Questions and Misconceptions About Wine

I figure some people out there have things they want to know about wine, but are afraid to ask, for fear of sounding silly. I thought I'd start a thread to give people a place to go.

Since I don't have a question, I'm going to start with a tpic that always annoys me.

Legs.

What are they and what do they mean?

If you posess the motor skills to swirl wine around in a wine glass, you'll tend to notice that it will drip down the sides of the glass like wax down the side of a candle. These are called legs. But what do they mean? DO they mean the wine is good?

Here's my opinion. Legs are caused by glycerin in the wine. They are the result of sugar content in the grapes being transformed into alcohol by yeast.

Do they mean the wine is going to be good? Can you judge a wine by legs?

No.

They don't mean very much at all, in my opinion. You can tell if the wine is going to be heavier by the thickness and viscosity of the legs, but they don't really mean much at all. Taste the wine. There is very little about wine that you can tell (besides age and perhaps varietal or region) by the way it looks. Taste and smell. Don't sit there pondering the legs. That will take up valuable drinking time.

I do think “legs” are pretty, but they’re more a function of the alcohol content of the wine than anything else. Yeast converts sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide, I don’t believe there’s any way that fermentation can create glycerin.

I use legs to anticipate the body of the wine – which contributes to mouthfeel – but it’s only anticipation … you get confirmation with the first two sips.

Some relevant links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_of_wine

http://wine.about.com/od/winebasic1/a/winelegs.htm

http://www.wineeducation.com/legs.html

I agree that legs are all about surface tension. The higher the alcohol content, the more noticeable they are. While wine does contain very small amounts of glycerol, there is not enough to contribute to producing legs. Glycerol also has a much higher boiling point than ethanol (290 C vs ethanol's 78.4 C) so it is much less volatile.

Glycerol is in fact formed during alcoholic fermentation, although only in small amounts, and only during the aerobic phase at the initiation of yeast colony growth in the high-sugar environment presented by grape juice, or whatever is the original stock.

That having been said, it's still true that the glycerol contribution to 'legs' is typically swamped by the volatile alcohol behavior.

(The last information I remember--now years out of date I'm sure--was that over 1200 compounds were known to be present in wine, the majority of them byproducts of fermentation.)

Geo

All right, perhaps I was mistaken at the source of the legs. I'm currently broiling my shoe (I'll serve a nice Vacqueras to pair with the leather) as to eat it.

But, the important thing is that legs are relatively unimportant. Don't sweat them.

How's about we skip the shoe and just have the wine?? : ) Reminds me of the old story about eating gar: put 'em on a plank, smoke for two days, throw away the fish, eat the plank.

I think people talk about legs because they're one of the few visual phenomena involving wine: everyone can see them, no real experience/judgment needed.

But you're right: in they end, they're no big deal.

Geo
PS. Sorry to be such a pedant--I used to own a vineyard and winery and I'm still a bit fussy about the technical side of things.

No apology necessary. My bad. I get very annoyed by know-it-alls claiming that wine is good or bad by the appearance of legs.


Okay, how about this one:


Sulfites.

(collective groan)

What do you want to know about sulfites? There's a zillion things... (and yeah, groan...) I know quite a bit, but mostly from the techno-producer side, not from the anxious consumer side.

One end of the spectrum: can wines be made without added sulfite. Yes. But it is EXTREMELY difficult to do, expensive, and the production side really really has to have their act in hand. Will wine made w/o added sulfite have sulfite in it? Most likely yes, because most yeast, under most conditions, generate a little sulfite (maybe 20ppm) during fermentation.

Should most consumers be worried about sulfites? Do you want my truthful answer, as a conscientious producer? : ^ )

Geo

On the notion of legs- legs tell you that a wine does a nice job of dripping down the side of the glass and leaving a pretty mark and has a high alcohol content, and that's about it.

Do legs tell you anything valuable about a wine and how it was produced? Not at all. I've got some older stuff in the cellar that will leave huge legs and you aren't going to taste any of that alcohol. I've had a few whites as of late (that were completely craptastic) that showed minor legs and tasted completely of alcohol.

