Another article about acidity

from Jancis Robinson

formatting link

wine news 2002

I wonder why wine drinkers are so wary of acid?

A wine merchant of my acquaintance loves acidity in wine. German wine? Yes please, he says. And give me a sinewy 1993 white burgundy rather than one of those fat 1992s any day. Tingling reds from the Loire and Beaujolais? Just my cup of tea.

Alas that cup doth not run over. This wine merchant has extremely discerning tastes but a palate distinctly at odds with the mainstream wine market. He is currently floundering.

When he started out in wine 20 years ago, things were fine for him because both consumer tastes and the wines themselves were very different. Average acidity levels in wines such as red bordeaux and white burgundy were much higher and - a not unrelated fact, this - alcohol levels were much lower.

Why have wine drinkers suddenly become so wary of a component as refreshing as acidity? It cannot simply be that man instinctively and unthinkingly finds its opposite - sweetness, or ripeness - more attractive. If this were true, it should have been true 20 years ago.

Or is it just that wine drinkers of the world, who were once limited to a diet of wine made in relatively cool regions such as Bordeaux, Burgundy, Champagne and Germany which naturally produced wines high in acidity, have now been exposed to stronger wines from much warmer climates such as those of California and Australia and their palates have been re-tuned?

I suspect this change in consumer taste has come about mainly because of our late 20th century desire for instant gratification. We have lost the habit of waiting for anything (I admit my own impatience when my pc takes all of a minute to re-boot). Rather than waiting for a wine to mature, we want it to be delicious from the moment it makes its first appearance outside the cellar - and in today's crazy futures market (especially for bordeaux) that means during the spring following the harvest.

This means that wines, even very fine wines, have to be made in more of a hurry than in the old days. They are put into oak as early as possible, increasingly before malolactic fermentation has even started, even though grapes are deliberately picked much, much later than they were.

In many ways this new precociousness is a good thing. It certainly makes tasting young wines much more fun, and it means that consumers no longer have to tie up vast amounts of capital in order to enjoy fine wine.

But there is a price to pay. The most obvious is the observed, although not widely reported, increase in the incidence of that nasty yeast strain Brettanomyces, or 'Brett' as it is chummily known in the US. Acidity is not just refreshing, it is great at warding off harmful bacteria and winemaking disaster. In fact the conditions that favour the development of the unpleasant mousey-smelling aromas associated with too much Brett (a little can be fine; a lot is offputting) are very ripe grapes, low acidity, concentrated musts and prolonged oak ageing - all of these typical characteristics of modern wine.

The other consequence of the marked reduction in modern wine's average acidity may well be that they do not age as well. In white wines it is perfectly clear that wines with a high level of acidity and extract will age much longer than those with lower acid and lots of alcohol. (I call as witness armies of Rieslings versus battalions of Chardonnays wherever they are made, including Burgundy.)

With red wines however it is still too early to tell whether the new, super-ripe style that is now so popular (the result, some French observers claim, of a 'banalisation of taste') will be capable of ageing anything like as long as the wines of yesteryear that were initially more austere. I could well be wrong but it instinctively seems unlikely that they will.

Many wine drinkers will think this is no big deal. Pull the cork and get it down you with as obvious a hit a possible. Seventeen per cent Zin? Lovely. Shiraz to light a bonfire with? Yessss! Who cares if draining the second glass is a bit of a hazy struggle?

But as one who has been lucky enough to taste the extraordinary subtlety and sheer gut-wrenching magnificence of great wine at 40, 50 or 60 years old, I see the acceleration of the ageing process in fine wine (it can certainly be very useful for everyday wine) as robbing it of one of its unique attributes.

You will have worked out by now that I am a fan of acidity in wine. I think that the average level of acidity worldwide has fallen to a dangerously low level, with far too many wines being simply big rather than appetising. And it is not just red wines which seem less crisp today: think of Alsace.

Not that I am advocating picking grapes so early that, while natural acidity may be high, there is hardly any fruit or flavour. I would just like to remind the wine drinkers of the world that 1) the best vintages are not necessarily those with the higest alcohol levels and 2) there is a host of wines made relatively far from the equator in places such as Germany and the Loire where acid levels are naturally high and there is not a thing wrong with that - so long as the wines are well-balanced. New Zealand wines somehow manage to appeal to modern palates while having relatively high natural acidity, perhaps because so many of the whites anyway have a bit of residual sugar while, unlike unfashionable German wines, being sold ostensibly as dry wines.

