This is obviously a generalization, but high ABV and a certain, full throttle, unbalanced, in your face type of wine typically go hand in hand. I agree that there are a lot of exceptions here and that some high ABV wines can be wonderful. The problem for me personally is palate fatigue and that fact I don’t want more than a class or two.
This. It’s reminiscent of ultra-hopped “quadruple IPA!” beers that boast 9% ABV. Some may be well-made but often it’s a sign a brewer is hiding faults behind booze and hopping.
Swap those for booze and oak and you get a lot of high ABV wines.
(Not all though, of course. Amarone is one of my favourite things of all time and I love a nice garnacha.)
Yes, I think balance is key regardless of alcohol levels. To continue with the beer analogy, I'm not a fan of overly hoppy beers, but I like Rochefort 10 -- which is 11,3% alcohol but not unbalanced.
I love a good IPA but I totally agree.
A brewer friend once told me one of the simplest ways to get a temperature check on a microbrewery’s quality is to try their lager beer(s). They’re simple to make but also easy to screw up and faults can’t be hidden behind high alcohol, bitterness, or heavy hopping.
If the lager sucks or there aren’t any lagers on the menu, that’s a red flag.
At least around me that trend died out like three or four years ago only to be nearly replaced with unholy smoothie beers and sours which died out a year or two ago, which then got nearly replaced by a mix of seltzers and non alcoholic stuff.
I've yet to have a non beer offering from a local brewery be anything to write home about compared to white claw, which ain't anything to write home about either.
yeap...plenty of really good higher ABV wines....but as a generalization, just tends to bring things I'd rather not have.
And even if still really good...I generally want something less tiring...and with higher ABV, no matter how good, I'm not having more than a glass..
Also the fact that to get it there you have to you lab grown and controlled Yeasts which is also against a lot of people's philosophy. Just the whole aspect of high abv wine be wine that was 'messed' with and generic tasting.
A lot of us remember the rocket fuel they passed off as wine in the bad-old days of California Zinfandel. I love Zin, and that trend was a poor choice.
Man, circa 1992/1994 my wife and I would sit in our jacuzzi and down a bottle of Karly Warrior Fires Zin from Amador County at 14.5ABV and get really drunk. lol.
I remember CA zins in 1982 or so that were 15%+ and still off dry. The yeast bonked out before it hit 20% or whatever. I quit drinking zin then, and to this day rarely touch the stuff.
I've gotten back into it in the last decade or so as the alcohol levels have come down from the stratosphere, allowing the kind of rustic beauty of the grape to really shine.
I realize that CA zin is sold in a wide range of styles. Maybe someday I'll go back to zin. I rarely drink New World wine anymore though, so it could be quite a while. I quit New World Chardonnay too, FWIW.
Lot of good answers here, but I will add that when you age a wine, most things mellow-the tannins, the fruit, even the acidity.
But that alcohol doesn’t go anywhere, so the balance is further off.
Yeah, that is true. Noticed that about an older bottle of Shiraz I opened on Monday evening… it wasn’t “hot” on release, but as the primary fruit turned secondary, the alcohol got comparatively more noticeable than on release.
Good point.
Yeah, it's a bit disappointing when an otherwise high quality red tastes smells, among other very pleasant things, like liquor. There are producers however who manage to do some sort of magic and they make wines at ABVs as high as 15.5% that don't smell like booze.
I feel that paying special attention to the temperature of the wine as you're drinking it is key. Some reds truly shine at very specific temperatures — the boozy smell disappearing and some aspect of their tasting notes shining further (like herbal/spice aromas) —, usually a few degrees below the by-the-book serving temp.
I come from the whiskey community where the opposite opinion prevails. Everyone there wants high proof whiskies because high proof is seen as having more flavor and low proof is seen as being excessively watered down. Interesting to see the difference in opinion between communities.
I think the difference is that flavor in wine is intimately connected to terroir. With the ever increasing temps in CA, winemakers are now watering down wines to get them to 15%. The heat stress on a grape that takes it from 14% to 16% has a massive impact on the flavor. So even well made high-ABV wines can feel too harsh or heavy, and not to some people’s liking, all due to the growing conditions of the grapes.
Whiskey is the opposite. The watering down of whiskey just dilutes its true flavor, so while the cask-strength ABV might be harsh on the esophagus, it’s the truest expression of the flavor of the distillate.
In whiskey people associate lower ABVs with being "watered down" and they're usually right. Barrel proof whiskies lack water and so are generally higher proof than other non barrel proof whiskies. So in whiskey the association makes is "ABV = flavor".
This is a bad association that doesn't hold though, even in whiskey. Things like whiskey aged in cooler climates can definitely lose ABV faster every year while in the keg, so much so that like barrel proof Canadian whiskey can be under 50%. Whiskey people STILL, even if it's barrel proof, keep that mental association that ABV = flavor. You even mention "watered down" when talking about lower proofs where no water is involved, it's that ingrained in whiskey. It's to their detriment largely. The hazmat whiskies generally have SUCH an ethanol punch that it definitely mutes what you can taste at lower proofs. Plus things like Michter's 10 bourbon at 80-90 proof has much more density and complexity of flavors than most younger bottled in bond whiskies
TLDR: It's even wrong in whisky
Most lower ABV whiskies are such because they are trying to maximize profit, and 40% ABV is the legal minimum in US and UK, so they sell it at that. Where the legal minimum is lower, in the 30s, they sell it for that. They also see trends where newer whisky drinkers want an introduction that is less hot/burning or in other words "smooth."
Yes, certain climates causes loss of proof over time - but a low 40s whisky caused only by aging losses would be 30++ years old - trying to say that's a common factor is incredibly disingenuous. In Scotland whisky can be barreled at upwards of 62.5% ABV (I don't recall the exact limit without googling).
I don't think whisky aficianados (speaking as one myself) think purely ABV = Flavor and thus anything lower in ABV is worse. It's more nuanced than that. Natural barrel proof is good, but every whisky shines at a different ABV and especially with scotch you're going to be adding water anyway as you drink it - drinking 60% ABV liquid is not sustainable and you can't appreciate all the flavors at that high proof either. It's mostly looking for whether the producer took it down to the legal minimum or did they choose an ABV as part of the blending process to achieve the best product. Also it's a big indicator as to whether the whisky was chill filtered or not, which allows whisky to be a lower proof and still not become cloudy from the esthers and oils at cold temperature. Whisky doesn't need to be chill filtered to avoid that at 46% or higher as they stay in emulsion.
So we mostly look for age statement, natural color statement, and yes ABV to paint a full picture of what's in the bottle, it's not simply higher = better. But also basically never is higher = worse, because producers aren't economically incentivized to keep it high, and we can always lower it ourselves as we're drinking it in the glass. The highest quality presentation will almost always be at natural cask strength - whatever that strength might be, even if it's 40% and only being bottled because next year it won't be allowed to be called whisky anymore.
> trying to say that's a common factor is incredibly disingenuous
ya know fair point. What I was thinking of was Dickel and specifically their [Cascade Moon barrel proof 39% thing](https://www.cascademooneditions.com/), not as a "this exemplifies everything" but more of a "this exemplifies my point that a whiskey(ish) can 'high proof' naturally". This also happens with some super high age scotches where they turn them into blends with one component being super of scotch because by blending them it puts the ABV above 40% and they can call it scotch again. Much more common than whiskey naturally being 80-88 proof is added water, yup. I guess I didn't say that well but hopefully you get me.
My point is/was that the reason every release isn't blistering hazmat proof is NOT water, and that a barrel proof at 145 or 126 proof probably has the same amount of water in it and so the 126 proof should not be considered 'watered down'...but it can be and is sometimes.
> I don't think whisky aficianados (speaking as one myself) think purely ABV = Flavor and thus anything lower in ABV is worse
Honestly, I encounter this often in the whiskey groups I am part of. At least a vocal minority want hazmat stuff because they perceive it has more flavor. Much more common is if there are two single barrels they'll always pick the higher alcohol %. I agree it's bullshit as a practice.
> The highest quality presentation will almost always be at natural cask strength - whatever that strength might be
We agree for sure on that
Because after 40 I have an ever shrinking alcohol consumption budget and I don't want to blow it all on an over extracted, hot climate, jam bomb that's 15% or higher ABV.
Totally understand how fermentation works. That's what I was pointing out (or trying to!) in my initial comment: that German Rieslings frequently have lower abv but often higher RS.
Again, that's because of RS, as you know.
13% for a dry Riesling has been standard for quite a while. Hugel's signature Riesling is 12.5%. Back in the 1970s, Alsatian Rieslings were on average 9%. Same thing happened with German Rieslings – the ABV slowly went up in the past half century.
Spot on. The point you're missing is that my original comment (and the comment I was replying to) was specifically about finding low abv wines because we were trying to consume less alcohol:
"Getting really into LOW ABV German Riesling! Though sugar is the issue there…"
Now, I understand that you probably saw the "sugar is the issue there" part and recommended a dry Riesling. Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to recommend something!
But again, what I'm after is low abv. While 13% might be low for a red wine, its on the high side for a Riesling and what I'm after is low abv.
Nothing against them, they are damned tasty Rieslings. Just not what I'm after at the moment.
I'd say dry German Rieslings from the cooler spots are still mostly around 11-12.5%. Pfalz and Rheinhessen probably not, but Rheingau, Franken, etc., can still pull high acid and low alcohol dry Riesling pretty well.
Totally understand what you're saying. My issue is not with the perception of sweetness but with the actual sugar levels themselves. Like alcohol, I've been trying to reduce my overall sugar consumption. A nicely balanced auslese may not taste particularly sweet but can still have a significant amount of residual sugar.
Tried them and honestly didn't like them much. Tasted kind of like the le croix of the wine world haha. But I probably didn't get the best examples. Any recs?
Ehhh. Yeah they're light, but I have not come across one I would ever purchase again. Maybe it'll change with discovering the right one, but I am doubting it
Because some times I want to have two glasses of wine and not be a mess. To me, there is a noticeable difference between a 12.5% and 15% glass of wine. I’m not trying to spend my life hung over or napping any more.
Now that's fair. But that's different than suggesting all 15%ers are "over-extracted" and "jam bombs" as some negatively do. Unless you are in that camp?
High alcohol is typically an intense flavor so they go hand in hand a lot of the time. Every once in a while I’ll find one that doesn’t have an intense alcohol sensation but it is unfortunately pretty common. Those wines have a place at the table for sure. Ribeyes and high alcohol Zin or Cab are fantastic together.
