How important is a rich soil ecology?

Intuitively for most people, a vineyard with grass and wild flowers between the vines is regarded as a Good Thing. It looks pretty, and is indicative of a healthy ecology that has not been destroyed by pesticides. A vineyard soil teeming with life can be an end in itself, and an important benefit of sustainable viticulture. But however good for the environment it may be, is a rich soil ecology critical for good wine?

By way of example, here are images of vineyards that have a lot in common, and yet are totally different. They are both on islands in Southern Europe, and both have volcanic soils. The first one is a vine on the island of Santorini, where the soil has been created by man tilling tuff (a rock of compacted volcanic ash) to a depth of half a metre or so. I only show a small area of the vineyard in the image, but it is typical of the island in that there is little or no vegetation, and the soil has very little organic matter. Lack of water, not over-use of pesticides, is the reason for this barren soil. The other image is from the Northern slopes of Mount Etna. Here there is more water, and nature has had more time to work after the most recent lava flow in the area. So there on Etna, the organic farming methods employed in the vineyard result in a much richer biodiversity – which would also be expected in most parts of Europe.

As for the wines from both these places, I think most people would agree that they are good if not excellent. I do not know where the grapes from that particular Santorini vine would finish up, but the soil is typical of the island and Santorini wine is generally of high quality, and the vineyard on the right is owned by Tenuta delle Terre Nere, one of the most highly regarded Etna producers.

So from these examples can we conclude that organic matter in vineyard soil is not necessarily so important? And that good wine can result from soils both rich and meagre? More contentiously, perhaps even soils poor from the over-use of pesticides can result in good wine? Or could, for example, Santorini wine be vastly improved by applying compost, most of the ingredients for which would need to be imported? These are not totally rhetorical questions – I would genuinely like to know, and I suspect the answers are not as clear-cut as some would have us believe.

Posted in General | Tagged | 4 Comments

Natural wines – my two penn’orth

Firstly, let’s take a look at what natural wine actually is. While the term is not standardised, and there is no universal agreement on how it should be used, the principle is clear: it is used for wines made with minimal intervention. So in principle, the grapes are grown with no artificial fertilisers or pesticides, and in the winemaking nothing is added to the grapes or removed, and there is no new-fangled winery technology. Here are some of the more important practices that distinguish natural from more conventional winemaking:

  1. No chemical-factory vineyard treatments, apart from the traditional sulphur and copper sulphate
  2. No bought-in yeasts
  3. Minimal additions of sulphur in the winery, or none at all
  4. No chaptalisation or acidification
  5. Minimal fining and filtering, or none at all

So far, so unremarkable. But of at least equal importance is that natural wine has become something of a movement, with hip winemakers, jazzy wine labels with provocative names, and trendy natural wine bars, riding the wave of concern for the environment and free-from foods. All this has ruffled the feathers of more conservative members of the wine establishment, who poo-poo natural wines, pointing out that they are the faulty products of poor winemaking.

I present all of the above with no comment. I just want to give an impression of what natural wines are, and how they have polarised opinion, in some circles at least. Now for the two penn’orth from me. From my experience with wines that are marketed as natural, they do seem to have distinctive flavour profiles. That factor alone is for me a big positive. Unless a wine style threatens to kill off other ones, and that is hardly yet the case with natural wine, it only serves to offer choice – no one is forced to drink natural wine. I personally would definitely chose to do so, occasionally at least, if only for the additional fun it contributes to my wine-drinking. And if you want to do it as a life-style choice, well there are worse options.

With natural wine being so vaguely defined, and also allowing for all the different grapes varieties, wine regions and producers, you will understand there is quite a lot of variation between natural wines. I agree to an extent with some of their detractors about wine faults – I think natural wines do tend to show off-flavours more commonly than conventional wines. But such wines are still in the minority, and I am of the view that these so-called faults are generally a good thing because they add interest. Or to put it another way, if I like a wine I do not care that other people chose to say it is faulty.

Without wanting to generalise, other features you might find in red natural wines are sharpness, astringency and vibrant fruit. The whites often suggest apple to me. Yes, sometimes the over-ripe apple flavours of oxidation, but crunchy fresh apples more often than not. They can also often gain interesting leesy characteristics from the sediment. And look out for the orange wines, much beloved of some natural wine producers, with their phenolic flavours and often high astringency. If you are old enough to remember carbolic soap, you might think the phenolic nature of these wines is a nod in that direction. Don’t let it put you off though, as it will be the merest of nods. Natural wines can also just taste like, er, well, wine – the common or garden unnatural stuff.

