larry to suggest that we should not make assumptions about higher abvs, it’s my money. And it’s not wrong for me to look for abvs that I like, and have done well for me previously, and make my purchases(and cellar decisions) off of that.
PS-while RO may have been developed in France, and reducing alcohol may not have any effect upon reducing over ripe flavors, I wish more Chateaneuf producers would make use of it. I liked the wines a lot back when the cellars were dirtier and the farming less efficient.
Stoopid! Ugh…
Oops. I meant to write based solely on the low ABV on the label. I was (trying) to respond to something that Larry wrote. That’s what I get for trying to post from my phone.
The fraction of high ABV wines that I enjoy has declined over time… but is still positive.
I really don’t think anyone on this thread is actually saying this at all. I feel like this is 
argument that you and Greg P seem keen on… No one is making assumptions, we are following our palate preferences
Like many others who have posted on their preferences for lower ABVs, my preference is based on what is in the bottle and what I styles of wine I prefer to drink. The correlation between what I prefer and the lower ABV on the label is strong.
I seriously doubt that anyone here on WB looks at a wine label and then decides to buy it (or not) PURELY based on the ABV on the label. So in terms of this thread I guess don’t feel like your argument is actually that relevant to many WBers
2 Likes