Hang Time and Aging

[Innkeeper]

What is extended hang time doing to the wine industry? For starters it means less money for growers (the longer they hang, the less they weigh). It also means high alcohol, as all the additional sugar is fermented. I remember when 13.5% alcohol was considered high in a table wine.

The reason for all this could be summarized in one word "Parker", but this would be an over simplification. People, for what ever reason, are demanding big wines that can be consumed immediately. To achieve this, producers demand later and later grape picking.

The thing that concerns me the most about all this is the impact on aging. The reason for this that these wines do not have the proper structure for long term aging. Structure is composed of many components; a couple of critical ones are acid and pH. In this week's newsletter, Dan Berger suggests that total acidity for an ager should be in the 3.40 to 3.60 range. More important, according to him is pH. He says if it is as high as 3.75 or 3.8 you should forget about aging. The higher the pH the more unstable the wine is. If you plan to age a wine, particularly an expensive one, you should check with the winery if the pH is not written on the label (it seldom is), before laying it down.

[TheEngineer]

Have any wineries started to acidify more to get the pH down more and compensate? Would that compensation cause the wine to feel unbalanced or would the wine no longer feel as big (as the acidity will clean the wine off). I'm not a fan of any changes to the base material but c'est la vie.

[Innkeeper]

I'm talking about pH at harvest. Yes they do screw around with the product very much these days including adding water to make up for that which evaporated during hang time, adding concentrated food coloring derived from grapes, and artificially altering the balance/structure as you suggest. None of these change agability to the pH at harvest.

[robr]

Adding water to make up for lost h2o because the grapes are drying out? What, do they stick garden hoses into the tanks?

[Innkeeper]

Bingo!

[Thomas]

IK, those acid figures you gave could not be correct.

"total acidity for an ager should be in the 3.40 to 3.60 range."

You couldn't drink a wine with that level of acidity. They look like pH numbers to me.

One thing that might be driving the trend toward these kinds of wines is the need to haev more rather than to be happy with something as it is--a fine wine that gives pleasure and pairs with a meal doesn't seem to be enough for a lot of wine geeks. They want every wine to seem orgasmic. Of course, as soon as a wine supplies that need, the next wine has to offer more.

One reason I believe those big wines have trouble aging is because they've just about already aged as near raisins on the vine. Sure, sugars, acids, and pH can be played with, but that is yet another reason behind poor aging. The more you play with a wine, the more it means you've got something unstable to begin with.

Incidentally, to raise pH you lower total acidity--conversely, to lower pH you raise acidity. The balance between the two is critical but alcohol often lends a hand. Hence, high alcohol in those blockbusters quite often is alongside high pH. To me, that is a beat up wine.

[brappy]

"The reason for all this could be summarized in one word "Parker""

IK, explain your logic here, if you don't mind.

mark

[robr]

Brappy,

I think he means (if I may type for him) that Parker has so influenced the tastes of the most "important" critics that these are the types of wines the public is now demanding, based on what ratings they are reading in Wine Spectator, and from Parker himself.

[Innkeeper]

Why didn't you read the whole sentance Mark?

[brappy]

Sorry IK, I did read the whole sentence and for that matter the whole rant. I was at work and had a moment to get on-line. Obviously (at least to me now) not enough time to respond correctly. Looking back at this, I realize I left a troll; didn't mean to, just did.

Why bring Parker into this? What your saying has so little to do with him. I've seen these arguments about Parkerization (sp) and on and on etc. are you soooooo sure the wines aren't getting better? Or is your argument correct and the wines are just short lived and uninspiring? I'm not sure, but I seem to enjoy more wine now then i did ten years ago. Maybe the word "now" is the opperative word and that is what your saying. But I've had many wines that don't fit the description of "Parker" wines that he has scored greatly and loved them also.

That is the core of the question.

mark

[Innkeeper]

He has over the years shown an affinity to big, brawny, in your face wines, and a distain for those not so. Certainly he has approved of some I like, but he has turned to a very hight degree the California Wine Scene to his liking, and is now making inroads in Europe, particularly Bordeaux.

