Robin Garr wrote:This Juan Gil 2007 Jumilla has 15 percent alcohol! The high-alcohol wine arms race is getting insane.
It tastes good, though ...
David M. Bueker wrote:And as for the sweet spot being 13%, may I present Riesling Kabinett at 8.0% alcohol.
Richard Fadeley wrote:By magic number, I meant the upper limit. Certainly there are great wines @ 8, 10, 12% ABV. I will be drinking Moscato d'Asti at Thanksgiving dinner that will weigh in at between 5.5-7% ABV, and there will be a Beaujolais Nouveau @ 12%, and an '09 BEX Riesling @ 10% as well. I love my sparklers that you just mentioned are not very good over 13%. I actually believe that European wines are a totally different beverage than New World wines due to their acidity, lower ABV's, etc. although many are trying to compete with NW with more modern styles (a mistake, but understandable, due to market pressures). How much fun is it to drink one glass of a giant 94 point 15% fruit bomb, if you can even get through it? I think we basically agree on this issue. I will go so far to posit that we even lose quite a few potential wine drinkers because they are put-off or get "wine-headaches" from the California and Australia wines that they are introduced to. Many people tell me they "can't drink red wine" without getting headaches. Obviously a case of over 13% ABV wines. When I suggest these lower ABV's they invariably agree that the wine is drinkable. But this thing seems out of control. I just hope that France (and Italy) stick to what they know best (and like to drink themselves).
Clint Hall wrote:A friend who hosted dinner last night brought along several Turley Zins, all weighing in at between 16 and 17 percent. They ranged from 2005s back to 2001s, and the 2001s were much more integrated than the younger Turleys and masked the alcohol better than the younger ones did. The two 2001s, which were a Duarte and a Haine, were the first Turleys I've found drinkable with food, but my impression was in another year or two both will be over the hill, with the alcohol again stealing the show. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the drinking window for wines at this alcoholic level is very narrow, assuming they are to be drunk with food. But I suspect Turley fans will disagree.
Brian Gilp wrote:I recently has the 2001 Martinelli Blue Slide Ridge PN that has left me wondering about the belief that high alcohol wines can't age..
Richard Fadeley wrote:The first thing my students do is look for the ABV% on the label. It is ridiculous what has happened to our wine.
Florida Jim wrote:Brian Gilp wrote:I recently has the 2001 Martinelli Blue Slide Ridge PN that has left me wondering about the belief that high alcohol wines can't age..
What did the label say on this wine?
Victorwine wrote:looking at just the alcohol content and making a judgment about the wine
Richard Fadeley wrote:The first thing my students do is look for the ABV% on the label. It is ridiculous what has happened to our wine. I am firmly convinced that 13% is the magic number. On rare occasion you can get by with 13.5 or even 14, but that is the limit, at least for me. In almost all cases, when they try to overdo a wine (i.e. make a block buster wine) that is exactly what they do, they overdo the wine and make a food-unfriendly wine with high alcohol and lower acidity. But they can't make us drink it, though Wine Spectator and Parker will try. To me a "block-buster" wine is a stunning 91-93 pt Bordeaux or Burgundy (or Rioja, Cahor, Chinon, Chianti) at 13% ABV. IMO there are a lot of grapes wasted on these "big" wines, but not on me. Right now I am drinking what I would consider a 91 point '03 Larose-Trintaudon (Haut-Medoc) and it is "on-point" and delicious, but Parker would probably give it only 87-88 pts. To each his own, but I'm very comfortable with "my own".
David M. Bueker wrote:Just ran across a positive note about this wine elsewhere on the interwineweb. Might be worth a flier if I see it on the shelf.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests