I've watched the threads here about kit wine vs. juice wine and
homemade wine vs commercial wine with great amusement. I understand
everyones position and opinion and many are indeed valid.

However here come one you won't believe....

In the new book out by Matt Kramer (writer for Wine Spectator) he
talks about wineries in Australia, California, and Bordeaux using
vacuum concentrators and reverse osmosis machines to remove some of
the water from the juice so they can make a fuller wine.
23 of Bordeaux's estates have these machines. In addition there are 60
reverse osmosis machines operating there.

Now I admit I'm no expert but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see
that these wineries are actually making wine out of concentrate. Or
could I say "kit"?
AMAZING isn't it?

The chapter on how the commercial Aussie wineries have changed the
accepted flavor of wine to one which is heavy oak in flavor from one
that was heavy in the flavor of the grape is really interesting.

I laughed like crazy when he said that the tasters in his own magazine
may not be giving accurate scores.

Its a great read for those interested.

Happy fermenting,

Dave Stacy

Dave,

I agree that it's ironic and I feel that on one level it's a shame too.

While one part of me wants to make the best wine possible, another
part of me feels that over orchestrating the outcome by technology robs
the wine of some of its romance & mystique. I would hate for every wine,
weather commercial or my own, to be a uniform product and no more unique
an experience than a bottle of catsup. The variations among handcrafted
items has always appealed to me. Understand, though, that this opinion
comes from a lowly amateur who doesn't have to make his living on the
public's acceptance of his output. I guess it has to do with the
motivation behind the process, and whether one perceives the history of
the wine as part of its attraction. Really, what they're doing is not
very different from various Icewine or Reccioto(?) techniques, but those
somehow seem more "harmonious" or "elegant" to me.

BTW, Most, if not almost all kit wine concentrators use considerable
heat in the process, and this results in the formation of
hydroxymethylfurfural, which gives the wines a caramel like taste that
many people find common to kit wines. The processes you describe
wouldn't have that drawback, as HMF only forms at temps over 50°C.

Thanks for the post.

Mike MTM

> While one part of me wants to make the best wine possible, another
>part of me feels that over orchestrating the outcome by technology robs
>the wine of some of its romance & mystique. I would hate for every wine,
>weather commercial or my own, to be a uniform product and no more unique
>an experience than a bottle of catsup.
<SNIP>
That's EXACTLY what he talks about in the book. He spends quite a few
pages on how every wine is beginning to taste the same (like an oak
plank).
By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
experiment.
Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
$10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
they ALL taste the same.
What a shame.



The variations among handcrafted
>items has always appealed to me. Understand, though, that this opinion
>comes from a lowly amateur who doesn't have to make his living on the
>public's acceptance of his output.
<snip>
uh, yep.....me too.




>Thanks for the post.
You're welcome


Dave Stacy
>
>Mike MTM
>
>

Dave wrote:

SNIP

Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
> they ALL taste the same.
> What a shame.

Agreed. I've noticed that quite a few non-Cab S. wines are strongly
reminiscent of Cab S, and I don't think it's just a stylistic
similarity. I suspect that many Merlots, Cab Francs, even F A hybrids
like Chambourcin, have a fair amount of Cab S. blended in, and it robs
them of their varietal distinctions. I go out of my way to try
unfamiliar varities, and too many seem to be Cab S wannabees.

More's the pity.

Mike MTM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> I've watched the threads here about kit wine vs. juice wine and
> homemade wine vs commercial wine with great amusement. I understand
> everyones position and opinion and many are indeed valid.
>
> However here come one you won't believe....
>
> In the new book out by Matt Kramer (writer for Wine Spectator) he
> talks about wineries in Australia, California, and Bordeaux using
> vacuum concentrators and reverse osmosis machines to remove some of
> the water from the juice so they can make a fuller wine.
> 23 of Bordeaux's estates have these machines. In addition there are 60
> reverse osmosis machines operating there.
>
> Now I admit I'm no expert but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see
> that these wineries are actually making wine out of concentrate. Or
> could I say "kit"?