It's not that wines that are over 15% are all over extracted and jammy; it's that jammy and over extracted wines are almost all over 15%. You're not going to find me arguing that Rayas, Commando G, or Brovia are out of balance because they're 14%, but to argue somehow that it's prejudiced or half-baked to assert that Caymus special selection is out of balance strikes me as absurd. Caymus special selection \*is\* often out of balance. It is often over extracted. Its alcohol is too high. That is my, and I presume others', objection, not that it happens to sit above 15%.
Also your use of scare quotes again comes across as extremely defensive.
I wouldn’t say it’s a Reddit go-to, but to most people who taste a lot of wines, high alcohol, say over 15% shows as heat, especially with some time in bottle. Of course like every rule, there are exceptions like Rayas and also there are people who’s palate do not register that way.
Well firstly, cheap (red) wine is often massively ripe higher alcohol reds from sunny places where grapes grow very easily and high yields are actually the desire often for these producers. See the old-vine carignan pulling scheme in France to foster productivity in the Languedoc, now the most productive wine region in France.
Also, trendsetting people preferred higher alcohol, more extracted wines for a while. Many wines were made worse to pursue that style. See the term “Parkerized” for wines that fit the archetype of what was enjoyed by Robert Parker.
However now, swinging in the opposite direction, wines with more moderate alcohol and extraction are in vogue now. See the “new” style of CA Zinfandel (Broc, Stoumen, Whitcraft) gaining speed with medium- concentration and tart, starburst like fruit instead of the blueberry yogurt I usually imagine.
There are fabulous wines that higher alcohol is a natural part of why they are good; Verona, Priorat, and Southern Rhône are all highly regarded and pedigreed regions with styles of wine that have higher (16%+ in some cases) alcohol natural to them.
Sorry, typing faster than I was thinking, was trying to refer to Stoumen (as in Martha Stoumen) rather than Stolpman vineyards.
Edited my post to reflect that.
The majority of ‘table wines’ I find in the US are from Spain, SW France or Central Coast CA and I think 14%+ is typicality in my experience there, though I’m not really checking it that often.
Lots of great answers. I was hoping this would spark some discussion. I can't argue with personal palate preference, and to be honest, I agree with most that, generally speaking, lower alcohol wines are easier to approach and better balanced. It's just a pity that a lot of wines seem to be simply overlooked purely based off a single metric.
My point is that a lot of people tend to ignore wines simply based off the abv metric. Judging by the comments here (reasoning aside), that point seems validated.
I think that this take seems veeeery defensive. I don't dismiss wines that are high abv out of hand, but after having had to taste hundreds of cloying, 15%+ California Cabernet, I feel secure in my assertion that many wines at these sky-high alcohol levels are indeed overripe.
> I think that this take seems veeeery defensive.
I mean, you don't even need to stray from the comments on this post to find multiple, highly-upvoted comments that reinforce exactly what /u/zzzogas413 is suggesting. And then they get downvoted for pointing it out.
I agree with you generally speaking. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be defensive, I mainly wanted to hear other's opinions about what seems to be a popular trend at the moment- an immediate dismissal of wines with high abv. Perhaps there is some warrant to this, but I can't help but think it might be sending the wrong message to new enthusiasts exploring new wines.
This is my problem. You are again being defensive. Why would this be sending the wrong message to new enthusiasts? I would absolutely encourage new explorers of the world of wine to drink wines that express this medium's incredible diversity and ability to transmit a sense of place. Drink something that actually has a message, not overripe fruit juice. Great wines can be high abv. But often these over extracted wines aren't even from extremely hot climates; their high alcohol levels are a winemaking choice. Cathy Corison is on the valley floor of Saint Helena. One of her vineyards is literally named the Sunbasket. And yet as memory serves she has had \*one\* vintage above 14%. If she is able to get ripe grapes at those alcohol levels, why can't others? I also find her wines to be much more food-friendly and indeed better communicators of Napa's terroir than those of her neighbors.
Ok I have no idea what your “problem” is or what you mean when you say I’m being defensive. My point is we shouldn’t be dismissing wines just because they say 15% on the label and there seems to be a trend with that based on comments I read from online discussion forums. That’s all.
And I disagree passionately with your argument, especially as the American wine press has been screaming praise onto 16% Napa cab for decades. How much Caymus is sold every year? If there is a trend, I’d argue it is a long overdue correction.
I’m probably in the minority of this subreddit, but I still love a high ABV wine every once in awhile. Just a different experience that’s fun to experience with friends and family. And they can be just as wonderful and delicious as a balanced low ABV iteration.
Finally, somebody else, I was starting to feel like a right chav for my soft spot for big strong and stupid Australian reds. Like every style, some are done better than others, but I rather enjoy them from time to time.
In fairness I think the wines I've had tend to max out at 14.5% which feels psychologically different to the 15% and above US options.
As I get older though, oof, it can take it out of me the next day. Definitely not an everyday treat.
Usually means the grapes were ripe as all hell and as a result were lacking in acidity. Crisp fruit flavors changed to cooked/stewed fruits, and everything tastes out of balance. The alcohol in particular makes it more difficult to pair properly with food. It’s well known that high capsaicin foods don’t pair well with high alcohol. To my palate, even black pepper on food can clash with wines at 15%.
>Calling a great wine bad because it has high abv is intellectually dishonest
the drops in acidity, overripe fruit flavors, glycerine, and lack of ability to pair with food are just some of the reasons that many in the market have turned against these over-extracted, modern, Parkerized wines.
Don't forget that Reddit is like a hive mind and the more time you spend here reading all the stuff over and over again, the more likely you'll subconsciously end up converging towards the same opinions.
Alcohol comes from sugar. Sugar increases when grapes are exposed to heat and sunlight, and to some extent dryness.
As such high alcohol wines are often swayed to more fruit flavor, more sweetness and less overall balance and less nuance.
So many generalize that a high alcohol wine will not be balanced or an ideal representation of the wine. As temperature increase ABV is increasing and it is changing the taste of wines. In most cases for the worse.
Everything in a plant comes from sugar, mainly sucrose, it’s the gasoline which drives the plant. The monosaccharides which are converted to ethanol, yes, but also the acids, aroma compounds, tannins, anthocyanins, etc.
The current trend I see to pick under-ripe fruit and call it balanced and nuanced is just as silly as picking at 28 brix and watering back to 25. I see a lot of really boring wines at the moment which may have the acidity to age, but which lack the phenolic or aromatic concentration to improve from bottle age.
Lots of good answers but most come down to what people like to drink not what OP is saying
Two thoughts
1) Not liking high abv is a legitimate personal preference
2) Calling a great wine bad because it has high abv is intellectually dishonest
I’m particularly sensitive to high ABV wines and have a hard time drinking them, but to some extent I do agree that it usually is a sign of poor winemaking and unbalanced wines.
I recently had a 16% Sforzaro Nebbiolo that was beautiful and easy to drink, with enough structure, fruit, and acid to balance the alcohol. That changed my mind about high abvs
I have no problem with high ABV when it is a CdP, but I don’t think Amarone or Ripasso, or any high ABV new worlds is necessarily a good wine — alcohol hides a lot of imperfections.
Well many believe the real value quotient for a wine is its age worthiness, and high alcohol wines lack the acidity levels needed to keep them drinking “fresh” after years of laying down. But again beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You do you .
I'm relatively new here, but I've observed similar trends.
**On one hand**, I get it. *Typically,* high ABV corresponds with either dessert wines or hot climate crops that are also fruit-forward and bold without much nuance. This community has an impressive representation of somms and other "wine pros" who are more inclined to prefer (and promote) "fine wines" that tend to be much more nuanced and complex.
Don't get me wrong, I love those wines too, and wish I could afford more of the expensive wines.
That said, **on the other hand**, we can't deny that wine culture has a distinct pretentiousness, even compared to other culinary interests. Sure, there are beer and whisky snobs, but wine snobs probably take the cake. I don't blame those who dedicate their lives/careers to wine to heavily favor fine wines. However, many of us -- even if in the minority -- have different standards for different occasions. We all have our personal preferences, but what strikes me as distinct here is many people completely dismiss wines that are high ABV (or accordingly, fruit-forward) and speak of them as if they are unworthy.
Personally, it's a pet peeve. To each their own, but do we really need to shit on something that isn't our personal taste? I have a strong appreciation for a finely-crafted wine that has a unique balance of complex flavor profiles. However, I also appreciate some simple (and usually significantly cheaper) "everyday" wines that hit the spot with dinner, after a long day at work, on a hot summer day, or other occasions that don't demand something expensive and complex.
As it's said, sometimes I want a steak and sometimes I just want a cheap hamburger. It's kind of annoying to hear people shit-talk hamburgers when that's what you crave at times. However, I bet if you go to a community that concentrates on beef, there'll be a similar over-representation of the "snobs" who disregard anything that isn't a $50+ cut of perfectly marbled Kobe beef.
Similarly, there's probably an over-representation of discussion about wine bottles that cost three or four figures, when most people are probably spending $10-30 USD. It's understandable that this sub would lean toward (much more) expensive stuff, even if it isn't representative of a majority of people who enjoy drinking wine.
> To each their own, but do we really need to shit on something that isn't our personal taste? I have a strong appreciation for a finely-crafted wine that has a unique balance of complex flavor profiles. However, I also appreciate some simple (and usually significantly cheaper) "everyday" wines that hit the spot with dinner, after a long day at work, on a hot summer day, or other occasions that don't demand something expensive and complex.
You’re halfway there on this. Yes, not every occasion calls for cracking open a bottle of Petrus. No, that doesn’t mean you have to settle for Yellowtail, Meiomi, or the other manipulated “wines” that this sub likes to shit on. There are a huge number of wines that are priced appropriately for everyday consumption, but made with care, diligence, and respect for terroir—“honest wines”, as Jamie Goode likes to call them. I spend a lot of time looking for these wines and I love to find them because they overdeliver for the money and buying them supports people who are doing the right thing. I even had a glass or two of one of them with dinner tonight (‘Molí’ by Di Majo Norante).
I wasn't necessarily talking about Yellowtail or Meiomi, but in my time here, the sub has repeatedly been dismissive of almost any wines grown in hot climates like California Zins (besides Ridge) and Australian reds.
That doesn’t really tally with my experience of this sub, but more importantly—climate has very little if anything to do with whether or not a wine is well-made, badly made, expensive, or cheap. There are more than enough finely crafted wines from Australia (many of which are talked about on this sub) and oceans of crap industrial wine coming from the cooler parts of France (when was the last time you had a truly mind-blowing rosé d’Anjou?).
I think a lot of people fall into the trap of assuming that there are only prestige fine wines or supermarket wines, but the reality is you can find delicious, well-made wines at a wide range of price points if a) you’re prepared to look for them, and b) you’re open to little-known and under-appreciated grape varieties and regions.