Another objection is that natural winemaking obliterates terroir and varietal typicity, with the result that it all tastes alike. We can right away knock on the head the idea that all natural wines taste alike: they simply do not. And to the extent that some wines might seem to taste similar, could it possibly be that we have not yet allowed our palates to tune into the styles? As a community, wine enthusiasts have invested a lot of time learning to spot more-or-less subtle differences in conventional wines. I suggest that natural wines need a bit more consideration before we declare that there is no terroir and varietal typicity. We might have to accept that they have different types of typicity, but is that so bad? Even if they turn out to have no typicity whatsoever, is it really such a disaster?

I actually have a suspicion that some aspects of natural wines are only indirectly related to their so-called natural methods of production, for example that the sharpness and astringency is actually due to harvesting the grapes when they are less ripe. So we might eventually find conventional wines changing to mimic natural ones. If I am honest, I think I would like that to happen. Even if I like natural wines themselves, there is a lot of ideology in the natural wine movement I do not get along with. This is exemplified by the use of the word natural itself, as if somehow natural wine makes itself and is uniquely healthful, all other wines being industrial chemical abominations. Of course, the truth is much more nuanced.

Posted in General | Tagged | 2 Comments

Having your subjective cake and objectifying it

Is wine appreciation is subjective or objective? Professionals can often be difficult to tie down on that issue. For example, they often agree that opinions on wine quality are totally subjective, while at the same time claiming to be objective in their judgements. In that way they can encourage everyone to say what they think about a wine, and yet not lose their special role as experts. The problem with subjectivity is that it can mean everyone’s opinions are equally valid, which then leaves no space for connoisseurship and meaningful dialogue about wine. If there is no right and wrong, what is left to discuss when it comes to wine? So they say. Some people at least. Sometimes.
Personally, while I may occasionally use the language of objectivity for convenience, I am very consistently on the side of subjectivity in this debate. Here is how I see it… The objective aspect of a wine is represented by its chemical and physical structure. Using our senses, mainly smell and taste, and the brain to integrate sensory input, we create there a perceptual model, and then interpret that model to draw conclusions about the wine. In other words, in the sense that it is created within ourselves, flavour is literally subjective. It is not only subjective, but the perception of flavour can vary greatly from person to person according to our genetic makeup. So flavour is totally subjective: it simply does not exist independently of an observer. In addition to this relatively straightforward flavour perception, some of us are also interested in aesthetic aspects of wine such as balance, harmony and elegance, and that adds yet another level of subjectivity. Even if we can agree on the principles of wine quality, those principles will always be rather arbitrary, and our interpretation of the principles subjective. However, unlike others, I do not see subjectivity in wine as a cause for concern. There is still room for wine expertise in my opinion, and with the acceptance of subjectivity I see even more opportunity for interesting discussions about wine quality.

While this strongly subjective stance does not seem to be popular amongst wine people, it is the orthodox view in perceptual science, and I find it difficult to understand how anyone could possibly begin to seriously disagree. However, Barry Smith (of the Institute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Studies, University of London) manages just that. Based on the objective chemistry on the wine, he proposes that there are emergent flavour properties. The flavours might vary with time, but they are objective in the sense that they depend solely on the wine itself. According to him, tasters do not experience the chemical and physical structure of the wine directly: only indirectly, through the flavour properties. Here, there is still subjectivity, but the subjectivity comes into play only when the objective flavours are sensed by a taster to create flavour perceptions. At that point, the person-to-person variations I mentioned above again become relevant, and net result is again a mix of different perceptions. However, according to this theory, they are regarded as more-or-less imperfect perceptions of the objective and true wine flavours. Less imperfect for expert tasters, and more so for novices.

My impression is that Barry Smith has spent a lot of time talking to wine experts, and flavour technologists, and what they say seems to have led him to believe the objective flavours are necessary. Jamie Goode, in his recent book I Taste Red, seems to like the theory, largely because it accommodates the idea of flavours being both objective and subjective, and leaves the traditional role of wine expert intact. However, I see no need for the existence of these objective flavour properties whatsoever. In fact, the only reason I am writing about them in this blog post is because I fear the idea might be gaining traction as a result of Jamie’s new book.