It's not quite the same. There's no heat involved in the process. Also,
the degree of concentration is nowhere near the same as in the manufacture
of a kit wine.

Tom S

If I can believe what I've read in the last couple of years, most of
the kit manufacturers have moved as far away as possible from heating
their juices and are using vacuum methods (and maybe other things I
don't recall) to concentrate their juices.

As for the point of the original poster... It is quite interesting
and not entirely surprising. But it's worth noting that the amount of
concentration involved in producing typical kits (even the "premium"
15l and 16l kits) is probably far far beyond what these wineries are
doing (the water being removed is probably several times as much) so I
would expect that any negative effects are going to be several
magnitudes greater. Or conversely, the "damage" to those wineries'
must should be a small fraction of that done to a premium kit.

Also, don't the kit manufacturers also do something to the must to
basically sterilize it to prevent spoilage? The wineries presumably
would not require this, assuming that they are fermenting it soon
after pressing and concentration.

It is interesting though... Thanks for the information!

Cheers,

Richard

MikeMTM > wrote in message >...
> Dave,
>
> I agree that it's ironic and I feel that on one level it's a shame too.
>
> While one part of me wants to make the best wine possible, another
> part of me feels that over orchestrating the outcome by technology robs
> the wine of some of its romance & mystique. I would hate for every wine,
> weather commercial or my own, to be a uniform product and no more unique
> an experience than a bottle of catsup. The variations among handcrafted
> items has always appealed to me. Understand, though, that this opinion
> comes from a lowly amateur who doesn't have to make his living on the
> public's acceptance of his output. I guess it has to do with the
> motivation behind the process, and whether one perceives the history of
> the wine as part of its attraction. Really, what they're doing is not
> very different from various Icewine or Reccioto(?) techniques, but those
> somehow seem more "harmonious" or "elegant" to me.
>
> BTW, Most, if not almost all kit wine concentrators use considerable
> heat in the process, and this results in the formation of
> hydroxymethylfurfural, which gives the wines a caramel like taste that
> many people find common to kit wines. The processes you describe
> wouldn't have that drawback, as HMF only forms at temps over 50°C.
>
> Thanks for the post.
>
> Mike MTM

Many of the cheap bulk wines are made from concentrates. It alleviates
storage space. Wine is then made as needed.
Tim

Dave > wrote in message >. ..
>> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
> experiment.
> Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
> $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
> varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
> wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
> they ALL taste the same.
> What a shame.
>

No way. You set (for example) a good Pinot Noir, a good Cabernet and a
good Syrah in front of me and I will be able to find the two that
match. I'll even be able to tell you which is which (most of the time
anyway).

There is a lot of indistinct wine out there and a lot of those end up
in your local restaurant for BtG pours, but the good wines keep their
varietal characteristics even if reverse osmosis is used.

Andy

"JEP" > wrote in message
om...
> Dave > wrote in message
>. ..
> >> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
> > experiment.
> > Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
> > $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
> > varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
> > wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
> > they ALL taste the same.
> > What a shame.
> >
>
> No way. You set (for example) a good Pinot Noir, a good Cabernet and a
> good Syrah in front of me and I will be able to find the two that
> match. I'll even be able to tell you which is which (most of the time
> anyway).
>
> There is a lot of indistinct wine out there and a lot of those end up
> in your local restaurant for BtG pours, but the good wines keep their
> varietal characteristics even if reverse osmosis is used.
>
> Andy

Andy,
You might enjoy looking at the following paper. It describes an experiment
where a trained panel blind tasted and attempted to identify several 1972
and 1973 varietal wines.

Here are some of the results for 1973 vintage wines ...... Muscat (76%
correct
identifications), Riesling (34%), Colombard (26%), Chardonnay (26%),
Sauvignon Blanc (18%), Gewürztraminer (6%), Cabernet Sauvignon (39%), Petite
Sirah (32%), Pinot Noir (32%), Zinfandel (31%), Merlot (11%).

