Page 1 of 2

Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:10 pm
by Joe Guy
Ain't wine great?

From the bung hole of a barrel to a decanter and then ultimately sloshed down your gullet, wine is an art, an experience and a multi-billion dollar industry.

But..... if wine didn't have alcohol in it, would it be as popular as it is now? (I know - it wouldn't be wine without alcohol but you know what I mean)

Would groups of people sit around describing the nuances of grape juice produced in Napa Valley in 1974? Would bottles of grape juice sell for thousands of dollars for a certain vintage year?

Would you have ever tried wine if you knew it wouldn't give you that tipsy tingly feeling that only alcohol can do?

I doubt it.

So what is it? The flavor or the effects of alcohol?

What came first?

Wine connoisseurs are really just snobby drunks.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:39 pm
by Gob
Taking it a step further, remember the old joke about whisky, the punchline being; "You think I drink this for fun"?

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:48 pm
by Scooter
The flavour of wine, the ability to store it long-term, and to have it improve with age, can only be achieved through fermentation, which makes wine alcoholic. So your question can only be answered in the hypothetical - if it were possible to create something that had all the characteristics of wine (minus the intoxication) without the alcohol, would you drink it?

In my case, absolutely yes.

I grew up around wine. I learned how to make my own wine from my father, who learned it from his, and so on back to the Romans or even further, I suppose. I am no wine connaisseur, I take great satisfaction in drinking my own wine when it turns out particularly good, and I also enjoy a variety of commercial wines from all over the world. But I never drink more than a glass or two at a time, precisely because I do not want to get drunk, and then only two or three times a week. Were it not for the alcohol, I would happily drink three or four or even more glasses of a wine whose taste I enjoyed, with every meal that might call for it, and in between as well.

But then, I'm not otherwise much of a drinker. It's only about once a month, if that, that I drink anything containing hard liquor, and I can't remember the last time I had a beer. So I'm probably far from typical.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:20 pm
by rubato
I know how we can tell. Put alcohol in cheese and see if sales go up!


Yrs,
Rubato

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:37 pm
by Joe Guy
Scooter wrote:The flavour of wine, the ability to store it long-term, and to have it improve with age, can only be achieved through fermentation, which makes wine alcoholic. So your question can only be answered in the hypothetical....
My question and opinion has to do with the reason for drinking wine in the first place and its popularity. I believe the overwhelming majority first drink it because of the alcohol's effect and the initial flavor is thought of as what they can tolerate.

Becoming a wine snob is based on an acquired taste.

That's what I think but others may have what they believe to be a better explanation...

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:48 pm
by Scooter
I started drinking wine in early adolescence, under my parents' supervision. Clearly I had no notion of the effects of alcohol when I began drinking it, nor were my parents interested in getting me drunk. I would venture to say that there are hundreds of millions of people whose origins are in winemaking regions of the world who have shared the same experience that I did.

If I didn't like the taste, I would not have wanted to continue drinking it, nor would my parents have forced me to "acquire" a taste for it. If enjoying the taste of wine makes me a "wine snob" then so be it.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:10 pm
by Joe Guy
I was given wine as a child also but never liked the flavor. When I got older I found that I could drink some wine and I liked the feeling it gave me. I went on to discover more expensive complex and better tasting (relatively) wine.

I wouldn't have continued drinking it if it didn't give me that warm fuzzy tingling buzz.

That either means that I'm either like most people when they started drinking wine or I'm a full blown alcoholic.

I happen to believe that I'm like the majority of wine drinkers* but I have no evidence to support my opinion.

*I no longer drink wine

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:20 pm
by Big RR
I started drinking wine with the family as a child, beginning with the sweeter wines (generously cut with water) and then moving on to the drier, more complex wines as my tastes changed. The buzz, to the extent it existed at all, was secondary--it still is. I drink wine generally because I like the taste (the same with good scotch and brandy); I won't guzzle it for the buzz. Certain cocktails and punches, yes--I agree the buzz is an essential part. But some things I drink to savor and enjoy (rarely drinking enough to even notice a buzz).

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:08 pm
by Rick
Boone's Farm

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:34 am
by Scooter
Joe Guy wrote:I wouldn't have continued drinking it if it didn't give me that warm fuzzy tingling buzz.

That either means that I'm either like most people when they started drinking wine or I'm a full blown alcoholic.
I suspect that the reality is somewhere in between those two extremes.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:11 am
by Gob
Bit of both for me.

I suppose that even for those who start off drinking for the buzz a "taste" develops. I love Whisky, darker beers, and red wines. I will drink vodka with fruit / V8 juice, I'll drink white wine if recommended by a sommelier, but not of choice. I'll drink cider (pear or apple) when hot. I cannot stand lagers, find bourbon repulsive, gin sets my teeth on edge, Pernod gives me the dry heaves.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:55 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
What is this thing called "taste"?
Alcoholic drinks have one purpose in life, to get people drunk.
They add flavor to alcohol because some mamsy pansies need the liguid to taste good so they would drink it. It's all a marketing scheme.
Grain alcohol neat is the best.

