Name that wine flaw

Opened a 2006 Konrad SB from Marlborough tonight. Very, very (very) veggy, to the exclusion of anything else. Also, very disappointing.

At odds with two local wine critics who liked it and spoke of lemon and tropical fruit. So, my question is, what is the wine flaw that makes a wine taste like you are licking out the vegetable drawer in the fridge?

Opened a 2006 Konrad SB from Marlborough tonight. Very, very (very) veggy, to the exclusion of anything else. Also, very disappointing.

At odds with two local wine critics who liked it and spoke of lemon and tropical fruit. So, my question is, what is the wine flaw that makes a wine taste like you are licking out the vegetable drawer in the fridge?

My vegetable drawer is relatively flavor neutral, but that's because I don't keep any vegetables in it ... just batteries and witch hazel.

Are you suggesting a herbaceousness to the point of asparagus?

Remember, it's a flaw only if you don't like it.

But you're probably referring to pyrazines that are naturally occuring in the variety, and further exacerbated by both cold climate and early harvesting, as well as (possibly) younger and less mature vineyards.

What you described is well within the stylistic realm of a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc.

You might look at less extreme NZ producers (if you can figure out who those are) or to slightly warmer areas for SBs more to your liking. Chile, California, and Washington state come to mind, but there's always France (Bordeaux, Loire, and Burgundy).

Opened a 2006 Konrad SB from Marlborough tonight. Very, very (very) veggy, to the exclusion of anything else. Also, very disappointing.

At odds with two local wine critics who liked it and spoke of lemon and tropical fruit. So, my question is, what is the wine flaw that makes a wine taste like you are licking out the vegetable drawer in the fridge?

My vegetable drawer is relatively flavor neutral, but that's because I don't keep any vegetables in it ... just batteries and witch hazel.

Are you suggesting a herbaceousness to the point of asparagus?

Well, I didn't get asparagus, but yes, very strong herbaceousness.

You might look at less extreme NZ producers (if you can figure out who those are) or to slightly warmer areas for SBs more to your liking. Chile, California, and Washington state come to mind, but there's always France (Bordeaux, Loire, and Burgundy).

Have had many SB from Marlborough that I have liked and have had, a few, of these very veggy ones (which I haven't enjoyed), so tonight I just figured it was the Konrad house style. However, the two local critics I read didn't mention anything about vegginess, so I thought this might be an off bottle.

Here check this out;
http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom/taste3.htm

Salute

Remember, it's a flaw only if you don't like it.

Ah, now I understand what my ex-wives meant. Glad to see you are still metabolizing.

Bruce,

I usually associate the overt vegetal characters in Sauvignon Blanc with the presence of excessive methoxypyrazines, although I can't remember ever licking the bottom of the fridge veggie drawer!

I've included a link below that might shed some light on pyrazines and their effect on Cabernets and Sauvignons.

http://www.practicalwinery.com/marapr06p13.htm

With more thinking (especially about how two reports found the wine diametric), your bottle could have suffered some form of bacterial spoilage that has rendered this particular bottle cactus.

david lole is correct. you are sensitive to that chemical - which is typical of the sauvignon group. it IS a flaw but like brett, and ML, and film yeast, some people love it.

david lole is correct. you are sensitive to that chemical - which is typical of the sauvignon group. it IS a flaw but like brett, and ML, and film yeast, some people love it.

Can we circle around this one again? How is it a flaw if some people love it?

I've said my piece on the "flaw" thing in a not so long ago thread. What's your piece, David?

david lole is correct. you are sensitive to that chemical - which is typical of the sauvignon group. it IS a flaw but like brett, and ML, and film yeast, some people love it.

It's not a flaw. I can't think how one would define a very pronounced varietal character as a flaw, and strong herbaceousness is clearly within SB's varietal character.

Not just strong herbaceousness, but total, with no fruit showing through. I consider that to be a flaw

Well, I didn't get asparagus, but yes, very strong herbaceousness.

Herbaceuous? Typical SB! Though I would expect it more on Sancerre than NZ.

Well, I didn't get asparagus, but yes, very strong herbaceousness.

Herbaceuous? Typical SB! Though I would expect it more on Sancerre than NZ.

I've never experienced it worse in Sancerre than in NZ.

Well, I didn't get asparagus, but yes, very strong herbaceousness.

Herbaceuous? Typical SB! Though I would expect it more on Sancerre than NZ.

I've never experienced it worse in Sancerre than in NZ.

I'm surprised. And I wouldn't use the word worse

Herbaceuous? Typical SB! Though I would expect it more on Sancerre than NZ.

I've never experienced it worse in Sancerre than in NZ.
I'm surprised. And I wouldn't use the word worse

Well, it's "worse" if you don't like it in your wine. I like my asparagus long, thin, crisp, and with some lemon butter

Having said that, I'll admit that in the dead of winter, when fresh, local asparagus is not available, a Marlbourough might do!