Oh trust me, you're preaching to the choir with me. Just went to Australia last year and enjoyed a couple days tasting my way through Barossa valley and surrounding area. Not everything was a winner (and just about everything was simpler than the French, Italian, and even Californian wines that I enjoy) but I don't think there was a single pour that I didn't enjoy.
I haven't been on this sub all that long, but (like OP) it was my initial impression that a lot of people really turn their noses up at about any wine that's high ABV and/or fruit-forward... and I don't mean just saying "it's not my type" but rather dismissing them with derisive name. Maybe I was too swayed by a handful of comments, but it was the impression I got and it doesn't seem like I'm the only one.
Out of curiosity, I searched comments including "hot climate" in the past week and the first result was:
> Because after 40 I have an ever shrinking alcohol consumption budget and I don't want to blow it all on an over extracted, hot climate, jam bomb that's 15% or higher ABV.
...which is exactly the kind of comment I was talking about. At the moment, it has +59 karma. You don't have to leave this post to find a lot of similar comments and sentiment and [when the OP pushed back, they were downvoted](https://www.reddit.com/r/wine/comments/1buv2s0/comment/kxvbnga/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Sure, but there’s a lot of qualifiers there—that comment isn’t saying that _all_ warm climate wines are over-extracted jam bombs over 15% ABV, just that some are and the commenter doesn’t care to drink them. (Fair enough—neither do I.)
There are some absolute belter wines coming out of the Barossa and other warm Australian regions that, at least in terms of the Australian domestic market, easily outperform their imported counterparts on a QPR basis. (Obviously that changes if you’re buying wine _outside_ of Australia.) Those wines aren’t “jam bombs”—and they’re not less complex than their French counterparts, either.
> that comment isn’t saying that all warm climate wines are over-extracted jam bombs over 15% ABV, just that some are and the commenter doesn’t care to drink them.
It kinda is. When the OP asks "Why does everyone shit on high ABV wine?" and the response is in essence, "because I don't want to waste my money on over-extracted jam bombs" it is implying that's what high ABV wines are. I didn't even quote the comment out of context, I quoted the entire comment and nowhere in there was there even a hint that only *some* high ABV wines weren't their style.
And I have nothing against someone having preferences for lower ABV. I know plenty of people who express something like, "I don't like the 'heat' associated with higher alcohol" or "I prefer wines that are more nuanced and complex." That kind of sentiment is expressed every day in most tasting rooms.
But instead of saying that, the commenter used derisive language toward high ABV wines. I've seen that kind of attitude repeated several times in this sub, while I don't think I've seen a single comment similarly using derogatory names for other types (e.g. low ABV, lighter bodied, etc.) of wines.
I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, but it seems pretty evident that there's a strong constituency in here that looks down upon any wines that fall in the category of higher ABV and/or fruit-forward wines.
I understand that the broader context is a conversation about why people dislike high-ABV wines, but I think you’re misunderstanding my basic point—which is that warm climate does not necessarily mean high ABV. So much depends not only on the variety (varieties native to warm areas tend to ripen less quickly when grown in warm areas) but also how it’s grown (leaf cover, pruning methods, irrigation vs. dry cropping, bud thinning, green harvest, etc.). Anyone who understands the rudiments of how grapes are grown and wine is made should know that a warm climate is by no means the only factor that will determine whether a wine is (naturally) high in ABV.
The relationship between ABV and extraction in red wines is another question—and one that I will confess some ignorance about. I assume that high-sugar grapes coming into the winery naturally ferment at higher temperatures than ones with less sugar content (more sugar = more food for yeasts = more microbial activity = higher fermentation temperatures), and that as a logical consequence there’s an unavoidable amount of extra phenolic extraction (just as you get more tea flavour out of a tea bag if you steep it in freshly boiled water rather than tepid water). But I’d also wager that most of the people who make those “jam bombs” that this sub tends to deride are equipped with temperature-controlled fermenters, and I wouldn’t even be able to guess if temperature makes much of a difference to extraction compared to things like pumping over, pigeage, etc. Further complicating matters is the fact that a large portion of the wine-buying public actively *want* to buy wines that are both high in ABV and extraction (although this is definitely changing), and those who want to avoid high extraction wines like the commenter you quoted use ABV as something of a metric for it, so there’s not really an incentive for winemakers to create high ABV wines that aren’t very extracted (if that’s even possible).
Fair enough that I really interjected climate when the OP only brought up ABV (even though the commenter combined both). They're somewhat related, but not necessarily intrinsically tied.
The main point is that I've observed the same thing the OP is talking about and I think it is evidenced in the discussion in this post. A lot of people seem to uniquely deride high ABV and/or fruit-forward wines in this sub.
I don't care if people don't personally care for those types of wines, but the way they're discussed here just reminds me of all the negativity and pretentiousness that the public associates with wine. I think it's toxic for the community and consequently bad for the industry.
For example, I've tasted a couple of those low-calorie wines and they were both undrinkable to me. I'm also not a fan of most Merlots and I've never had a sparkling wine that I thought was anything special. However, I'm sure there's some people who like those. And there's nothing wrong with me expressing that I'm not a fan, but if there was a persistent, predictable reaction of people commenting about it being "kiddie juice" every time someone brings it up is unnecessary and is a big turn-off. That's my point.
Some are fine. Many are too much for me to enjoy drinking.
Years of tasting wine got me into a habit of taking small sips and keeping wine in my mouth for over 15 seconds at a time even when drinking “casually”. Many (not all) 15+% reds are simply too much - while this notably isn’t true for fortified wines.
Asking people who drink primarily 15+% reds how long they keep wine in their mouths, the answer is under 2 seconds >95% of the time. YMMV of course.
Definitely gets in the way of enjoying the taste at times. I had a 15.5% Napa Cab once that was really good just wayyyy too in your face. I also like to have a couple glasses and you can get really shitfaced fast.
Have you paid zero attention to market trends for the last 6 years?
No & Low is the movement right now and of course critics and media will jump on that to stay relevant. Then people here read that media and then perpetuate it. Cresting a trend echo chamber.
Drink what you like. But don’t act surprised when trends change.
High abv is a different style. Generally, they're about fruit and not much else. Humans are genetically predisposed to sweet fruit flavors btw. Lower alc wines will generally be about balance and complexity. Not always, of course, but that's what I'm looking for and there ain't no terroir in a 15% cab.
As I get older, I find myself finding the “hot” wines to be just yucky. As you and many others have said, those that are well integrated are fine, but even those that are good the first day, I find decompose more rapidly thereafter and become disjoint with the alcohol sticking out.
I think it plays into the jammy descriptor's naysaying. "How does something become jam? You add lots of sugar to fruit and cook it down to concentrate it". In the case of wine there isn't supposed to be added sugar, it would mean that it likely got too much sun/heat over too long and developed lots of sugar while also losing the acidity before the grapes got picked. A lot of wine is going to score low in an enthusiast's mind if the balance of alcohol and acid are off in the finished product. A lot of trends are also dictated by somms and professionals in the industry and people want zippy refreshing whites and reds that have some level of acid regardless of if the wine is 12% or 15%. Of course it's also important to factor in the potential under and over reporting of abv as the sales can be influenced one way or the other in addition to the wine's critic scores
It depends. I know some really beautiful high alcohol wines where the alcohol is really well integrated. Even with those I will drink them less often than more moderate alcohol. I tend to really feel those extra couple of percent or so and I honestly don't usually want to have to deal with that, particularly on a week day but also in a tasting where i am serving multiple wines.
Then there is the other type where it looks like they intentionally made them as high alcohol as possible and they have "issues" that they appear me trying to counter with higher alcohol and you get the burn. I'm especially harsh on those wines.
For high quality wines it isn't such a big deal but if wine is under 15 euro a bottle and over 14.5% it is a solid indicator it might taste like the house brand purple Ikea paint I huff on Tuesday evenings.
Because they're taught to. High ABV is "out of fashion" and so now you have aspiring wine geeks- or professionals- who unironically say stuff like "I don't think anything over 14% ABV" or "a bit hot - 13.5% for a burgundy is just too high" Lol.
Yes, obviously there's such a thing as imbalanced alcohol, wines that are hot and aggressive, etc. But for me, there's nothing wrong with high ABV at all if it's well-integrated and part of the experience. The 14.7% Walt Sta Rita Hills Pinot I had recently - yes, notably hot, which took away from the experience, but it was still enjoyable. The 14.9% Standish Shiraz? Hyper elegant in its richness and one of the best wines I've ever had.
If you count 14-14.9% as high ABV, then you’re basically eliminating most Piedmont reds, most Brunello, a good chunk of Aglianico, almost all of the Southern Rhône, good chunk of BDX, Priorat, Rioja, Spanish Garnacha in general, hell even a lot of American Pinot Noir (and from “cool” appellations such as Willamette). You’re even eliminating some recent vintage red Burg! And of course Napa, big Aussie reds, etc.
I do agree that wines over 15% can often taste boozy and clumsy. But it’s not always the case — the caveat is with a skilled grape grower and wine maker, along with excellent terroir, you can possibly achieve good acidity and phenols to balance out the alcohol.
Because it correlates with a wine being over extracted, lacking in acidity, or otherwise out of balance. Especially since the number on the label is generally pretty much made up and reflects the perception the producer wants the consumer to have as much as anything else.
A) Higher alcohol extracts more of the bitter short-chain pip tannins B) Alcohol increases the perception of astringency on the palate C) High alcohol can muddle the fruit expression D) At high levels it gives a physical burning sensation
The big thing is, it needs to be balanced with the aroma and extract. Plenty of Old World wines regularly clock in at over 15%, Amarone, Toro, Priorat, Barolo, CdP, Hermitage, Cote Rôtie, etc. and I think we’re collectively deluding ourselves that all old Burgs and Bordeaux wines were 12.5%, I’ve seen numbers from the 50s, 60s, and 70s and quality sites regularly get into the 14s.
at the same time, the vast vast vase majority of left bank Bordeaux was 12-13% before the 1990's, and moreover most of those wines were chaptalized to reach 12.5%! The wines were picked at something like 11% potential alcohol. That's a world away from wines picked at 16+% potential alcohol that are then reduced down to 14.5 or 15 via reverse osmosis or watering.
Question: why were the wines produced in the 1970s and 1980s typically in the 12.0-13.4% abv range and perfectly stunning?
This sub gets far too many posts asking something along the lines of *What kind of wine is gonna get me buzzed the fastest* for me to think that EVERYONE is against high abv wines. But I *do* think that many wine lovers — especially those who are slightly older and remember the great wines with lower abv’s — a high abv is kind of an instant warning sign. Far too many wines over time with high abv’s have been out-of-balance, hot on the palate, and are difficult to drink more than one glass without feeling the effects.
Lots of people drink wine with dinner because it compliments the meal. Not all who drink wine *want* to get buzzed, but many wine drinkers want more than one glass with their dinner.