Barry Smith himself, writing in Issue 50 of The World of Fine Wine, identifies what for me is the major problem with his objective flavours: They give us two tough tasks instead of one. The first task is to establish the relationship between the wine chemistry and its emergent objective flavours. The second task is to establish the relationship between the objective flavours and flavour perceptions. Well how are those tasks progressing? Not very well I suggest. Meanwhile however, quite a lot of scientific progress has been made with the single task that replaces Barry Smith’s two, showing how chemicals interact directly with the tongue and nose, and how the resulting signals are processed, and routed to and through the brain, where they are integrated to create flavours.

Whether these mooted objective flavours exist or not matters not a jot as you sit with a glass of wine. However, it does matter to those who write about wine, or buy and sell it. It matters at a philosophical level, and livelihoods based on the myth of objectivity could be at stake. But it does not need to be like that. There is money to be made in the subjective world too. And fun to be had.

(If you would like to check that I have not been misrepresenting Barry Smith, or would simply like to read more about his ideas, in addition to his The World of Fine Wine and sections in Jamie Goode’s book, both mentioned above, you might like to see his essay in the book “Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine”, his Nature Outlook article, or this article I found online. For a scientist’s view of flavour perception I can recommend Gordon Shepherd’s book Neurogastronomy. The same author has also written a more recent book, Neuroenology, which might well be of even more interest. Finally, for a fuller argument in favour of subjectivity, may I again draw your attention to the online version of my article in The World of Fine Wine?)

Posted in General | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Wine tasting and alcohol – spit or swallow?

Spit or swallow? There are a few issues surrounding this decision when wine tasting, including whether you experience the wine properly when you spit, the social acceptability of spitting, and the most elegant way of doing it. To an extent the issues overlap a little, but I would like to focus on the amount of alcohol your body absorbs while tasting. Even with this focus, there are number of factors to consider.

Perhaps most importantly there is your ability to get home safely afterwards, critical if you are driving of course. Professionally, it is also important not to have your palate blunted by the effects of alcohol towards the end of the tasting, though this needs to be weighed against the possibility of not properly experiencing the wine if you don’t swallow. Finally, there are longer term health concerns surrounding alcohol consumption. However much we might be tempted to dismiss the latest government advice, there is certainly a limit beyond which alcohol consumption is unhealthy. But I am not going to preach here. I shall merely do my best to examine the evidence for how much alcohol we take on board when tasting wine. However, as you will find out, it doesn’t depend merely on whether you spit or not.

Firstly, I should point out that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence kicking about the Internet on the subject of intoxication and wine tasting, a lot of it contradictory. Some involves the use of consumer-quality breathalyser equipment, which as far as I can establish is very unreliable, but I did also find a reference to judges of an Australian wine competition being breathalysed by the police (presumably in the pursuit of science rather than a convictions) after a hard day’s work tasting and spitting an unspecified number of wines. The judges were found to be comfortably under the Australian drink drive limit. That seems to be at odds with a lot of other anecdotal evidence of tasters not feeling fit to drive after a day of tasting and spitting, and I think the devil is in the detail, e.g. number of wines tasted.

The only hard evidence I have found for swallow vs spit comparisons of blood alcohol concentration is a single study, The Bac(chus) experiment: blood alcohol concentrations after wine tasting, which was published a few years ago in 2012. It used a very specific experimental protocol, but nevertheless provides a good starting point.

The basic idea was to simulate a common wine tasting format, with and without spitting. Firstly with white wines and then with red, the subjects were required to do the following 5 times: rinse part of a 15 ml sample through the mouth for 15 seconds and spit, wait 1 minute, rinse the rest of the sample through the mouth for 15 seconds and spit, wash the mouth with water, wait 5 minutes. Between the white and red wines, there was an additional 5 minutes of waiting. Then, 15 minutes after the last wine, a blood sample was taken for analysis. Two weeks later the experiment was repeated, except this time the subjects swallowed the wine. 10 subjects participated in the first part of the experiment, but it seems 3 of them dropped out for the second part. The authors say the wine strength was 11.5-13.5%, and also give some details about the experimental subjects, but those details do not seem to be too important to the broad conclusions about spitting.

