Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Fruit and soil

Initially I wanted to do a presentation of Ruppert-Leroy – an exiting new Champagne producer from the Aube region. However, when I was in Champagne (where I have just returned from) I tasted a very exiting white wine – which I actually have in glass right now. It’s the 2012 “Clos du Rouge Gorge” from a producer called Cyril Fhal.

I tasted these wines a day apart and thought it gave good meaning to present them in the same post, as they represent a contrast – yet individually something interesting.  

Let’s get aquatinted with the wines:

2011 Ruppert-Leroy “Martin-Fontaine” Brut Nature

Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Teroir: Clay and limestone
Age of vines: 70 years old
Vinification: Oak
Viticulture: Biodynamic
Dosage: 0 g/l
Glass used: Zalto White Wine

A very joyful Champagne, where you immediately feel in a good mood. There is a lot of sensorial sweetness, with ripe fruit, candied citrus, juicy sweet pear/apple and a crystal clear fruit. All together it’s floral attraction and the adorable factor is high. The taste has a precise linear style with a vibrant and precise acidity, which keeps the keynotes uplifted. However there is a fine line of the role of the sensorial sweetness, which keeps adding rather sweet notes, like elderflower and adding what seems to be residual sugar to the back of the palate. On one hand, it’s a part of this joyful style, which you can’t really resist, but you can to take notice. For me it’s slightly annoying. Having said that – I had no problems enjoying it.  If I turn to Mr. analytic I really miss some sort of soil bite, which could have shifted its focus away from only fruit. So what’s the verdict? Well – this is young Champagne and it’s indeed very healthy and well made. It’s even extremely easy to drink. It could very well be all about baby-fat and a completely different breed in 2-3 years time. To me this is a very good Champagne, but if to turn really great, it will have to attract more soil nerve with cellaring. However I suspect it will have many fans and for sure a producer I look forward to follow.


2012 Cyril Fhal “Clos du Rouge Gorge (Blanc)”

Grape: 100% Macabbeu
Terroir: Sandy, silty soil (150-200m above sea level)
Vinification: Oak (2-3 years old) – No sulphur before Vinification.
Viticulture: Since Cyril Fhal took over in 2002 he converted to Bio (Demeter)
Location: We are in Latour de France (Roussillon)
Glass used: Zalto Universal
This is completely different kind of wine. Obviously we are comparing bubbles against a still wine, but as you will see it’s a wine, with an entire different setting. Here the fruit tonality is very shy and not something that would pull your pants down in a blind tasting. It’s however filled with energy – tons of it. It’s that energy, which keeps you turning back to the glass and despite the subdued bouquet, it was actually a wine I spent a lot of time “sniffing”. It’s simply the fascination of not exposing everything at once and a wine, which is constantly changing shape in the glass. The taste is not the kind of wine, which wraps a mouth coating cashmere orgy on you. No! Here its minerals all over – ranging from wet crushed stones, to warm slate. On day two the wine was even better. Thrilling intense, challenging and very reflective to the mind. Loved it and definitely not the last time I taste this producer.

To compare these two wines is not to pick a winner – or a loser. Personally I fell more attracted to wines with high soil energy. However if you have been reading this blog for some time you also know I like to illustrate diversity and how wines should pair with both food, occasions, your own mood and the lust for wine on the day you pull/pop the cork.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Fri vin 2014

Impressive list of winemaker this year (click image to see list) 

Copenhagen the 26th of April 2014 - from 10:00-18:00. Tickets can be bought here

See you there.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

The Wizard of Pinot Meunier

Gueux!. Doesn’t really ring a bell in relation to wine does it? But I’ll give you a clue. We are in Champagne country - 15km west of Reims. No? 

Anyway - Gueux is a small cosy town – to a degree of romantic with lovely houses, clean pavements and an almost obligatory magnolia tree in the front gardens. Even the café here is nicer and made in a more chick look. The town is quite, which is something I am use to, when I drive around in Champagne. Despite Champagnes exuberant and festive reputation, the regions and its towns are somewhat sleepy towns. On the outside that is, because as soon as you get inside – down to those dark cellars, a huge hospitality awaits - and damn good wine to.

We arrived from the south a day in April and had been driving through endless landscapes of vineyards. But as you cross the town sign of Gueux, the vineyard setting comes to an end.  You sense you are closer to Reims and a more common landscape of approaching roads and suburbs neighbourhood.
(The tractor - go home Ferrari) 
Yet in Gueux resides a Champagne producer. Jérôme Prévost is his name and I suspect that bell rang?

