Would wine from back in ancient times and civilizations have been dogshit compared to a basic marketable wine produced by modern viniculture?
-
I've had some wild beers, but I don't know if I've had wild wine. Sourdough is a good comparison, because those are the same wild yeasts you'd get for brewing that you'd get if you made your own starter.
-
I wonder if Tropicana was based on this with their "flavor paks"
That sounds like the same principle to me. They need it to taste fresh and orangey and just like last year's Tropicana even if it was the best or worst year ever for growing oranges or customers are gonna be upset. Can't buy from one farm this year and need to buy from one in a totally different place where the oranges might be another variety or just have a different flavor from different soil? Give it a nudge back toward that brand flavor profile. That consistency is what people like about name brands especially.
-
What would have been a liberal estimate of the possible alcohol ABA or %? How much sugar would have been in it/L?
Even wine for Kings?
Dogshit? No. Different? Definitely. The wild yeasts on the skin weren't cultivated for alcohol tolerance, so ancient wines would tend to have a lower ABV. They might have some sourness from bacteria found on the skin along with the yeast. Whether or not they'd be sweet or dry would depend on the yeasts and the grapes themselves. There would be a lot of variability from year to year. The Romans, for one, preferred sweeter wines and would add grape syrup, defrutum, made from boiling down grape juice, if the wine was dry. Other cultures might do something similar or just grin and bear it. There was a lot of variety across time and place.
It should be noted that the Romans would sometimes use lead vessels for making defrutum. This would add lead acetate to the syrup, which has a sweet taste, and make it even sweeter.
-
What would have been a liberal estimate of the possible alcohol ABA or %? How much sugar would have been in it/L?
Even wine for Kings?
I think I heard once that Romans mixed wine with salted water. So taht could be a bit of an aquired taste. Or a banger alcoholic soy sauce…
-
What would have been a liberal estimate of the possible alcohol ABA or %? How much sugar would have been in it/L?
Even wine for Kings?
I know there was a more common everyday wine with pretty low alcohol content and not much to any sweetness. Alcohol was a good way to ensure clean drinking water and naturally keeps out a lot of bad bacteria. That’s why drinking wine is way more common in the Bible AFAIK
-
What would have been a liberal estimate of the possible alcohol ABA or %? How much sugar would have been in it/L?
Even wine for Kings?
I've made wine (and a lot of beer). It's not hard, and people have been doing it for ages, but creating a good, consistent product does rely on chemistry/biology knowledge that they wouldn't have had back then.
I suspect that a lot of the mystique around wine (like the idea that terroir is magic) is just down to the fact that a few hundred years ago, most wine/beer was trash, and the only stuff we'd consider "good" by modern standards is just down to luck that a batch didn't get infected with the wrong yeast/bacteria, or exposed to too much oxygen, or a style that is meant to be drunk young (vinho verde) or oxidized (sherry).
There's probably good reason that much of the wine that was aged/transported long distance a couple hundred years ago was fortified (Madeira, Port, sherry, vermouth, etc.).
Millenia of selective breeding have changed grapes, too. Without knowing for certain, my guess would be that on average, the sugar concentration in the raw grape juice would be roughly the same as now, but relying on wild yeasts or polycultures would not ferment as completely, so the final product would have lower ABV and higher sugar.
In beer, the actual grain and malting technology has greatly changed over time. 150 years ago, German immigrants to America couldn't brew the lighter styles they were used to because American grain was much higher in protein so they had to dilute it with corn/rice. Older grain had a higher propensity for certain defects, too. Basically you had more inconsistency back in the day, and also just some things that were different.
-
I worked with a guy who graduated with a history degree. l remember talking about wine and what it might have been like before modern times.
His main point was that people in ancient times would think we're lush fools. Nobody would drink pure wine. It would have been watered down. Also the majority of modern wine is aged in oak barrels that usually get used for bourbon before being used for wine. so ancient people wouldn't recognize the modern wine
That's not true. The majority of wine is aged in standard oak barrels. Bourbon barrel-aged wine is a modern gimmick which is not at all common in the classic wine growing regions.
