The Judges' Newsletter
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE JUDGES' NEWSLETTER NATIONAL GUILD OF WINE AND BEER JUDGES Confidential to Members No. 3 1990 Rcycroft, De v o n sends his cvr. views cr. the attributes cf — at.c Gooseberry ir. respcr.se to ar. article which appeared first 1990 issue of this Guild Newsletter - read on. Ed. * > GOOSEBERRY FOOL I was intrigued by the list of aromas (not bouq-uets!) and/or flavours attributed to gooseberry wines - foot of page 18 JNL1/9G AMYL ACETATE and AMYL ACETONE - and PEARDROPS were probably mistaken fcr ETHYL ACETATE as they have some affinity, though they are distinct to anyone who really knows them. ETHYL ACETATE is an essential part of the 'fruity' nose of wine but in some youngish gooseberry wine the ethyl acetate can be individually stronger than normal. The wines are better aged. Ignoring ar overdose, noticeable, sulphite in a finished wine could be the result of high acidity. NAPTHALENE, SCOT £ SMOKE I have never encountered in my 3 5years of making gooseberry wines!. However, during my early years of winemaking I did get a flavour that was not mentioned in the JNL article. This was a flavour, confirmed by other Judges and which I called "Gooseberry Mouse", after my experience of the common 'bacterial mouse' of poor wines NOI, GOOSEBERRY MOUSE is definitely NOT "Bacterial Mouse" - to which I am allergic. Gooseberry Mouse is-softer, not pervading and does r.ot stay or. the palate as an aftertaste though there is, in my opinion, some similarity in the first taste. Evidence against it being "Bacterial Mouse" is that long before I made wine I had noticed this flavour in cooked gooseberry pies etc. After I made wine ar.d encountered "bacterial mouse" I decided to try ar.d find the cause of the "gooseberry mouse" to avoid having it in my wines. Soil was ruled out as I had previously noticed the flavour in cooked gooseberries from different soils I experimented with variations of fertilisers and kept a note cf weather, neither seemed to be the cause. Variety did not appear to be an important factor as I had experience of growing some 15 different varieties and only 3 - the Golden Drop, Whitesmith and Lancashire Lad DID NOT HAVE MOUSE at sometime!. They were the only varieties that were left to fully ripen after the first thinning - and that was the final clue to my decision. "Gooseberry Mouse" is only noticeable in the cooked fruit and wine during the stage of SEMI-RIPENESS!. It is my contention that all fruit has to be FULLY RIPE to make the BEST WINE! - with the exceptions of PEARS, best used UNRIPE, and GOOSEEERRIES which I use in < different stages of ripeness FIRST THINNINGS, when the gooseberries are about the size of a little finger nail. (By the way, gooseberries have to be thinned to get a crop of large succulent berries, for MORE >>> 25. there is no loss of crop weight) . The thinnings are best used for Sparkling wine and are the best ingredient I know. SECOND THINNINGS, when the berries are about half fully grown'and are ideal for making Table Wine. NOTE - the SEMI-RIPE stage is NOT USED because of MOUSE!. FULLY RIPE. I make Table Wine, but with added water. I make a luscious DESSERT WINE with the pure juice only, no added water. OVER RIPE and falling off the bushes, in exceptional years, when the weather causes the berries to split and then mould grows in these splits. These berries make a wine that is like a Sauterr.es and in fact in a blind tasting the wine has been accepted as a better Quality Sauternes. , Finally, even commercial Wine Experts must think highly of the gooseberry flavour for recently, in the Daily Telegraph, Oz Clarke wrote of a wine that had "lashings of succulent gooseberry" and of another wine "praise Sancerre for their gooseberry-sharp fruit". ROY (E A Roycroft) * Well done Roy, it is good to get a response to something that was raised by the Berkshire Regional Group - and the Wales & West Regional Group - some time earlier this year. They and others seem to be guilty of misnaming the bouquet/aroma of wine containing gooseberries - so if the aroma culprit element is ETHYL .