Bravo, well said. I think that anyone who rules out wines because of alcohol content – whether high or low – is showing a certain amount of ignorance about wine. Of course, it’s about winemaking, style you like, region you like, but to say a wine is bad or good because it has “15% alcohol” or good or bad because it has “12% alcohol” seems to be a silly and non-scientific argument.

And, in my opinion only, I think that the people who rule wine out based on alcohol content only are hypocrites of the first order. Even if you look at Ms. Teague’s article (which started this inane discussion), the naysayers of high alcohol break their own rules. Darrell Corti himself is breaking his own rules carrying a high alcohol Zinfandel he happens to like. Parr breaks his rules when it comes to Cabernet. So, think this entire argument is much ado about nothing.

Rich.

Alcohol in wine is measured and perceived. There is no hard fast rule that correlates the two. How many times have we tasted a wine with low measured alcohol and perceive “high” alcohol? and vice versa?

Pulling the measured alcohol level out of context of a very complex beverage and attempting to make a case is IMOP idiotic (and on both scientific and perception levels–impossible). Who would argue with the piece’s opening” Bottles with more than 14% alcohol have a bad reputation–but they can be delicious.” ??????

I have no problem with a sommelier (or a critic or a writer) tasting a wine and believing it to be not to his/her liking. I have a huge problem with sommeliers who arbitrarily select some line of demarcation–is it 14%, 15%??? (let’s not ignore that what’s listed on the label is often not very precise to begin with) and wield it to establish the wine’s quality (or flavor profile). The silliness of this is right there in the piece. Is that 14% for New World pinot and not for Old World or Zins and cabs or what about Amarone or?…. It leads to flailing and floundering in attempting to apply a rule that just doesn’t work. period.

That “rallying cry” of some professionals” Ms Teague aptly notes–is the result of a misguided wine war between good wines and evil wines. It is wrongheaded and boring. Wines from cooler climates (read Northern Europe) tend to have lower alcohol levels (less ripe) and wine makers often resort to chaptalization to get sugar levels up to minimal standards. Wines from warmer/hotter climes tend to have higher alcohol levels–wine makers have another set of problems to overcome. Is a tart, under ripe, thin tasting wine any more or less

The result is a wide range of wines with varying flavor profiles. And yes–if alcohol as measured is important to you–there is a wide range there as well. Technological advances in grape growing and wine making have offered wine makers in all sorts of climates more flexibility to male the wines they want to make.

I often wonder why the proponents of wines with lower alcohol levels (measured and/or tasted) simply do not make the case for their favorite wines. Encourage others to try them. Why must these folks create some grand battle rife with world wide conspiracy’s and “old World” vs “New World”–it has always escaped me how people who are adherents to the notion of terroir seem to expect wines made thousands of miles apart to have the same characteristics and flavor profiles.–

But I digress! Why must the people who love a certain style of wine advocate for their wines at the expense of other wines. Using “fruit bomb”, “Franken wines” and my favorite “spoofed wines”–the implication being–if you happen to like some wine style they don’t, you are an uneducated heathen, a barbarian a supporter of the global conspiracy.

The truth is–there are more wines from more types of grapes made in more styles from more places available today than ever before! A great time to be a wine drinker–no matter what style you like!

Generally, I agree with you, on this one, I have to disagree. As a disclaimer, I do not know you and do not know Ms. Teague except I have posted comments here previously and exchanged and email or two with you. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other either on high alcohol wine, low alcohol wine, etc. I think people should drink what they like, try to educate their palates, and decide for themselves what they like.

Having said the above, your comments, to me (and again, I am not trying to start something here far from it) seem to be a bit of a personal attack. There are ways to better demonstrate one’s point. And I am not trying to defend Ms. Teague – don’t know her, but I read the article in WSJ and did not get out of it what you did. There just seems to be a lot of personal hostility in your comments. And, please, I am not trying to start something, or say you are wrong about high alcohol vs. low alcohol – just that the comments directed at Ms. Teague seem personal.