Yet upon arrival at his house, he is not home. A where is the cellar? Instead I can see a cedar wood looking barn. It’s a little bit open. I am even more curious now. We find out that he is in the vineyard, which should be located 6-700 meters up the road. After turning left we start to sense that there are in fact vineyards in Gueux. The vineyards here are not your romantic notion of sloping hills, where a sparkling sunlight warms up the soil from hilltop in the distance. No! – Here the land is flat as a pancake. It’s not exactly screaming for attention and Jérôme’s vineyard " Les Béguines” are here with 5-6 other parcels.  We see Jérôme in the distance – all alone and on a behemoth of a tractor.

He jumps of and greets a handful of passionate wine people from Denmark. “It’s a good day to plow – such an occasion should not be missed, he says”. It’s already the fourth time he plows this year and it doesn’t take you long to see his vineyard looks a bit more healthy that it’s neighbours. The “other” parcels here sadly look like a lot of other vineyards in Champagne. Depleted soils, sprayed with small blue plastic pieces and other metals parts ranging from nails, glass to batteries. The small blue plastic pieces are a shameful chapter in Champagne. In the 1970s the Parisians cleverly disposed of a composting of household waste. “When the soil is so poor of life, the roots seek upwards to find nutrition and this is really not good”.  

"Les Béguines” is the story about this very flat vineyard. 2ha of very sandy soils, planted with Pinot Meunier, which by now are about 50 years of age. Pinot Meunier is like most of you probably know Champagnes rustic cousin and often not so highly praised. It’s paradoxically the most planted in Champagne. Yet it’s actually because it’s seldom seen as a mono grape release, but often blended to give some growling baseline. Before I got introduce to these grower Champagnes, I often perceived Pinot Meunier as being pretty baroque and often a very clumsy grape. But for sure in blends –like Krug Vintage, it acts as a good trio partner, giving opposition to the refine tonality of Chardonnay and the aristocratic Pinot Noir.  

”Les Béguines” is for sure filled with sand – but also lots of fossils. It can be a little hard to imagine, when you stand here in present time – and with 350km to the nearest coastline - that about 45million years ago the seabed was here in Gueux. The seas erosion has created massive layers of calcareous sand formations and fossils with tiny crustaceans. It’s not exactly hurting the quality of the terroir.

At the end of the vineyard you see a small white house and this is Jérôme 's childhood home. So you would think that he was born to make wine and walk the footsteps of his parents? But it was not like that. His parents didn’t even make wine and the vineyards belonged to his grandmother. She even leased the land out. Jérôme 's interest in life, took a different path towards a more artistic angle, with painting, philosophy, and photography. When he got the offer to take over " Les Beguines " it was not something he just jumped into with open arms. But in 1987 he decide to give it a go and Domaine "La Closerie" is born. The first period is all about bringing the vineyard back to balance by working with respect for nature and no use of pesticides. The juice is initially sold to negociants, while Jérôme seeks inspiration and knowledge. But it ‘s as if he is constantly struggling with the prejudice that you can not make great wine in Gueux and certainly not on such a flat and sandy vineyard, planted with dull Pinot Meunier. Perhaps that why, he in 1995/96 takes a journey to Jura. Jura was about seeking inspiration, but he was also on the verge of obtaining a vineyard there. Today, he looks back and says:” It was a great adventure with Jura, but it was ultimately too difficult for me to leave my home ."

Instead he starts as an apprentice of Anselme Selosse. He tells us how he learned more about making wine the first day with Anselme, than he had ever learned before. Anselme gives Jérôme a task of pumping wine from a cask to another. Jérôme had never tried this before and Anselme begin to explain how to use the pump, but can see that Jerome is a little bit lost in all the technical information. Anselme stops and says to Jérôme "When you are dealing with wine making, both in the cellar and in the vineyard you are using your body and soul. You constantly need to ask yourself - why am I doing this? What is the meaning of this? Is it necessary?”

Personally I don’t know Jérôme very well, but hearing his story and spending some time with him, you begin to understand why this winemaker is so curious - why he constantly seeks inspiration (you will see later) and ask questions. When you combine it with a man of great intellect, humour and his artistic background, you begin to understand why the outcome is a pretty personal wine.

Jérôme spends 5 years with Anselme and it’s also him, who helps him to make the first vintages at his address in Avize. ‘1998 is the first official release with Jérôme Prévost on the label. In 2003 he leaves Anselme to make wine in Gueux. He starts of with one wine: "Les Beguines”. In 2000 and 2003 vintage he makes a wine called " d' Ailleurs “, which is limited cuvée, which have spent +one year more in barrel.  I remember tasting the ’03 in London some four years ago and it was truly an eye-opener. In 2007 a rosé sees the daylight, which goes by the name “Fac – Simile”. We are again at Pinot Menier frequency and this is a very juicy cousin. Yet I think many underestimate it’s potential due to its slightly polish candy like feel.  But as I see it “Fac – Simile” age very well and right now the ’07s fruit core are starting to feel a little dryer, saltier and obtaining that beautiful verbena note I adore in a rosé Champagne. 

With time Jérôme have obtained more land and planted these with Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and Pinot Gris. The age of the vines are still very young and when he finally decided to release some cuvée(s) it will be a very limited number of bottles.

All of his Champagnes are non-vintage btw – despite they are never blended. So we deal with vintage juice, but officially non-vintage Champagne, as it falls short of the AOC-rules of 36 months on lees. This is quit common when it comes to the small growers. They simple don’t have economy of scale like the big houses, nor do they have the required space in their cellars. Jérôme’s Champagnes taste damn fine when released – especially his trademark of insanely sophisticated spices. Yet! – I have to say, I feel confident they will improve even more after 5-6 years after disgorgement. 

Back in the vineyard, Jérôme have really warmed up and a talking about sugar strings, enzymes, proteins, and how you must ensure oxygen in the soils to pump energy into the vines. It’s not your everyday talk for a number idiot like me and you really have to concentrate. But Jérôme explains it really well.  Basically he is trying to tell us what nature can do over modern winemaking. If you only leave the sugar addition  (Chaptalisation) and enzyme treatment for modern techniques in the cellar you are only extracting one chord to the wine's perfect symphony. But if you provide nature with the right growth conditions - to form sugar naturally, you get endless strings of DNA and it creates a much higher energy and complexity. It’s also one of the reasons why Jérôme never do Chaptalisation to his Champagnes. Instead he harvest with ripe maturity and about 10.5% natural alcohol. Only the natural indigenous yeast is used in the winemaking process.

One hour later we are back in the cellar…sorry barn…. Finally the Vikings can get something to drink.

We kick of with 2012 Vins clairs. 2012 was on an extreme year. A rough winter, with temperatures hitting lows of -20 degrees Celsius in late February. Spring was wet as hell and even includes a devastating hailstorm. The summer was nothing to write about either, before a 10-day heat wave window opens in August and produces temperatures of 40 Celsius. The August window was sent from heaven and saves the harvest. Yet 2012 will still be marked by the rough winter condition and almost everyone reports of a very small harvest. This also goes for Jérôme Prévost, who normally produces 13.000 bottles, but in 2012-vintage he will only release about 6.000. The quality is however really promising.    

Hereafter awaits an interesting experiment. Two Champagnes are in play in our Zalto White Wine glasses. The first is lively, light and flowery. Elegant, delicate, yet also a bit short on the last meters. Such a Champagne would be perfect as an aperitif. The second one is more brutal, direct with higher energy and structure. Here you sense the trademark of Prévost, those sophisticated spices, which is really why this guy masters the Pinot Meunier like no other. This is a Champagne to drink with food.

Jérôme looks around and is curious to know our opinions’.

The verdict is the same – we all prefer Champagne no. 2.


It’s the same wine – same vintage – both the challenging 2010 vintage.

What! – This can’t be, they are so different? But there is a reason. One of them is a “mistake”. An accident. The accidental wine is No.2. You see, Jérôme’s cellar employee by mistake forgot to add Bentonite. And what is Bentonite? It’s first of all a clay species, which is added to Champagne, securing the dead yeast residuals will petrify and slowly be transported to the neck of the bottle under remuage. If Bentonite is not added, the yeast residuals will not petrify and turn into a small blurry substance inside the bottle and make the juice unclear. “Think about it – Jérôme says, in Champagne we are obsessed with the clarity. Why do you think we call it Vins Clairs?”. Jérôme discovers the ”mistake” after 300 bottles – yet he doesn’t really look sad. Once again, this is a curious winemaker, not following a straight line and all the traditions. And maybe – Bentonite is not added to some bottles on purpose in the future. Who knows? 

From here a bombardment of vintage floats at a steady pace. Both rosé and ”Les Béguines”. Jérôme is eager to hear what he think and takes notice off everything being said. As you know I have tasted many of these wines before and if I should chose a favourite it would have to be the ’08. It’s simply magic. Jérôme nods – “I am pretty satisfied with my ’08s he says” with a warm twinkle in his eye.

We finish, outside. It’s crisp April weather. Jérôme has a tradition of serving wines from other producers, who inspires him. A myriad of ​​wines awaits us, with producers like Frederic Cossard, Ganevat, Philippe Pacalet etc. I am in heaven.

This is one those visits you just don’t forget. Thank you Jérôme and see you soon.

You can find another report on Jérôme Prévost here.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

“L’Apôtre” Vertical 1999 >>> 2009

In late November 2013 David Léclapart stopped by Lidkoeb in Copenhagen to celebrate (almost) 3 anniversaries.

His Danish Importer “Petillant” (Mia & Mads Rudolf) celebrated their 10-year anniversary of importing David Léclapart to Denmark. An event like this required something to drink, so they had lined up not only 10 – but all 11 existing vintages of L’Apôtre; 1999 >>> 2009. The third anniversary was restaurant Noma’s, who opened in Nov-2003 and where some of us (including me) continued with a tailor made David Léclapart dinner. It should be mentioned that their was an event on the Sunday as well @ restaurant Kadeau, where I sadly couldn’t’ participate.

I still remember the first time I tasted 2002 “L’Apôtre”. It was a Friday in April 2008. At that time I was searching for another route in Champagne, which didn’t led to another blind alley of bling bling, gift boxes and tax-free luxury goods. I knew about Selosse and Vilmart and enjoyed both, but there had to be others making real WINE in Champagne.

2002 “L’Apôtre” blew me away and it was the first time I tasted such uncompromising soil intensity in a bottle of Champagne. However the greatest gift about “L’Apôtre” was the man behind it; David Léclapart, whom I had the pleasure of meeting for the first time in April 2009, when I stopped by his place in Trépail.

David Léclapart is one of the most humble winemakers I have ever met. He is addition such a kind, funny and inspirational human being and I have to confess, that my appreciation for his wines under heavy influence of his personality. That said, I am confident that David belongs among some of the “greatest”, but sometimes I wonder if David actually knows that? His easygoing and bohemian approach to life and the way he speaks about his work are never a detailed technical presentation. David speaks more about the bigger lines, such as nature’s influence and how he as a winemaker interacts with the given premises. He is truly unique, hard working with a clear vision of how he wants’ to make wine.  
I have of course some notes on the 11 bottles for you, but I have to say that I am becoming less eager about writing technical tasting notes. For sure – I am like a robot when I sit down in a quite room and sniff to wine. My pen instantly start to dance on the paper and I can write tasting notes in my sleep. But tasting a glass or two of L’Apôtre is not really what this Champagne is about. It requires a lot of air and the real conclusion (if at all any) would be more appropriate after a whole bottle. So – take my judgements with a pinch of salt.

L’Apôtre is always a lieu-dit made from the vineyard “La Pierre St-Martin”. The vines are pretty old – planted in 1946 by David’s grandfather and L’Apôtre is vinified in oak, whereas “L’Amateur” (his entry level Champagne) is vinified in steel and “L’Artiste” is half oak / half steel.

Before we started, several of us would have liked to be sort of calibrated with a simple glass of some other bubbly stuff. You felt it was 1,2,3 GO!! And then one of the greatest Champagne just landed in front of you.
 2009 “L’Apôtre”

David explained how ’09 reminded him a little of ’03. Yet the burning of the sun was more intense in ’03, yet the warmth in the two vintages was similar. ´09 is officially not released yet and you can feel how the vanilla of the oak is too brutal at the moment, but I would assume it would be more integrated when it’s released in 2015. ’09 is overall a brutal beast at this stage, yet the minerality is fascinating intense, but when you taste it at this young stage there is too much fireworks in front of the mouth.  Time will tell.

