Yesterday Jordan Mackay posted an article on “The Fruit Bomb Resistance” over at SF Mag. Jordan is a good writer. We love SF Mag at Westwood and like participating in their events. I personally avoid drinking over-the-top cocktail wines, and certainly don’t make them — so yes, you could label me as a “fruit-bomb resister.”
“But now a small yet influential band of vintners, critics, and sommeliers has decided enough is enough—and is setting out to change the way we drink.” Oh really? I am getting so f**king sick of hearing and reading this meme that I’m going all curmudgeonly — and you wouldn’t like it when I get curmudgeonly. 
First of all, like Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by marauding Native Americans: “who’s this ‘we’ kimosabe?” Changing the way “we” drink? Oh shut up already. That statement is elitist and condescending.
Second, the premise of this article — that there is some huge feud between high-alcohol and low-alcohol winemaking camps — is a total fabrication. The fallback position of the lazy journalist these days is that every issue is depicted as having just two diametrically-opposed sides. It’s facile, and sophomoric, and emblematic of the way the media are failing in promoting public discourse at any level above the schoolyard playground. In the real world, winemakers are not running around playing capture-the-flag over this issue.
Third, though there might actually be a few neophyte or even some fewer journeyman winemakers who actually believe that one can simply harvest at lower sugar and make good wine, as I have said before — this is just not true. 
As for the older guys who are espousing some new catechism of “lean, low-alcohol” wines — you sly old foxes, you! And as for the journos who have bought this, um, marketing hype? Well, you got played, suckas. Thanks for helping us sell more wine.
Finally, I’m glad to see I’m not just one curmudgeonly Diogenes wandering in search of an honest man. Yesterday Steve Heimhoff posted “Truth, lies and alcohol in California wine” — a less hyperbolic response than this one to Mr. Mackay’s article, and Charlie Olken put up “There Are Many Roads To Damascus” which may or may not have been a response to the same article. Though I doubt Jordan Mackay will ever read my screed here, I’d like him to know I’m not piling on — in my opinion he wrote a decent article from a flawed perspective and that’s not a sin. But to the rest of the wine journalists out there — fair warning. See first image above. Time to cut it out. This includes you, Mr. Asimov.
Subscribe in a reader
My Twitter stream
Me on Facebook
My tumblr
Me on Google+
Westwood Winery
by Charlie Olken
30 Nov 2010 at 23:43
John–
On Monday, the day after the Thanksgiving weekend, both Steve Heimoff and I inadvertantly found ourselves on paralell hobby horses. Both blogs have found a fair bit of response with the bulk of the response over on Steve’s. That’s OK with me as I post almost as many words over there as on my own blog. I simply cannot resist a good conversation. And that is what is going on over there.
I hope you will feel encouraged to wander to that site and offer the instructive comments above. They come from a point of view and even if some will find them curmudgeonly, the words reflect a point of view, both technical and philosophical, that will add to the discussion.
by John M. Kelly
01 Dec 2010 at 00:17
Thanks Charlie. I post a fair bit of commentary on STEVE! as well — enough that I feel my welcome is suspect. I think I truly offended some there with my strident defense of my position on the Sonoma County labeling law and have been laying a little lower there since. Don’t want to stink up the place.
by Karien O'Kennedy
01 Dec 2010 at 04:13
Hie hie hie, John did you have a glass of wine or two when you wrote this piece? Love it! I like the Hulk picture. Thats how I feel when I hear people blaming yeast companies for high alcohols in wine. Apparently we make our yeasts “too efficient.” So we are contemplating making them “less efficient” so that the world can go back to drinking semi-sweet wines:) Unless off course someone comes up with the technology whereby yeasts can turn excessive sugar into white light…
by John M. Kelly
01 Dec 2010 at 08:46
Sober as a judge — whatever that means — but perhaps being too clever by half. First, I wrote this piece in what I believe is the cant of the “lets bash high-alcohol California wines” articles. It is unnecessarily provocative. Second, I made an effort to frame this as a simple two-sided debate among wine writers — maybe someone else will pick up that story. C’mon folks — this is low hanging fruit! pick it and run with it! Third, I included the graphic images to suggest that the tone of this piece is at least a bit tongue-in-cheek. And fourth, I cross-posted this as a comment over at Steve Heimhoff’s blog without the images to see if I could provoke some amusing thin-skinned reaction. Charlie Olken has already hip-checked me on that last bit, which has shaken the whole edifice. Hence, this bit of explanation.
