Since my most recent lament over the alarming rise in the alcohol levels of highly rated wines, several readers have written to suggest I publish alcohol levels alongside wine reviews. I have given this idea serious consideration, but at this time I cannot embrace the concept for a number of reasons, which I shall enumerate.

Uppermost is the possibility that I would introduce a litmus test for wine selection based upon an ideal percentage of alcohol content. This would be the Wine Spectator approach: the higher the alcohol the higher the score! In my case it would be the reverse.

I utterly reject that proposition, for the reality is far more complicated. There is no ideal percentage, no one-size-fits-all approach.

That was the point of my comparison between Silver Oak's admirable restraint and Rodney Strong's unabashed pursuit of a big score with a blockbuster, 15.4 percent alcohol, single-vineyard cabernet sauvignon. A winery shouldn't have to push the envelope on acceptable levels of alcohol to snag a high score.

That it has come to this is the result of a concentration of power in the hands of a small number of influential wine critics. Far too many winemakers — particularly younger winemakers — believe the blockbuster wine is the vehicle they need to impress certain critics and get the huge score that just might launch a career or put a new or under-performing winery on the map.

The conventional wisdom within the wine industry is that these critics skew toward bigger, richer wines with bold flavors and higher levels of alcohol. Whether that assumption is true or not, I don't really know. What I do know is that there is an entire cottage industry that has studied the reviews and profiled the critics, and any winery that wants to know can pay a consultant and find out what it must do to impress James Laube of The Wine Spectator or Robert Parker of The Wine Advocate.

What I advocate is a greater respect for wines that might lack the raw power of the big-scoring blockbusters, but exhibit elegance, finesse and complexity that is every bit as worthy of your admiration. Merely listing the percentage of alcohol would not get us there, however.

A vast majority of the wines I recommend come in somewhere between 13 and 14.5 percent alcohol, which is a fair range in the modern world of viticulture, where achieving ripeness is no longer as difficult as it once was. It would be redundant to list alcohols over and over again that fall into this narrow range.

The exceptions at the lower end are crisp whites such as Gruner Veltliner and Albarino, though the Rias Baixas, where Albarino is the dominant grape, is a diverse region with some zones that are warmer than others, so that in recent years a number of wines have trended higher in alcohol content. Chablis also continues to produce quality whites (chardonnay) that fall below 13 percent.

The exceptions at the higher end would be shiraz from Australia, reds and whites from southern Mediterranean climates, and certainly a growing number of reds from California.

I do not rule out the possibility I will sometimes recommend a table wine with an elevated level of alcohol. I believe they have a place, and some of them can be well balanced despite a level of alcohol that in most wines would be obnoxious. The Shafer Hillside Select Cabernet Sauvignon from the Napa Valley is one of those I consistently cherish, even though it is really, really big.

Still, I prefer wines of greater subtlety and potential longevity for everyday consumption as well as long-term aging in my cellar. But when I do opt to recommend a "big" wine and believe the level of alcohol could be an issue for those readers who have expressed a low tolerance for such extravagance, I will generally make a note of the alcohol level in the text of the review.

And when I come across exceptional wines — wines that I might score from the high 80s and up — that are produced with alcohol levels considerably lower than the conventions of modern winemaking seem to demand, I will make note of that as well.

I realize that many consumers are alarmed by the rising level of alcohol in wine and for that reason many are reluctant anymore to take a glass of wine at lunch, or they order more modestly when dining out in the evening, in consideration of the drive home. The wine industry needs to be aware of this.

You can do your part by supporting the efforts of producers that make delicious wines responsibly, without an eye on what the Parkers and Laubes of the world think. And I will do my part by attempting to steer you in the direction of exceptional wines produced without benefit of the indulgences that may inspire some wine pundits to run up the score.

BEST BUY

Wines are rated on a 100-point scale. Wines are chosen for review because they represent outstanding quality or value.

Rancho Zabaco 2007 Sauvignon Blanc Reserve, Russian River Valley ($18) — An excellent example of a sauvignon that straddles the fence between the characteristics of pungency found in the vaunted New Zealand style and roundness most often associated with white Bordeaux. The initial impression of red citrus and dried herbs on the upfront palate gives way to generously rounded stone fruits and spice. Rating: 89.