If I want a wine to drink, rather than taste and admire while being obliterated by it, then I want something that keeps teasing me, keeps my gastric juices flowing, something that is dry enough to taste great with food - and that inevitably means a liquid with appetising crispness rather then one with a heavy charge of alcohol.

Reply to
jcoulter
Loading thread data ...

I wouldn't say that "strength" per se is the issue; rather it is a matter of deciding that grapes picked closer to maturity make better tasting wines.

Why do you make that sound like a bad thing?

Again, what's the harm in improving the process?

We are still in agreement.

There's a germ of truth in that, but the fact is that Bordeaux pretty much put Brett on the map _prior_ to the changes in winemaking style you've alluded to. IOW, the presence of Brett in wine is mostly due to sloppy winemaking practice.

True, the higher pH of riper grapes tends to be more Brett friendly, as is badly tended barrel aging practice. Still, a good winemaker keeps his sulfite levels where they need to be to inhibit spoilage organisms and maintains his barreled wines topped up and bunged tightly. Under these conditions Brett does not have any room to survive.

Probably true, but so what? Wineries produce a new vintage every year! What difference does it make if their current vintage only lasts 5 years? It'll likely be gone by then anyway, and there are several later vintages still available.

Red wines have inherently longer ageworthiness. I've seen some of those "soft" California wines go on for decades - and a few of them were whites. Check out the recent thread on the 1974 California Cabernets.

that I am advocating picking grapes so early that, while natural

That's *exactly* what happened here in California in the late 1970s. Our fine wine industry couldn't just let itself continue to be successful doing what it had been doing, which was making perfectly ripe grapes into magnificent wines. They made the mistake of listening to the wine _critics_, who panned those great wines of the early-mid 70s as "overblown". They then proceeded to dial back things a bit in a futile attempt to emulate the style of European (French) wines: harvesting early, at higher acidity and lower pH, making what they called "food wines".

BAH! That stuff was DRECK!! It was, perhaps, the main reason I began to make my own wines. I wanted something I could stand to _drink_, and I knew I could do better than that plonk! We have the best fruit in the world here, but the local wineries were _ruining_ it, turning it into austere, fruitless battery acid. They've since retreated from that idiotic position to making decent wine again, but have not gone far enough IMO. Meanwhile, I continue on my quest for the Ultimate Chardonnay...

Tom S

Reply to
Tom S

Nice article (and nice comments Tom). Plenty to ponder. I am surprised to hear her talk of an increase in brett, it seems to be less prevalent to me (though I, as I've said, am not always unhappy with a touch).

I personally have nothing against some wines being made in a fatter earlier drinking style. I just (like Jancis) don't like the trend towards a vast majority being made like that, because I find (a) acidity helps with food & (b) there's truly nothing like a well-aged mature wine. Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

Reply to
Dale Williams

Good read.

Reply to
Vincent Vega

Why does that practice necessarily equate with improvement? It seems to me that more oak and later harvest neither inherently improve or hurt a wine.

Like Dale, I found that statement contrary to my own experience: I don't notice any increase in Brett in the wines that I drink.

Tom, That's a *highly* disingenuous comment. An aged wine is not the same as a young wine, pure and simple. The fact that there's a constant supply of young wines is irrelevant to the issue of whether they're ageworthy. While you may decide that you're not a fan of older wines, surely you can understand the attitude of those for whom an older wine offers pleasures simply not found in young wines.

Again, not the issue. More to the point, virtually everyone I know agrees that Bordeaux will probably never again have a year like 1975. Now, whether that's a good or bad thing is another topic altogether...

Like you, Tom, I found those so-called "food wines" dull and lifeless. However, we can agree that the major problem was CA winemakers trying to make French wines, if you will. Now we see the opposite problem: French winemakers emulating CA's (and Oz's) style. Is it any less of a problem than the "food wine" era in CA was?

Mark Lipton

Reply to
Mark Lipton

First of all thank you and bravo for posting such a well written thought provoking message. It's posts like this that keep me coming back to AFW!

I think that there might be a differentation between the wine drinkers in different regions of the wine drinking world. While bracing acidity isn't a stranger to the palates of Europe, New World (particularly USA markets) tend to go for riper, softer fruit driven wines. IMO, we post-WWII Americans were raised on Coca-Cola, Moon Pies, and Wonder Bread and we like soft and sweet. I'm speaking in the "collective we" BTW. While Europeans view wine as a food group and part of a meal, Americans tend to drink it as a beverage and they want smooth, soft and rich.

Me too!

I assume he's in the USA. It sounds like he made the fundamental mistake of missing the market by being rue to his own tastes rather than that of the masses.

