Comments on: Why is wine getting hotter?

By: Goddu

Goddu — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:48:32 +0000

You should learn a little more about wine making and what ever your next subject of choice is. Wine professionals are all laughing at you.

By: safewine

safewine — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:04:22 +0000

Hate to argue with a wine lover, but I can’t find anything (other than the silly crack about art movies)in this article that doesn’t reinforce what dozens of other wine writers have been saying for years. To wit: that regulations allow winemakers to misstate the actual ABV in wine; that many winemakers believe that consumers like high-alcohol wines and that they are just responding to market demand, and that you shouldn’t necessarily trust the ABV % printed on the label.

And as for winemakers jumping off the high-alcohol bandwagon, I’ll believe it when I see it. Like fruit bombs and over-oaked chardonnay, as long as wine critics keep giving these wines high marks the winemakers will keep making them, despite what they tell the press.

By: WineLover

WineLover — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:07:07 +0000

dWj…of course any professional can do a chemistry test..I meant by taste as most people do…haven’t seen to many wine drinkers carrying around test kits with them at local restaurants.

I have yet found anyone who agrees with your side…but then the hundreds of Californian winemakers who are starting to produce wine with lower alcohol is just another ramdom factoid?

I just came back here to see if my response had been deleted, but promise not to return again.

By: dWj

dWj — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:16:47 +0000

Really, WineLover? No wine professional is capable of doing a basic chemistry experiment? Are any of them capable of adducing facts that support their arguments, or do most arguments among wine professionals consist of saying that the other side is not very well informed, and then producing random factoids of various levels of credibility that do nothing to address the other side’s actual points?

By: WineLover

WineLover — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:21:24 +0000

As a journalist you are very cleaver at using facts the way you want, but unforunately not very well informed. There is a strong movement among Californian winemakers to back down the alcohol content “not” because it is getting people drunk but because of how it affects wine. And European wines tend to be much lower in alcohol than the numbers you use.

I just posted a rebuttal on LinkedIn that should be read by about 25,000 wine professionals who I hope reach the 5 million wine lovers out there…may you never be read again.

I think most of us (if not all) would be highly insulted at the profile you paint of us. I also asked any of these wine professionals to stand up and let me know their name…anyone who on a consistent basis can determine a wine that is .5% (or less) higher in alcohol content than another. Seriously doubt anyone will claim the ability.

And by the way it is because of sensationalizing journalist like you that the WSWA can mount a drive for bills like HR5034 (now dead) or HR 1161 among politicans.

By: spectre855

spectre855 — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:19:32 +0000

Funny, this is something that my wife and I have mused in the past but that I shrugged off as me not having eaten enough or me having been a lightweight (hardly) that day. It’s nice to see that maybe I wasn’t crazy after all.

By: fred999

fred999 — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:09:20 +0000

RED – Thanks for your good-natured response.

By: jbernar

jbernar — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:36:04 +0000

“Essentially, people like to think of themselves as sophisticates who go to art-house movies, even if in reality they’re much more likely to sit slack-jawed in front of some reality TV show.”

Hey! Stop talking about me behind my back!

The direct “evidence” for deliberate understatement of alcohol content in wine, such as it is, comes down to one unnamed source. It is interesting that alcohol content has risen historically, and that it is higher in newer viticultural regions. I suspect that the market for high-end wines plays little or no role in this. It’s a separate market. We slack-jawed types, who drink most of the world’s vin ordinaire, prefer the most buzz for our Two Buck Chuck. Improvements in fermentation technique have probably served us well.

By: REDruin

REDruin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:20:14 +0000

Ah, he’s using redactive compounding interest, instead of simply increasing the ‘% of alcohol content year by year’. But he’s directly referring to the alcohol content as an additive, not a compounding multiplier, hence my confusion. 1.0035^20 is not how I’d have run a per year increase in alcohol, but at least his math works out now.

So, yes, I do know how to work compounding interest factors, which I think got covered in them dem 300 level Finance courses. Heh. There was simply no wording to get me thinking he was using compounding instead of straight years/total change = average. Sorry, I look for averages more then reducing bases!

==RED

By: fred999

fred999 — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:08:11 +0000

Hey RED, time to head back to Math 101. 0.35% is correct.

take 11.7 and multiply it by 1.0035, which is an increase of 0.35%. Then take the result and multiply that by 1.0035. Do that 19 times and you have 12.5

Maybe you’re the guy who engineered the mirror for the Hubble telescope?

Who’s feeling stupid now?

By: REDruin

REDruin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:47:41 +0000

erp! your .035% should actually be .04%, and your .082 should be .092%, unless you are rounding very generously. Teach me not to edit myself.

==RED

By: REDruin

REDruin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:45:41 +0000

“and the whiles averaging 13.5% while claiming to be 13.1%.”. Think ya meant ‘whites’.

Hey, no math errors permitted from the finance blogger!

“In 1992, white Bordeaux wines averaged 11.7% alcohol; since then they’ve been getting hotter at a rate of (0.35%) per year, putting them at 12.5% today. And in the new world the numbers are much higher: Chilean reds, for instance, averaged 12.3% alcohol in 1992, and have been growing in alcohol at a rate of (0.82%) per year since then. That means they’re now at 14.2% and rising.”

I think you meant .035% and .082%, which multiplied by 20 years is .7% and 1.94%, which gets you 11.7 ->12.4, and 12.3 -> 14.2%, or pretty close.

===RED