by Thomas Pellechia
01 Dec 2010 at 06:43
John,
I fully agree with your assessment of this situation, but with this exception: don’t blame only journalists. Scan the Internet wine forum sites and read what the wine-buying geeks say about such matters to get the feel of who is behind the repetitive nonsense.
…and don’t feel too bad about what you may have done over at Steve’s blog. I’ve pulled out of there, too, but because I get the distinct sensation that Steve isn’t exactly enamored with my opinions, as I am often left trembling after reading some of his.
by Charlie Olken
01 Dec 2010 at 08:54
Tom–
I heard Steve say nice things about you just the other day. Something about nice shoes–too bad you taste through them.
Just kidding–he never said that. And he also did not say, but might have, “why do all these New Yorkers keep bugging me?”–but he did not say that either.
The only problem with Steve’s blog is that it sometimes gets lost in rhetoric for rhetoric’s sake whereas less well-attended blogs like this one and mine and yours rarely get enough rhetoric and are sometimes too hip for our own good. On the other hand, at least we know the people to whom we are talking.
by John M. Kelly
01 Dec 2010 at 09:03
Charlie – I sometimes have certain people in mind when I write a piece, but the persistence of information in search means we never know everyone we are speaking to. When I check analytics once a month or so I’m frequently surprised to see what searches pointed to my writing, and where they came from.
by Thomas Pellechia
01 Dec 2010 at 09:35
Charlie,
Hip? Us?
What’s in your drink?
by Tyler Thomas
01 Dec 2010 at 13:42
John –
Someone just sent me Jordan’s article and I’m miffed…thanks for expressing my rant for me. I’ve commented on the post as well over at SF Mag.
Tyler
by John M. Kelly
01 Dec 2010 at 13:55
Tyler – Reading through the comments over at STEVE! reminded me that Jordan Mackay co-authored that book with Rajat Parr. I suppose in a way the SF Mag article is a 3,000-word infomercial. Good points you raised in your comment there. I’ve heard through the grapevine that Raj is making wine — wonder if Mackay is a partner in that venture too. Are they picking their grapes just to get low alcohols? Inquiring minds…
by Tyler Thomas
01 Dec 2010 at 14:39
John –
Raj is definitely making wine, I don’t know about Mackay. I do know that Raj is picking early simply to get lower alcohols. He also is serving only his Syrah by the glass in some of his restaurants, or at least he was. Apparently Syrah is tough to sell even with low alcohol!
Tyler
Pingback
by Tweets that mention Wine Alcohol — Here We Go Again « notes from the winemaker -- Topsy.com
01 Dec 2010 at 17:48
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tyler Thomas, John M. Kelly. John M. Kelly said: Why can't we all just get along? I've just posted "Wine Alcohol – Here We Go Again" http://bit.ly/hIO2yk where I go all Hulk on some chumps. [...]
by Peter O'Connor
02 Dec 2010 at 09:32
John,
Kudos for exposing this “picking early = balance” fallacy.
I gathered an interesting, though somewhat incomplete, definition of “physiological maturity” formulated by Dr. Emile Peynaud (Knowing and Making Wine; p.59-72; Wiley): “[it] is the time when the grape reaches its largest diameter and maximum sugar content per berry”, “[…] before the action of consumption by respiration is no longer compensated by translocation and at the same time the grape begins to lose water. In fact, once overripening starts, the grape may be considered to no longer receive anything from the plant”.
The immediate effects of “picking early” are: underdeveloped phenolic compounds; and unbalanced organic acids, i.e. an excessive amount of malic acid (which degrades pari passu with grape ripeness) while tartaric acid (susceptible to plant water nutrition) remains at normal levels.
