Effect of Different Gelling Agents on the Properties of Wine Jellies Prepared from Aromatic Grape Varieties

Abstract

Wine jelly is regarded as a delicacy in many countries and is commonly utilized in grande cuisine. Recently, its popularity has increased among consumers due to its dietary properties and the presence of health-promoting compounds such as antioxidants. Its natural origin and the ability to reflect local traditions and consumer preferences further enhance its appeal. This study aimed to compare the compositional and sensory characteristics of wine jellies prepared using three different gelling agents and four aromatic grape varieties, with the goal of preserving varietal aroma in the final products. White wines from Pálava and Moravian Muscat and red wines from Agni and Rosa were used. The selected gelling agents were agar, vegan gelatin, and traditional gelatin. Basic analytical parameters were assessed in both the wines and the resulting jellies. Sensory evaluation was conducted by trained panelists, assessing consistency, appearance (clarity), taste, and bouquet. Confectionery-grade jelly from red wines demonstrated the best consistency, while gelatin jellies from white wines showed superior clarity. Due to a preference for sweeter flavors, jellies from red wines were favored across all variants. The strongest varietal bouquet was observed in Moravian Muscat samples, irrespective of the gelling agent used. The optimal choice of gelling agent depends on the target quality attributes. Gelatin is preferred for firmness and clarity, while vegan gelatin is ideal for preserving aroma and achieving a balanced sensory profile.

1. Introduction

The grapevine is the most commonly cultivated fruit species in the world. Currently, vineyard areas span approximately 7 million hectares [1], and over 70 million tons of grapes are processed annually [2]. The grapevine is a very adaptable and hardy plant [3], and due to factors such as global warming, the breeding of more resistant varieties, cultural differences in use, and historical developments, the regions and scope of cultivation are continuously shifting and expanding. Grapes are popular not only for their adaptability, but also because of the wide range of uses for their fruit. The most common products are wine, fresh table grapes, raisins, and vinegar. However, there are also local processing technologies, such as Kvevri (Kakhetian amber wine), and methods for utilizing wine production by-products—like grappa.

Gourmet products like wine jelly are also worth mentioning [4]. There is a growing focus on purposefully developed specialties, gourmet delicacies for haute cuisine, and health-promoting foods—such as RAW (unprocessed or primary material) and functional foods, popular for their dietary benefits [4,5,6,7]. New research highlights the potential of using various by-products, such as wine yeast or ethanol extracts, as natural colorants and sources of phenolic compounds with antioxidant effects, for example in gelatin-based candies [8,9,10]. The wine industry has long been exploring ways to incorporate wine products not just as beverages, but also as ingredients in various dishes and specialties with added health benefits [4]. Wine jelly presents an interesting culinary product that combines the taste and aromatic qualities of wine with the nutritional benefits of gelatin-based products [11]. Its growing popularity stems not only from its appealing flavor, but also from increased demand for foods offering health advantages, as these jellies concentrate beneficial compounds beyond typical food content [4,12]. There is a broader societal emphasis today on preventing lifestyle diseases, supporting the immune system, and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Wine, being naturally rich in polyphenols and other phytochemicals, shows promising potential in this regard. It is well known that red wine contains a variety of antioxidant compounds, particularly anthocyanins and phenolic substances, which help protect cells from oxidative stress. This effect is important in preventing cardiovascular diseases, reducing inflammation, and supporting overall immune function.