Parker, Parker, Parker, WS, WS, WS. The US market is often driven by ratings and scores and when in the early 90's Parker and the WS began touting high alcohol, Oaky, soft tannin, fruit driven, low acid wines, the scores for those wines were high and buyers bought in droves by the numbers. Remember that wine sales have risen dramatically in the US in the last decade but wine is still a secondary or even tertiary beverage here so we Americans are fairly inexperienced as a whole and Parker ratings and WS reviews were/are the market drivers as is price.

Very much so.

Yes, we live very fast these days! :-) I admit that I enjoy a glass of big, fruit driven wine from time to time but iI find it tiring on the palate after a glass and it's very hard on food pairings.

I call this the Parkerization of the wine industry. Even the Italians have altered their offerings to be more (and I hate this word) "International" in style.

Indeed if they drink them young but I've noticed that many of my Calkifornia Cabernets from the highly touted '97 vintage have become a bit flabby and unfocused and I fear that many will lose their fruit without ever developing those wonderful secondary complexities that many of us look for in well aged wines.

I haven't noticed a large increase in Brett in general in the newer wines and in some cases I actually detect less in many of the Chateaux of Bordeaux that were known for their Brett accents. Lynch Bages comes to mind.

I've noticed a shift in California Chardonnay towards a bit more acid and a bit less ML and oak. I think this is a good thing and will allow for better aging. This trend seems to be moving down the chain to even the more value priced wines. Tom S may be able to give a little insight into this.

Agreed. A recent tasting of 1998 and 1999 Bordeaux showed me a fairly accelerated aging curve. Is it the vintages or the stylistic change?

Totally accurate. I recently opened a D'Arenberg Dead Arm Shiraz 2000 and a Turley Hayne Vineyard Zin 2000 and at the end of the evening each was only half gone and niether was very pretty the next day.

I'm opening a group of 1982 Bordeaux....Mouton, Cheval Blanc, Ducru, Leoville Las Cases and Poyferre,Talbot, Gloria and Palmer.... to celebrate my son's graduation from Duke University in a few weeks (he was born in 1982) and I'm sure that they will range from wonderful to magnificent.

Yes, nobody is immune to the pressure in the market.

Agreed!

Amen and thanks again!

Bi!!

Reply to
RV WRLee

I dont understand why that comment means the wine is hurried?

Reply to
Vincent Vega

I wouldnt say that we like less acidity because of Coca-Cola and Moon Pies. It is probably more because we have become accustomed to CA wines that have a nearly perfect growing season and grapes (as I have been taught) tend to rippen further than the European wines you were discussing. These are less acidic so this is what the American wine culture and taste is accustomed to. Relating our culture to moon pies is kinda insulting. Our climate grows "smooth, soft and rich" wines and that is what we have grown accustomed to enjoy.

What do you think of Eastern US wines? They are high in acid.

Reply to
Vincent Vega

"Vincent Vega" wrote in news:vDCdc.17618$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrdny03.gnilink.net:

Can't say about Eastern UDS wines but I can state that I am a huge fan of Sancerre and Vouvray.

Though please note that the majority of the post to which you refer is a copy of an article by Jancis Robinson

Reply to
jcoulter

I basically agree with the article, except the part about Brett. I don't think it's more prevalent-like others here, I think there's less. I think it is unfiltered wines with low SO2 (and everyone is trying to cut SO2, due to squeemishness on the part of consumers) which really have the potential for exhibiting Brett. But the bottom line is that unlike most consumers, I enjoy a well structured wine more, and I know this adds to the ageability of the wine. That probably means little to someone buying wine to drink off the shelf or a couple of weeks down the pike, but someone purchasing cases of expensive wine will likely desire to have it remain in condition for a few years, or quite-a-few-years if one has a large cellar. Why buy a case or 3 of delicious wine if you'll lose a few or more bottles to perfection by the time you finish the case or 3? Why run the risk of losing track of the aging? There's a time to enjoy early-drinking wines-- early.

I also agree that the market doesn't really like well structured wines, on the average, since the average drinker is not into cellaring his stock.

Craig Winchell GAN EDEN Wines

Reply to
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines

OK, OK. Maybe I was being a little hyperbolic (again). I, too, enjoy well aged wines for the bottle aged flavors and aromas, but if it's possible to get there in ten years instead of thirty, I'm all for that.

Consider this: If fine wine requires an investment of several decades to reach perfection, one will either have to spend the money when young and lay the wine away, or spend a lot _more_ money to acquire well aged wines when one is older. Young people usually don't have enough disposable income or patience to cellar fine wines for decades, and most senior citizens live on fixed incomes and can't easily afford to buy well aged wines. IOW, fine _old_ wine appreciation is mainly for the wealthy.