According to Dr. Peynaud, malic acid levels can double from one year to another in the Bordeaux area. He also stresses the (locally) underrated fact that “there exists a relationship between the presence of water in the subsoil and acidity in the grapes. In ground that retains humidity, ripening is delayed and the grape’s tartaric acid and malic acid are more plentiful”.
by John M. Kelly
02 Dec 2010 at 10:05
Peter – Peynaud’s definition of ripeness was correct for the time but is no longer au courant. As I discussed in my earlier piece on grape ripeness, there are many factors other than sugar/acid balance to be considered in determining when to pick. I discussed a number of lab assessment methods for making these evaluations with Dr. Dominique Delteil when he was at the IVC in Montpellier. These methods, which refined and expanded on work by others (especially that of Ribereau-Gayon on phenolics) proved too time-consuming for us to offer them as reasonably-priced services when I was at Vinquiry, but it would not surprise me to find these techniques (and probably others) employed at Enologix.
These days I rely on long experience and a wide range of integrated sensory cues to help me assess “ripeness.” I abhor over-ripe flavors in my winemaking, so if necessary I will pick before some other factors reach “optimum” ripeness to avoid these flavors. Sugar/acid balance is something I can take in hand at the winery, though I rarely go very far with it — I am more inclined to be satisfied with what nature has provided than to work to a formula.
by Tyler Thomas
02 Dec 2010 at 10:02
Hey guys, I posted again over at SF Magazine and thought I would copy some of that here to get your perspective. I don’t normally like to call people out but I’m getting tired of the credibility being attached to certain producers who achieved it by getting and making the very wines they now deride. Thoughts?
“I also have been doing some research over the last few months to try and understand whether the changes in wine style across the globe are due to the “Parkerization” of wine as many contend, or the Americanization of wine. I would assert the latter hypothesis.
Frankly it is a chicken or the egg topic, did Parker ride a wave of surging American wine consumption starting in the late 80s when his popularity really began to soar? And if you are a French producer living in a country whose consumption is declining and you want to stay in business you must look to regions where consumption is increasing, i.e. the USA. Well, you better figure out what kind of wine they like to drink. What if Parker simply is representative of the majority of US palates (whose style preferences would naturally be normally distributed). Wouldn’t it behoove you to figure out how to make a wine most palatable to Americans? Enter Michel Rolland, who clearly knows how to do this. Parker is a canary, a proxy, a confirmation that you have achieved a style that will be largely enjoyed by the American wine consuming public…at least for now (go visit the middle of the country if you want confirmation of this…the Bay Area is an anomaly).
Finally, one reason I get hot about these topics is 1) I don’t understand why people focus on an alcohol number per se as it is not a huge fraction of the story of how a wine is made (science and experience support this) and 2) I don’t understand why producers who should know better continue to assert to writers (who don’t know better) the importance of a single number. Sure 16.4% means something, but from 13.9 to 15, or 12.5 to 13.5 or whatever, doesn’t mean everything.
To be perfectly honest, when I see numbers like those reported in the article for Kutch, as one winemaker to another I would have to wonder what he was doing in 2005 (cold year, Sonoma Coast fruit, really 16.3). That’s not criticism, but a question?
I don’t understand how guys who established their credibility by getting high scores by making really ripe wines are suddenly the go to people to comment on and criticize making high scoring, really ripe wines. The credibility comes from bursting on the stage with wines they supposedly don’t like anymore? There are plenty of people who have been making average scoring wines of low alcohol for years who would seem to have a better understanding. I look at those numbers and don’t think “oh his palate has changed,” I think “maybe he didn’t know exactly how to make wines his palate wanted.” He seems to have been picking by numbers then, and picking by numbers now. And does a track record of only a few years of making lower alcohol wines make someone the best go to person for information on trends and making lower alcohol wines? But I see that perhaps they are highlighted as people who “have seen the light” and I suppose that is fair enough.