Tasting Notes

Ferragu 2004 Valpolicella Superiore, Italy ($55) — As Valpolicella goes, this is one of the silkiest I've ever tasted. It shows the black cherry flavor characteristic of the Corvina grape, but with more depth than is typical (until you get to the Amarone wines made from the same grape) and finesse that is startling for Valpolicella. But the price? Mamma mia! Rating: 91.

St. Pauls 2005 "St. Justina" Gewurztraminer, ($30) — Well balanced and dry, this gewurztraminer is that rare combination of delicacy and intensity. The nose is all about fragrant rose petals, honey and spice, yet on the palate the wine is dry as a bone, firm and expressive, with good, clean acidity on the finish and a strong hint of minerals. Extremely complex and satisfying. Rating: 90.

Northfield 2007 Frog Rock Vineyard Sauvignon Blanc-Semillon, New Zealand ($20) — White Bordeaux-style blends from New Zealand aren't all that common, though it would seem to be a natural given the climate and the quality of the sauvignon. Northfield's rendition of this classic blend delivers the pungency of a Kiwi sauvignon with a palate-coating richness I can only conclude comes from the semillon. Nuances of fresh baked brioche, honeysuckle and fig are added complexities that help make this one a winner. The only offbeat note is an underlying grassiness that will likely become more prominent with age. No problem, so long as you consume this one young. Rating: 89.

Robert Oatley 2007 Chardonnay, Australia ($18) — There is very little oak, if any, on this crisp and refreshing chardonnay from the little-known Mudgee region north of Sydney. With a touch of the fresh lemon-creme aroma that is associated with top-notch chardonnay the world over, and hints of pear and stone fruits, Oatley's chardonnay is a crisp and refreshing reminder of the potential for chardonnay made with the minimal influence of oak. Rating: 89.

Borgo di Colloredo 2003 "Gironia" Biferno Rosso, Italy ($26) — A red unlike most others from southern Italy, this blend of Montepulciano and Aglianico is simply delicious, and a wonderful food wine. This vintage shows red fruits — cherries and currants — and fresh acidity that will make it pop with all sorts of dishes from olive oil-based pastas to grilled fowl and meats. Perfect for summer or winter because it is less heavy than most reds from the south of Italy, yet I wouldn't hesitate to cellar it for three to five years for additional complexity. Rating: 88.

Borgo di Colloredo 2005 Falanghina, Italy ($19) — One of the most prolific white grapes of southern Italy, falanghina nevertheless produces wines of true character and quality, especially when they exhibit the level of minerality combined with ripe stone fruits that this vintage from Borgo di Colloredo delivers. Round and full on the palate, with hints of honey, peach, apricot and minerals, this is a falanghina to be paired with roast chicken or pork. Rating: 87.

Robert Oatley 2008 Pinot Grigio, Australia ($18) — Those of you who are weary of the thin, watery plonk that passes for New World pinot grigio these days might reconsider the genre after tasting Oatley's expression of this popular grape variety. Intense citrus notes with a hint of grassiness and minerality make this a lovely quaffer that also has the stuffing to stand up to shellfish and light appetizers. Rating: 88.

Robert Oatley 2008 Sauvignon Blanc, Australia ($18) — The sauvignon is typical of the Oatley wines, showing restraint on the nose and palate while delivering subtle nuances of pear, citrus and green apple. Unlike other sauvignons from Western Australia, which tend to be floral, this one is distinctively earthy. Rating: 88.

Northfield 2007 Riesling, New Zealand ($20) — The dominant note on the nose is floral rather than mineral, making for something of a unique expression of the riesling grape. That said, this is a beautifully balanced dry riesling that has enough heft to pair with fish courses and white meats. The prevailing fruit characteristic is the fresh lime profile that is often seen in the Aussie dry rieslings of the Clare Valley, and a hint of minerality shows up on the finish, indicating perhaps complexities to come with a bit of bottle age. Rating: 88.

To find out more about Robert Whitley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.