The blood samples were taken when the BAC (blood alcohol concentration) could be expected to be about at its maximum. For the spitting part of the experiment the BACs were in the range 0.01-0.06, which can be compared to the legal limit for driving in the Netherlands (where the research was carried out) of 0.5. The authors assume that these levels of BAC are due to absorption though the inside of the cheek. For the swallowing part of the experiment the range was 0.3-0.63. In other words, if you spat your BAC would be about an order of magnitude less than the drink-drive limit, while if you didn’t you would stand a good chance of losing your licence if caught. Worryingly for a scientific paper, and hardly a great advertisement for Open Access publishing, the authors do not state what unit they use for BAC, but as they are in the Netherlands it would be g/L – grams of alcohol per litre of blood. Note that in England and Wales the drink-drive limit is 80 mg/100mL, or 0.8 in the Dutch system.

So that’s the story for the precise set of conditions used in the experiment, but how may any changes to those circumstances affect the BACs? Let’s start with some factors mentioned by the authors. Firstly, if you have food in your stomach initially, or if you eat when tasting, it will tend to slow down the absorption of ingested alcohol as the alcohol will spend more time in your stomach, where the rate of absorption is less than in the small intestine. Note that the experimental subjects started on an empty stomach, and did not eat anything while tasting. The authors also point out that it takes about an hour for the body to eliminate the alcohol contained in a glass of wine. So an hour spent between finishing the tasting and starting to drive should, at very least, make a big impact on the amounts of alcohol swallowed in this experiment. Also more time spent in the actual tasting would reduce the BACs.

The authors also point out that if you drink more wine then you will get more alcohol in your blood. Pretty obvious really, but I think this is an important practical concern. 15ml is a usable pour, but a lot smaller than I am used to. There is 15ml in the ISO glass shown here, and it is well below the widest part of the glass. Also bear in mind that the rate at which the body can metabolise alcohol is more or less fixed, and it is when the absorption rate exceeds this that BAC increases. That suggests that if you double your alcohol consumption in the same period of time, your maximum BAC will more than double.

I also suspect that the spitting technique, and use of water, is important. I don’t know anyone who rinses their mouth after every wine in a tasting, and if you do not do this then of course wine stays in contact with the cheeks, and alcohol will continue to be absorbed by them, for a much longer period of time. There is also the issue that some residual wine may sneak down you throat when you swallow saliva.

For me personally at least, everything points to the benefits of spitting at tastings, even small tastings of 10 wines or so, and even if not driving. Unless you really enjoy the act of swallowing when tasting, or really believe it is necessary to properly judge the wine, why do it? The benefits have already been mentioned above: accident prevention, health and acuity of flavour perception. I would much rather save my weekly quota of alcohol units for the times when I am really enjoying wine, than use them when tasting. But if you enjoy combining tasting and drinking wine, or ignore government health warnings anyway, I suppose that is a very different situation. As for needing to swallow to properly judge a wine, I think there is already enough artifice in conventional wine tasting to render any judgement moot when it comes to real life, whether you swallow or not.

Anyway, must go now to meet some friends and open a few bottles with a meal. Tonight I shall swallow.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Fake news, alternative facts, bullshit and lies

There are many subtle differences between the various words of this post’s subject line, but what they have in common is that they have little to do with the truth. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe something called the truth exists. Not everything is opinion. Not everything depends on your politics and philosophy. Facts is facts. Some events actually happened; some didn’t. The truth may be hard to establish, but in many cases it can be dug out and exposed if necessary.

Has the Internet exacerbated the problem with untruth? I’m not convinced it has. It may possibly have increased the volume of misinformation in circulation, but there never has been a period of history free of bullshit and lies. They have always thrived as propaganda, in the press, and of course in many a discussion between friends. Even academia did not worry too much about the modern idea of truth. Truth in medieval universities was defined by the writings of Aristotle, and he made up quite a lot of stuff. The only greater authority for truth was the Church.

Even if the Internet puts misinformation very much more in our face, it also provides us with the tools to check what we read. If we care about the truth, it has never been so easy to verify what we read. Are the author, and the people the information comes from, reliable? Are they biased? How do they earn a living? Do other sources agree? If relevant, what does mainstream science have to say about it? With the Internet it is now often possible to get answers to those questions in a matter of minutes.

As for the world of wine, I don’t think there is much that I would call fake news or deliberate lying. But that is more than made up for by the volume of bullshit – that is to say unsubstantiated statements that may sound plausible, but are at best doubtful. Sometimes the bullshit is a more or less subtle attempt to persuade or sell, or possibly merely a misguided attempt to help but, regardless of motivation, while the bullshit might speak to wine enthusiasts, the vast majority of people see right through it. To be frank, I usually go with the vast majority on that one.