In all, fifteen white wines and eleven red wines were tasted, so the
probability of just guessing correctly would be about 1 in 15 (7%) for the
white wines and 1 in 11 (9%) for the red wines. Surprising results,
especially since the tasting was done by a _trained_ panel.

Winton, W. Ough, C.S. and Singleton, V.L. - "Relative distinctiveness of
varietal wines estimated by the ability of trained panelists to name the
grape variety correctly" - Am. L. Enol. Vit. 26 (1975) 5.

JEP ) wrote:
>Dave > wrote in message >. ..
>>> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
>> experiment.
>> Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
>> $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
>> varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
>> wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
>> they ALL taste the same.
>> What a shame.
>>

>No way. You set (for example) a good Pinot Noir, a good Cabernet and a
>good Syrah in front of me and I will be able to find the two that
>match. I'll even be able to tell you which is which (most of the time
>anyway).

>There is a lot of indistinct wine out there and a lot of those end up
>in your local restaurant for BtG pours, but the good wines keep their
>varietal characteristics even if reverse osmosis is used.

>Andy


Ah, but you're not giving yourself a challenge! Try it with a group
of Bordeaux varities, like a merlot, a cab franc, and a cab sauv.
Or to make the original poster's point, 3 cab sauvs.

Dave
************************************************** **************************
Dave Breeden

Jep,

Generally speaking, I strongly agree with you and disagree with Dave.
However, it depends on what the bartender or restaurant owner chooses!
I find that the better restaurants tend to have a wine list with
plenty of variation, but occasionally I come across a
middle-of-the-road restaurant where the list of reds has little
variation, and where there is (like a mixture of Shiraz, Cab Sauv,
etc) the wines chosen all have a lot of common qualities. It seems to
me in those cases that whomever is chosing the wines to put on the
list has a fairly narrow range of preference or experience. In such a
place I would bet my success would be in line with what Dave is
suggesting. But with what you described (even with "half-decent"
wines let alone "good" ones) I would confidently bet that I could pick
out which is which -- assuming that the wines chosen weren't
particularly atypical examples of the variety chosen especially to
foil such an experiment...

Cheers,
Richard

(JEP) wrote in message . com>...
> Dave > wrote in message >. ..
> >> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
> > experiment.
> > Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
> > $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
> > varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
> > wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
> > they ALL taste the same.
> > What a shame.
> >
>
> No way. You set (for example) a good Pinot Noir, a good Cabernet and a
> good Syrah in front of me and I will be able to find the two that
> match. I'll even be able to tell you which is which (most of the time
> anyway).
>
> There is a lot of indistinct wine out there and a lot of those end up
> in your local restaurant for BtG pours, but the good wines keep their
> varietal characteristics even if reverse osmosis is used.
>
> Andy

Man you guys have much better palettes than I do!
There is no way I'd get it right.
<laughing> Guess I better stick to the cheap stuff.

Dave Stacy


On 13 Jan 2004 12:01:29 -0800, (Richard Kovach)
wrote:

>Jep,
>
>Generally speaking, I strongly agree with you and disagree with Dave.
>However, it depends on what the bartender or restaurant owner chooses!
> I find that the better restaurants tend to have a wine list with
>plenty of variation, but occasionally I come across a
>middle-of-the-road restaurant where the list of reds has little
>variation, and where there is (like a mixture of Shiraz, Cab Sauv,
>etc) the wines chosen all have a lot of common qualities. It seems to
>me in those cases that whomever is chosing the wines to put on the
>list has a fairly narrow range of preference or experience. In such a
>place I would bet my success would be in line with what Dave is
>suggesting. But with what you described (even with "half-decent"
>wines let alone "good" ones) I would confidently bet that I could pick
>out which is which -- assuming that the wines chosen weren't
>particularly atypical examples of the variety chosen especially to
>foil such an experiment...
>
>Cheers,
>Richard
>
(JEP) wrote in message . com>...
>> Dave > wrote in message >. ..
>> >> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
>> > experiment.
>> > Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
>> > $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
>> > varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
>> > wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
>> > they ALL taste the same.
>> > What a shame.
>> >
>>
>> No way. You set (for example) a good Pinot Noir, a good Cabernet and a
>> good Syrah in front of me and I will be able to find the two that
>> match. I'll even be able to tell you which is which (most of the time
>> anyway).
>>
>> There is a lot of indistinct wine out there and a lot of those end up
>> in your local restaurant for BtG pours, but the good wines keep their
>> varietal characteristics even if reverse osmosis is used.
>>
>> Andy