Veggies?

In the good old days we'd be talking Monterey area. I recall a botrycised late harvest sauv blanc (I forget who perpetrated it - this would have been late 70s) that smelled like candied Brussels sprouts....

I've had some pretty good Nobilo Sauvignon Blanc this summer but I recall one a couple years ago that tasted almost exactly like asparagus. I'm with Thomas in that I like asparagus as the real thing (just bought some thin stalks yesterday) but not in wine. (And I prefer blueberries in muffins or pie and not in Pinot Noir) I don't mind some "grassiness" or "lemongrass" in S.B. but when it gets to the point of asparagus--nope. I also like the tropical fruit type of Sauvignon Blanc which I rarely encounter. One Blind River Sauvignon Blanc delivered in that style, although descriptions I find on the Internet speak more of gooseberry and grapefruit and minerals and grass with one reference to passionfruit. i also see that the Blind River S.B. (New Zealand) is fermented 10% in old French barrels. I didn't notice any oak in the wine I tasted so it was probably pretty neutralized.

methoxypyrazine is nearly unique to under ripe sauvignon wines and their relatives. it was only in the 80's that researchers found that it could be eliminated by getting direct sunlight on the grape clusters. so the cure was to pull leaves from that area of the vine a week or so before harvest. in very cool climates like NZ this flavor is even more typical. instead of curing the problem therefore it may be a better strategy to make a virtue of necessity - and this has been done with remarkable success in NZ.

i think the best way to tell that methoxypyrazines are a flaw is to see the number of journal articles, classroom sessions, sessions at grower meetings, etc. devoted to showing how to reduce or eliminate them in grapes. they have been virutally eliminated in the loire even in cab franc. formerly, nearly everyone in the area drank red wines that were reminscent of NZ sauvignon blanc. you can get accostomed to nearly anything and it will even seem normal and natural.

if some people liking or not minding something keeps it from being a flaw, then there are NO flaws. no meetings or articles or class sessions on how to elimate anything. its all a matter of opinion and every wine is as good as every other since someone willl surely like and even buy it. so, don't try to 'improve' your winemaking unless YOU don't like it. i don't regard this as reasonable.

personally i don't mind a little vinegar in my wine. but when i discuss those wines i know perfectly well that it is a flaw.

methoxypyrazine is nearly unique to under ripe sauvignon wines and their relatives. it was only in the 80's that researchers found that it could be eliminated by getting direct sunlight on the grape clusters. so the cure was to pull leaves from that area of the vine a week or so before harvest. in very cool climates like NZ this flavor is even more typical. instead of curing the problem therefore it may be a better strategy to make a virtue of necessity - and this has been done with remarkable success in NZ.

i think the best way to tell that methoxypyrazines are a flaw is to see the number of journal articles, classroom sessions, sessions at grower meetings, etc. devoted to showing how to reduce or eliminate them in grapes. they have been virutally eliminated in the loire even in cab franc. formerly, nearly everyone in the area drank red wines that were reminscent of NZ sauvignon blanc. you can get accostomed to nearly anything and it will even seem normal and natural.

if some people liking or not minding something keeps it from being a flaw, then there are NO flaws. no meetings or articles or class sessions on how to elimate anything. its all a matter of opinion and every wine is as good as every other since someone willl surely like and even buy it. so, don't try to 'improve' your winemaking unless YOU don't like it. i don't regard this as reasonable.

personally i don't mind a little vinegar in my wine. but when i discuss those wines i know perfectly well that it is a flaw.

David,

For the record, I have made similar claims online when it comes to wine flaws. Essentially, what you (and I) are saying is that once identified and agreed to, there are standards in the wine industry that can be measured and can establish what are and what aren't technical flaws.

This argument, however, seems to fall flat with wine geekdom, which is of course a completely subjective endeavor. Therefore, as a wine technician, I keep the identified flaws in mind when evaluating and judging wine.

To geeks, I now respond that a wine is flawed when it turns out not to be what the winemaker intended it to be. That often covers high v.a., Brett, reduction, etc., etc. which most winemakers don't set out to produce, whether or not the consumer likes the results.

To geeks, I now respond that a wine is flawed when it turns out not to be what the winemaker intended it to be. That often covers high v.a., Brett, reduction, etc., etc. which most winemakers don't set out to produce, whether or not the consumer likes the results.

That would mean that many vintages of Beaucastel are flawed (by that definition) as the winemaker says they do NOT intentionally allow any Bret (and the flash heating they do to the must would tend to confirm that). Another example would be a Jekel Pinot Blanc I had many years ago. It was finished off dry by several degrees and I asked him what his intention had been as it was interesting but not typical of then current California winemaking practice. He told me that the fermentation had hung and he couldn't get it going again, so it was either off to the vinegar works or bottle it as a soft PB. FWIW they also do this sometimes in white Burgundies, but I don't know if it is intentional or like Jekel's case, the luck of the draw.

