Food & Drink
Feb 25, 2015
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
I will say one thing... If like me you're sensitive to added sulfites in food or beverages, stick to French wine. Pretty much all wine has some sulfites occurring naturally, but French winemakers don't get to add any. (French wine purity laws are pretty strict on producers. They go to jail for putting in artificial preservatives or other rubbish.) American winemakers faced with sulfite labeling requirements lobbied to set the threshold so low, below naturally-occurring levels, that all wine has to carry the warning and no one could distinguish their adulterated crap from the pure stuff, at least not by the label. I'm not aware that anyone else is as strict as the French, so if more than a few milligrams of sulfite preservatives will make you start turning blue and gasping for air, don't fuck around with wines from anywhere else unless you trust the vintner personally.
And, I've found French wine surprisingly cost-effective for the quality. A low-end $7 or $8 red Bordeaux from my local discount/warehouse wine store can often be better than a fancy-pants $25 Northern California or Long Island wine. And I've never had an American wine good enough to compete with a middling $20 Medoc. It's admirable that we're developing some serious winemaking ability, but it's still a niche market, and overpriced compared to much higher quality imports.
Sometimes a red wine can taste a little sweet because it's really fruity, but you aren't actually tasting sugar - just a young, ripe wine. If a wine drys your mouth out it is high in tannins. If it makes your mouth water - like a good Riesling or Sauvignon blanc, it's high in acid.
If you like high tannin cabs I would suggest describing it as bold or structured, but not too rich or fruity. Say you like wines with some tannin in them - nothing wrong with that! In terms of fruit - for red wine it is helpful to think in terms of red fruit (cherries in particular - this would more likely be a Pinot or Cab Franc) or black fruit (especially if you liked that cooked prune flavor in really big, ripe wines - some Cabernet Sauvignon, Malbec, or a lot of Italian varieties like Nebbiolo).
I do not get why wine stewards will bring wines that have an obvious sweetness and then do handstands to come up with fake vocab for "sweet" ("fruity" or "contains unprocessed sugars", yeah no shit it does) to make it sound high falutin.
Why can't we be adults and admit wines fill a spectrum from dry to sweet and different people like different points on that spectrum? Why are we disallowing the single most variable axis about wine from consideration in favor of completely subjective shit like "pear"?
Many wines are sweet. Many are dry. Almost none taste like a fucking pear.
This article does a good job explaining the types of sugar in wine and how some wine might have a "sweetness" despite having very low levels of residual sugar. Glucose and fructose are the most prevalent sugars in grapes, and those are converted to alcohol through fermentation. But, to your point, there is a small amount of sugar and other sweet-tasting compounds that aren't fermentable and may contribute to "sweeter" tasting wines that are nonetheless "technically" dry. http://winemakermag.com/501-measuring-re…