MikeMTM > wrote in message >...
> Agreed. I've noticed that quite a few non-Cab S. wines are strongly
> reminiscent of Cab S, and I don't think it's just a stylistic
> similarity. I suspect that many Merlots, Cab Francs, even F A hybrids
> like Chambourcin, have a fair amount of Cab S. blended in, and it robs
> them of their varietal distinctions. I go out of my way to try
> unfamiliar varities, and too many seem to be Cab S wannabees.
>
> More's the pity.
>
> Mike MTM

You may be right that many wines may have Cab s. blended in, but in
the US at least, if a wine is labeled as a vinifera varietal it must
have at least 75% of that variety grape in the bottle. For some of the
non-vinifera varieties such as Concord the requirement is only 51%.
Not sure about the hybrids.

Miker

Can this paper be accessed on line?
Emilio
Lum > wrote in message
...
>
> "JEP" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Dave > wrote in message
> >. ..
> > >> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
> > > experiment.
> > > Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
> > > $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
> > > varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
> > > wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
> > > they ALL taste the same.
> > > What a shame.
> > >
> >
> > No way. You set (for example) a good Pinot Noir, a good Cabernet and a
> > good Syrah in front of me and I will be able to find the two that
> > match. I'll even be able to tell you which is which (most of the time
> > anyway).
> >
> > There is a lot of indistinct wine out there and a lot of those end up
> > in your local restaurant for BtG pours, but the good wines keep their
> > varietal characteristics even if reverse osmosis is used.
> >
> > Andy
>
> Andy,
> You might enjoy looking at the following paper. It describes an
experiment
> where a trained panel blind tasted and attempted to identify several 1972
> and 1973 varietal wines.
>
> Here are some of the results for 1973 vintage wines ...... Muscat (76%
> correct
> identifications), Riesling (34%), Colombard (26%), Chardonnay (26%),
> Sauvignon Blanc (18%), Gewürztraminer (6%), Cabernet Sauvignon (39%),
Petite
> Sirah (32%), Pinot Noir (32%), Zinfandel (31%), Merlot (11%).
>
> In all, fifteen white wines and eleven red wines were tasted, so the
> probability of just guessing correctly would be about 1 in 15 (7%) for the
> white wines and 1 in 11 (9%) for the red wines. Surprising results,
> especially since the tasting was done by a _trained_ panel.
>
> Winton, W. Ough, C.S. and Singleton, V.L. - "Relative distinctiveness of
> varietal wines estimated by the ability of trained panelists to name the
> grape variety correctly" - Am. L. Enol. Vit. 26 (1975) 5.
>
>
>

I doubt it is available online. But, the Journal of Enology and
Viticulture should be available a most large libraries or you could order a
reprint from UC Davis.