OTOH, if the time to reach plateau can be shortened to say ten years, the accessability to it within the mainstream population becomes considerably broadened. Can that be so bad?

I'm only in my mid 50s, but I can see that the day is not that far off that it will be pointless for me (having no children) to lay down young vintage Port. I have a mixed case of 1994s, and I sure hope I live to taste _all_ of them at maturity! :^/

Tom S

Reply to
Tom S

perfection,

I agree,, A 20 or 30 year old bottle of wine costs big $, no matter how you look at it. The days are over when only wealthy elitist can enjoy fine wines. This is a good thing,, unless you are a wealthy elitist.

Reply to
Vincent Vega

considerably

You buy wine at release, then age it. You end up drinking a big-buck wine that cost a negligible amount, comparatively, and pat yourself on the back for having the good sense to put it away. What could be better? Great wine, and thrift as well.

Craig Winchell GAN EDEN Wines

Reply to
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines

Thrift? $20.00 wine X 5% interest X 20-30 years? Im no accountant, but you do the math. Im not sure how much money you have but the average wine drinker can not afford that.

Reply to
Vincent Vega

"Vincent Vega" in news:vDCdc.17618$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...

I don't know whence this adamantly fatuous "We" comes, I have been hearing it now for some years (thus "we" in the US didn't drink wine before 1983 and "we" assume that a latterly faddish wine critic "speaks for the consumer" -- Stalin spoke, I remind you, for "the people" and was a great hero to many in the US too [Note 1]; even, in a US TV-listings publication, an article on "Beverly Hills 90210" extols "the episodes WE grew up with," God almighty therefore help "us"). While acknowledging the first (here unattributed, don't worry I looked it up for myself) poster's disclaimer I do disclaim membership in the cheery involuntary collective endlessly presumed here. I wish YOU people (the collective "YOU") might get a clue and speak simply for YOUrselves.

(In unfashionable unglamorous actuality, some in the post-war US were desperately preserving and preparing and writing about slow food, immigrant and native food traditions, and flavor, while new ambitious pundits pimping for convenience-food firms and back-stabbing honest knowledgeable voices arose and now posthumously are celebrated by "us" as innovators of US cooking. Stalin would be impressed. For documentation see the Hesses' _Taste of America_ if YOU for some reason have managed to ignore it for the last 29 years.

I thank YOU! (There, *I* feel better.)

-- Note 1: "Hence socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science." -- J. V. Stalin, _Dialectical and Historical Materialism,_ International Publishers, New York, 1940. (Not from online. From the original. Dammit.)

Reply to
Max Hauser

Let's see - according to my financial calculator (assuming 30 years), the future value is $89.35. Looking at it from purely a collector and drinker's viewpoint - a resonable investment. Looking at from purely a financial speculator's viewpoint - more risky, but not as risky as many investments. From a personal standpoint, I'm 62 now, so I'd be more likely to last for the 20 year period. The future value for a 20 year period is $54.25. Let's see - the stocks I bought in the past 3 years are currently worth about half what I paid for them (even at a reduced buying price as an employee), automobiles - they have depreciated, my home -- I paid $89,000 14 years ago, current market value about $160,000. Looks like the home is the better investment (besides, no home - no wine cellar). But - the wine isn't a BAD investment. I was laid off in November, am building a new business that hasn't started generating much now; even under those circumstances, my little cellar has about 40 bottles, mostly for near time consumption, about

10 to be held over a longer time. So, at this time, I cannot be one of the people who has a large cellar, full of exquisite wines, I can't even afford to buy the top wines of the day. So what - I can still enjoy what I can afford, and I still like to read on this forum of the experiences of some that have been in the game a lot longer than myself, and have devoted sizable resources to their collection. Life is to be enjoyed here and now - we are not gauranteed the future. I'm not about to be upset with what someone else is able to do. I didn't drink wine at all until my doctor put me on a glass a day of red wine about a year ago. It took several months, and some good advice, to get to the point where I was enjoying the glass a day. In a forum devoted to wine - one would think that there would be more people who saw a glass half FULL rather than half empty! Jim
Reply to
BallroomDancer

"BallroomDancer" wrote in news:JuVdc.3590$4Y2.1692@lakeread04:

The other part is that most people do not invest every penny anyway and there is always a little room for disposable income. Take a little disposable put it into your hobby and in a few years have a treasure. Not bad

Reply to
jcoulter

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.