OK sulfites- sulfites gets to a fun discussion for me. Sulfites are really sulphur dioxide and is really used by winemakers as an antiseptic in virtually every wine nowadays. It's used less now than it was years ago, but the more residual sugar in a wine the more sulphur dioxide is going to be used in it. Normally sulfites go away with time, but you can also quickly get rid of them if you swirl your wine in the glass. Crappy whites like those from Oliver Winery in Indiana carry a ton of suphur dioxide, but also a lot of german wines carry them. That said, the german wines that do carry them are to be held for quite a while after bottling before drinking. If you haven't ever smelled sulfites (and you shouldn't in good wine that's ready to drink) go smell a rotten egg- that's pretty much what it smells like.

Meant to add to the question about whether people should be concerned about sulfits- the answer is for most people, no. It's not going to do you any harm. US wine is highly regulated in the quantity of sulfites a wine can contain (I want to say it's something like 300mg/l or something like that- memory is off on this one). There are, I'm sure, a few people out there with serious reactions to sulfites, but then again they might consider not eating dried fruit since almost all dried fruit (especially that yummy dried pineapple I used to get in San Diego) is made with sulphur dioxide.

Just one addition: sulfITES smell like a just-burned matchhead.

SulfIDES smell like rotten eggs.

Sulfites can be neutralized with hydrogen peroxide: one drop of standard 3% H2O2 from the drugstore should take care of a standard 5-oz wine glass, taking the level way down below perceptibility.

But, as pointed out, most folks are much more affected by the thought of sulfites than by the sulfites themselves. Certain asmathics are gravely at risk and shouldn't drink wine; nor should they eat a Chevrolet, and for the same reason: bad for their health.

Geo

I don't know about you, but I'd rather drink Hydrogen Peroxide than Oliver wines. That said, I doubt you'll see me putting a drop of hydrogen peroxide in my wine any time soon

Thank you for the correction above. You are correct.

Cork-sniffing.

These days there is this popular reaction against cork sniffing, like it is some meaningless pretension.

But you can learn a lot from a cork.

It is the first hint as to whether the wine is corked. And you also can tell from the condition of the cork a lot about the condition of the wine (how far the wine stain and wetness extends up the cork, how solid or rotten the cork appears).

So mostly I look at and sniff the cork as a first clue on the condition of the wine - it can't tell me how good it will be, but it can tell me if there are going to be problems.

Somewhat related:

I have two friends who like wine, one is very sensitive to sulfides and hates corked wines; the other not so much, and he actually prefers some of the flavor imparted in a slightly corked wine. I am sort of in the middle - the mild corekd flavor does not bother me, but I do recognize that it obscures most of the other flavors.

On a similar note, I like slightly oxodized wines, particularly whites (good California Chardonnays and a lot fo sweet wines). The oxidiation adds some complexity and offsets pleasantly some of the sweetness and acidity.

Do you sniff corks? Why or why not?

How do you feel about slightly corked or oxidized wines?

Some interesting issues and observations. Here's a quick, not to mention brief, response.

I don't sniff the cork anymore, since I ended up thinking that it was more misleading than not. But I *do* squeeze the sucker, and hard a couple of times. If it's still supple, then I allow myself to think that it retained a good seal. But if it's hard and dry I'm brought to attention immediately, looking for faults.

A bunch of the "corked" aroma comes from a bacterial infection usually short-handed as "brett". When I'm tasting a French (or other) plonk, I kind of welcome a bit of brett--it adds to the complexity, and its earthy, cellar-y tones make me think of where the wine has been.

I know what you're saying about the oxydized hints, esp. on chardonnay. It certainly does add complexity and interest. Personally, I don't prefer it, but I most certainly don't think it's a monster fault.

(And I must admit, I'm not entirely sure it's actually *oxidation* in the CA wines--I think it might be some flavor note added to the normal flavors during ageing. The folks in CA take a lot of care to exclude O2 during the processing. But whatever it is, well, there it is. Enjoy it or not! : )


Geo

dicksond wrote:It is the first hint as to whether the wine is corked. And you also can tell from the condition of the cork a lot about the condition of the wine (how far the wine stain and wetness extends up the cork, how solid or rotten the cork appears).
c
So mostly I look a t and sniff the cork as a first clue on the condition of the wine - it can't tell me how good it will be, but it can tell me if there are going to be problems.

