What's In Your Tech Sheet?

Like many wine lovers, I have at least some interest in the details of how a wine is made. I don't however, have the time to research the small details of every wine that I drink.

Much of what I learn comes from the wine's tech sheet. It's usually available in some form from the winery website. Sometimes as a separate PDF file, and other times as listed on the main description page. I'm interested in any information that the winemaker is willing to share on the tech sheet, but at a minimum I like to know a few things. Site specific information; time in oak with percentage new; native or inoculated yeast, brix level at harvest, general fermentation information, viticultural info, and clones used (on high end wines) are a few things that are useful for me when listed in tech sheets.

There are other items that would be interesting to know about, but aren't going to appear on a tech sheet anytime soon. Things such as acidification, watering down or other alcohol lowering techniques, added enzymes, etc are certainly of interest. However you're probably going to have to do some serious reading to get this information. Recently I've found some pretty candid information from winemakers in books like New Classic Winemakers of California and North American Pinot Noir.

What kind of information is an interested consumer owed in the form of a wine tech sheet? I'm sensitive to the different angles that this question addresses. As a wine lover, I want to know and understand wine more fully. The decisions made in the winegrowing and winemaking process, and the different means and philosophies behind those decisions, are endlessly fascinating. I try to keep an open mind in any of the possible directions. It's the same kind of interest in reading album liner notes where the musicians give you information about the recording process, the different equipment that was used, and the players on the album.

On the other hand, I understand that much of this information is seen as proprietary, to be doled out at the discretion of the vintner. The information that can be withheld is not of a concern to the immediate health of the consumer, so maybe it is up to the interested consumer to search out what they're interested in on their own. We're free to make buying decisions based on the information given or not given. As in music, there are plenty of great albums that share very little information in the liner notes.

With all this in mind, I've linked five tech sheets below. These are wines that I've written about over the last year. I'm listing the information beside each that is given; click the link for the wines. As you'll see, it's an interesting variation. There's definitely no standard format or level of information.

Tech Sheet 1 (domestic)- total production, release date, site specific information, soils, clones, fermentation details, time in oak with percentage new, harvest yield, alcohol by volume.

Tech Sheet 2- (imported)- grape varietals, alcohol by volume, acid level, pH level, sugar level, harvest dates, type and temperature of fermentation, fermentation techniques, type of oak, time of oak w/percentage new.

Tech Sheet 3- (imported)- alcohol by volume, basic aging information, winemaker name, very basic harvest and fermentation info, grape varietals.

Tech Sheet 4- (domestic)- winemaker name, vineyard name, time/type/percentage new oak aging, growing season/harvest overview, harvest period, brix at harvest, alcohol by volume, total acidity, pH level, grape varietals.

Tech Sheet 5- (domestic)- vineyard/harvest overview, time of harvest, brix at harvest, detailed fermentation information, use of inoculated yeast, time in oak w/percentage new/1yr/neutral, percent estate vineyard, grape variety, clones, alcohol by volume, total acidity, pH level, residual sugar, winemaker name.

How important is the technical information to you, and how much should be offered to you vs you seeking it out?

The High Museum Trade Tasting

Today was the first day of the High Museum Atlanta Wine Auction, the 4th largest wine auction of its kind in the US. Proceeds from the auction benefit the High Museum. Kicking everything off was the Thursday afternoon tasting for those in the trade... With a connection to the wine business in Atlanta, a $15 donation got you an afternoon of tasting and a nice Riedel glass. Proceeds from the tasting go to assist Metro Atlanta Public Schools' access to the arts.

Between the crowds and the sheer number of wines that I was trying to taste, I decided to forgo writing any tasting notes. However I did have a few favorites- Au Bon Climat, Brewer-Clifton, Melville, Peay, Russian Hill, and Van Duzer (the 2007 making up for the 2006!) topped my list in Pinot Noirs... I was stoked to try the new 2008 Melville small lot Pinots- Terraces and Carrie's. Peay was new for me as well- loved their Sonoma Coast trio of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, and Syrah- all from the 2008 vintage. They had great balance along with vibrant fruit. Their Syrah was awesome, balancing the full gamey and spicy fruit with cool climate finesse. Speaking of Syrah, K Vintners and their 2007 Walla Walla Valley Morrison Syrah was pretty special... full on waves of black fruit, savory spice, and earth- fully balanced with precision. I guess this is one of the entry level Syrahs from K and Charles Smith... pretty heady.

I tasted a fair amount of big Napa Cab's and Merlots from the 2005 - 2007 vintages, most of them needing time to mellow out and settle in. Caymus, Kathryn Hall, Pahlmeyer, and Pride all were pretty dark, loud, and brooding wines- intense on the palate with all the components fighting for airtime. I'd need to sit down with these and either give them time, or a lot of air to get a fair assessment. A few of the Cabs that were already showing nice refinement were the 2005 Grgich Hills (awesome 2007 Chardonnay as well), the 2006 Ramey Claret and Napa Cab, and both of Silver Oak's 2005 Cabs.