"Emilio Castelli" > wrote in message
...
> Can this paper be accessed on line?
> Emilio
> Lum > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "JEP" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Dave > wrote in message
> > >. ..
> > > >> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
> > > > experiment.
> > > > Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
> > > > $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
> > > > varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses
of
> > > > wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
> > > > they ALL taste the same.
> > > > What a shame.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No way. You set (for example) a good Pinot Noir, a good Cabernet and a
> > > good Syrah in front of me and I will be able to find the two that
> > > match. I'll even be able to tell you which is which (most of the time
> > > anyway).
> > >
> > > There is a lot of indistinct wine out there and a lot of those end up
> > > in your local restaurant for BtG pours, but the good wines keep their
> > > varietal characteristics even if reverse osmosis is used.
> > >
> > > Andy
> >
> > Andy,
> > You might enjoy looking at the following paper. It describes an
> experiment
> > where a trained panel blind tasted and attempted to identify several
1972
> > and 1973 varietal wines.
> >
> > Here are some of the results for 1973 vintage wines ...... Muscat (76%
> > correct
> > identifications), Riesling (34%), Colombard (26%), Chardonnay (26%),
> > Sauvignon Blanc (18%), Gewürztraminer (6%), Cabernet Sauvignon (39%),
> Petite
> > Sirah (32%), Pinot Noir (32%), Zinfandel (31%), Merlot (11%).
> >
> > In all, fifteen white wines and eleven red wines were tasted, so the
> > probability of just guessing correctly would be about 1 in 15 (7%) for
the
> > white wines and 1 in 11 (9%) for the red wines. Surprising results,
> > especially since the tasting was done by a _trained_ panel.
> >
> > Winton, W. Ough, C.S. and Singleton, V.L. - "Relative distinctiveness of
> > varietal wines estimated by the ability of trained panelists to name the
> > grape variety correctly" - Am. L. Enol. Vit. 26 (1975) 5.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I don't really see this as the same thing as the kits.

I agree that in removing some water the wineries are using technology
to manipulate the product, and part of me feels this is a shame, but
part of me feels that if the result is good, then why complain. I do
think it would be a shame if all wineries did this, because I would
not want to find that the 'natural' product is not available.

However, from the description given above, these wineries are removing
some of the water to make a more concentrated or full bodied wine.
They are not then adding tap water to dilute it back to its supposed
natural concentration, as is done with the kits. Is something
important lost when some water is removed? I don't know. Is the tap
water that I add to my kits the same as the water that was removed?
No.

I wonder if these machines are being used to remove some water to get
a better product if there is a wet season. I'm no expert, but I think
I've read that if the late season is wet, the grape juice will contain
less sugar. If the grapes are in effect, bloated with more water,
removing some of it may salvage a harvest that might not produce a
viable wine. I'm only speculating.

Miker,

Yes, I'm aware of the 25% regulation (here) in the US. But even 25% of
the "savage grape" can be a lot when it comes to blends. I'm sure the
various wines I've noticed this in are at or below the limit, but I
still sometimes find it obtrusive in a variety which is ordinarily quite
different from Cab S. Don't get me wrong, a lot of times it adds to the
blend, but other times I think the heavy handed use of such a "big",
distinctive grape is more of a distraction than an asset. I've had
wines, as I imagine all of us have, which were sold as Merlot or Cab
Franc, and could have been passed off as a nice Cab S. Good wines, but
not what I wanted when I selected the variety I did. Maybe it's just my
pet peeve.

Interesting about the different rule for Concord, etc. I don't know that
I was aware of it.

Enjoy Mike MTM

>I don't really see this as the same thing as the kits.
<snip>
That's the tough thing about only being able to read comments and not
hear the tone of voice...
I didn't REALLY mean kits. I was trying to imply that overall it seems
that the majority of active participants in this group see kits or
concentrate as not in keeping with the true spirit or pure version of
what wine is supposed to be.
Yet here we are having commercial wineries (and dare I quote from the
book, a LOT of them) removing some of the natural water from juice all
the time to make a concentrated wine or full bodied wine. This would
seem to not meet the standards set by the purists.
I've seen comments here from cottage wineries saying that kits,
concentrated juice, and sterile must isn't REAL wine. Well the bad
news is that it appears that modifying juice from its natural
concentration to one of a more concentrated nature is now commonplace
in the commercial industry. (so far I've kept my opinion to myself but
I just can't help it anymore) I think this is a shame. Why would any
winery want to homogenize its wine buy intentionally over oaking it
and concentrating its juice?
After all isn't a cab supposed to be a "knife and fork" wine and a
pinot noir supposed to be lighter and fruitier?
>


>I agree that in removing some water the wineries are using technology
>to manipulate the product, and part of me feels this is a shame, but
>part of me feels that if the result is good, then why complain.
<snip> I'm not enough of an expert to make the judgement that this is
indeed good. I'm not sure it is, but that is just some Texas schmoes's
opinion. (aka me)



I do
>think it would be a shame if all wineries did this, because I would
>not want to find that the 'natural' product is not available.
<snip>
My point EXACTLY. I'd love to know what a real pure shiraz from Aussie
land tastes like. However it is apparent that all exported aussie
juice is controlled by 4 companies, all of which remove natural water
from their juice. Alas unless I fly down there I'll never know what it
tastes like.