At least that's how this alcoholic sees it.

But to be realistic, I did like bourbon and ales. I see some variations that the JD and others have come out with that I might have enjoyed if I were a normal person. But the mental obsession took over. Then it was any kind of alcohol, the cheapest and strongest I could get my hands on.

Carry on, sorry for the sidetrack.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:06 pm
by Guinevere
I disagree with both Joe and oldr. My experience has been much like BigRR. I love a good glass of wine -- the taste, mostly. I like the ritual of opening and pouring my glass. And sitting down and enjoying it. Sometimes, I like the buzz/relaxation factor. I don't really like getting drunk -- way too much loss of control.

As for snobbery, that's nothing but pure judgment and, for the vast majority of wine drinkers I think its just plain wrong.

I also enjoy a good cocktail, too. Generally, when it comes to drinking, the flavors and tastes and endless combinations are fascinating to me. I don't like vodka at all, probably because it has no taste. Give me tequila, gin, scotch, bourbon, and especially a good red wine, something with soul and depth, and I'm a happy girl.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:13 pm
by Crackpot
Vodka tastes like potatoes

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:49 pm
by Joe Guy
I wonder how many people said when they had their first taste of tequila, gin, scotch, bourbon etc, "Mmmmmm.... nice flavor! Why would anybody want to mix this with other ingredients? It would hide the flavor!"

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:15 pm
by Econoline
Gob wrote:I cannot stand lagers
Even though it's technically a variety of lager, I'd like to recommend you try a doppelbock, if you never have. Most (but not all) doppelbocks are rather dark, and if you like darker beers I'm pretty sure you'd enjoy any good doppelbock.

I don't particularly enjoy any sort of hard liquor, and I don't know anything about wine but the ones I've enjoyed the most have generally been reds. I'm mostly a (good microbrewery) beer guy...my limit is one 12-ounce bottle (very, very occasionally two), three or four nights a week.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:57 pm
by Scooter
Joe Guy wrote:I wonder how many people said when they had their first taste of tequila, gin, scotch, bourbon etc, "Mmmmmm.... nice flavor! Why would anybody want to mix this with other ingredients? It would hide the flavor!"
I was not one, which is why I drink hard liquor rarely and then only in mixed drinks. But I know many people who enjoy drinking fine scotch, brandy, cognac, etc. straight up for that very reason. If they are really drinking to get buzzed, as you claim, why wouldn't they save their money and buy some cheap rotgut that they could drink four or five times as much of for the same price? I can't say I've seen anyone ever doing shots with a $100 or more bottle of spirits; that sort of behaviour is associated with cheap booze.

But it is a complete moving of the goalposts to attempt to shift the discussion to hard liquor and pretend that whatever is said would necessarily be applicable to wine.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:10 pm
by Guinevere
Joe Guy wrote:I wonder how many people said when they had their first taste of tequila, gin, scotch, bourbon etc, "Mmmmmm.... nice flavor! Why would anybody want to mix this with other ingredients? It would hide the flavor!"
And yet, many flavor combinations do enhance the flavors of each individual component.

Applies to wine too. As in, my personal favorite, cotes du rhone, which is a blend of several different grapes that varies by subregion and winemaker (with some standard requirements).

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:54 pm
by Joe Guy
Scooter wrote:....But I know many people who enjoy drinking fine scotch, brandy, cognac, etc. straight up for that very reason. If they are really drinking to get buzzed, as you claim, why wouldn't they save their money and buy some cheap rotgut that they could drink four or five times as much of for the same price?....
Some people do buy rotgut for exactly that reason.

However, you seem to have forgotten that I'm talking about people drinking alcohol for the first time. Are you saying that you believe that all or most people who drink 'fine scotch' started with fine scotch and kept drinking it for the flavor? And getting high had nothing to do with their reason for drinking it?
Scooter wrote:But it is a complete moving of the goalposts to attempt to shift the discussion to hard liquor and pretend that whatever is said would necessarily be applicable to wine.
There is no conspiracy to move goal posts. In my opinion, the reason for drinking alcohol of any kind for the first time is to get high in most cases. Even people like me who had wine given to me by parents and grandparents and reluctantly drank it. The first time I had it with friends and without my parents around was to get high.

As I matured I learned to buy and sip at alcohol that didn't taste like kerosene but the feeling those drinks gave me was an important part of the experience. Without the alcohol it wouldn't have appealed to me.

Am I the rare one?

I don't think so.

Re: Wine Not?

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:29 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Some people do buy rotgut for exactly that reason.
You're talking about me again aren't you. :mrgreen:

I did liked the taste the first time I drank beer, and the first time I drank bourbon. Vodka and gin, not so much. But I LOVED the buzz more than anything.