2008 “L’Apôtre”

’08 is a hyped vintage in Champagne and from what I have tasted from other producers I can understand why. Let’s cut to the chase; 2008 “L’Apôtre” is magic and it’s probably one of the most harmonic young Champagnes I have ever tasted. The fruit in this Champagne are beyond delicious – crystal clear and super ripe material with enormous electrical intensity. The acidity is mind blowing intense, making it already irresistible at this stage. The 2008 “L’Apôtre” are the finest ever released IMHO and if you decided to buy it when it’s released later this year I would suggest you try it right away before moves into a shy phase. Hunt it like demons my fellow friends.

2007 “L’Apôtre”

’07 was a challenge in Champagne and it shows. David saw parallels to ’01, which is indeed also a difficult vintage. After the magic ’08 the ’07 stands out even more awkward. The nose is quite shy and filled with herbal character and peppermint associations. The taste is a touch better as it’s delicate drink, yet missing a lot of bite.

2006 “L’Apôtre”

I have always liked ’06 vintage in Champagne. It has a certain trademark, fuelled from a really devilish intensity. Yet some cuvées needs time and that also goes for the ’06 “L’Apôtre”, which I now taste for the third time. You have to analyze this Champagne more on what it’s actually hiding, as it still feels like the ’06 are trapped in a small box, making its fruit flavours feel like a compact hand grenade. Despite the taste takes the same compact shape, it’s has this devilish intensity, strong bite and a very vibrant acidity to go with it. Give it 3-5 years more in the cellar.

2005 “L’Apôtre”

David told us that the ’05 and ’03 had the same Ph-level. A hot vintage, but no burn on the grapes like it happened in the rather freaky ’03 vintage.

The ’05 vintage has always troubled me. In all of David’s Champagnes, there have been an element of rotten potatoes, which is not a coincident, as a lot of producers have been dealing with rot in the ’05 vintage. Yet I have to say this is the finest version of ’05 “L’Apôtre”
 I have ever tasted. No rotten notes, yet a fraction herbal character with fennel and coffee beans. The taste is also good, despite a vintage like ’06 have far more bite. Overall a nice surprise.

2004 “L’Apôtre”

Every time you talk with someone about the ’04 “L’Apôtre”, you always talk about whether it was closed or not? The ’04 shined like a diamond when it was released, with the most insane fresh laser precision and soil intensity. But shortly after it closed down – or did it? I have tasted it many times before and I have to say it feels like it’s constantly bouncing between opened or closed. If conclude anything I would say it’s more closed than open right now. This was also the case at this vertical – but more pronounced on the nose, where it reveals an intense, but somewhat angular character. The taste is however divine- creamy and clinic purity with out of this world focus. It will hold many years – but be patient.

2003 “L’Apôtre”

I have always thought that David has managed to balance this freaky vintage. For sure the vintage will never be elegant and when you have just had a vintage like the ’04, which is sleek elegance, then the ’03 feels a little vulgar in comparison. But wine is also about finding the right occasion and this exotic, deep nutty and caramel breed is more about letting go and being seduced. I actually liked it and still think David has made a fantastic result.
(David - image from Terres et vins de Champagne 2013)

2002 “L’Apôtre”

Basically the ’02 have everything you look for in a great bottle of wine. Every component is harmonic and it stands out as a perfect Champagne with 110% balance. What you might find interesting (but not new to me) is that “L’Apôtre” will actually become rather classic “Champagne” with age, where the autolysis notes start to shape and all those secondary notes comes forward. The difference is however a far cleaner, crisp and real wine without any fuss or make-up. The 2002 are still young and will probably last 20-25 years more. Be happy if you own it.

2001 “L’Apôtre”

Very difficult vintage and David had to capitalize in ’01, which he is far from his philosophy.
Despite there is only one year between the ’02 and ’01, the latter feels 10 -15 years older in the glass. Pretty developed with a lot of nutty autolysis notes and again it feels like very classic aged Champagne. If I have had this alone I would have enjoyed it, but when you know how much soil bite “L’Apôtre” are capable of producing, you can’t help think of a rather amputated specimen.

2000 “L’Apôtre”

The two available bottles at the tasting was apparently very different. I think I got the “wrong” version as mine was rather blurry in the glass and the mousses were almost absent. I have however tasted the ’00 before, which I remember as seductive, buttery, exotic, pineapple creamy and like aged white Burgundy. But this one was impossible to judge as was pretty strange.