>
>However, from the description given above, these wineries are removing
>some of the water to make a more concentrated or full bodied wine.
>They are not then adding tap water to dilute it back to its supposed
>natural concentration, as is done with the kits. Is something
>important lost when some water is removed? I don't know.
<snip>
VERY good question! I doubt anything is lost except the taste of what
the unadulterated wine would taste like. Is that important? Guess that
is up to the individual.



Is the tap
>water that I add to my kits the same as the water that was removed?
>No.
>
>I wonder if these machines are being used to remove some water to get
>a better product if there is a wet season. I'm no expert, but I think
>I've read that if the late season is wet, the grape juice will contain
>less sugar. If the grapes are in effect, bloated with more water,
>removing some of it may salvage a harvest that might not produce a
>viable wine. I'm only speculating.
<snip>
According to the author (who IS an expert) this is done wet season or
not. It is done EVERY season in MOST of the wine growing regions of
the world since the mid 1990's.

My conclusion......
I think we'll all have a different opinion on if this a smart thing to
do. However I think we can all agree that knowing how a wine from
Bordeaux, California, or Australia tastes in its purest, or old world,
form is going to be harder and harder to experience.
I think OVER (not a little like most home makers do) oaking, while
easy for the consumer to consume, doesn't let you experience the
complexity of the grape. Again in the long run I think a detriment to
the industry. (again that opinion comes from a good 'ol 'suthen boy
who don't know 'notiin 'bout no damm wine bidness. Shooooot, you wanna
know 'bout oil or cattle now we 'cn talk.)

I'm glad this post was informative for some of you.
Your welcome to those who said thanks for the info.
Quite a few have asked for the book name and author. Here it is.....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846
"Making Sense Of Wine" by Matt Kramer
(make sure you get the NEW version)

Hope y'all have many carboys stashed away
(that's the best Texas twang this transplanted yankee can do. Please
forgive me for butchering it up)

Dave Stacy

Dave,
This has been an interesting thread. From one Yankee to another, I'm
not so sure this is a bad idea. If the winemaker is careful about
what they are doing and it improves the end product I think it makes
sense to concentrate without heat.

I would not mess with high quality fruit intended for barrel aging
that could be sold at $50 to $100 a bottle, but I bet this would
improve a $10 bottle and that is what most people can afford for
everyday use.

Barrel aging can reduce the volume 10 to 15% over a year; depending on
the relative humidity most of that can be water. I'm not saying
adding chips or oak inserts and concentrating without heat will give
the same result as true barrel aging, but if your wine growing area
has no mystique to it like Bordeaux, Burgundy, Napa etc. why not do
whatever you can to approximate the taste of better fruit? If the
cost of doing this versus barrel aging were the same it would not make
a whole lot of sense, but I really do not know the details and I doubt
that is the case.

Just another opinion, everyone has one... )

Regards,
Joe

"Lum" > wrote in message >...
>
> Andy,
> You might enjoy looking at the following paper.

> Winton, W. Ough, C.S. and Singleton, V.L. - "Relative distinctiveness of
> varietal wines estimated by the ability of trained panelists to name the
> grape variety correctly" - Am. L. Enol. Vit. 26 (1975) 5.

I'll see if I can find it, but it doesn't change the fact that I can
identify the varietals in many wines. Yes there is some gray area. An
oaked Sauvignon Blanc may taste a lot like an oaked Chardonnay and may
be hard to differentiate.