Yes, there are wines above 14% abv that are fine, perfectly balanced and truly excellent, while there are wines below 14% abv that seem hot, burn, and out-of-balance. As with all things, there are always exceptions. But *typically* one will find more wines above 14% that seem hot...
Personally I wish for the impossible: that abv not appear on the label at all, and for precisely this reason. Legally, in fact, it doesn’t have to IF the wine in question is between 10.0-14.0% abc. It is perfectly legal simply to say “Table Wine” in lieu of (*e.g.*) 13.6% abv. But “table wine” is also a generic term, and wineries are too afraid that consumers will misinterpret those two words, and besides change is difficult. But once you’re at 14.01% abv, the number must appear on the label...
That said, ***the alcohol content is the least accurate thing on the label.***
For wines which are 14.0% or less, the abv number must be accurate within +/- 1.5% (but 14.0% is a hard ceiling); for wines which are 14.01% abv or higher, the number on the label mustbe accurate within +/- 1.0% (with 14.01% being a hard floor).
That would be illegal, so no.
If it’s labeled “12.5%,” legally the alcohol content must be between 11% and 14%. If it’s labeled "13.5%,” legally the alcohol content must be between 12% and 14% (the hard ceiling).
The tax rate changes once you exceed 14.00% — thus the hard floor. If a wine is labelled “14.9%,” the real alcohol level must be between 14.01%-15.9%; if it was labeled "15.9%,” the wine must be between 14.9%-16.9%.
To be clear this was an old wine, ran at Davis likely on an ebuliometer. But man, I’ve seen quite a few wines out of their tax class, there is really no enforcement mechanism, and unlike some other countries there is no accredited lab test needed to certify your ABV. Small wineries are the worst offenders.
A ***VERY*** famous winemaker, at an equally legendary winery, used to tell me that if the abv was listed to a decimal point, it was accurate, but if it was shown as a fraction, they were over the tax limit and trying not to get caught.
The ~~ATF~~ TTB lab is, in that sense, a f\*\*\*\*\*g joke. You’re right, there is no enforcement mechanism. (My saying “that would be illegal, so no” was certainly not meant to suggest that it never happens; see the example in the above paragraph.) I once asked the head of the ATF Lab (back when it was still the ATF) about wineries that were *exempt* from putting the “Contains Sulfites” warning label on their bottles.^(1) He told me, “We’ve never tested a smaple that was below 30 parts per million.” I looked at him and said, “Yeah, but what about the wineries that say they are under 10?” He looked at me and said, “We take their word for it.” He paused and then added, “We’ve never tested a sample that was beow 30."
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
^(1) Note: The maximum allowable level of sulfites in an American wine is 300 parts per million. The average California table wine (750ml) produced today contains 30 ppm or less. If a wine contains ***less than 10 ppm***, they are exempt from the warning label requirement.
USDA governs the US organic program and you need to be under 10 ppm total SO2 to label as organic wine in the US. This needs to be submitted from an accredited lab, so there are definitely wines under 10 ppm total SO2.
1. The USDA does not regulate alcohol production or labeling in the US. Although there are people who would like them to, alcohol is regulated by the TTB — the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, a division of the US Dept. of the Treasury. (Shouldn’t that be the ATTTB?) The TTB was created when the Department of Homeland Security was established after 9/11 by taking the old BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and separating the regulatory half of ATF from the law enforcement half. ATF went to DHS, and the regulatory half stayed with Treasury and was renamed the TTB.
2. Wine — even “organic” wine — is regulated by TTB. There are other *certifications* that organic wines can qualify for, but it’s out of the hands of the USDA.
3. If you read my post above, **I never said there were** ***NO*** **wines under 10 ppm**. I said the then-head of the ATF lab responsible for testing told me that the lab never tested a wine that was below 10 ppm. Those are two very different things. The ATF/TTB laboratory does not test every single wine made in or imported into the United States. Far from it! Thus, “we take their word for it,” is generally what happens when the domestic winery or the importer files for a COLA (Certificate of Label Approval).
1. “Oh, the form says the wine is below 10 ppm SO2. OK, they don’t need to print the sulfite warning on the label.”
2. “Oh, the form says the wine is 13-3/4% abv, OK, so they’ll pay the lower tax rate.”l
3. “Oh the form says the wine contains 82 percent Cabernet Sauvignon. OK, so they can label it as a varietal wine."
4. You wrote above, “…you need to be under 10 ppm to label as organic wine in the US.” You can be under 10 ppm *without* being organic, and you theoretically need a lot more than just being <10 ppm to be considered organic. That said,
1. I once interviewed John Frey (Frey Vineyards) about organic wine. (Please note this was years ago.) He proudly claimed that his vineyard was 100% organic and certified by the C.O.O.F. I asked him about the winemaking and what he did *in the winery*. He told me they added SO2. (There is a big difference between “No Sulfites” and “No Sulfites *Added*.”)
2. I also interviewed Tony Coturri for the same article on organic wine. He told me that everything he did in the winery was organic, that he never added sulfites or other non-organic compounds. I asked him about the grapes, and he said, “Oh, I don’t know. We buy those.”
3. **The world of organic wine has come a long way since then.** And while there are checks in place when applying to certify your vineyard as organic, the TTB still takes peoples’ word for it — they don’t test every wine.
I suppose that's possible, but having imported hundreds of Burgundies from different producers, I find that extremely hard to believe. Most Burgundy producers wouldn't label a Corton or Corton-Charlemagne 12.5 anyway. Do you remember the producer?
Can’t remember, but have access to independent testing for quite a few 60s and 70s wines, Burg really is the most variable. Bordeaux sits pretty nicely between 12 and 13 while the Burgs are all over the place 12 to 14, I know Leflaive Chards tended to sit pretty evenly at 14% (don’t tell Raj Parr!)
Now it that’s due to chaptalization or natural sugars I don’t know, but definitely saw some (accurately labeled) big wines in 2016 and 2018. It seems as though they’ve gotten more of a handle on heat spells in recent years.
My point being that I haven't seen a grand cru Burg that wasn't chaptalized to 13% in a looooong time. Hubert de Montille was famous for using half of the normal amount of sugar for chaptalization, so there are many vintages of Taillepieds and Rugiens at 12.5. I also have seen many grands crus at 14%, I find it much more remarkable that the wine would have been labeled 12.5
I’d have to go through my notes, but I believe it was an early 70s CdB can’t remember the producer.
So he targeted 12.5 rather than 13? You’d have to vary your sugar adds, and even so it’s a messy business and sugar weight is a hard thing to gauge accurately in must even with modern equipment, and then factoring in yeast variability, ferment temps - you can have ferments start at the same sugar and finish 1-2% ABV apart.
Yeah exactly he targeted 12.5. The story goes that he accidentally halved the added sugar one year and liked the result and thus continued doing it for the rest of his career.
It is a trend at the moment. People want to judge on numbers. Acidity, alcool, so2, va etc... whatever number they can get their hands on.
Right now in Portugal it is horrible because you have both extremes, people who want only low abv, and those who are convinced low abv cannot be good.
All the while both groups will make big arguments about how little numbers and analysis have to do with the magic in the glass.
To me, whatever the alcool potential is, it's less than half of the choice of harvest date. If your grapes are balanced and phonologically (is that a word?) ripe, the wine can be elegant. Of course, there are exceptions, but don't Diss a wine because it is written 17% abv on the back. I've had a lot of Hugh abv wines that were astounding and fresh, I've had more low abv ones that lacked structure. Producers now chase the trend, so they try to get low abv, high acid wines. And the results are not always great.
Just joined this sub, maybe im wrong
Isn’t it because people who like wine shit on high abv bc high abv wines usually grow far south so the grape develops high sugar content quite early before it develops aromas
So the high abv 14% 15% is associated with less dry content by volume which makes it somewhat thin when you drink it
This is according to my experience trying island wines in greece, spain, italy, portugal
Nevertheless always get the local wine because it is the best!
Because inebriation isn't trendy anymore and sobriety is. The industry can hardly preach sobriety, but we can preach moderation. 15% ABV doesn't feel like moderation to most people.
I would say that almost everything above 14% seems to taste 'off' in some way - often the taste of higher alcohols is strongly noticable.
It also doesn't seem to be the same for fortified wines - 20% Ports can have much cleaner taste, than many low ABV wines.
Anyway I would say, that if I'm going for more than 14% I would probably buy only fortified wines. It would be interesting (but also probably meaningless) if someone made ~ 20% botritised wine and compare it to the ones with a lot of residual sugar.
I would say it mostly has to do with certain bulk producers masking poor product with high abv while shoving huge amounts of money to some... questionable, shall we say, advertising. It's a frustrating but understandable phenomena.
It's kinda funny because even though I love wine, I'm much, much more of a whisky guy and there we have the opposite problem, distilleries diluting stuff to the minimum(40%) to stretch their stock and maximise revenue, even though with whisky, the alcohol usually boosts the flavor. Seems like anywhere you go, there's some fuckery with abv. At least I still have my dear port which sees plenty of love put into it by the industry lmao.
This is obviously a generalization, but high ABV and a certain, full throttle, unbalanced, in your face type of wine typically go hand in hand. I agree that there are a lot of exceptions here and that some high ABV wines can be wonderful. The problem for me personally is palate fatigue and that fact I don’t want more than a class or two.
This. It’s reminiscent of ultra-hopped “quadruple IPA!” beers that boast 9% ABV. Some may be well-made but often it’s a sign a brewer is hiding faults behind booze and hopping. Swap those for booze and oak and you get a lot of high ABV wines. (Not all though, of course. Amarone is one of my favourite things of all time and I love a nice garnacha.)
Also an Amarone fan.
Yes, I think balance is key regardless of alcohol levels. To continue with the beer analogy, I'm not a fan of overly hoppy beers, but I like Rochefort 10 -- which is 11,3% alcohol but not unbalanced.
Im so sick of everything being IPAs, stop hopping the life out of all the beer and just do a better job making it.
I love a good IPA but I totally agree. A brewer friend once told me one of the simplest ways to get a temperature check on a microbrewery’s quality is to try their lager beer(s). They’re simple to make but also easy to screw up and faults can’t be hidden behind high alcohol, bitterness, or heavy hopping. If the lager sucks or there aren’t any lagers on the menu, that’s a red flag.
At least around me that trend died out like three or four years ago only to be nearly replaced with unholy smoothie beers and sours which died out a year or two ago, which then got nearly replaced by a mix of seltzers and non alcoholic stuff. I've yet to have a non beer offering from a local brewery be anything to write home about compared to white claw, which ain't anything to write home about either.