I don’t guarantee to be totally free of bullshit myself, but that is my goal. And I also often call out wine bullshit whenever I think I smell it. As a result, many of my vinous views are rather extreme and unorthodox. For example I remain highly sceptical on issues like terroir, minerality and elaborate tasting notes; and have even more negative views on biodynamics, and objectivity in wine tasting. For interesting yet bullshitty subjects like wine, my advice is to listen carefully to every opinion, but remain sceptical. And to check the evidence before you repeat what you hear, particularly if you are putting it in writing. Remember – just because the same bullshit has been repeated many times does not make it any more true. In that sense at least, it is very much like fake news shared many times on social media.

Posted in General | Tagged | 4 Comments

The Vineyards and Wines of Greece 2017 – book review

Here I review The Vineyards and Wines of Greece 2017: Decoding the land of Dionysis, by Yiannis Karakasis MW. Note the year in the title – the author’s intention is to update the book regularly. Its 128 pages are available only as a PDF, and can be ordered here for €14. The presentation is attractive, but I might have preferred a simpler format that is easier to print and read on-screen, even if the result were not as aesthetically pleasing. However, I am sure others would beg to differ. The purchaser’s name appears on each page to discourage sharing and you are prevented from copying text from the file, but otherwise there are no physical restrictions on the copying and you are trusted to respect the author’s copyright.

This is no massive reference tome, but a great introduction to Greek wine that also gives a good update on current trends. It clearly focusses on the what is important, allowing the newcomer to Greek wine to focus on its most rewarding aspects. There is often a temptation to be too inclusive and comprehensive, even in short introductory wine books, but in my opinion that can easily confuse. Neither is Yiannis afraid to stick his neck out with his opinions. I would say that too is good in books of this type. If you already know something about Greek wine you may agree or disagree with the opinions, but at least there is a starting point for exploration and discussion. Often finding the starting point proves to be the main stumbling block in getting to grips with an unfamiliar wine region.

The two forewords in the book include a note from José Vouillamoz on Greek grape varieties. This is followed by Part 1, which has sections on history, current trends and challenges. Also, in a section strangely entitled Down to the basics, there are trends and opinions on the key grape varieties. Part 2 has a map of the Greek wine PDOs, followed by four sections, on Santorini, Naoussa, other islands, and the mainland, where “other islands” means islands other than Santorini, and “mainland” means everything apart from Naoussa. Part 3 is on the Greek grape varieties. It starts by classifying nine of them as Quality, Promising or Pleasant surprises. The same nine varieties are then illustrated and described using bullet points. I felt this used a lot of space and communicated little – I would have much preferred a short paragraph on each variety. Finally in Part 3, the vintages are rated by region, and the aging potential of the nine grapes is commented on, the latter being particularly useful for new buyers of Greek wines I thought. Part 4 has two sections: on sweet wines and Retsina. Yes, Retsina is making a comeback, though judging by comments I have received when praising new high quality Retsinas, they will be a hard sell abroad. Finally there is Part 5, with its classifications and scores. The top producers are divided into the classes of exceptional, excellent, very good and rising. Then there are the top 10s for Assyrtiko wines, indigenous whites, international whites, indigenous reds, international reds, and sweet wines; followed by awards for producer of the year, emerging producer, and red and white wines of the year; and ten profiles of new generation winemakers. Do these profiles really belong in this part on classifications and scores, I wonder? Then, after five pages of pictures of 40 or so producers who don’t get their own profiles, we arrive at something that seems to serve as an introduction to Part 5. The book ends with some 60 pages devoted to tasting notes and scores of some of the better Greek wines, both recently released and older vintages.

So, as you can see, I have a few quibbles about the structure of the book, but the main thrust of its content is in my opinion spot on. For me personally, what I gained most was confirmation of a few things I had suspected but not seen expressed explicitly before, and ideas for future exploration of Greek wine.

As a small footnote, I had some problems printing the PDF using the latest Windows version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Yiannis assures me that most people do not have this problem, but if you do come across it, you might like to try one of these two solutions, both of which worked for me. Before printing in Acrobat, try clicking on Advanced, and check Print as image before printing. Unfortunately this results in extremely slow printing, and seems to give poor print quality. A better solution in my opinion is to download another PDF reader called Foxit, and use that to do the printing.