Even a Merlot with 25% Cabernet and a Cabernet with 25% Merlot may be
hard to pick, but a good Pinot Noir and a good Cabernet. No contest.


Andy

(David C Breeden) wrote in message >...
> JEP ) wrote:
> >Dave > wrote in message >. ..
> >>> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
> >> experiment.
> >> Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
> >> $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
> >> varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
> >> wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
> >> they ALL taste the same.
> >> What a shame.
> >>
>
>
> Ah, but you're not giving yourself a challenge! Try it with a group
> of Bordeaux varities, like a merlot, a cab franc, and a cab sauv.
> Or to make the original poster's point, 3 cab sauvs.
>

But he said three different "varitals", I took it as varietals. Pinot,
Cab., Syrah. Three different varietals. Maybe I misunderstood ?

Sure you go to a place and order three Cabernets it may be hard to
distinguish. There is a good chance that all three will be similar
blends using the same wine making techniques, etc, bought my the same
guy because they are the same, what he likes.


There is also a lot of wine being "Parkerized". Made in a similar
style because it is more likely to score bigger points with the wine
critics.


Andy

Dave > wrote in message >. ..

Snip

> I think this is a shame. Why would any
> winery want to homogenize its wine buy intentionally over oaking it
> and concentrating its juice?
>
Snip


Because they can get more points from the critics and then can raise the price.

Andy

"JEP" > wrote in message
om...
> "Lum" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Andy,
> > You might enjoy looking at the following paper.
>
> > Winton, W. Ough, C.S. and Singleton, V.L. - "Relative distinctiveness of
> > varietal wines estimated by the ability of trained panelists to name the
> > grape variety correctly" - Am. L. Enol. Vit. 26 (1975) 5.
>
> I'll see if I can find it, but it doesn't change the fact that I can
> identify the varietals in many wines. Yes there is some gray area. An
> oaked Sauvignon Blanc may taste a lot like an oaked Chardonnay and may
> be hard to differentiate.
>
> Even a Merlot with 25% Cabernet and a Cabernet with 25% Merlot may be
> hard to pick, but a good Pinot Noir and a good Cabernet. No contest.
>
> Andy

I didn't mean to imply that _you_ can't tell Cabernet from Pinot Noir. The
paper simply indicates that most people can't.
Regards,
lum

JEP ) wrote:
(David C Breeden) wrote in message >...
>> JEP ) wrote:
>> >Dave > wrote in message >. ..
>> >>> By the way, for those who haven't tried this yet here is a great
>> >> experiment.
>> >> Go to a local restaurant with a good "by the glass" wine list. $7 to
>> >> $10 a glass. Tell the bartender to pour 4 glasses. 3 different
>> >> varitals, but duplicate one of them. So here you sit with 4 glasses of
>> >> wine. Try to find the 2 that are the same. It is REALLY hard because
>> >> they ALL taste the same.
>> >> What a shame.
>> >>
>>
>>
>> Ah, but you're not giving yourself a challenge! Try it with a group
>> of Bordeaux varities, like a merlot, a cab franc, and a cab sauv.
>> Or to make the original poster's point, 3 cab sauvs.
>>

>But he said three different "varitals", I took it as varietals. Pinot,
>Cab., Syrah. Three different varietals. Maybe I misunderstood ?

>Sure you go to a place and order three Cabernets it may be hard to
>distinguish. There is a good chance that all three will be similar
>blends using the same wine making techniques, etc, bought my the same
>guy because they are the same, what he likes.


>There is also a lot of wine being "Parkerized". Made in a similar
>style because it is more likely to score bigger points with the wine
>critics.


>Andy


Yeah, but there are varietals and then there are varietals. If
someone makes a pinot which can't be distinguished from one of the
bordeaux varietals, then they've made a bad pinot.

The better trick is to pick out the same wine from three similar
vaietals.

Dave
************************************************** **************************
Dave Breeden

So what do you think the paper was trying to show, Lum? Not sure how
the tasting of these '72 and '73 wines fits in with the statements
made above that all wines are starting to taste the same now - or are
you just commenting on Andy's statement that he could tell different
varieties apart?