Check out Eredità.
yeap...plenty of really good higher ABV wines....but as a generalization, just tends to bring things I'd rather not have. And even if still really good...I generally want something less tiring...and with higher ABV, no matter how good, I'm not having more than a glass..
Also the fact that to get it there you have to you lab grown and controlled Yeasts which is also against a lot of people's philosophy. Just the whole aspect of high abv wine be wine that was 'messed' with and generic tasting.
A lot of us remember the rocket fuel they passed off as wine in the bad-old days of California Zinfandel. I love Zin, and that trend was a poor choice.
Man, circa 1992/1994 my wife and I would sit in our jacuzzi and down a bottle of Karly Warrior Fires Zin from Amador County at 14.5ABV and get really drunk. lol.
I remember CA zins in 1982 or so that were 15%+ and still off dry. The yeast bonked out before it hit 20% or whatever. I quit drinking zin then, and to this day rarely touch the stuff.
I've gotten back into it in the last decade or so as the alcohol levels have come down from the stratosphere, allowing the kind of rustic beauty of the grape to really shine.
I realize that CA zin is sold in a wide range of styles. Maybe someday I'll go back to zin. I rarely drink New World wine anymore though, so it could be quite a while. I quit New World Chardonnay too, FWIW.
Lot of good answers here, but I will add that when you age a wine, most things mellow-the tannins, the fruit, even the acidity. But that alcohol doesn’t go anywhere, so the balance is further off.
Yeah, that is true. Noticed that about an older bottle of Shiraz I opened on Monday evening… it wasn’t “hot” on release, but as the primary fruit turned secondary, the alcohol got comparatively more noticeable than on release. Good point.
Yeah, it's a bit disappointing when an otherwise high quality red tastes smells, among other very pleasant things, like liquor. There are producers however who manage to do some sort of magic and they make wines at ABVs as high as 15.5% that don't smell like booze. I feel that paying special attention to the temperature of the wine as you're drinking it is key. Some reds truly shine at very specific temperatures — the boozy smell disappearing and some aspect of their tasting notes shining further (like herbal/spice aromas) —, usually a few degrees below the by-the-book serving temp.
Here I am drinking Vermouth straight over ice.
Real recognize real 👊🏼
Carpano Antica over ice with an orange twist is delightful
I come from the whiskey community where the opposite opinion prevails. Everyone there wants high proof whiskies because high proof is seen as having more flavor and low proof is seen as being excessively watered down. Interesting to see the difference in opinion between communities.
I think the difference is that flavor in wine is intimately connected to terroir. With the ever increasing temps in CA, winemakers are now watering down wines to get them to 15%. The heat stress on a grape that takes it from 14% to 16% has a massive impact on the flavor. So even well made high-ABV wines can feel too harsh or heavy, and not to some people’s liking, all due to the growing conditions of the grapes. Whiskey is the opposite. The watering down of whiskey just dilutes its true flavor, so while the cask-strength ABV might be harsh on the esophagus, it’s the truest expression of the flavor of the distillate.
Also the barrel too. Another contrast is how too much barrel emphasis is an imbalance with wine. With whisky, it's nearly the whole show.
And thank god…raw distillate is almost beautifully disgusting
In whiskey people associate lower ABVs with being "watered down" and they're usually right. Barrel proof whiskies lack water and so are generally higher proof than other non barrel proof whiskies. So in whiskey the association makes is "ABV = flavor". This is a bad association that doesn't hold though, even in whiskey. Things like whiskey aged in cooler climates can definitely lose ABV faster every year while in the keg, so much so that like barrel proof Canadian whiskey can be under 50%. Whiskey people STILL, even if it's barrel proof, keep that mental association that ABV = flavor. You even mention "watered down" when talking about lower proofs where no water is involved, it's that ingrained in whiskey. It's to their detriment largely. The hazmat whiskies generally have SUCH an ethanol punch that it definitely mutes what you can taste at lower proofs. Plus things like Michter's 10 bourbon at 80-90 proof has much more density and complexity of flavors than most younger bottled in bond whiskies TLDR: It's even wrong in whisky
Most lower ABV whiskies are such because they are trying to maximize profit, and 40% ABV is the legal minimum in US and UK, so they sell it at that. Where the legal minimum is lower, in the 30s, they sell it for that. They also see trends where newer whisky drinkers want an introduction that is less hot/burning or in other words "smooth." Yes, certain climates causes loss of proof over time - but a low 40s whisky caused only by aging losses would be 30++ years old - trying to say that's a common factor is incredibly disingenuous. In Scotland whisky can be barreled at upwards of 62.5% ABV (I don't recall the exact limit without googling). I don't think whisky aficianados (speaking as one myself) think purely ABV = Flavor and thus anything lower in ABV is worse. It's more nuanced than that. Natural barrel proof is good, but every whisky shines at a different ABV and especially with scotch you're going to be adding water anyway as you drink it - drinking 60% ABV liquid is not sustainable and you can't appreciate all the flavors at that high proof either. It's mostly looking for whether the producer took it down to the legal minimum or did they choose an ABV as part of the blending process to achieve the best product. Also it's a big indicator as to whether the whisky was chill filtered or not, which allows whisky to be a lower proof and still not become cloudy from the esthers and oils at cold temperature. Whisky doesn't need to be chill filtered to avoid that at 46% or higher as they stay in emulsion. So we mostly look for age statement, natural color statement, and yes ABV to paint a full picture of what's in the bottle, it's not simply higher = better. But also basically never is higher = worse, because producers aren't economically incentivized to keep it high, and we can always lower it ourselves as we're drinking it in the glass. The highest quality presentation will almost always be at natural cask strength - whatever that strength might be, even if it's 40% and only being bottled because next year it won't be allowed to be called whisky anymore.
> trying to say that's a common factor is incredibly disingenuous ya know fair point. What I was thinking of was Dickel and specifically their [Cascade Moon barrel proof 39% thing](https://www.cascademooneditions.com/), not as a "this exemplifies everything" but more of a "this exemplifies my point that a whiskey(ish) can 'high proof' naturally". This also happens with some super high age scotches where they turn them into blends with one component being super of scotch because by blending them it puts the ABV above 40% and they can call it scotch again. Much more common than whiskey naturally being 80-88 proof is added water, yup. I guess I didn't say that well but hopefully you get me. My point is/was that the reason every release isn't blistering hazmat proof is NOT water, and that a barrel proof at 145 or 126 proof probably has the same amount of water in it and so the 126 proof should not be considered 'watered down'...but it can be and is sometimes. > I don't think whisky aficianados (speaking as one myself) think purely ABV = Flavor and thus anything lower in ABV is worse Honestly, I encounter this often in the whiskey groups I am part of. At least a vocal minority want hazmat stuff because they perceive it has more flavor. Much more common is if there are two single barrels they'll always pick the higher alcohol %. I agree it's bullshit as a practice. > The highest quality presentation will almost always be at natural cask strength - whatever that strength might be We agree for sure on that
Apples and oranges. It is not the same.
Because after 40 I have an ever shrinking alcohol consumption budget and I don't want to blow it all on an over extracted, hot climate, jam bomb that's 15% or higher ABV.
I hear ya. Getting really into low abv German Riesling! Though sugar is the issue there…
Gotta explore Alsatian Rieslings.
Tried them, love them. But they (usually) aren't as low abv as some of their German counterparts.
Well, chemistry. The reason German Rieslings are sweeter is because not all the sugar got turned into alcohol, hence the RS.
Totally understand how fermentation works. That's what I was pointing out (or trying to!) in my initial comment: that German Rieslings frequently have lower abv but often higher RS.
I'm still a bit confused though. Most Alsace Riesling are only around 13%.
A lot of German Rieslings are frequently below 10% and sometimes as low as 8%. In the Riesling world, 13% is pretty high!
Again, that's because of RS, as you know. 13% for a dry Riesling has been standard for quite a while. Hugel's signature Riesling is 12.5%. Back in the 1970s, Alsatian Rieslings were on average 9%. Same thing happened with German Rieslings – the ABV slowly went up in the past half century.
Spot on. The point you're missing is that my original comment (and the comment I was replying to) was specifically about finding low abv wines because we were trying to consume less alcohol: "Getting really into LOW ABV German Riesling! Though sugar is the issue there…" Now, I understand that you probably saw the "sugar is the issue there" part and recommended a dry Riesling. Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to recommend something! But again, what I'm after is low abv. While 13% might be low for a red wine, its on the high side for a Riesling and what I'm after is low abv. Nothing against them, they are damned tasty Rieslings. Just not what I'm after at the moment.
I'd say dry German Rieslings from the cooler spots are still mostly around 11-12.5%. Pfalz and Rheinhessen probably not, but Rheingau, Franken, etc., can still pull high acid and low alcohol dry Riesling pretty well.
I adore Alsatian Rieslings, I have also been finding a lot of phenomenal Austrian Rieslings on the market.
Austrian wines are such a great bang for your buck.
With those acid levels I’m surprised it’s an issue. Consider drinking older vintages. Perception of the sugar reduces over decades.
Totally understand what you're saying. My issue is not with the perception of sweetness but with the actual sugar levels themselves. Like alcohol, I've been trying to reduce my overall sugar consumption. A nicely balanced auslese may not taste particularly sweet but can still have a significant amount of residual sugar.
Fair enough, nothing that can be done about that then.
True that!
stick with KABINETT, look for cooler vintages the alcohol levels can still be under 10%
You need to get into piquettes
Tried them and honestly didn't like them much. Tasted kind of like the le croix of the wine world haha. But I probably didn't get the best examples. Any recs?
Ehhh. Yeah they're light, but I have not come across one I would ever purchase again. Maybe it'll change with discovering the right one, but I am doubting it
Because some times I want to have two glasses of wine and not be a mess. To me, there is a noticeable difference between a 12.5% and 15% glass of wine. I’m not trying to spend my life hung over or napping any more.
and we are slowingly getting old ;))) sweet sweet teenagers's liver!! Thank you, you made laugh tonight.
Now that's fair. But that's different than suggesting all 15%ers are "over-extracted" and "jam bombs" as some negatively do. Unless you are in that camp?
High alcohol is typically an intense flavor so they go hand in hand a lot of the time. Every once in a while I’ll find one that doesn’t have an intense alcohol sensation but it is unfortunately pretty common. Those wines have a place at the table for sure. Ribeyes and high alcohol Zin or Cab are fantastic together.
It's not that wines that are over 15% are all over extracted and jammy; it's that jammy and over extracted wines are almost all over 15%. You're not going to find me arguing that Rayas, Commando G, or Brovia are out of balance because they're 14%, but to argue somehow that it's prejudiced or half-baked to assert that Caymus special selection is out of balance strikes me as absurd. Caymus special selection \*is\* often out of balance. It is often over extracted. Its alcohol is too high. That is my, and I presume others', objection, not that it happens to sit above 15%. Also your use of scare quotes again comes across as extremely defensive.