1999 “L’Apôtre”

The ’99 are really nice glass of Champagne. Again “classic” and despite it has the same oxidized character like the ’01 is has much more to offer. There is better intensity and the aged flavours have lots of nerve. The acidity is it’s only problem, so I would guess it has its peak now and +5-7 years from now.
(The first “L’Apôtre” - the 1999 and the old label)

So we continued at restaurant Noma, where I sat just beside David and had a dinner I will never forget. No camera, pen or paper – just pleasure, life, wine, food and good friends.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Alcohol – how low can you go?

One of the most fascinating things about wine is not only discovering how complex the subject are, but also how you interact with wine and how your taste evolves over time. One of the things I have discovered is how I relate to high and low alcohol wines. My personal taste has for a long time shifted towards wines with less alcohol. But my appreciation for lower % and wines with more finesse seems to be in line with a permanent shift in taste. Even Eric Asimov from The New York Times reports: “of a slight shift in taste in the United States, the proverbial pendulum swing, from heavy wines of power to lighter wines of greater finesse”.

It has always been tricky to navigate around the subject of alcohol level. The risk of just another trench warfare discussion about numbers has always been present. Such a debate will always try to set a threshold number what’s acceptable and take it from there. The discussion is in addition a one-way thread – focussing only on high numbers or have you ever heard anyone wanting more alcohol is their Moscato d’Asti or German Spätlese?

Picking wines from a %-level is like label checking a piece of clothes and not buying it because it wasn’t the right brand. Snobbery at worst – maybe even prejudices, dogmatic and sacred will often be the first reaction towards those who didn’t focus what was actually “inside”.

Mostly the discussion finds its compromise by concluding that the numbers in itself has little meaning, if the wine were in “balance”. 

But what does balance actually mean?

It means that high alcohol wines can work and you will see taster’s saying that no burning or heat was felt. So end of discussion – or? In my opinion the balance argument is flawed because it’s just another individual opinion and not a very complex parameter.

“The wine worked for you – but it didn’t work for me”.  

Temperature is also critical for high alcoholic wines and the overall drinking pleasure. I don’t know about you, but some years ago every wine concluding argument in my own backyard was always related to some pompous tasting event. The event was a race with points, notes, ridiculous amount of bottles and blue teeth. Nowadays I see a far more diverse landscape, where we have shifted from tasting wine at these tastings events, to drinking wine at home. This has changed the concept of “balance” for me. A good wine has to provide drinking pleasure – not matter what. The criteria for success are quite simple; the next sip just has to be better and better. Often such wines are characterized by you wish there was more left in the bottle when you have finished it.

So how did this start?

Well it all started quite innocent by falling in love with cool tempered wines. It was a desire for finesse and not power. Red Burgundy was one of the first discoveries for me, but financial wines I felt myself a bit distant from these expensive offerings. So I discovered German Spätlese, but despite providing great finesse I found it difficult to use these wines with everyday food. Next on my route was Champagne and today my greatest love affair. Champagne is a phenomenal drink. Incredible with food, great finesse and always ranged between 12% <> 13% alcohol. From there I have taken a big journey into natural wine. Natural wine have learned me a great deal about my perception of wine and really rocked my boat.  One of the many things I can take out of this journey, have been how low alcohol wines have proved to be a key element to drinking pleasure. It’s interesting to see how your taste buds starts to reform when you have so many low alcohol wines and I can’t help to compare it with how I saw the same pattern some 6-7 years ago when I started to drink Non dosage Champagne. When first addicted – some “Brut” Champagnes was suddenly appalling sweet. The same side affect has happened again, as I am now far more sensitive against high alcohol wines.

And I am not alone. Everyone of those I has shared wine with over the past 10-15 years are moving in the same direction.

So today – when I buy wines – yes admitted, I “label check”. What’s the alcohol level?  Above 14,5% and it’s 95% a no go. I can make a few exceptions when especially referring to a Barolo. They are often in this high end, but somehow they can balance at this point. But I need food with Barolo – I can’t just drink them alone…and it doesn’t really hurt when I think of a beautiful risotto and Barolo  

But overall I prefer wines in the range of 11% <> 13% and 90% of the wines I drink are in this range.

I think low alcohol wines are “the new black”. It will be more than a trend, because when you have first learned to appreciate the light weighted finesse of these wines, you want more and you will never ever go back to heavy dull and clumsy blockbuster wine. 

What do you think?