Clendenon and Corison are much better examples and I’m glad they were included, but what about someone like Warren Winiarski, or the Stony Hill folks? Are their wines too populist to highlight even though until recently Warren has maintained high 13 to low 14% alcohol for years (I just had a lovely ’97 single vineyard Chard from SLWC that was crisp, lighter in body, and classically Chardonnay). What about my old buddies at HdV who have been picking early since their inception a decade ago? Sure they are not frequently below 14%, but again why focus on that number because there wines taste like they are below 14%. We make wines in a range between 12% and 15%, without concerning ourselves to specific numbers. These guys have been true to their palates from the get go. Its hard not to see the “my palate has changed” as a bit of a cop out to “I wasn’t really sure how to achieve what I really wanted,” or perhaps they were relying on others to guide them in the process too much. No offense to Kutch, I’ve never met him and so clearly am making some assumptions about his rationale and don’t mean to pick him out except that it is his numbers that are reported here. I’m simply trying to offer the perspective a winemaker might have of his approach rather than a wine writer.”
Tyler
by John M. Kelly
02 Dec 2010 at 20:18
Tyler I don’t know about the French (most of my contacts are in Burgundy where Parker is PNG) but in Italy I know of at least one producer who changed his winemaking to please Parker’s palate. About ten years ago we were at Riccardo Cotarella’s house for dinner and the subject of the international wine style and Parker’s influence came up.
Over dinner and many bottles, Mr. Cotarella casually mentioned that several years before he had sat down with Parker, tasted through the Falesco lineup over several vintages, and solicited RP’s opinion on how he could make the wines more appealing. At the time I was callowly dismissive — I considered him a sellout. I’m fortunate that I’ve had the time to re-think this initial reaction. These days it seems to me that Cotarella has found a way to produce wines that both appeal to Parker AND at the same time stay true to a winemaking style that is recognizably similar the wines before their “Parkerization” — at least in my memory. His wines don’t seem to be scoring more or fewer tre bicchieri — and it seems to me that those guys at Gambero Rosso have been pretty consistent in their recognition of Italian tradition (I could be wrong about this, but that’s my impression anyway).
Considering how Parker has been awarding great scores to wines like Montiano and Marciliano that — while not of ancient pedigree — are nevertheless recognizable to me in their “Italianness” has got me thinking of what the “Parker 90+™” brand means in different geographic contexts. I don’t think I would confuse Montiano with a first growth Bordeaux, nor confuse any of the Continental wines with top-scoring Napa Cab or Merlot. I’ll give you that for each of these wines the alcohols, pHs and oak levels may generally be somewhat higher than their lower-scoring competition (would like to see the data), but I’m starting to question the received wisdom that there truly is an “international style” whose existence can be laid at Parker’s anointed feet.
Your canary and egg comments pushed me further toward making this conclusion. I agree that Parker is a symptom as much as a cause, in a feedback loop. Makes me wonder how winemaking at the extremes will change when the Chinese stop buying solely on status and start to influence actual taste.
Regarding the guys who made their names on over-the-top wines and are now decrying that very style, in my opinion these guys were marketers — or politicians — before they were ever winemakers. For them it never really has been about what is in the bottle. Far more it has been about the narrative with this bunch. When the wines they make become popular, they look for a new narrative to follow in order to differentiate their brand in the market. Fickle sods.
I say that teasingly, as I have respect for some in that group. Randall Grahm comes to mind. It seems to me that his narrative has always been that he is doing things at the margins. When the market finally came to him — “oddball” varieties, less oak, kitschy labels, screw caps, etc. — he moved away from Bonny Doon and off to this new venture in San Juan Batista: marginal climate, marginal soils — now he wants to plant marginal grapes there. If you haven’t seen it, his “Germ Of An Idea” post makes a fascinating read.
by Thomas Pellechia
02 Dec 2010 at 11:28
Great stuff, Tyler.
Once again, these arguments seem more like religion to me than winemaking–it’s not smart to argue religion!
Having said that, I don’t usually care for over ripeness and that often means the wine will be high in alcohol. But I’ve always considered it a personal decision.
Peter,
Peynaud was right about a lot of things, and as John says, he was right about sugar/acid–then.