In a sense every winemaker is embraking on an oenological crap shoot when he commences fermentation and while he will have a range of possible outcomes in mind (usually a fairly narrow range) nature, and his craft don't always co-operate. I am not strongly disagreeing with you but it does seem to me to be a tad harsh to automatically label end results outside the narrow central portion of the expectation envelope as 'flawed' necessarily.

Maybe I'm just being over sympathetic to winemakers.

To geeks, I now respond that a wine is flawed when it turns out not to be what the winemaker intended it to be. That often covers high v.a., Brett, reduction, etc., etc. which most winemakers don't set out to produce, whether or not the consumer likes the results.

That would mean that many vintages of Beaucastel are flawed (by that definition) as the winemaker says they do NOT intentionally allow any Bret (and the flash heating they do to the must would tend to confirm that). Another example would be a Jekel Pinot Blanc I had many years ago. It was finished off dry by several degrees and I asked him what his intention had been as it was interesting but not typical of then current California winemaking practice. He told me that the fermentation had hung and he couldn't get it going again, so it was either off to the vinegar works or bottle it as a soft PB. FWIW they also do this sometimes in white Burgundies, but I don't know if it is intentional or like Jekel's case, the luck of the draw.

In a sense every winemaker is embraking on an oenological crap shoot when he commences fermentation and while he will have a range of possible outcomes in mind (usually a fairly narrow range) nature, and his craft don't always co-operate. I am not strongly disagreeing with you but it does seem to me to be a tad harsh to automatically label end results outside the narrow central portion of the expectation envelope as 'flawed' necessarily.

Maybe I'm just being over sympathetic to winemakers.

No Bill, you aren't being overly sympathetic to winemakers. In the two cases you cite, the winemakers admitted that what they produced was not what they intended--even they would consider it a flaw. Of course, they have to bow to the consumer, and if the wine is accepted as is, then...

Let me ask you, if wine geeks almost universally discount the concept that wine can and does have technical standards by which it needs to be held accountable, and that technical flaws are indeed identifiable by trained technicians, whether or not the consumer still drinks and likes the wine, and if it is equally unacceptable that a lesser concept such as wine is flawed when it turns out not to be what the winemaker intended, how then does anyone identify when a wine is flawed?

If wine flaws are identified strictly on the basis of the personal and individual determination of each and every wine consumer (or each and every winemaker, for that matter), what is the point of having any winemaking standards?

Just harvest, ferment, and let it rip--someone is bound to like it

Not just strong herbaceousness, but total, with no fruit showing through. I consider that to be a flaw

It sounds like you're equating not liking something to a flaw. Surely the word 'flaw' means 'most informed commentators would agree this quality shouldn't be in this wine', and most informed commentators would include strong herbaceousness in the range of characteristics of the variety. You may not like it, but it's within the normal range for this variety.

In fact I would say that this highly distinctive regional expression of SB varietal character is what put NZ SB on the map (South Africa, too, to the extent that producers have been said to add gooseberry extract to their wines).

If wine flaws are identified strictly on the basis of the personal and individual determination of each and every wine consumer (or each and every winemaker, for that matter), what is the point of having any winemaking standards?
Just harvest, ferment, and let it rip--someone is bound to like it

That's an interesting philosophical question Thomas. I think that such a non-system might just be workable!

Look at food preparation. We don't have absolute standards for preparing, say, a Caesar salad, or the perfect omelette, chefs take their shot (which can of course vary each time just as the raw materials and the process varies a bit with winemaking) and there is an end result. That end result is judged by the diner - they like it, they don't like it, they like it a whole bunch - and no one says there should be absolute rules by which you can define success and failure.

The presence of X g/l of acidity in a is not considered to be acceptable but X+1 is not when you are making a sauce, why should it be in a wine? I've certainly tasted wines where a hint of VA or Bret made the wine more interesting (to me, at least) and so wouldn't class whatever level of those substances were present as a flaw. Those levels will be very subjective and some people will abhor ANY Bret while others may prefer it.

It would seem to me that whether or not a wine turns out exactly the way a winemaker had hoped it would in the beginning, as long as it pleases people, you have a wholly subjective assessment of whether or now he 'did good', and I'm not sure how calling it 'flawed' nonetheless is meaningful.

Is this a consensus based quality determination? Of course - and if the end product doesn't appeal to enough consumers that buy it, the winery, despite the perhaps high ideals of the winemaker, will fail economically.

What you are saying is that, in effect, the buying public doesn't know it's arse from a hole in the ground about wine (an opinion with which I have some sympathy) and their opinions are irrelevant to what some absolute standards of winemaking perfromance should be. I can see both sides of this discussion without feeling strongly persuaded in either direction.