Why not just taste the wine at that point? I will definitely look at and touch the cork to see if it shows signs of seepage or dryness, but only as evidence to support my case of a bad wine if, after tasting it, I find it bad. Which rarely happens, by the way. But sniffing the cork is, in my mind, kind of crazy, because you are planning to sip the wine, after all, and any corkiness will become evident within 10 seconds after your cork sniff.

Interesting story on corked wines. The only time I ever returned a bottle was about a year ago at Firkin in Libertyville, where we received an obviously and hideously corked bottle of Cosentino (can't recall if it was the Zin or M. Coz or what). Anyway, they were happy to bring us a new bottle. But, that bottle was ALSO corked! What are the odds? Well, pretty poor, actually. As it turns out, the second bottle was not corked; our palates had been so overwhelmed by the corky crappiness of the first bottle that anything we tasted, tasted corked for a good ten minutes or more thereafter. So, we ordered a third bottle of wine, something not made by Cosentino, and it was OK. A half hour later, the server brought us two glasses of wine he wanted us to try. It tasted fine; and it was the wine in the second "corked" (actually, not corked) bottle.

Jim "I Love Screw Caps and Have Since Before That Was Popular" InLoganSquare

JiLS:

Screw caps forever!

Geo

Geo wrote:JiLS:

Screw caps forever!

Geo

Yeah, baby ... no, wait a minute. Did you use "screw" as a verb, just then?

Uhhh, jeez. Maybe as a pronomial gerund or something? I forget...

: )

Geo

You know, I do sort of wonder about how screw cap wines age, but I am more than happy to participate in that experiment.

Long live screw caps.

I believe a Black Chook Shiraz I had a week or so ago was screw cap - as a big, brawny short-term age-worthy, over $20 wine, I think it qualifies as the "biggest" red I have yet had with a screw cap.

Why not just taste the wine at that point?

Savoring the moment? A little foreplay before I seal the deal - you know, to prolong the antcipation, since that first sip of wine does have a certain sensuality ("screw that cap," indeed).

And I must admit, I'm not entirely sure it's actually *oxidation* in the CA wines

Interesting point, but if it tastes like oxidation and smells like oxidation, I am more prone to belief it is oxidiation than some other chemical process that mimics oxidation. They do have those unreliable, cork seals after all. I tend to have a few bottles of Byron aging for 3-5 years, and Hobbs aging a couple of years longer, and drink them just before they go, if possible. Definitely is the best way to drink the Byron (Central Coast Chardonnay) - the Hobbs Chards are pretty good to start, so they are just fun to taste throughout their whole evolution, and I know some would say I am nuts to hold them that long. Of course, I am nuts .

JimInLoganSquare wrote:

dicksond wrote:It is the first hint as to whether the wine is corked. And you also can tell from the condition of the cork a lot about the condition of the wine (how far the wine stain and wetness extends up the cork, how solid or rotten the cork appears).
c
So mostly I look a t and sniff the cork as a first clue on the condition of the wine - it can't tell me how good it will be, but it can tell me if there are going to be problems.

Why not just taste the wine at that point? I will definitely look at and touch the cork to see if it shows signs of seepage or dryness, but only as evidence to support my case of a bad wine if, after tasting it, I find it bad. Which rarely happens, by the way. But sniffing the cork is, in my mind, kind of crazy, because you are planning to sip the wine, after all, and any corkiness will become evident within 10 seconds after your cork sniff.

disclaimer: I am on the bottom slope of the learning curve on wines.
I don't remember offhand where in my readings I saw this (Zraly?) - but sniffing is pointless (and so a tell-tale sign to the sommelier of the 'sniffer's' wine sophistication). The cork is to be examined for signs of dryness* which would be an indicator of corking. The tasting right after will make any corking apparent.

* Geo, I like your idea of a good pinch, squeeze.

Back to the Sulfite topic. I was at a winemaker dinner, Chalk Hill, I believe, and I complained to the winemaker that one of the chardonnays was very sulfery. No one else noticed it. He told me that there are several types of sulfer odor/flavors that can be detected by different people, and that there are some people who are accutely sensitive to one fairly obscure kind. He said that I had that sensitivity. I have no idea if this makes any scientific sense, but I am not bothered by sulfites at all, except for a couple of times that I have been just overwhelmed by it (them?) It has always been with very big california chardonnays, in fact ones that are rated very highly by Parker. It is definitely a sulfer thing, not an oak, malolactic thing. Still not really sure what it is. Perhaps Parker-phobia.

-Will

dicksond wrote:You know, I do sort of wonder about how screw cap wines age

I've just been doing a bit of research on this, and from what I've read it seems like screw-capped wines meant to be cellared for 10 or more years will probably suffer the most? Because of the airtight seal (although there are apparently some screw caps designed to let some air in), a chemical-induced reduction (again...?...) takes place over a long period of time, and the by-product can be the rotten-egg smelling sulfides.

As for cork-sniffing...why not pop it in your mouth for a taste, too?

I understand looking at the cork for signs of trouble, but is there an easily identifiable smell, other than cork, on a cork from a corked bottle of wine? Because all corks smell kind of musty and similar to me.

FWIW, when a waiter plops a cork down in front of me after opening a bottle, I consider it a piece of detritus as long as the cork came cleanly out of the bottle. Just my approach.

There are varying degrees of "corkiness". Sometimes you can smell a corked bottle from across the room and sometimews the bottle might just seem off. I'm not as good at detecting corkiness as some of my friends, but I do find that the flaw generally becomes much more apparent over time. I would estimate that about 5% of all bottles suffer from 2,4,6 TCA and TCA is a always an unpleasant taste. This is quite different from brett (Brettanomyces) which is a yeast strain that contributes primarily animal or leather tastes in wine and which some people like.

The debate over screwcaps for long term storage is too young to have a sound answer today. A wine is considerably less likely to be corked if it doesn't have a cork (although screwcap wines are sometimes corked) but there aren't any 30 year old bottles of wine with screwcaps around quite yet. I would say that screwcaps are probably a preferable closure for wines to be consumed in their first few years after bottling.

I've been a big fan of screwcaps since my first bottle of vintage Strawberry Hill. Never had one corked.

As for sniffing corks, MsRev has attended many wine classes taught by Master Sommeliers, of which there are maybe 150 in the world. They all said sniffing a cork is pointless. A corked wine can only be identified by smell and/or taste of the wine itself.

Sniffing a cork is like squeezing a cork. It won't guarentee you that something is wrong, but it can set you on your guard that something may be.

Speaking of screwcaps, has anyone here been lucky enough to try that 1997 Plumpjack cab? That was the first major wine (i.e. expensive) to be bottled with a screwcap. They also bottles some of the 1997 with corks. I've been wondering how the two wines differ after a decade.

I will check if we have the Plumpjack. I know we are on their list, and think we MIGHT have gotten that in the screwcap, but probably not without...

nr706 wrote:FWIW, when a waiter plops a cork down in front of me after opening a bottle, I consider it a piece of detritus as long as the cork came cleanly out of the bottle. Just my approach.

So do I, although I do find myself playing with the cork throughout the meal.

Just one more way to annoy my poor wife.

Luckily she is very tolerant.

I actually keep and date all my corks (lord knows how many hundreds I've got sitting in bags now) but when I get engaged I'm actually going to give back the first cork from the first bottle we ever shared on our first date (2001 Corison Cab Sav, corked broke in half because of an inexperienced wine steward) along with the ring (and if you want to know where and when in Chicago I'm going to propose, IM me and I'll tell you, but I'm not taking any chances with her or her friends looking at this board)

dicksond wrote:But you can learn a lot from a cork.

It is the first hint as to whether the wine is corked.

Novice question (even though I've been drinking wine legally for 36 years): What does it mean, "the wine is corked"? I would have answered, "It means the opening of the wine bottle was sealed with a cork." But clearly, it means not this, but something bad.