"Lum" > wrote in message >...

> Andy,
> You might enjoy looking at the following paper. It describes an experiment
> where a trained panel blind tasted and attempted to identify several 1972
> and 1973 varietal wines.
>
> Here are some of the results for 1973 vintage wines ...... Muscat (76%
> correct
> identifications), Riesling (34%), Colombard (26%), Chardonnay (26%),
> Sauvignon Blanc (18%), Gewürztraminer (6%), Cabernet Sauvignon (39%), Petite
> Sirah (32%), Pinot Noir (32%), Zinfandel (31%), Merlot (11%).
>
> In all, fifteen white wines and eleven red wines were tasted, so the
> probability of just guessing correctly would be about 1 in 15 (7%) for the
> white wines and 1 in 11 (9%) for the red wines. Surprising results,
> especially since the tasting was done by a _trained_ panel.
>
> Winton, W. Ough, C.S. and Singleton, V.L. - "Relative distinctiveness of
> varietal wines estimated by the ability of trained panelists to name the
> grape variety correctly" - Am. L. Enol. Vit. 26 (1975) 5.

Miker, the paper gives pretty convincing evidence that even trained people
cannot tell one veriatal wine from another.

"Miker" > wrote in message
om...
> So what do you think the paper was trying to show, Lum? Not sure how
> the tasting of these '72 and '73 wines fits in with the statements
> made above that all wines are starting to taste the same now - or are
> you just commenting on Andy's statement that he could tell different
> varieties apart?
>
>
> "Lum" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Andy,
> > You might enjoy looking at the following paper. It describes an
experiment
> > where a trained panel blind tasted and attempted to identify several
1972
> > and 1973 varietal wines.
> >
> > Here are some of the results for 1973 vintage wines ...... Muscat (76%
> > correct
> > identifications), Riesling (34%), Colombard (26%), Chardonnay (26%),
> > Sauvignon Blanc (18%), Gewürztraminer (6%), Cabernet Sauvignon (39%),
Petite
> > Sirah (32%), Pinot Noir (32%), Zinfandel (31%), Merlot (11%).
> >
> > In all, fifteen white wines and eleven red wines were tasted, so the
> > probability of just guessing correctly would be about 1 in 15 (7%) for
the
> > white wines and 1 in 11 (9%) for the red wines. Surprising results,
> > especially since the tasting was done by a _trained_ panel.
> >
> > Winton, W. Ough, C.S. and Singleton, V.L. - "Relative distinctiveness of
> > varietal wines estimated by the ability of trained panelists to name the
> > grape variety correctly" - Am. L. Enol. Vit. 26 (1975) 5.

(David C Breeden) wrote in message >...
>
> Yeah, but there are varietals and then there are varietals. If
> someone makes a pinot which can't be distinguished from one of the
> bordeaux varietals, then they've made a bad pinot.

So true. The one caveat is that sometimes different varietals can
converge with extended bottle aging. Zinfandel is a prime example.
Some people report that a well made Zinfandel that is aged tastes
remarkably like an aged Bordeaux. I just don't have enough experience
with aged Zinfandel to really know.

>
> The better trick is to pick out the same wine from three similar
> vaietals.
>

Even then, I'll still put my money on my nose. This isn't to say that
I can't be fooled, but most wines have enough differences that I could
match up the two glasses that are the same. I would win more than I
lost, provided the deck wasn't stacked against me.



Andy

This is a fascinating topic (perhaps it deserves its own thread). I
remember reading that as part of the test to become a wine master you
had to be able to pick different varieties out of a blended wine in
taste tests and this impressed me tremendously. I can distinguish the
taste of different varieties in a taste test, but still can't name
which is which. But, I don't see it as something that should be that
impossible with practice and training.

Does the article say exactly what these "trained" people were trained
to do?


Lum" > wrote in message >...
> Miker, the paper gives pretty convincing evidence that even trained people
> cannot tell one veriatal wine from another.
>