[Drew]

Of course the problem lies in the interpretation of Parker, whose wine ratings I follow ONLY for wines that I want to drink alone. I'm the first one to admit that most of his positive ratings are on wines that are very difficult to positively pair with meals. He's no different,though, than James Halliday, who I consider the Parker of Oz. Even Hugh Johnson seems to lean towards the bigger, in your face styles in recent years. Parker is Parker, and if you understand his palate, I think he's a good resource for a specific wine style and not the end all wine critic.

Drew

[dananne]

Without getting into any possible crossfire about Parker, it may also be worth noting that drinking habits have changed a bit, too, and more people are drinking wines as a stand-alone rather than with meals. For me, what seems important is to know what I'm guetting. That huge "Syrah Pinot" from Sonoma Coast might be wonderful as a stand-alone, but might completely overwhelm Anne's salmon, which on the surface would appear to be a good food match for a Pinot Noir. I don't mind big wines that may not age worth a damn, but there's a time and a place for them.

Overall, however, even though I lament the loss of traditional styles in favor of the so-called "international style" of wines becoming so increasingly popular, as they so often taste the same and could come from anywhere, not all progress is bad. I think across-the-board quality has gone up as winemaking practices have improved in many areas, increased investment have cleaned up many vineyards and wineries, and better research has enabled people to plant and replant varieties in more appropriate places. Also, the trend is not just one way. Some great things are now being done with traditionally ignored varieties, so while I may not enjoy some new "international-style" wine from, say, Spain, I may like that new Bierzo or that new old vine Garnacha. Again, the key for me is to know what I'm guetting.

[Innkeeper]

To bring us back to the original thyme of this tread is the lack of agability in most of what comes out of California these days. Unless it was recommended by WW and I could afford it, I wouldn't think of laying down a Califoria Cab or Merlot for ten or twelve years as I once did regularly. The stuff I get from Tobin James and Easton/Terra Rouge I lay down two or three years maybe to shake off the gnats. The only wine I would consider for long term these days is a well constructed Petite Sirah. I have these staggered out pretty well for the years to come. Otherwise I'll stick with Bordeaux, or certain Italians. Incidentally whites age nicely too, and most are still being being made very well. Consider Riesling (those from Australia, Alsace, and certain ones from the Finger Lakes), Sancerre, and Semillon. Many of these with five to eight years on them are fantastic.

[brappy]

IK, can you give me a rough idea when you stopped laying down Cali cabs etc? I understand what you're saying, but when would you say this (wine not aging) started?

[Innkeeper]

About five years ago: http://www.wines.com/ubb2/Forum9/HTML/000267.html

[Innkeeper]

Extended excepts from article, "Creating Free Wine", p.4, Dan Berger's Vintage Experiences, Volume X, Issue 5, March 16, 2006:

“Assume grapes are harvested at 28° Brix (roughly 28% sugar). When fermented out dry you’d get wine with an alcohol of about 16%.

That is too high for most 'table wines,' so 20% water is added to the tank to bring the alcohol down to just above 14%. That is already being done routinely in California. A recent change in state rules allows a greater degree of 'amelioration' 'to assist fermentations to go dry.' (If you believe that, I have some New Orleans land to offer you.)

Adding water doesn’t affect the flavor of a lower-priced red wine too much, especially if the fruit is picked at 28° Brix, because at that level, the only 'fruit' flavors most grapes deliver are over-ripeness.

Here’s the tricky part: since varietal/regional characteristics are nearly wiped out by late harvesting, some wineries now add 'color' additives as well. Such color agents, like Mega-Purple, also add flavors and change the taste.

This gloop is 68% residual sugar, so adding just one unit of it (before fermentation) adds the equivalent of about 2.7 units of standard-sugar grape juice. This allows the wine maker to ameliorate even more with water.

Rather than bore you with data, I estimate that about a quarter of the wine made this way comes out of a hose, and it could be higher.”

[Thomas]

There is some sort of reverse process to take some of the water out after fermentation, but I am not up on the technology.

It is funny, however, that the definition of the word "ameliorate" is "to make better."

Talk about newspeak...