Posted in General | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How to research PDO and PGI wine regulations

The name of a PDO or IGP on a wine bottle label conveys a lot of information: where the wine comes from, the grape varieties it may contain, the production methods, and permitted yields. These details are often summarised in wine books, and online in various places, but if you want information that is guaranteed to be accurate, complete and up-to-date, you really need to go the original specification documents.

cahier-des-chargesHere I tell you how to find and read these document for the two biggest wine-producing countries: France and Italy. The methods of finding them, particularly in the case of France, are not at all straightforward – I discovered them by asking on online wine forums, and by poking around on the official websites.

At the EU level

You can find all the PDO and PGI names by using this E-Bacchus form. It requires little explanation, but I would like to draw you attention to one detail that could be extremely useful in the future, and eventually render the rest of this blog post obsolete. If you perform a search, and then click on any PDF icon in the “Action” column, you open a short document. At the bottom of this, there is a field “Reference to the single document”, which in all the examples I have checked contains “Not yet available”. It seems that this will eventually link to a document that describes the PDO of PGI. What a wonderfully simple idea, if and when it ever get implemented.

French AOC specifications

The simplest way I have found is to start here, where you then enter the PDO or AOC name of interest in the “Nom du produit” field. I have found the system to be tolerant of missing hyphens and accents, but otherwise you must get the spelling correct, so use the EU system first if you need to check on the spelling. Then click “Lancer la recherche”. If you get far too many hits, you might want to repeat the search with more restrictive criteria. You could, for example, limit the search to wines by selecting “Vins” in the “Types / Catégories” field. When you have found the wine you want in the search results, click on its “Fiche détaillée” link. On the page that opens, click on “Cahier des charges” and then “accéder au cahier des charges”. You then get a list of documents, and the one you want is the one with “cahier des charges” in the title. That contains all the information you need about regulations for the AOC. But what a palaver! What we really need is a big link reading: “Just give me the sodding cahier des charges, and give it to me now”.

The Italian system

In comparison, the Italian system is a model of clarity and simplicity. Firstly, go to this page, and scroll down to the lists of zip files. You need one of the zip files listed under “Disciplinari di produzione vini” or “Documenti unici riepilogativi disciplinari (fascicoli tecnici)”, for DOCG, DOC or IGT. Each zip files contains a number of specification files grouped together by the initial letter of the name you are looking for. It’s difficult to describe,  but when you see the lists you will soon get the hang of it. As far as I can make out, the two types of files – “disciplinari” and “documenti unici” – contain essentially the same information, but laid out in a different way. You will notice that the “documenti unici” have the reference numbers you find when performing searches using the EU E-Bacchus system, so my guess is that these documents were designed by the Italians to be linked to in the “reference to the single document” field I mentioned above. Sadly though, the E-Bacchus guys have not yet got round to putting the links into their search results.

But I cannot read French and Italian

As you might expect, the specification documents I told you how to find are in French and Italian. If you have even the merest smattering of those languages it is not too difficult to spot things like grape varieties, but if you need more help there are online translation services for PDF documents. I found that Google Translate does a decent job. If you downloaded the specification PDF you need translating, which is probably easiest way to proceed, you should click on “translate a document” and upload your PDF to Google Translate. You can then save the translation if you wish.

Doubtless these methods will at some point be broken by changes to the official websites, but there is at least hope that future changes might make access simpler.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How big are your bubbles?

In the pre-Christmas dearth of news, when all serious journalists seem either to be at their Christmas parties or on their way home for the year, comes the widely reported story that champagne is better with bigger bubbles. This assertion is based on a study by Prof Gérard Liger-Belair that is due to be published in the European Physical Journal Special Topics next year.

I cannot get my cyber hands on that precise article, but I am guessing it was the research published earlier this year as a Nature Scientific Report, which states that “Finally, we exhibit conditions on bubble bursting that optimize aerosol evaporation: large bubbles and weakly viscous liquids. We identify a large bubble radius (~1.8?mm), broadly common to the whole range of champagne viscosity, that makes liquid transfer more efficient. […] This result is also remarkable as it undermines the popular belief that the smaller the bubbles, the better the champagne.” A popular belief, eh? I suppose so. But it is also one that Liger-Belair supported back in 2003: “Our ultimate goal is to create smaller bubbles in champagne wines.” According to that older article, the “reason smaller bubbles make better champagne is basically because there are more bubbles available to release the flavour and aroma”.