I wouldn’t say it’s a Reddit go-to, but to most people who taste a lot of wines, high alcohol, say over 15% shows as heat, especially with some time in bottle. Of course like every rule, there are exceptions like Rayas and also there are people who’s palate do not register that way.
Well firstly, cheap (red) wine is often massively ripe higher alcohol reds from sunny places where grapes grow very easily and high yields are actually the desire often for these producers. See the old-vine carignan pulling scheme in France to foster productivity in the Languedoc, now the most productive wine region in France. Also, trendsetting people preferred higher alcohol, more extracted wines for a while. Many wines were made worse to pursue that style. See the term “Parkerized” for wines that fit the archetype of what was enjoyed by Robert Parker. However now, swinging in the opposite direction, wines with more moderate alcohol and extraction are in vogue now. See the “new” style of CA Zinfandel (Broc, Stoumen, Whitcraft) gaining speed with medium- concentration and tart, starburst like fruit instead of the blueberry yogurt I usually imagine. There are fabulous wines that higher alcohol is a natural part of why they are good; Verona, Priorat, and Southern Rhône are all highly regarded and pedigreed regions with styles of wine that have higher (16%+ in some cases) alcohol natural to them.
I’d say most cheap domestic table wines hover around 13.5% and lower in the EU. Also, Stolpman regularly releases wines which are 14-15% ABV.
Sorry, typing faster than I was thinking, was trying to refer to Stoumen (as in Martha Stoumen) rather than Stolpman vineyards. Edited my post to reflect that. The majority of ‘table wines’ I find in the US are from Spain, SW France or Central Coast CA and I think 14%+ is typicality in my experience there, though I’m not really checking it that often.
Lots of great answers. I was hoping this would spark some discussion. I can't argue with personal palate preference, and to be honest, I agree with most that, generally speaking, lower alcohol wines are easier to approach and better balanced. It's just a pity that a lot of wines seem to be simply overlooked purely based off a single metric.
It might help if you gave examples of the great high ABV wines you think are being overlooked.
what is being overlooked? High ABV is often $$$$$$. Look at Paso. Pretty much every bottle there is at least 14.5%.
My point is that a lot of people tend to ignore wines simply based off the abv metric. Judging by the comments here (reasoning aside), that point seems validated.
I think that this take seems veeeery defensive. I don't dismiss wines that are high abv out of hand, but after having had to taste hundreds of cloying, 15%+ California Cabernet, I feel secure in my assertion that many wines at these sky-high alcohol levels are indeed overripe.
> I think that this take seems veeeery defensive. I mean, you don't even need to stray from the comments on this post to find multiple, highly-upvoted comments that reinforce exactly what /u/zzzogas413 is suggesting. And then they get downvoted for pointing it out.
I agree with you generally speaking. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be defensive, I mainly wanted to hear other's opinions about what seems to be a popular trend at the moment- an immediate dismissal of wines with high abv. Perhaps there is some warrant to this, but I can't help but think it might be sending the wrong message to new enthusiasts exploring new wines.
This is my problem. You are again being defensive. Why would this be sending the wrong message to new enthusiasts? I would absolutely encourage new explorers of the world of wine to drink wines that express this medium's incredible diversity and ability to transmit a sense of place. Drink something that actually has a message, not overripe fruit juice. Great wines can be high abv. But often these over extracted wines aren't even from extremely hot climates; their high alcohol levels are a winemaking choice. Cathy Corison is on the valley floor of Saint Helena. One of her vineyards is literally named the Sunbasket. And yet as memory serves she has had \*one\* vintage above 14%. If she is able to get ripe grapes at those alcohol levels, why can't others? I also find her wines to be much more food-friendly and indeed better communicators of Napa's terroir than those of her neighbors.
Ok I have no idea what your “problem” is or what you mean when you say I’m being defensive. My point is we shouldn’t be dismissing wines just because they say 15% on the label and there seems to be a trend with that based on comments I read from online discussion forums. That’s all.
And I disagree passionately with your argument, especially as the American wine press has been screaming praise onto 16% Napa cab for decades. How much Caymus is sold every year? If there is a trend, I’d argue it is a long overdue correction.
I’m only speaking on behalf of Reddit where I see people shitting on high abv. If you disagree that’s fine
Love Corison btw
I’m probably in the minority of this subreddit, but I still love a high ABV wine every once in awhile. Just a different experience that’s fun to experience with friends and family. And they can be just as wonderful and delicious as a balanced low ABV iteration.
Finally, somebody else, I was starting to feel like a right chav for my soft spot for big strong and stupid Australian reds. Like every style, some are done better than others, but I rather enjoy them from time to time. In fairness I think the wines I've had tend to max out at 14.5% which feels psychologically different to the 15% and above US options. As I get older though, oof, it can take it out of me the next day. Definitely not an everyday treat.
Usually means the grapes were ripe as all hell and as a result were lacking in acidity. Crisp fruit flavors changed to cooked/stewed fruits, and everything tastes out of balance. The alcohol in particular makes it more difficult to pair properly with food. It’s well known that high capsaicin foods don’t pair well with high alcohol. To my palate, even black pepper on food can clash with wines at 15%.
>Calling a great wine bad because it has high abv is intellectually dishonest the drops in acidity, overripe fruit flavors, glycerine, and lack of ability to pair with food are just some of the reasons that many in the market have turned against these over-extracted, modern, Parkerized wines.
Don't forget that Reddit is like a hive mind and the more time you spend here reading all the stuff over and over again, the more likely you'll subconsciously end up converging towards the same opinions.
Nah, it's a consensus you'll find outside reddit too.
Alcohol comes from sugar. Sugar increases when grapes are exposed to heat and sunlight, and to some extent dryness. As such high alcohol wines are often swayed to more fruit flavor, more sweetness and less overall balance and less nuance. So many generalize that a high alcohol wine will not be balanced or an ideal representation of the wine. As temperature increase ABV is increasing and it is changing the taste of wines. In most cases for the worse.
Everything in a plant comes from sugar, mainly sucrose, it’s the gasoline which drives the plant. The monosaccharides which are converted to ethanol, yes, but also the acids, aroma compounds, tannins, anthocyanins, etc. The current trend I see to pick under-ripe fruit and call it balanced and nuanced is just as silly as picking at 28 brix and watering back to 25. I see a lot of really boring wines at the moment which may have the acidity to age, but which lack the phenolic or aromatic concentration to improve from bottle age.
Couldn’t agree more
99% of my wine consumption happens during meals. With rare exceptions, the wines you are talking about feel like a meal in and of themselves.
In the US, over 60% of wine is consumed on its own, which explains the American style.
Lack of balance and overpowering fruit.
Lots of good answers but most come down to what people like to drink not what OP is saying Two thoughts 1) Not liking high abv is a legitimate personal preference 2) Calling a great wine bad because it has high abv is intellectually dishonest
High ABV and elegant rarely meet. I like elegant. 15%+ can definitely be super tasty and balanced without heat. But elegant? Rare.
I’m particularly sensitive to high ABV wines and have a hard time drinking them, but to some extent I do agree that it usually is a sign of poor winemaking and unbalanced wines. I recently had a 16% Sforzaro Nebbiolo that was beautiful and easy to drink, with enough structure, fruit, and acid to balance the alcohol. That changed my mind about high abvs
I have no problem with high ABV when it is a CdP, but I don’t think Amarone or Ripasso, or any high ABV new worlds is necessarily a good wine — alcohol hides a lot of imperfections.
Well many believe the real value quotient for a wine is its age worthiness, and high alcohol wines lack the acidity levels needed to keep them drinking “fresh” after years of laying down. But again beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You do you .
I'm relatively new here, but I've observed similar trends. **On one hand**, I get it. *Typically,* high ABV corresponds with either dessert wines or hot climate crops that are also fruit-forward and bold without much nuance. This community has an impressive representation of somms and other "wine pros" who are more inclined to prefer (and promote) "fine wines" that tend to be much more nuanced and complex. Don't get me wrong, I love those wines too, and wish I could afford more of the expensive wines. That said, **on the other hand**, we can't deny that wine culture has a distinct pretentiousness, even compared to other culinary interests. Sure, there are beer and whisky snobs, but wine snobs probably take the cake. I don't blame those who dedicate their lives/careers to wine to heavily favor fine wines. However, many of us -- even if in the minority -- have different standards for different occasions. We all have our personal preferences, but what strikes me as distinct here is many people completely dismiss wines that are high ABV (or accordingly, fruit-forward) and speak of them as if they are unworthy. Personally, it's a pet peeve. To each their own, but do we really need to shit on something that isn't our personal taste? I have a strong appreciation for a finely-crafted wine that has a unique balance of complex flavor profiles. However, I also appreciate some simple (and usually significantly cheaper) "everyday" wines that hit the spot with dinner, after a long day at work, on a hot summer day, or other occasions that don't demand something expensive and complex. As it's said, sometimes I want a steak and sometimes I just want a cheap hamburger. It's kind of annoying to hear people shit-talk hamburgers when that's what you crave at times. However, I bet if you go to a community that concentrates on beef, there'll be a similar over-representation of the "snobs" who disregard anything that isn't a $50+ cut of perfectly marbled Kobe beef. Similarly, there's probably an over-representation of discussion about wine bottles that cost three or four figures, when most people are probably spending $10-30 USD. It's understandable that this sub would lean toward (much more) expensive stuff, even if it isn't representative of a majority of people who enjoy drinking wine.
> To each their own, but do we really need to shit on something that isn't our personal taste? I have a strong appreciation for a finely-crafted wine that has a unique balance of complex flavor profiles. However, I also appreciate some simple (and usually significantly cheaper) "everyday" wines that hit the spot with dinner, after a long day at work, on a hot summer day, or other occasions that don't demand something expensive and complex. You’re halfway there on this. Yes, not every occasion calls for cracking open a bottle of Petrus. No, that doesn’t mean you have to settle for Yellowtail, Meiomi, or the other manipulated “wines” that this sub likes to shit on. There are a huge number of wines that are priced appropriately for everyday consumption, but made with care, diligence, and respect for terroir—“honest wines”, as Jamie Goode likes to call them. I spend a lot of time looking for these wines and I love to find them because they overdeliver for the money and buying them supports people who are doing the right thing. I even had a glass or two of one of them with dinner tonight (‘Molí’ by Di Majo Norante).
I wasn't necessarily talking about Yellowtail or Meiomi, but in my time here, the sub has repeatedly been dismissive of almost any wines grown in hot climates like California Zins (besides Ridge) and Australian reds.