-.CETATE perhaps Roy, as one who really knows, will describe the subtle differences between ETHYL and AMYL ACETATE and the AMYL ACETONE and/or PEARDROPS so that we can avoid making faulty recognition of these. Incidentally, all Candidates for the Guild's Practical Examination are asked to identify at least 2 of these "smells" in the OLFACTORY TEST!. Sorry that Roy could not accept that some National Judges wished to identify some Gooseberry wine aromas by using their own words. I believe that anyone should use their own words as a "label" as reference. Oz Clarke's descriptions of commercial wines confirms most peoples general opinions that gooseberries can be a very useful fruit for winemaking - but we just have to recognise that sometimes there are "odd" noses and flavours. The advice on the stages of harvesting gooseberries for various wines should prove most useful to all. Surprised that you feel that gooseberry variety does not play an important part yet you quote three varieties that you recommend. You have raised a new aspect of the enigmatic gooseberry - th-is time "Gooseberry Mouse" ! Is this what some of us refer to as PSEUDO MOUSE? which can be found in a variety of wines but seems to disappear from the wine after a shortish storage period. Does your "Gooseberry Mouse" react to the "Bi-carb" test that we often use when there is a slight doubt?. Again, my thanks. Ed. * 26. * "Judging Sparkling wines" was the title given to an article which appeared on page 15 of the last issue, JNL2/90. I ani very grateful for a timely response to the problens raised then and I have pleasure in reproducing BILL SMITH'S (Bucks) letter. * Dear Ray I would like to make the following comments after reading VIC GOFFEN'S article in the last issue of the Guild News Letter. My most recent judging episode with sparkling wines was at this year's Wales & West Show where there were about 30 entries. Although I have over 1C years experience in making and handling sparkling wines it was with great trepidation that I approached entries with HAZE - SEDIMENT - and AIR GAPS of anything from almost NIL to over 3 INCHES! . As did Vic, I took all possible precautions, being armed with ample towels, gloves, pliers and safety glasses. Nevertheless my Steward, neighbouring Stewards, fellow Judges - and myself - were somewhat damp (but fragrant) by the time I had finished. What then is the solution??. Firstly, what does the Judge's Handbook advise or the various Show schedules say about air spaces in the bottles??. The present 1582 edition cf the Guild Handbook states that bottles with air spaces of less than 1" are potentially dangerous but says nothing of air spaces GREA.TER than this!. The new revised edition will state that "the air space should be from 1 - 2" between the wine and the bottom of the stopper". I give examples of some Show Schedules The National = "air space of 1 - 2" Middlesex = "air space of 1 - 2" Chilterns = "air space about 2" below the stopper Wycombe = "air space of 1 - 2" The confusing issue here is - how does the competitor interpret the instructions when there is 1" of air space already existing If using a HOLLOW PLASTIC STOPPER?. Using a SOLID plastic stopper and leaving 1" air space would provide only l/3rd of the air space as when using a HOLLOW stopper with the wine 2" below the bottom edge of that stopper. Yet both of these interpretations would seem to be correct as being 1-2" below the bottom of the stopper! as per instruction These air spaces are critical as the carbon dioxide in the bottle is partitioned between the air gap (or should we say GAS GAP?) and the wine containing carbon dioxide complexed with ethyl alcohol as the compound aiethyidicarbonate. The larger the gap the larger will be the pressure in the gap - I would not advise anyone to try proving it by doing a secondary fermentation to produce 4 - 6 atmospheres in a bottle only half full of wine! . We must, however, keep such a w'orkof art as Sparkling Wines in our shows - MORE >>> 2 1 . therefore, on a constructive note, I suggest that Show Organisers and Judges take note of the following points:- 1 We should not accept any bottle which does not contain the CORRECT AIR SPACE. I further suggest that the air space be 2 - 21 / 2" inclusive of any air space in a hollow stopper. 2 Bottles with significant yeast deposit should not be accepted - especially in sweet Sparkling classes. 3 Convenors should either forewarn Judges that they will be judging Sparkling Wines so that they bring the necessary equipment OR alternatively the Show Organisers should supply the necessary equipment on the Show bench. On a final note, as Judges we must continue to encourage wine makers, whether in our Clubs or at Competitions, to read the excellent works of Acton & Duncan, Restall & Hebbs and of course WINE for ALL SEASONS by Gerry Fowles - and - the greatest tip of all to Sparkling wine makers is - bottle the secondary fermentation at SG 1.002 - 1.004. PS. A most interesting article, by Ted Willhoft, on "The Hazards cf Carbonated Drinks" was published in The New Scientist, August 21st 1986.