Remember, he was talking primarily about Bordeaux and primarily about a select few grape varieties. Anyone who has worked with, say, Gewurztraminer learns awfully fast that focusing solely on sugar/acid is not exactly the way to approach that variety’s physiological ripeness. This holds true for many other varieties and under many different growing conditions as well.
by Tyler Thomas
02 Dec 2010 at 23:58
“Makes me wonder how winemaking at the extremes will change when the Chinese stop buying solely on status and start to influence actual taste. ” – John, great point!!
I think that you are spot on with reference to marketing and narrative. It isn’t about the wine as much as about themselves. Though I agree that there are exceptions.
Tyler
PS – nice to have time for this stuff once again. Here’s to 2010!
by Peter O'Connor
03 Dec 2010 at 05:46
John,
In reality, I was not referring to Peynaud’s sugar/acid ratio in my comment. I quoted a paragraph where Dr. Peynaud states that there is an unequivocal moment that the grape “reaches its largest diameter and maximum sugar content per berry”, “[and] at the same time […] begins to lose water. In fact, once overripening starts, the grape may be considered to no longer receive anything from the plant”. He points to the fact that there is an objective physiological turning point in the ripening process. In contrast to the (hyped) notions of “flavor ripeness” and “technological ripeness”, which Peynaud defines as “the picking time relative to its ultimate utilization”.
This definition is obviously incomplete, since it does not focus on acids and phenolics; which at the aforementioned “turning point” could be at an optimum state or not. Furthermore, varieties that are planted in the wrong climate may not even reach that point.
I don’t know which P. Ribereau-Gayon studies you mention, but aren’t phenolics a slippery aggregate to determine ripeness? (i.e. establishing parameters and benchmarks for guidance through a large number of compounds which will render non-objective organoleptic results) The accumulation of polyphenols also varies absurdly from one variety to another (within thin skinned varieties, like Pinot Noir, the variance in respect to different soils, climates and clones can be staggering) and due to cultural practices (training methods and canopy management).
One can always develop statistical models that mimic a far more complex reality in a useful manner, but it looks like a fairly intractable non-linear mathematical problem to me…
Any road, the (Enologix) motto “we offer quality recognition tools to predict winemakers’ and national critics’ tasting scores before bottling” (?!) says it all. Doesn’t it?
by John M. Kelly
03 Dec 2010 at 10:07
“…statistical models that mimic a far more complex reality in a useful manner, but it looks like a fairly intractable non-linear mathematical problem to me…” — indeed it is. It is not just an n-dimensional problem; the order of n- simply can’t be fathomed. I’ve quoted George Box before: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” Enologix has apparently used non-parametric approaches to develop some useful models that have correlated workable inputs in the vineyard and winery to higher scores for certain varieties. Brilliant, if that is one’s winemaking goal. But the models are still oversimplifications and undoubtedly prone to failure when the uncorrelated parameters stray outside the model development envelope. That’s why I prefer these days to rely on the massively-parallel input and processing of another infinitely complex system (me) to make ripeness assessments in the vineyard.
The problem of the tipping point to overripeness identified by Peynaud is especially acute with Syrah and Sangiovese (and perhaps others I am less familiar with). When these varieties are exposed to a certain level of water stress during ripening, they seem to respond by forming a tylosis or similar barrier to water movement at the pedicel, where the berry attaches to the cluster stem. Once that occurs, phenolic development is arrested in the seed and skin and the only mode for further increase in sugar level is through dehydration. Makes for a crappy grape — avoiding it requires smart irrigation here in CA (or an accessible water table in “dry farmed” plots).
by Thomas Pellechia
04 Dec 2010 at 13:15
I am reminded of the old timers who grabbed handfuls of grapes, shoved them into their mouths and proclaimed: ready or not.
They were so un-savvy, those guys…
by John M. Kelly
04 Dec 2010 at 13:23
Yep, Thomas. Shucks, that’s pretty much how I do it. Makes me an old-timer I guess. {sigh}{relief} Finally. I have arrived.