Absolutely no shame for a scientist to change his mind as new evidence comes to light – science progresses. But this shift of emphasis points to many more fundamental questions about what makes a good Champagne. It is quite possible that in the ideal case you want more bubbles, and bigger ones. But given that a bottle of Champagne can only hold so much carbon dioxide we cannot have both, so where should the balance lie? And do you want them all soon after pouring, as well you might if you a toasting with your glass of Champagne, or do you want them to be released slowly so you can enjoy it over a longer period? Presumably there are also limits to the benefits of aroma-releasing bubbles. However much you enjoy the Champagne aromas, you don’t want your drink splattered all over your nose in a violent eruption of bubbles.

And all the discussion so far seems to assume that aroma intensity, as detected by sniffing, is the most aspect of Champagne quality. Putting aside the other important quality aspects of wine, such as balance, length and complexity, and sticking with the subject of bubbles, my understanding is that the texture of fine bubbles in the mouth is one of the hallmarks of a good sparkling wine. And however much aroma big bubbles might release into the glass, they supposedly give an inferior mouthfeel.

But enough of this geekery. There is a lot more to the enjoyment of Champagne, or any other sparkling wine, than can be achieved by obsessing about bubble size. And most of the enjoyment has nothing to do with what you learn on a wine course. It’s the occasion, and the people you drink it with. Have a good Christmas, and enjoy whatever is in your glass!

Posted in Tasting and taste | Tagged | 1 Comment

Sweet sparkling Tokaji from Lidl

lidl-sparking-tokajiThe producer of this sparkling Tokaji wine from Hungary is Keurus Winery. It’s 11.5% alcohol, and £7.99 from Lidl. I thought it would be an interesting wine to try, and was sent a sample by Lidl.

Lidl call it a medium sweet wine, while on the label it says sweet. Either of those designations sounds about right to me, but note that it is certainly not really sweet enough for most desserts. The Lidl website suggests it would be good for drinking by itself, or a match for fruit salad, and I would agree. After an initial tasting glass, I drank mine with Indian food, and that worked pretty well too. A lamb biryani if you must know.

The bottle looks the part, but the cork seemed to be of some strange plastic and cork aggregate material that was difficult to get a good grip on to remove, something I don’t usually have a problem with. Hint: wrap the cork with a tea towel or similar before trying to turn it.

This is not a particularly sharp wine, and has aromas of apple and grapes, and towards the finish a honeyed note. The closest point of reference I could think of in terms of sweetness and aromatics was a sparkling Moscato, but this had substantially more alcohol and body.

I was perhaps hoping for a bit more geeky interest, and intensity and bite. But that is simply not the style. It is comfortable and easy drinking, and if you prefer sweeter styles of wine, and even Prosecco usually seems a bit on the dry side for you, this is a good option for your festive fizz. Overall, I give it ***

Posted in My tasting notes | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Alsace grape varieties and wine labelling

Here I list the grape varieties in Alsace, and describe how they relate to the names on Alsace wine labels. This is not nearly as easy as you might think when you get into the detail, especially when aiming for strict accuracy whilst still making the information easy to access. Let me start by giving the varieties allowed in the AOCs of Alsace and Crémant d’Alsace.

Grape Varieties
Auxerrois
Chardonnay
Chasselas
Gewurztraminer
Muscat Blanc à Petits Grains
Muscat Ottonel
Pinot Blanc
Pinot Gris
Pinot Noir
Riesling
Savagnin Rose
Sylvaner

In this list I use what I would call a commonly understood definition of grape variety. For example, although Pinots Blanc and Gris are clones of the Pinot Noir, I treat all three as separate varieties, not least because the AOC regulations do so. Likewise, and for the same reason, I count Gewurztraminer and Savagnin Rose as separate varieties, even if they are both clones of Savagnin. I also list two varieties of Muscat, but here it is because they are in fact different varieties, however much that may sometimes be glossed over. But for Muscat Blanc à Petits Grains and Chasselas I do not separate out their white and pink clones. The AOC regulations do refer to both colours, but each time one is allowed the other is too, so nothing is lost by lumping them together. Besides, I don’t think it is at all usual to separate out the pink clones for these varieties. For more detail, each of these grape varieties has a sizable section in Wine Grapes.  Internet searches will also give plenty of information about them.