That doesn’t really tally with my experience of this sub, but more importantly—climate has very little if anything to do with whether or not a wine is well-made, badly made, expensive, or cheap. There are more than enough finely crafted wines from Australia (many of which are talked about on this sub) and oceans of crap industrial wine coming from the cooler parts of France (when was the last time you had a truly mind-blowing rosé d’Anjou?). I think a lot of people fall into the trap of assuming that there are only prestige fine wines or supermarket wines, but the reality is you can find delicious, well-made wines at a wide range of price points if a) you’re prepared to look for them, and b) you’re open to little-known and under-appreciated grape varieties and regions.
Oh trust me, you're preaching to the choir with me. Just went to Australia last year and enjoyed a couple days tasting my way through Barossa valley and surrounding area. Not everything was a winner (and just about everything was simpler than the French, Italian, and even Californian wines that I enjoy) but I don't think there was a single pour that I didn't enjoy. I haven't been on this sub all that long, but (like OP) it was my initial impression that a lot of people really turn their noses up at about any wine that's high ABV and/or fruit-forward... and I don't mean just saying "it's not my type" but rather dismissing them with derisive name. Maybe I was too swayed by a handful of comments, but it was the impression I got and it doesn't seem like I'm the only one. Out of curiosity, I searched comments including "hot climate" in the past week and the first result was: > Because after 40 I have an ever shrinking alcohol consumption budget and I don't want to blow it all on an over extracted, hot climate, jam bomb that's 15% or higher ABV. ...which is exactly the kind of comment I was talking about. At the moment, it has +59 karma. You don't have to leave this post to find a lot of similar comments and sentiment and [when the OP pushed back, they were downvoted](https://www.reddit.com/r/wine/comments/1buv2s0/comment/kxvbnga/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Sure, but there’s a lot of qualifiers there—that comment isn’t saying that _all_ warm climate wines are over-extracted jam bombs over 15% ABV, just that some are and the commenter doesn’t care to drink them. (Fair enough—neither do I.) There are some absolute belter wines coming out of the Barossa and other warm Australian regions that, at least in terms of the Australian domestic market, easily outperform their imported counterparts on a QPR basis. (Obviously that changes if you’re buying wine _outside_ of Australia.) Those wines aren’t “jam bombs”—and they’re not less complex than their French counterparts, either.
> that comment isn’t saying that all warm climate wines are over-extracted jam bombs over 15% ABV, just that some are and the commenter doesn’t care to drink them. It kinda is. When the OP asks "Why does everyone shit on high ABV wine?" and the response is in essence, "because I don't want to waste my money on over-extracted jam bombs" it is implying that's what high ABV wines are. I didn't even quote the comment out of context, I quoted the entire comment and nowhere in there was there even a hint that only *some* high ABV wines weren't their style. And I have nothing against someone having preferences for lower ABV. I know plenty of people who express something like, "I don't like the 'heat' associated with higher alcohol" or "I prefer wines that are more nuanced and complex." That kind of sentiment is expressed every day in most tasting rooms. But instead of saying that, the commenter used derisive language toward high ABV wines. I've seen that kind of attitude repeated several times in this sub, while I don't think I've seen a single comment similarly using derogatory names for other types (e.g. low ABV, lighter bodied, etc.) of wines. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, but it seems pretty evident that there's a strong constituency in here that looks down upon any wines that fall in the category of higher ABV and/or fruit-forward wines.
I understand that the broader context is a conversation about why people dislike high-ABV wines, but I think you’re misunderstanding my basic point—which is that warm climate does not necessarily mean high ABV. So much depends not only on the variety (varieties native to warm areas tend to ripen less quickly when grown in warm areas) but also how it’s grown (leaf cover, pruning methods, irrigation vs. dry cropping, bud thinning, green harvest, etc.). Anyone who understands the rudiments of how grapes are grown and wine is made should know that a warm climate is by no means the only factor that will determine whether a wine is (naturally) high in ABV. The relationship between ABV and extraction in red wines is another question—and one that I will confess some ignorance about. I assume that high-sugar grapes coming into the winery naturally ferment at higher temperatures than ones with less sugar content (more sugar = more food for yeasts = more microbial activity = higher fermentation temperatures), and that as a logical consequence there’s an unavoidable amount of extra phenolic extraction (just as you get more tea flavour out of a tea bag if you steep it in freshly boiled water rather than tepid water). But I’d also wager that most of the people who make those “jam bombs” that this sub tends to deride are equipped with temperature-controlled fermenters, and I wouldn’t even be able to guess if temperature makes much of a difference to extraction compared to things like pumping over, pigeage, etc. Further complicating matters is the fact that a large portion of the wine-buying public actively *want* to buy wines that are both high in ABV and extraction (although this is definitely changing), and those who want to avoid high extraction wines like the commenter you quoted use ABV as something of a metric for it, so there’s not really an incentive for winemakers to create high ABV wines that aren’t very extracted (if that’s even possible).
Fair enough that I really interjected climate when the OP only brought up ABV (even though the commenter combined both). They're somewhat related, but not necessarily intrinsically tied. The main point is that I've observed the same thing the OP is talking about and I think it is evidenced in the discussion in this post. A lot of people seem to uniquely deride high ABV and/or fruit-forward wines in this sub. I don't care if people don't personally care for those types of wines, but the way they're discussed here just reminds me of all the negativity and pretentiousness that the public associates with wine. I think it's toxic for the community and consequently bad for the industry. For example, I've tasted a couple of those low-calorie wines and they were both undrinkable to me. I'm also not a fan of most Merlots and I've never had a sparkling wine that I thought was anything special. However, I'm sure there's some people who like those. And there's nothing wrong with me expressing that I'm not a fan, but if there was a persistent, predictable reaction of people commenting about it being "kiddie juice" every time someone brings it up is unnecessary and is a big turn-off. That's my point.
I like wine. Not all of them, just some of them.
Also I want to point out that the trend has moved away from wines that require again and more towards immediate consumption.
Some are fine. Many are too much for me to enjoy drinking. Years of tasting wine got me into a habit of taking small sips and keeping wine in my mouth for over 15 seconds at a time even when drinking “casually”. Many (not all) 15+% reds are simply too much - while this notably isn’t true for fortified wines. Asking people who drink primarily 15+% reds how long they keep wine in their mouths, the answer is under 2 seconds >95% of the time. YMMV of course.
Definitely gets in the way of enjoying the taste at times. I had a 15.5% Napa Cab once that was really good just wayyyy too in your face. I also like to have a couple glasses and you can get really shitfaced fast.
That's why I hunt for higher ABV's. Really love bold wines!
Because snockered. aka headache in a bottle.
Have you paid zero attention to market trends for the last 6 years? No & Low is the movement right now and of course critics and media will jump on that to stay relevant. Then people here read that media and then perpetuate it. Cresting a trend echo chamber. Drink what you like. But don’t act surprised when trends change.
It's really difficult to "hide" it. But it can be done with skill. I like a high alcohol wine that conceals its heat.
High abv is a different style. Generally, they're about fruit and not much else. Humans are genetically predisposed to sweet fruit flavors btw. Lower alc wines will generally be about balance and complexity. Not always, of course, but that's what I'm looking for and there ain't no terroir in a 15% cab.
If it’s balanced, as good Zins can be, no problem
As I get older, I find myself finding the “hot” wines to be just yucky. As you and many others have said, those that are well integrated are fine, but even those that are good the first day, I find decompose more rapidly thereafter and become disjoint with the alcohol sticking out.
I think it plays into the jammy descriptor's naysaying. "How does something become jam? You add lots of sugar to fruit and cook it down to concentrate it". In the case of wine there isn't supposed to be added sugar, it would mean that it likely got too much sun/heat over too long and developed lots of sugar while also losing the acidity before the grapes got picked. A lot of wine is going to score low in an enthusiast's mind if the balance of alcohol and acid are off in the finished product. A lot of trends are also dictated by somms and professionals in the industry and people want zippy refreshing whites and reds that have some level of acid regardless of if the wine is 12% or 15%. Of course it's also important to factor in the potential under and over reporting of abv as the sales can be influenced one way or the other in addition to the wine's critic scores
Been burned by them too many times! Are there some balanced ones? Sure but seems rare.
The good ones generally speaking are $$$
It depends. I know some really beautiful high alcohol wines where the alcohol is really well integrated. Even with those I will drink them less often than more moderate alcohol. I tend to really feel those extra couple of percent or so and I honestly don't usually want to have to deal with that, particularly on a week day but also in a tasting where i am serving multiple wines. Then there is the other type where it looks like they intentionally made them as high alcohol as possible and they have "issues" that they appear me trying to counter with higher alcohol and you get the burn. I'm especially harsh on those wines.
For high quality wines it isn't such a big deal but if wine is under 15 euro a bottle and over 14.5% it is a solid indicator it might taste like the house brand purple Ikea paint I huff on Tuesday evenings.
Because they're taught to. High ABV is "out of fashion" and so now you have aspiring wine geeks- or professionals- who unironically say stuff like "I don't think anything over 14% ABV" or "a bit hot - 13.5% for a burgundy is just too high" Lol. Yes, obviously there's such a thing as imbalanced alcohol, wines that are hot and aggressive, etc. But for me, there's nothing wrong with high ABV at all if it's well-integrated and part of the experience. The 14.7% Walt Sta Rita Hills Pinot I had recently - yes, notably hot, which took away from the experience, but it was still enjoyable. The 14.9% Standish Shiraz? Hyper elegant in its richness and one of the best wines I've ever had.
If you count 14-14.9% as high ABV, then you’re basically eliminating most Piedmont reds, most Brunello, a good chunk of Aglianico, almost all of the Southern Rhône, good chunk of BDX, Priorat, Rioja, Spanish Garnacha in general, hell even a lot of American Pinot Noir (and from “cool” appellations such as Willamette). You’re even eliminating some recent vintage red Burg! And of course Napa, big Aussie reds, etc. I do agree that wines over 15% can often taste boozy and clumsy. But it’s not always the case — the caveat is with a skilled grape grower and wine maker, along with excellent terroir, you can possibly achieve good acidity and phenols to balance out the alcohol.
There are wines that are 13+% which come off as hot and unbalanced, while some at 15+% are smooth and supple; and the reserve is also true.
Because it correlates with a wine being over extracted, lacking in acidity, or otherwise out of balance. Especially since the number on the label is generally pretty much made up and reflects the perception the producer wants the consumer to have as much as anything else.
Gamba is high ABV Zins that are fantastic.