Just out of curiosity, did you discuss the issue with her and get her comments too? Apologize because I am not trying to be confrontational. I just think that in this age of so called “social media” sometimes people get carried away. And, I believe you say above it wasn’t a personal attack, but it does seem like one to me, one of your general readers.

Cheers,
Rich.

To summarize:

Alcohol, similar to Fat (as Aldo mentioned) is a carrier of flavor, not the source of it.

Not all wines over 14% are “unbalanced”

The last paragraph that you quote suggests that Lettie has a higher pleasure tolerance for wine with higher levels of alcohol than do some somms (and me). As I have noted previously, I tend to find higher alcohol wines less pleasant that others. She like them, that is her point. She doesn’t find them unbalanced (though others do, note the quotes). That is subjective, stated as such, and not controversial.

You don’t think there is an anti-high alcohol crowd? There are lots of us. I generally avoid those wines, for the reasons that I have listed above. But there are lots of people that like them. There isn’t a right answer, she just framed the debate. How is that inappropriate? I believe she did link that to two people, Corti and Parr.

As far as the health risk linkage goes… let’s concede she didn’t develop that point well, but is that really argument that you want to hang your hat on? Frankly, I think it is irrelevant and a bit of a red herring. A quick google search will source numerous peolle talking about the ill effects of higher alcohol and it wasn’t even germaine to her premise. To me, THAT is grasping at straws.

Tyler hung his had on the meaning of deliver, I say he didn’t understand it and if it was intended to mean what he suggests it means, that flavor comes from alcohol, then she would have said that, not imply that it was a driver.

Hopefully that clears it up for you and apologies again to Jarrod.

I can’t speak for Tyler, but I have honestly lost track of your points. (If you’d like to summarize them in a sentence or two, be my guest.) I just re-read the WSJ article and Tyler’s retort, and I still don’t understand why you’re so worked up over this.

To remind you and others (who might still give a damn), here’s a snippet from the Teague piece:

That’s one thing that the alcohol-haters leave out: Alcohol delivers flavors. “It’s like the fat in the meat,” as Aldo Sohm, wine director of Le Bernardin in New York, once said to me. (I wasn’t sure if he meant it as a good thing, but I decided to take it that way.)

Lots of the wines that I own seem to have plenty of this flavorful fat, like the fat whites (mostly California Chardonnay), California Cabernets, Châteauneuf-du-Papes and lots of “unbalanced” New World Pinot Noirs. And though this last confession will likely earn me the unending scorn of those sommeliers, they’re wines that I love and look forward to drinking soon.

I get the “nuanced” comments as you describe. But Tyler has failed to address both of principle points I have made, nuanced if you will.

And if you think my responses have been “table pounding” then I really have nothing to say to you. I have done nothing of the kind and perhaps you or Tyler can respond to my nuanced arguments with respect to the carelessness and innapropriateness of his entrenched position.

When you are unfairly treated, I will come to your defense as well.

Scott Manlin may be rising to the defense of his longtime friend, which is sweet, but let’s be honest: Sloppy terminology and/or misrepresentation is a standing pattern in Teague’s writing. This is just another example.

Neither Teague nor her defenders have cited or linked to a person in the “anti high-alcohol crowd” who actually argues for “the health risk that is posed by these wines.” Even if that risk were an uncontroversial conclusion to draw from the higher number, then why attribute it to the “anti high-alcohol crowd”? Seems unnecessarily confrontational. If this were a real argument, then Teague should have linked to someone who actually makes it. As it stands, what she did was as valid, journalistically, as the WSJ publishing, “Some people feel the earth is flat” and then writing a strident defense of earth-roundness. I believe that’s called a straw man argument. And it’s shoddy journalism.

