Home > Wine Features > Sod the Tannins, What About the Acidity?

Sod the Tannins, What About the Acidity?

I'm obviously a creature of Pavlovian habits; I do seem to be stimulated into writing these vinous monologues in response to some recent tasting experience, as with my previous diatribe on tannins and the 2003 vintage in France. There I opined that many red wines displayed troublesome tannins. With some wines, however, it's acidity that is the problem. It's quite easy to identify these wines; they have 2003 on the label, and they're blanc.

It all started on Friday. Wandering past an arrangement of pricy bottles, my gaze was drawn towards a distinctive and instantly recognisable yellow label...that of a Zind Humbrecht wine. That bottle wasn't here last time, I thought. This was no fine wine store, by the way, rather this was Costco. The trolley was piled high with the non-biodynamic items that my local supplier of fruit'n'veg, who is not just organic but a follower of Rudolf Steiner's philosophy, finds difficult to supply...such as tins of baked beans, soap powder, barbeque charcoal and so on. None of these things grow readily in the ground, and they do not respond to Preparations 500 and 501, so you won't find East Coast Organics peddling them. But I digress. What to do with this apparent bargain before my eyes, a pile of bottles of Riesling Heimbourg 2003 at a very competitive £8.99 per bottle, plus VAT? Buy six? Or a dozen? After all, they might sell out quickly.

I know....I'll buy one, and see what I think.

Thank heavens. For once, the right decision.

Now, lets get this straight; I like Zind Humbrecht wines. To be specific, I like the ones I have tasted or drank, which includes some mature bottles, as well as some from more recent vintages, particularly a few from 1998 and 1999 which I picked up in a Seckford's sale a few years ago. These wines are really coming into their own right now. But more recent vintages, 2000 onwards, I have no honest experience of. So Zind Humbrecht could be going to the dogs for all I know, but I doubt it. Olivier is a thoughtful, biodynamic (ahh, so Costco do sell at least one biodynamic product) winemaker, and whether or not you like the style, no-one with a truly honest and objective opinion could deny the attention to detail chez Humbrecht. And so, following an interesting weekend on call, I returned home to pop the cork on the latest of Olivier's wines to grace my palate.

What a confused little wine.

It's not intensely coloured, which is good. There are prominent mineral characteristics on the nose, which is also good. But the fruit profile is very strange; fat and herbal, with nuances of lychee and a sweet, tropical character. Tasted blind, I would never have spotted this as Riesling. But what does that matter, you might ask? It's a vintage made from very ripe fruit, and just as the left bank wines from Bordeaux showed more plum and damson fruit rather than the more typical blackcurrant, so this wine displays its heated origins. Fair point. Let's move onto the palate, which is where this mouthful really falls apart.

Here is a wine that remains truly detached from the palate. It is soft and flabby, with a tarty, soapy, perfumed, talcum powder character which provides no pleasure for me, whatsoever. There is no freshness here, no incisiveness, no precision. There is no balance. I am not against the Zind Humbrecht style, one rich in residual sugar, especially as there is now improved transparency achieved by labelling the wines with an in-house guide to sweetness. This wine, by the way, is Indice 1, as declared in minuscule text on the label; bring your spectacles if you have anything other than 20-20 vision. This probably means it is meant to be dry, whatever the Humbrecht definition of 'dry' is. But such wines must have acidity too, they must have balance, to achieve a savoury, refreshing character. This wine has neither acidity nor balance. Tasted over the course of two evenings, I found a selection of New World sparklers and Sauvignon Blanc sent as samples, of all things, to be infinitely preferable, thanks to their (most likely augmented) acidity. And I'm no fan of New World Sauvignon, believe me. But at least these were drinkable.

And so, a lesson reaffirmed. This is yet another French white from this vintage that I have found to be lacking. I would suggest that you avoid the 2003 vintage in France, and perhaps Europe as a whole, for white wines at least. Yes, this is a sweeping generalisation, criticise me for that as you will. There will always be exceptions, but I think it's a reasonable rule of thumb. If you simply have to give in to temptation, try before you buy where you can. You might just change your mind.

These duplicate notes of wines tasted over the last year are examples of some other data points (there are many other similar notes scattered across the site) for dry whites (the rule of thumb does not hold so well for sweet wines, I think):

Chateau Carbonnieux Blanc 2003: Attractive, rather floral nose, showing mineral character, with a little cordite and gunpowder minerality. But the palate disappoints; rather fat, lacking in acidity and freshness. That mineral character found on the nose is nowhere to be seen. One to avoid. 12/20

Domaine de Chevalier Blanc 2003: This has more interest than the Carbonnieux on the nose, with more obvious minerally fruit. But the palate is soft, unfocused and flabby. There is some grip to it, but the acidity, and the verve, is lacking. Another to avoid. 12.5/20

Jean-Pierre Grossot Chablis La Part des Anges 2003: Simple nose. Some chalky, mineral notes. Opens out to reveal a twist of honey. Round, lean although with a honey note, unfocused palate. No acidity. Soft, lacks balance. To be avoided. 12/20

Domaine de Vauroux Chablis Premier Cru Montmains 2003: Good character here. Rocky, mineral nose. Plump palate, soft, with low acidity, although with good mineral and rock typicity. A little peppery spice provides a little backbone, but lacks grip, acidity and balance. 12.5/20

There are plenty more like the four above, but there is little point in listing them all. Of course, there are exceptions, although the following notes certainly constitute a minority:

Domaine Cauhapé Jurançon Sec Chant des Vignes 2003: A beautifully fresh nose, quite expressive, with herbal and mineral, nettly, honey tinged notes. Crisp, precise palate with a superb texture and great finesse. Balanced, and in possession of a lovely vinosity. This is superb. 18/20

William Fèvre Chablis 2003: A good colour for a basic Chablis. On the nose it offers up aromas of ripe pear and white nectarine, with elderflower and vanilla pod nuances. A nice, ripe, flavoursome palate, quite full and fresh, although acidity is on the low side. Notes of quinine and stone here. It displays the ripeness of the vintage with a toffee twist on the finish. Very enjoyable. 16/20 Label

JJ Prüm Graacher Himmelreich Riesling Spätlese (Mosel) 2003: An explosive nose; elegant chalk and mineral aromas. Beautifully textured palate, with a superb flower, dew-laden, mineral and slate panoply of flavour. Weighty and rich, but with superb precision. Fine acidity. Excellent, with potential for 10-15 years of development in the cellar. 18+/20

I'm happy that my cellar is devoid of the above wines; I have nothing, save for a few from the Loire (there were some great wines from this northerly region) and one or two bottles of Chablis Premier Cru purchased in a moment of poor awareness, when Petit rather than Premier may have been a better buy. I've tasted it, and I think you can guess the likely result. (26/4/06)