Label Text Permitted Grape Varieties
Auxerrois Auxerrois
Chasselas
Gutedel
Chasselas
Gewurztraminer Gewurztraminer
Muscat Muscat Blanc à Petits Grains
Muscat Ottonel
Muscat Ottonel Muscat Ottonel
Pinot Blanc Auxerrois
Pinot Blanc
Pinot
Klevner
Auxerrois
Pinot Blanc
Pinot Gris
Pinot Noir
Pinot Gris Pinot Gris
Riesling Riesling
Sylvaner Sylvaner
Pinot Noir, red or rosé Pinot Noir
Klevener de Heiligenstein Savagnin Rose
Edelzwicker Auxerrois
Chasselas
Gewurztraminer
Muscat Blanc à Petits Grains
Muscat Ottonel
Pinot Blanc
Pinot Gris
Pinot Noir
Riesling
Savagnin Rose, only from Heiligenstein area
Sylvaner
Crémant Auxerrois
Chardonnay
Pinot Blanc
Pinot Gris
Pinot Noir
Riesling
Crémant, rosé Pinot Noir

The right hand column in the above table is relatively straightforward as I have already explained what I mean by these varieties. Any variety in lists can be used in any proportion.

The left hand column is a bit of a mixed bag. From Auxerrois to Pinot Noir, it contains what the AOC regulations call the denomination en usage, effectively a varietal naming for the wine. Gutedal is an alternative name for Chasselas, and Klevner for Pinot. More on Klevener de Heiligenstein below. Another denomination en usage is Edelzwicker, which means noble blend even if it is now not required to be particularly noble. Finally we have the two colours of Alsace crémant wines. Except where noted, you should assume that all wines are white.

The main areas of confusion surround the usage of the label terms Pinot Blanc, Pinot, Klevner and Klevener.

Let’s deal with Klevener first. Klevener de Heiligenstein is, as far as the Alsace AOC regulations are concerned, a geographical name that may appear on the label. And like other possible geographical names, it restricts the grape varieties that are allowed in the wine. For Klevener de Heiligenstein it just so happens that only one variety is allowed: Savagnin Rose. And that variety cannot be used with any other additional name on the label apart from Edelzwicker, and in all cases, Savagnin Rose has to come from the area around Heiligenstein. However, to most people, Klevener de Heiligenstein reads like a grape variety: the Klevener variety of Heiligenstein. And indeed, in the book Wine Grapes, Klevener de Heiligenstein is listed as a synonym for Savagnin Rose. So when you see Klevener de Heiligenstein on a wine, feel free to think of it as a form of varietal labelling. Just be careful not to confuse it with Klevner, which has a different spelling, and its own set of complications.

According to the regulations, Klevner is simply an alternative label name for Pinot, and as such it includes a range of grape varieties. But you should also be aware that Clevner and Klävner (also Klevner according to some sources) are used in Alsace as synonyms for the variety Pinot Blanc. So if someone says something that sounds like Klevner, you will need some context to know if they are talking about Savagnin Rose, Pinot Blanc, or a wine that can contain any of several Alsace varieties.

Normally in the EU, if a wine has a variety mentioned on the label, it must contain at least 85% of that variety. However, according to the Alsace AOC regulations, wines labelled Pinot Blanc can, and often do, contain large proportions of Auxerrois. Whether there is a specific exception for Alsace Pinot Blanc I do not know, but I suspect the issue has just been fudged with the argument that in Alsace it has been traditional to treat Pinot Blanc and Auxerrois as the same variety. However, this does not work the other way round, and if the label says Auxerrois the wine must be 100% of that variety.

Another fudge, I understand, is that Chardonnay used to be tolerated in Pinot, even if strictly speaking it never was allowed. But no more. It is only permitted in white crémant. Which leads me on to another notable fact about Crémant d’Alsace: rosé crémant must be 100% Pinot Noir. It is not permitted to make rosé by mixing white and red grapes, as it is in Champagne and many other sparkling wine regions.

I am aware that some of what I have written here is in conflict with what I have read in other places, both online and in print. Some errors my well have slipped into my post (and if they have please let me know) but my sources were the official regulations. Specifically, the documents I used were:

CAHIER DES CHARGES DE L’APPELLATION D’ORIGINE CONTRÔLEE « ALSACE » ou « VIN D’ALSACE » homologue par le décret n° 2011-1373 du 25 octobre 2011, modifié par le décret n° 2014-1069 du 19 septembre 2014, publié au JORF du 21 septembre 2014

Cahier des charges de l’appellation d’origine contrôlée « Crémant d’Alsace » homologué par le décret n° 2011-1373 du 25 octobre 2011, JORF du 28 octobre 2011

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments