Alsace Pinot Gris -- right to be disappointed?

Our friends brought a bottle of Alsace Pinot Gris as an aperitif. We all expected this wine to be dry, but it was sugar watery sweet.

The wine had a back label that talked about vineyards but there was no mention of what the wine tasted like.

Were we wrong to expect an Alsace Pinot Gris (that wasn't a Vendage Tardive or SDGN or noted on the label as otherwise) to be dry?

The wine in question was 2001 Zind-Humbrecht Pinot Gris Heimbourg

Peter,

Failure to indicate the degree of sweetness is the besetting sin of Alsatian (and to a less extent Loire) wine producers. More and more cuvées, and particularly the up-market ones, are being produced with residual sugar with the justification that increasing ripeness leads to this result if excessive alcohol is to be avoided.

Strangely the most prominent Alsatian who recognises that this problem of unexpected sweetness leading to lost sales is Olivier Humbrecht who now (from 2002, I think) puts on his label a sweetness index (indice) from 1 to 5 or 6 with 1 being bone dry; quite rare in the Z-H range. The Belgian importer shows this index for all Z-H wines on his list.

Without this or a reliable recommendation, I tend to shy away from Alsace wines from other than well known "dry" producers, of which Trimach and René Muré spring to mind.

Yes, you were wrong, as I was wrong many times. There is no way to really know what is in the bottle until you pop the cork. It can indeed be frustrating.

I have asked winemakers there why one year the wine is pretty dry, another year off-dry, and yet another year pretty sweet. They look quizzically at you and say the wine makes itself.

Sugar levels do not seem important to them from my perspective (which may be totally wrong). It is important to them that the wine is balanced for that particular vintage.

Before you come down too hard on them, Peter, the USA is no better. I've seen labels here that say "Dry Riesling" that have 1.2 percent residual sugar, which as you know is sweet indeed.

Alsace is one time when I try hard to read a review of the wines from a critic, the winery web site, the wine forum or a shop owner before I make purchases. It would be nice if they used some kind of indication of the sweetness level on the label, but I haven't seen it except for the levels you mentioned. Tim says some producers are indicating sweetness (I no longer buy Z-H), so there may be hope for some conformity.

Tim -- I've gone back to look at the bottle and now see on the front label in small print the words INDICE 4

There is no explanation of what that means.

Peter,

I've just been back to Z-H's importer's catalogue. 4 means sweeter than "demi-sec" but not quite "moelleux". To illustrate how impossible it is for the consumer without this help, Pinot Gris GC Rangen varies sharply from year to year, namely -
2001 = 2 Some RS but dry seeming to most
2002 = 4
2003 = 1 Bone dry

It was explained to me by Olivier Humbrecht that the variation in style from one vintage to the next is a reflection of Zind-Humbrechts goal to adhere to an ultra-minimalist principle in both the vineyard and cellar. In a given year, a certain site may produce insanely ripe grapes or not and Z-H would like to showcase the particular vintage and site. The number system is a response to a percieved lack of 'house style' by some consumers. I would only argue that although the styles and terroirs may change, a Zind-Humbrecht wine is unlikely to be mistaken for anything but a Zind-Humbrecht wine -love it or hate it.



Prost!
Bill

I recently fell into that same Alsatian syrup pit when I tasted the 2004 Dom. Ehrhart Gewurztraminer Rosenberg ($20). This wine had excellent aroma and was quite tasty, but the combination of 13.5% ABV + residual sugar was a major turnoff for me.

-- Clark

Peter,
I'm just surprised you were surprised. Actually, before the Perse Pavies, it's hard to think of any wines that raised as much fierce debate as the Olivier-era Zind-Humbrechts. And prominent in that debate is the fact that one never knows. I do like the fact he started putting the sweetness indice of his wines.
I actually have pretty much stopped buying ZH, except for the rare occasions I see a deal on the dessert PGs (SGN designation). I do thionk they're finely made, just not my style.

[Robin Garr]

Our friends brought a bottle of Alsace Pinot Gris as an aperitif. We all expected this wine to be dry, but it was sugar watery sweet.

A couple of belated comments: First, it should be noted that Zind-Humbrecht is a long-time Parker favorite. I'll leave it at that without further comment.

Second: Sweet, yes, but "watery"? Perhaps I misunderstand you, Peter, but to me that term implies dilute and thin, and those are descriptors rarely used for anything from Zind-Humbrecht.

Peter,
I'm just surprised you were surprised. Actually, before the Perse Pavies, it's hard to think of any wines that raised as much fierce debate as the Olivier-era Zind-Humbrechts. And prominent in that debate is the fact that one never knows. I do like the fact he started putting the sweetness indice of his wines.

I didn't see that debate, neither did my friends that bought the wine.

Whats the point of putting indice 4 on the label in 1 millimetre high typeface if no one knows what it means. How does Zind Humbrecht expect people to decode their indice? If Zind Humbrecht has a website I couldn’t find it, but they do have a back label they could use to describe how the wine tastes, especially if, as it seems, the level of sweetness dramatically changes by vintage.

I think a note saying Residual Sugar 40g/L is more capable of tipping the wink that a wine may not be dry than indice 4, and that residual sugar not only is a standard wine industry term but its meaning is easier to find described in wine books and on line than the meaning of indice 4.

Second: Sweet, yes, but "watery"? Perhaps I misunderstand you, Peter, but to me that term implies dilute and thin, and those are descriptors rarely used for anything from Zind-Humbrecht.

In my first post I called it sugar water. My friends, who bought the wine, said it was like the Liebfraumilches of the 70s and I understand the allusion. This wine has sweetness with no balancing acidity. After swallowing it, it stuck stickily and most unpleasantly coating the back of the throat. We didn’t finish our glasses, and decided to save it for dessert. But it wasn’t a dessert wine, neither sweet enough or with enough body, just flabby, It was one dimensional, a honey nose with nothing but a sugary sweetness developing a burned taste. I tasted what was left in the bottle the next day and found the same. Unpleasant.

[David M. Bueker]

A couple of belated comments: First, it should be noted that Zind-Humbrecht is a long-time Parker favorite. I'll leave it at that without further comment.

Ah, ha...the classic Garr non-bashing bash.

At least Z-H has stepped up to put the numbers on the bottle. I'm not much of a Z-H fan (though I love their Gewurztraminers), but they are noting the sweetness level on the label now, so it's not a blind buy. A quick trip to any number of web sites explains the system. The shame is now on retailers who fail to provide the decoder ring in their shops.

Good point David. Have been following this discussion over on the UK forum, 2 pages!!!!
The stores could certainly help with this problem. They should spend a bit of time with some shelf talkers or at least inform the staff which wines are of the sweeter/riper style. Alsace is a hard sell as it is eh. Plus the back label needs more thought.

I didn't see that debate, neither did my friends that bought the wine.

Whats the point of putting indice 4 on the label in 1 millimetre high typeface if no one knows what it means. How does Zind Humbrecht expect people to decode their indice? If Zind Humbrecht has a website I couldn’t find it, but they do have a back label they could use to describe how the wine tastes, especially if, as it seems, the level of sweetness dramatically changes by vintage.

I think a note saying Residual Sugar 40g/L is more capable of tipping the wink that a wine may not be dry than indice 4, and that residual sugar not only is a standard wine industry term but its meaning is easier to find described in wine books and on line than the meaning of indice 4.

Peter,
I didn't mean to sound harsh. I just remember you from old WLDG, and I assumed you had read the numerous threads. Plus I guess I assumed that when someone buys a wine that is as expensive as a ZH that they're doing it because of its reputation (just as I'd be surprised at someone buying a Didier Dagueneau Pouilly-Fume and then being surprised it wasn't typical PF).

As to the indice, I remember that Olivier Humbrecht stated he felt that an apparent sweetness indicator was easier for most consumers to understand than RS levels, which don't account for acidity ( a high acid 10 g/l might taste as dry as a low acid 3 g/l). While the indice means nothing to you, I would bet that 90+% of ZH wines are bought by people who buy them year after year, and to them it is an easy indicator. Few wines have as much of a dedicated following. Those that love them REALLY love them,.

[Robin Garr]

Ah, ha...the classic Garr non-bashing bash.

Where's the bash, David? There's nothing there that even a sheep could object to. If you calibrate on Parker - in either direction - then it's useful to know that he consistently rates ZH highly. [shrug]

[David M. Bueker]

Ah, ha...the classic Garr non-bashing bash.

Where's the bash, David? There's nothing there that even a sheep could object to. If you calibrate on Parker - in either direction - then it's useful to know that he consistently rates ZH highly. [shrug]

But it has nothing to do with sugar, and that's what the issue in this thread is about.

Not to mention, for the last several years it was either Rovani doing the review or there were no reviews at all. And wines like Trimbach CFE and CSH got similarly exalted scores.

Not to mention, your " I'll leave it at that without further comment." carries a pretty clear sentiment about Z-H and Parker.

Now if you go "over there" you will find I am no Parker apologist (and I was a Rovani enemy), but your passiv/agressive stance does you no favors.

And what will you say when David Schildknecht is doing hte reviews? Hmm?

[Robin Garr]

And what will you say when David Schildknecht is doing hte reviews? Hmm?

I think the point that's being overlooked here, David, is that Parker is clearly shaping an exit strategy and turning over his publication to a selected team of successors. Naturally they'll be variable in quality. David is a great guy and I've enjoyed tasting wine with him. I'm sure his tasting reports will be reliable.

I do suspect that as the <I>Wine Advocate</i> becomes increasingly diversified, it might, curiously, become both more useful to consumers and less useful to the industry, all at the same time ... and that's probably a good thing.

Olivier Humbrecht stated he felt that an apparent sweetness indicator was easier for most consumers to understand than RS levels, which don't account for acidity ( a high acid 10 g/l might taste as dry as a low acid 3 g/l). While the indice means nothing to you, I would bet that 90+% of ZH wines are bought by people who buy them year after year, and to them it is an easy indicator. Few wines have as much of a dedicated following. Those that love them REALLY love them,.

Ontario wines have a sweetness indicator and Bully Hill in New York uses a bar scale that goes from dry to sweet, and I agree that it easier for an average consumer to understand. But Z-H's 'indice 4' isn't easy to understand that 1. it is a sweetness indicator and 2. what it means. All power to the man for using a sweetness indicator, but why doesn't he explain it on the back label?

But from what you say, most consumers aren't buying his wines.