Pinot for Everyone Else, Part II: Technology vs. Taste
This post is in response to Erwin’s comment to my post from 3-24-06 “Pinot for Everyone Else”:
Hi Erwin,
You raise some theoretical and practical concerns that I’m not sure many can answer at this point. First of all about the frustration you mention about trying to gain a deeper understanding of a varietal: I remember when I was just beginning on the path of learning about varietal characteristics in wines. If I had an array of glasses in front of me, all with a different varietal in them and it was a blind tasting, the initial impression made is of the color and all of its facets: depth, tone, hue. I could get a pretty good idea just from looking at the wines what they might in fact be. Can tasters who are trying to find their way through the maze of varietal character—and trying to learn more about wine appreciation—rely on color as an indicator anymore, as you mention? Frustrating indeed.
You ask about experienced wine tasters and detecting the presence of Mega Purple. Dan Berger’s Wines & Vines article describes a tasting that he, John Buechsenstein of UCDavis, a winemaker named Kerry Damskey Harvey, Clark Smith of Vinovation and Dr. Richard Peterson (former winemaker at Beaulieu) and Dan Berger himself organized. They added Mega Purple in varying degrees: .2% to .8% (remember, this is pretty concentrated stuff, and these additions were described as being “large amounts”) to Cabernet and Zinfandel. Some of the comments: Dan says “the ‘additive’ wines were clearly plumper and a bit more full-bodied than were the control samples…..The Cabernet in this case wasn’t very dark in color, so the additive wines bolstered the red color, but even at the lowest levels, I found the wines to be a bit fatter and less characteristic of Cabernet. For me, the Zinfandels were most hurt by Mega Purple, because the color additives compromised the varietal spice.” Damskey said “he has used Mega Purple in the past a couple of times, ‘but the addition has to be a lot less’ than we used in our blind tasting. ‘And you have to be very careful how you use it. The downside is that I don’t like the way it changes the aroma. More than often, it mutes the aroma’”. Harvey said: “’the ‘sweetness’ in the Cabernet made the tannins more astringent, ’ because, she said, the sweetness was out of sync with the rest of the wine…..Harvey added, ‘I don’t plan on using it. It’s easier to add Cabernet Franc to Cabernet Sauvignon. Using (Mega Purple), the wine seemed too disjointed, plus I got a sort of licorice or jug character from it.’” The article finishes with a quote from John Williams, of Frog’s Leap: “William’s concern, he said, is that color additions like Mega Purple might someday ‘become part of the regular winemaking regime’”.
So, this tasting doesn’t necessarily reflect what might happen in reality in that they were using higher additive rates than what might normally be considered, but it is still interesting to read the comments on the effects. So who knows if an experienced taster can say “Aha—they are using Mega-whatever”, but if a varietal wine seems dumbed down, slightly sweet or round, highly colorful, etc., it might be a tip-off of some kind of modern winemaking manipulation (these Mega products are only one of an array of “tools” brought to us courtesy of modern technology).
Which leads me to an idea of disclosure, as you mention as being the main issue for you. Here is an idea and one I would like implement here at the winery: to begin labeling all wines as to their exact content and that they are free of any color additives. Federal law states that anything on the label must match cellar records, and if it doesn’t then the winemaker—not the winery—(so in this case, me) is personally liable for any fines, prosecution, jail time, etc. Maybe disclosure would be the best option for most wineries—especially small wineries—to insure the consumer knows what they are drinking? How does this sound?
March 28th, 2006 at 8:22 am
[...] eserve to know what’s in the bottle. Update: right after this posting this, I saw this post on the Cima Collina blog. Here’s a winemaker who agrees with full label disclosure.
[...]
March 28th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Thanks John. I’m sure, when faced with the issue, it wouldn’t be hard to get other winemakers on board!!
April 5th, 2006 at 11:22 am
First let me say thanks for a great blog and some good writing/discourse.
At a large tasting recently, I asked a winemaker what it might have been about his Cabernet Franc that was different from almost any other that I have tried and he almost sounded defensive when he said he could think of no reason why it should be. From the descriptions I have heard of what Mega Purple does, and this is reinforced by what you write above, I honestly had been wondering if it might be used in this Cab Franc. Others have asked me why I care what’s in a wine as long as I like it and I admit, they have a point.
As a result of these kinds of questions (and for many other reasons) I find myself gravitating towards wines from small wineries and, in particular, wineries that are forthcoming about their winemaking. If I am buying wine from someone whose tastes and sensibilities are compatible with mine, and whose expertise I respect and trust, then it becomes easier not to worry about the details.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Cheers to that
April 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Annette,
Nice to see some winemakers denoucing the use of Mega P. While i can understand the need for ‘tweaking’ wines for acidity or chapitalizing (ma nature doesn’t always co-operate like she should), but what is behind the mega P additive. It is simply cosmetic? Is is they don’t want the tannin and tehy don’t do the full press to extract the color. I have drunk many a burgundy that was as clear as Rosé but had as much if not more amplitude than most of this dark , foreboding Pinots. I have become a bit obssessed with the additive -manipulation question. Where do you stand on acidification, reverse osmosis and the like? Where do you draw the line?
Bill