-
I know there was a more common everyday wine with pretty low alcohol content and not much to any sweetness. Alcohol was a good way to ensure clean drinking water and naturally keeps out a lot of bad bacteria. That’s why drinking wine is way more common in the Bible AFAIK
wrote last edited by [email protected]also notice that it's also about things like electrolytes and vitamines
whether you eat raw fruit or drink fermented fruit juice probably doesn't change these properties, but additionally you get a light drug which is a positive side effect (to the people) so i guess that's why they fermented whatever fruits they had
also it's durable throughout the winter or sth
-
What would have been a liberal estimate of the possible alcohol ABA or %? How much sugar would have been in it/L?
Even wine for Kings?
I imagine because wild yeast strains are far less alcohol tolerant that you'd end up with something more akin to a lambic, especially if they don't filter it.
-
I've made wine (and a lot of beer). It's not hard, and people have been doing it for ages, but creating a good, consistent product does rely on chemistry/biology knowledge that they wouldn't have had back then.
I suspect that a lot of the mystique around wine (like the idea that terroir is magic) is just down to the fact that a few hundred years ago, most wine/beer was trash, and the only stuff we'd consider "good" by modern standards is just down to luck that a batch didn't get infected with the wrong yeast/bacteria, or exposed to too much oxygen, or a style that is meant to be drunk young (vinho verde) or oxidized (sherry).
There's probably good reason that much of the wine that was aged/transported long distance a couple hundred years ago was fortified (Madeira, Port, sherry, vermouth, etc.).
Millenia of selective breeding have changed grapes, too. Without knowing for certain, my guess would be that on average, the sugar concentration in the raw grape juice would be roughly the same as now, but relying on wild yeasts or polycultures would not ferment as completely, so the final product would have lower ABV and higher sugar.
In beer, the actual grain and malting technology has greatly changed over time. 150 years ago, German immigrants to America couldn't brew the lighter styles they were used to because American grain was much higher in protein so they had to dilute it with corn/rice. Older grain had a higher propensity for certain defects, too. Basically you had more inconsistency back in the day, and also just some things that were different.
- how was it fortified?
-
- how was it fortified?
Star forts
-
My neighbour buys grapes, presses them (not trampling), and puts them into demijohns with an airlock. He adds nothing. It ferments using yeast on the grapes over several months. Over the course of a year, he decants from one demijohn to the next, which clarifies yeast, then he bottles and lets it rest some more. It’s in a cool part of the house, about 14-18C.
It’s very tasty wine, but doesn’t have any oak overtones or adjuncts (whether lead or vanillin or whatever else is added), it’s not blended, and it’s moderate abv (around 10%).
This process requires very little in terms of specific materials other than the glass instead of clay. Clay vessels, being porous, would alter the flavour and would harbour yeasties and other microorganisms. But even accounting for that, I don’t think there’s any basis to say ancient wine would be dogshit. It may be different, accounting for taste, but not bad. (Consider the popularity of sour beers (kettle sours or otherwise) and hazy beers. Both of those were considered highly undesirable properties of beer for most of the 20th century - so tastes change. )
The process seems simple but I made my own wild plum wine last year and just leaving it to ferment for 3 days too long almost turned it into vinegar. Also for anyone else wanting to try it, unless you're using something with skin like grapes or plums you need to add your own tannin.
-
Star forts
I dont know wat that meenz
-
I've made wine (and a lot of beer). It's not hard, and people have been doing it for ages, but creating a good, consistent product does rely on chemistry/biology knowledge that they wouldn't have had back then.
I suspect that a lot of the mystique around wine (like the idea that terroir is magic) is just down to the fact that a few hundred years ago, most wine/beer was trash, and the only stuff we'd consider "good" by modern standards is just down to luck that a batch didn't get infected with the wrong yeast/bacteria, or exposed to too much oxygen, or a style that is meant to be drunk young (vinho verde) or oxidized (sherry).
There's probably good reason that much of the wine that was aged/transported long distance a couple hundred years ago was fortified (Madeira, Port, sherry, vermouth, etc.).
Millenia of selective breeding have changed grapes, too. Without knowing for certain, my guess would be that on average, the sugar concentration in the raw grape juice would be roughly the same as now, but relying on wild yeasts or polycultures would not ferment as completely, so the final product would have lower ABV and higher sugar.
In beer, the actual grain and malting technology has greatly changed over time. 150 years ago, German immigrants to America couldn't brew the lighter styles they were used to because American grain was much higher in protein so they had to dilute it with corn/rice. Older grain had a higher propensity for certain defects, too. Basically you had more inconsistency back in the day, and also just some things that were different.
Go back in time and give an ancient king some boxed wine and be given 500 sheckles, 3 goats, and a concubine.
-
The process seems simple but I made my own wild plum wine last year and just leaving it to ferment for 3 days too long almost turned it into vinegar. Also for anyone else wanting to try it, unless you're using something with skin like grapes or plums you need to add your own tannin.
Standard saccharomyces will ferment all the simple sugars, unless interrupted. Some fruit don’t have much in the way of complex sugars (which are responsible for rounding out flavour), and some fruit just don’t have a pleasant flavour without sugar present. It’s also possible that there’s a Brett or other bug in there that ferments the less simple sugars and brings it down stupidly dry. I think plums are on the stupid dry list; I’ve had them in a sour beer and it was… crushingly tart.
-
No. Lots of sweet wines are fermented until dry. Then they add potassium metabisulfite to kill the yeast, then "back sweeten" the wine by adding sugar once the yeast is dead.
wrote last edited by [email protected]They didn't do that.
They just used high sugar grapes like gordo blanco, the yeast would go dormant once the alcohol content had got to about 14% and there would still be lots of sugar left.
Now they ferment up to the level of alcohol they want, then refrigerate the must, which makes the yeast go dormant and form hard shells so it can be filtered and centrifuged out.
If you killed the yeast while still active, the cells will rupture and the wine will taste like marmite.
It was common in the new world to create "sweet wines" by adding pure alcohol to the must, which would cause the yeast to become dormant, and then filter it out. This was how "white port" was made.
Since the invention of refrigerated brine jackets, this method has been abandoned. -
Back sweetening doesn't have to be to make it super sweet. Sometimes wine will ferment very dry and is beyond as dry as what you wanted. Other than adding straight sugar, more unfermented juice can also be added to enhance the flavor to either just make it sweeter or to add some of the non-fermented flavor back in that is lost. You can also have wine that produced a higher ABV than was desired, and adding water or juice can dilute it down.
Blending and balancing wine is really the hard part of making wine, especially if you're after a consistent product. Different pieces of fruit have different sugar levels and different yeast does more or less than you intend it to do, so the good wine makers can nudge that end product into what they actually wanted without ruining it.
Champagne is made by using low sugar grapes, fermenting until there is no residual sugar, and then ageing in barrels.
All the sweetness in Champagne is artificial, its made by adding sugar syrup to the bottle before the secondary fermentation used to create the bubbles.
-
- how was it fortified?
"Fortified" means that liquor is added which acts as a preservative and it also stops further fermentation so you can have more sugar left in the wine. Oftentimes, herbs are added, too, which also acts a preservative.
In beer, IPAs are similar in that greater amounts of hops were added so it could survive the trip to India with less chance of spoiling.
-
They didn't do that.
They just used high sugar grapes like gordo blanco, the yeast would go dormant once the alcohol content had got to about 14% and there would still be lots of sugar left.
Now they ferment up to the level of alcohol they want, then refrigerate the must, which makes the yeast go dormant and form hard shells so it can be filtered and centrifuged out.
If you killed the yeast while still active, the cells will rupture and the wine will taste like marmite.
It was common in the new world to create "sweet wines" by adding pure alcohol to the must, which would cause the yeast to become dormant, and then filter it out. This was how "white port" was made.
Since the invention of refrigerated brine jackets, this method has been abandoned.Interesting to know about the white port process as we've drank a bottle of that recently for the first time.
Your knowledge is beyond mine on the subject. I mostly made various country wines, usually just a half gallon or gallon at a time to experiment with yeasts and to practice balancing.
That's why I think it's probably unfair to think ancient brewers made crap. I mean, like any business, I'm sure some did, but if they were taking food to make it, it had to be worth it for most of history, and it doesn't take a lot of high tech stuff to make a palatable drink.
Low ABV drinks have kept people safe and happy for a long time, and I feel a majority of those people at least tried to be artisans like any other tradesman. Consistency and storage was probably the biggest difference, especially before the hydrometer, but with basic cleanliness and a few brews under your belt, I think someone in the day could have made something decent with nothing else.
-
I've had some wild beers, but I don't know if I've had wild wine. Sourdough is a good comparison, because those are the same wild yeasts you'd get for brewing that you'd get if you made your own starter.
If you like wild beer and regular wine, you'll probably enjoy wild wine too! Or at least, I do. I just wish it was more readily available near me, particularly since I am somewhat afraid of brewing it myself