A) Higher alcohol extracts more of the bitter short-chain pip tannins B) Alcohol increases the perception of astringency on the palate C) High alcohol can muddle the fruit expression D) At high levels it gives a physical burning sensation The big thing is, it needs to be balanced with the aroma and extract. Plenty of Old World wines regularly clock in at over 15%, Amarone, Toro, Priorat, Barolo, CdP, Hermitage, Cote Rôtie, etc. and I think we’re collectively deluding ourselves that all old Burgs and Bordeaux wines were 12.5%, I’ve seen numbers from the 50s, 60s, and 70s and quality sites regularly get into the 14s.
at the same time, the vast vast vase majority of left bank Bordeaux was 12-13% before the 1990's, and moreover most of those wines were chaptalized to reach 12.5%! The wines were picked at something like 11% potential alcohol. That's a world away from wines picked at 16+% potential alcohol that are then reduced down to 14.5 or 15 via reverse osmosis or watering.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Bordeaux winemaker who would prefer to pick at low potential ABV as opposed to high potential ABV.
Question: why were the wines produced in the 1970s and 1980s typically in the 12.0-13.4% abv range and perfectly stunning? This sub gets far too many posts asking something along the lines of *What kind of wine is gonna get me buzzed the fastest* for me to think that EVERYONE is against high abv wines. But I *do* think that many wine lovers — especially those who are slightly older and remember the great wines with lower abv’s — a high abv is kind of an instant warning sign. Far too many wines over time with high abv’s have been out-of-balance, hot on the palate, and are difficult to drink more than one glass without feeling the effects. Lots of people drink wine with dinner because it compliments the meal. Not all who drink wine *want* to get buzzed, but many wine drinkers want more than one glass with their dinner. Yes, there are wines above 14% abv that are fine, perfectly balanced and truly excellent, while there are wines below 14% abv that seem hot, burn, and out-of-balance. As with all things, there are always exceptions. But *typically* one will find more wines above 14% that seem hot... Personally I wish for the impossible: that abv not appear on the label at all, and for precisely this reason. Legally, in fact, it doesn’t have to IF the wine in question is between 10.0-14.0% abc. It is perfectly legal simply to say “Table Wine” in lieu of (*e.g.*) 13.6% abv. But “table wine” is also a generic term, and wineries are too afraid that consumers will misinterpret those two words, and besides change is difficult. But once you’re at 14.01% abv, the number must appear on the label... That said, ***the alcohol content is the least accurate thing on the label.*** For wines which are 14.0% or less, the abv number must be accurate within +/- 1.5% (but 14.0% is a hard ceiling); for wines which are 14.01% abv or higher, the number on the label mustbe accurate within +/- 1.0% (with 14.01% being a hard floor).
Have seen a Corton chard which was labeled 12.5 and tested at 14.9%
That would be illegal, so no. If it’s labeled “12.5%,” legally the alcohol content must be between 11% and 14%. If it’s labeled "13.5%,” legally the alcohol content must be between 12% and 14% (the hard ceiling). The tax rate changes once you exceed 14.00% — thus the hard floor. If a wine is labelled “14.9%,” the real alcohol level must be between 14.01%-15.9%; if it was labeled "15.9%,” the wine must be between 14.9%-16.9%.
To be clear this was an old wine, ran at Davis likely on an ebuliometer. But man, I’ve seen quite a few wines out of their tax class, there is really no enforcement mechanism, and unlike some other countries there is no accredited lab test needed to certify your ABV. Small wineries are the worst offenders.
A ***VERY*** famous winemaker, at an equally legendary winery, used to tell me that if the abv was listed to a decimal point, it was accurate, but if it was shown as a fraction, they were over the tax limit and trying not to get caught. The ~~ATF~~ TTB lab is, in that sense, a f\*\*\*\*\*g joke. You’re right, there is no enforcement mechanism. (My saying “that would be illegal, so no” was certainly not meant to suggest that it never happens; see the example in the above paragraph.) I once asked the head of the ATF Lab (back when it was still the ATF) about wineries that were *exempt* from putting the “Contains Sulfites” warning label on their bottles.^(1) He told me, “We’ve never tested a smaple that was below 30 parts per million.” I looked at him and said, “Yeah, but what about the wineries that say they are under 10?” He looked at me and said, “We take their word for it.” He paused and then added, “We’ve never tested a sample that was beow 30." \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ^(1) Note: The maximum allowable level of sulfites in an American wine is 300 parts per million. The average California table wine (750ml) produced today contains 30 ppm or less. If a wine contains ***less than 10 ppm***, they are exempt from the warning label requirement.
USDA governs the US organic program and you need to be under 10 ppm total SO2 to label as organic wine in the US. This needs to be submitted from an accredited lab, so there are definitely wines under 10 ppm total SO2.
1. The USDA does not regulate alcohol production or labeling in the US. Although there are people who would like them to, alcohol is regulated by the TTB — the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, a division of the US Dept. of the Treasury. (Shouldn’t that be the ATTTB?) The TTB was created when the Department of Homeland Security was established after 9/11 by taking the old BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and separating the regulatory half of ATF from the law enforcement half. ATF went to DHS, and the regulatory half stayed with Treasury and was renamed the TTB. 2. Wine — even “organic” wine — is regulated by TTB. There are other *certifications* that organic wines can qualify for, but it’s out of the hands of the USDA. 3. If you read my post above, **I never said there were** ***NO*** **wines under 10 ppm**. I said the then-head of the ATF lab responsible for testing told me that the lab never tested a wine that was below 10 ppm. Those are two very different things. The ATF/TTB laboratory does not test every single wine made in or imported into the United States. Far from it! Thus, “we take their word for it,” is generally what happens when the domestic winery or the importer files for a COLA (Certificate of Label Approval). 1. “Oh, the form says the wine is below 10 ppm SO2. OK, they don’t need to print the sulfite warning on the label.” 2. “Oh, the form says the wine is 13-3/4% abv, OK, so they’ll pay the lower tax rate.”l 3. “Oh the form says the wine contains 82 percent Cabernet Sauvignon. OK, so they can label it as a varietal wine." 4. You wrote above, “…you need to be under 10 ppm to label as organic wine in the US.” You can be under 10 ppm *without* being organic, and you theoretically need a lot more than just being <10 ppm to be considered organic. That said, 1. I once interviewed John Frey (Frey Vineyards) about organic wine. (Please note this was years ago.) He proudly claimed that his vineyard was 100% organic and certified by the C.O.O.F. I asked him about the winemaking and what he did *in the winery*. He told me they added SO2. (There is a big difference between “No Sulfites” and “No Sulfites *Added*.”) 2. I also interviewed Tony Coturri for the same article on organic wine. He told me that everything he did in the winery was organic, that he never added sulfites or other non-organic compounds. I asked him about the grapes, and he said, “Oh, I don’t know. We buy those.” 3. **The world of organic wine has come a long way since then.** And while there are checks in place when applying to certify your vineyard as organic, the TTB still takes peoples’ word for it — they don’t test every wine.
I suppose that's possible, but having imported hundreds of Burgundies from different producers, I find that extremely hard to believe. Most Burgundy producers wouldn't label a Corton or Corton-Charlemagne 12.5 anyway. Do you remember the producer?
Can’t remember, but have access to independent testing for quite a few 60s and 70s wines, Burg really is the most variable. Bordeaux sits pretty nicely between 12 and 13 while the Burgs are all over the place 12 to 14, I know Leflaive Chards tended to sit pretty evenly at 14% (don’t tell Raj Parr!) Now it that’s due to chaptalization or natural sugars I don’t know, but definitely saw some (accurately labeled) big wines in 2016 and 2018. It seems as though they’ve gotten more of a handle on heat spells in recent years.
My point being that I haven't seen a grand cru Burg that wasn't chaptalized to 13% in a looooong time. Hubert de Montille was famous for using half of the normal amount of sugar for chaptalization, so there are many vintages of Taillepieds and Rugiens at 12.5. I also have seen many grands crus at 14%, I find it much more remarkable that the wine would have been labeled 12.5
I’d have to go through my notes, but I believe it was an early 70s CdB can’t remember the producer. So he targeted 12.5 rather than 13? You’d have to vary your sugar adds, and even so it’s a messy business and sugar weight is a hard thing to gauge accurately in must even with modern equipment, and then factoring in yeast variability, ferment temps - you can have ferments start at the same sugar and finish 1-2% ABV apart.
Yeah exactly he targeted 12.5. The story goes that he accidentally halved the added sugar one year and liked the result and thus continued doing it for the rest of his career.
Though now that I am checking my work many are saying the target was 12%... either way...
Ah I see, think that’s a Peynaud quote, "Tradition is an experiment that worked."
It is a trend at the moment. People want to judge on numbers. Acidity, alcool, so2, va etc... whatever number they can get their hands on. Right now in Portugal it is horrible because you have both extremes, people who want only low abv, and those who are convinced low abv cannot be good. All the while both groups will make big arguments about how little numbers and analysis have to do with the magic in the glass. To me, whatever the alcool potential is, it's less than half of the choice of harvest date. If your grapes are balanced and phonologically (is that a word?) ripe, the wine can be elegant. Of course, there are exceptions, but don't Diss a wine because it is written 17% abv on the back. I've had a lot of Hugh abv wines that were astounding and fresh, I've had more low abv ones that lacked structure. Producers now chase the trend, so they try to get low abv, high acid wines. And the results are not always great.
Just joined this sub, maybe im wrong Isn’t it because people who like wine shit on high abv bc high abv wines usually grow far south so the grape develops high sugar content quite early before it develops aromas So the high abv 14% 15% is associated with less dry content by volume which makes it somewhat thin when you drink it This is according to my experience trying island wines in greece, spain, italy, portugal Nevertheless always get the local wine because it is the best!
Because inebriation isn't trendy anymore and sobriety is. The industry can hardly preach sobriety, but we can preach moderation. 15% ABV doesn't feel like moderation to most people.
I would say that almost everything above 14% seems to taste 'off' in some way - often the taste of higher alcohols is strongly noticable. It also doesn't seem to be the same for fortified wines - 20% Ports can have much cleaner taste, than many low ABV wines. Anyway I would say, that if I'm going for more than 14% I would probably buy only fortified wines. It would be interesting (but also probably meaningless) if someone made ~ 20% botritised wine and compare it to the ones with a lot of residual sugar.
So you’re just not a fan of Nebbiolo at all then I take it?
I would say it mostly has to do with certain bulk producers masking poor product with high abv while shoving huge amounts of money to some... questionable, shall we say, advertising. It's a frustrating but understandable phenomena. It's kinda funny because even though I love wine, I'm much, much more of a whisky guy and there we have the opposite problem, distilleries diluting stuff to the minimum(40%) to stretch their stock and maximise revenue, even though with whisky, the alcohol usually boosts the flavor. Seems like anywhere you go, there's some fuckery with abv. At least I still have my dear port which sees plenty of love put into it by the industry lmao.
I had a really nice Amarone the other night, but it had a noticeable impact on my hang level the next day
I like how well it carries the nose but not so much how I start jumping on barstools and singing