The biggest disappointments were probably Kosta Brown's 2008 Sonoma Coast and Russian River Pinot Noirs- good wines but didn't impress me as much as the Pinots mentioned earlier; some of the aggressive Cabs listed above (like I said, they need more time with me or I need more time with them...), and some high alcohol mashers from Martinelli- a Russian River Chardonnay and Pinot Noir that were both north of 15%, along with a Zin that came in at nearly 17%! Too much body and sweet gnarly fruit, they were like drinking fruit splinters and cotton candy.

There weren't too many imports, a few Australian and Chilean wines that I didn't get to. Maisons Marques and Domaines were pouring some of their portfolio- a beautiful Domaines Ott Rosé from Provence and a 2006 Pio Cesare Barolo. Very nice indeed.

So there you have it, a layman's view of the High Museum Atlanta Wine Auction trade tasting all from memory, shoddy note-taking, and wine-stained brochures. Here's to next year!

Corkd.com Tasting Notes at Retail

If you write wine reviews on corkd.com, you might start seeing your reviews on a wine display at a store near you. I'm working Augusta, GA this week, and saw accolades on wines for sale at the White Horse Beer & Ale store attributing ratings and tasting notes to corkd.com. Big Vine Napa Cabernet Sauvignon was allegedly rated a 94 on corkd (I couldn't find it on the site), and Red Hawk Winery Cabernet Sauvignon was rated a 92. The Red Hawk review and score came from the user "winewriter", the actual average score was 91. The wholesaler in GA for these wines is LaFayette Distributors. They obviously are scouring the web far and wide for ratings to help sell their wines....

I've read others in the blogosphere speculating as to how long it might be before we start to see wine accolades quoting blogs. This is an interesting development in that regard. As someone who blogs about wine on corkd.com and on this site, I'm not sure that my tasting notes would belong on a retail shelf when compared to a professional wine writer/taster, but it's an interesting development nonetheless.

Too Much Information?

Matt Kramer's "Manifesto 2010" column in the new Wine Spectator (March 31, 2010) hits on the theme of transparency in winemaking. Among all the talk about high alcohol levels; interventionist vs. natural winemaking; biodynamic farming; and the myriad of other topics surrounding the making of wine- I agree with Mr. Kramer that transparency is the centerpiece in the discussion.

At the same time, I'm not sure how much unsolicited information is owed by vintners about their winemaking techniques and philosophies. Accurate alcohol by volume seems like a no-brainer to me, but the 1% (on wines less than 14%) and 1.5% (on wines greater than 14%) leeway that US law allows on label is such a large range that you have to take the information with a grain of salt. You'd think this would be the most basic information that you could rely upon regarding the wine.

Outside of that, how much information is owed to the consumer? I've seen tech sheets detailing rootstock, clones, soil, yeasts, percentage of new oak, type of oak, size of barrel, farming methods, and everything in between. On the other side of the coin, I've seen only the most basic technical information given. I was looking on the website for Chateau La Tour Carnet the other evening and it couldn't tell me the percentage of new oak that was used in aging.

Is it more interesting to speculate whether a wine was watered back, or aged in what percentage of new oak, or fermented with natural yeast... or more interesting to know all this information going in? I like to get my own impressions and then see how they might be correct or mistaken. I'm not sure that any of the detailed technical information is owed to me- part of the onus is on me to find it out if I have an interest. I'm not sure what to read into the less detailed tech sheets and websites... as long is doesn't potentially affect the health of the consumer (i.e. alcohol, sulfites), then to me its proprietary information. If the winery thinks putting it out there is useful then I guess they do it. Maybe they just think if you or me is interested enough we'll find a way to get the information... maybe we ask the question in the tasting room or email the winery.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate full disclosure when it is offered- both positive and negative. I guess its easy to disclose that you farm biodynamically, or ferment with natural yeast, or don't filter or fine on your tech sheets if you think this is appealing to your target customers. What's impressive to me, as Matt Kramer mentioned in the column, is the concept of disclosing a potentially unfashionable detail about your wine. In New Classic Winemakers of California, Bill Wathen of Foxen mentions that some wines have to be watered back- but not something they like to do. I overheard Steve Beckmen of Beckmen Vineyards saying in their tasting room last year that the 2007 vintage didn't need to by acidified... I don't doubt the integrity of Foxen or Beckmen for these reasons. I'm sure there are plenty who avoid talking about that stuff, but in avoidance maybe the opportunity is missed for a meaningful discussion with perspective about hot-button winemaking issues.

It would be great to see a more open discussion, but I'm still unsure that I am owed any more from a winemaker than I would be from a musician, or an artist. Maybe the methods are essential to the final result, maybe the ends always justify the means. It's in the eye of the beholder I guess- from the winemaker to the consumer.