But the defense of Teague is no surprise. Scott has risen to her defense in the past, for example on this thread at WineBerserkers:
http://wineberserkers.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20893&p=276786

And then there’s this link from a few years back on the Parker boards, where, again, Teague comes out with a published article that people challenge, and Manlin rises to her defense:
http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=140334

So to see Teague making sloppy (or even misrepresentative) arguments, and then to see Scott chivalrously defending her, is no surprise. The fact that he’s ignoring the nuanced arguments against her non-nuanced writing isn’t surprising either. Tyler, don’t waste your breath here. His criticism is the equivalent of someone pounding the table shouting, “How dare you!” over and over again, hoping you’ll pay attention. Disengage.

http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1803025

What is rich is that you are now telling me what my intent is/was. First of all, I did not say that she misrepresented Rajat, I said that Raj had commented that what he says he said and what was printed were different. My comment was specifically focused on the comment that ALL wines over 14% were unbalanced and that I opined that even if he had said it, there was no way he could mean it. That statement is ludicrous. That is not to say he didn’t say it and if Lettie say he did, who are we to question that? THAT was the extent of my commentary. Every thing else was extrapolated and my subsequent comments were related to how I interpreted what she wrote vis a vis others. In your response you are suggesting to me what I meant by what I wrote? Your position takes a leap the facts do not support. I also said in that thread that I disagreed with her premise (I am not a fan of high alcohol wines, on average) but I liked the piece. That, again, doesn’t quite comport with your takeaway.

Throwing her under the bus? That is just more of your pre-disposed bias to find a “story.” I am not throwing anyone under the bus, I am suggesting regardless of what he said, Raj cannot possibly believe THAT ALL wines over 14% are not balanced.

As for the health claim, seems to me that it is basically a simple argument, pass a certain level of alcohol (depending on which study you believe) the benefits of alcohol consumption diminish at an exponential rate with increased consumption; which stands to reason that if 3 glasses of “wine” is the inflection point, then three glasses of 15% wine is worse for you than 3 of 13%. Doesn’t seem very controversial to me.

Balance, however is purely subjective. RMP feels many high alcohol wines are “balanced”, many of those wines that he feels are balanced, to me, are not. There is no right or wrong, but to my palate, I find more unbalanced wines north of 14% than I do below, but your mileage may very.

You seemed to have dug in with respect to your interpretation that “alcohol delivers flavor.” If she meant that flavor comes from alcohol, why wouldn’t she or Aldo have said that? The idea of delivery suggests that it is the method by which flavor is carried, not the source from which the flavor comes. But with anything, there is likely a point at which the presence of more alcohol diminishes the ability to deliver flavor as other flavor are dominated by the alcohol characteristic themselves… to wit, out of balance. That point is likely different for everyone and there is no fast rule. That said, when trafficking in probabilities, you need to pick a spot where you are indifferent between the over/under, 14% seems “rule of thumb” reasonable to me from a probability distribution standpoint.

While you don’t feel the need to apologize, for someone who is trying to establish themselves as a wine journalist, you have, in numerous instances created the impression with those that ARE established as someone trying to make a name for yourself by attacking others. That says more about your approach than what you write. Personally, I would would rather be known in that space for what I write, not how I go about it.

Best of luck to you.

No apology will be forthcoming because none is owed.

I do find it richly ironic that you are now getting so worked up about this when you are the one who launched the topic in the first place, posting in a public forum that she misrepresented Parr’s views. After throwing your friend under the bus, I guess you are trying to make amends. But you are not going to get very far suggesting that Teague wrote a smart, coherent piece and is now receiving unfair criticism.

Judging from comments on this thread and Berserkers, a lot of people had trouble understanding what she was saying or didn’t swallow it. The piece was misinformed and misleading–”balance” is a code word used by snobs to throw their own heat back on high-alc wines?? Please. The criticism is nothing personal; she just got called out on it by you and many others and is now unhappy about it. If she wants to explain what she meant, she certainly could devote a post to the matter on her new blog.

And while she’s at it, she could also identify who in the “anti high-alcohol crowd” thinks high-alcohol wines pose health risks–and what exactly those risks are–as I have never heard anyone make that claim.

Perhaps it is you who didn’t understand the point being made by Lettie? I believe Aldo clarified it for you as well. As I wrote above, I read the same words you did but had a completely different take away. Perhaps you got it wrong and in your zeal to “get” somebody; you over-stepped.

I still believe you owe Lettie an apology.