Wine jelly blends the flavor aspects of selected wines—highlighting regional or varietal character—with the specific texture typical of gelatin-based products. Its production involves not only wine, but also wine industry by-products rich in bioactive components [3]. According to legislation (Council Directive 2001/113/EC), “jelly” is an appropriately gelled mixture of sugars and the juice and/or aqueous extracts of one or more kinds of fruit. From a legal standpoint, jelly is a confection with a gel-like consistency formed by the addition of gelling agents, mainly pectin, agar, starch, or gelatin [13,14]. Jelly products must meet certain specifications and standards—for example, achieving an optimal consistency suitable for confectionery use and able to withstand handling during transport [11,15]. Consistency depends on the presence of pectin or other gelling agents [16,17,18]. However, pectin and sugar alone are not enough for proper gel formation. Fruit acidity is equally important, as it balances the “sugar–acid–pectin” system—a known phenomenon in the field [18,19,20]. From a dietary perspective, wine jelly is rich in natural bioactive components, has low caloric value, and allows for sugar content customization—making it suitable for health-conscious consumers [21]. If ingredients with higher levels of beneficial compounds are used, the antioxidant activity of the jelly and its content of vitamins and minerals can be enhanced [8]. Additionally, there are opportunities for fortification with various natural components to add unique flavor profiles [12]. Many studies highlight the potential benefits of phenolic compounds—such as gallic acid, quercetin, and resveratrol—for preventing lifestyle diseases and supporting overall health [3,22,23,24]. Since wine jelly contains the same beneficial substances found in wine, it effectively combines gourmet experiences with health-supportive effects. These products typically involve high-quality raw materials and strict quality standards, contributing to the local character of the resulting jelly [25]. A key requirement for the successful launch of any innovative product is sensory stability and a favorable taste profile [12]. The typical wine aroma, defined by grape variety or terroir, manifests in the jelly as subtle fruity and floral notes. These can be further enhanced through processing or the addition of aromatic components. The final taste is usually slightly sweet, with a balanced tartness and characteristic wine nuances. In addition to sensory attributes, texture also plays a crucial role. The amount of gelling agents—like gelatin or pectin—is chosen based on the desired firmness and elasticity, which influence how the product feels in the mouth [23]. Naturally, other additives, stabilizers, and flavor modulators affect the character of the product, with a trend toward using natural alternatives [26]. Wine-based jellies offer a creative addition to modern gastronomy—whether as innovative desserts or appetizers, or as original pairings with cheese, pâté, or roasted meat. Thanks to their versatility and vibrant color—from pinkish to deep red—wine jellies have become attractive and flavorful elements in so-called experiential cuisine, where every detail of presentation matters. Our starting premise is based on the knowledge that wine is a rich source of several bioactive compounds that are valuable in terms of nutrition and health. These components, in particular polyphenols, organic acids, and vitamins, can be transferred to wine by-products such as wine jelly by appropriate technological processes. Such a synergistic approach allows us to combine benefit, utility, and gustatory enjoyment into a single complex product, thereby expanding the possibilities for the use of wine-derived functional foods.

The research aimed to evaluate the analytical and sensory properties of varietal grape jellies when different gelling agents were added.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials for Jelly Production

The wine jelly was prepared using young wines from grapes grown in Moravia (Czech Republic), vintage 2022, produced at Mendel University in Lednice (48.7893189 N, 16.7973161 E). All grapes were cultivated and harvested following standard procedures with respect to their health status and in accordance with integrated pest management practices. Aromatic regional grape varieties were intentionally selected, including two white wine grape cultivars—Pálava (Vitis vinifera L.; Traminer × Müller Thurgau) and Moravian Muscat (Vitis vinifera L.; Muscat Ottonel × Prachttraube)—and two red cultivars—Agni (Vitis vinifera L.; André × Irsai Oliver) and Rosa (Vitis vinifera L.; (Picpoul noir × Blaufränkisch) × Traminer). These varieties were selected for their distinctive varietal aromas and bouquets, which were intended to be reflected in the final jelly product.

The wines were produced using controlled fermentation technology in tanks, with an emphasis on preserving aroma and bouquet. In the case of white wines, a higher residual sugar content was retained to intensify aroma and improve jelly firmness. The wines were subsequently matured in stainless steel tanks for 8 months. Analytical values of the wines used are listed in

Table 1. Average analytical values of the wines used (n = 3).

Wine Variety	Alcohol (% vol.)	Extract (g·L−1)	Titratable Acidity (g·L−1)	Residual Sugars (g·L−1)	pH	Glycerol (g·L−1)	Density (g·cm−1)	TPC (mg GAE·g−1)	DPPH (mg TEA·g−1)
Pálava	12.02 ± 0.10	52.55 ± 0.22	7.58 ± 0.12	43 ± 3	3.33 ± 0.07	8.1 ± 0.5	0.97 ± 0.05	0.36 ± 0.04	0.25 ± 0.05
Moravian Muscat	11.59 ± 0.12	43.82 ± 0.23	5.62 ± 0.09	42.0 ± 2.2	3.12 ± 0.10	7.3 ± 0.4	0.90 ± 0.06	0.35 ± 0.04	0.29 ± 0.05
Agni	13.12 ± 0.13	28.61 ± 0.19	6.97 ± 0.09	4.9 ± 0.6	3.67 ± 0.09	8.7 ± 0.5	1.03 ± 0.08	1.6 ± 0.4	1.4 ± 0.3
Rosa	13.44 ± 0.16	31.17 ± 0.24	4.92 ± 0.08	3.4 ± 0.4	3.54 ± 0.09	8.8 ± 0.5	1.10 ± 0.09	1.9 ± 0.4	1.7 ± 0.3

.

Wine jellies were prepared using the four wine types described above and three commercially available gelling agents form Amylon (Amylon a.s., Přibyslav, Czech Republic). Agar: a natural polysaccharide (linear galactose polymer) with strong gelling capacity, derived from red algae of the Floridae and Gelidium genera. Vegan gelatin: this contains carrageenan and carob gum. Carrageenan is derived from red algae of the Bondrus and Giralptina genera and is related to agar within the phytocolloid group. It does not form a firm gel but acts as a stabilizer of aroma. Carob gum stabilizes emulsions and acts as a thickener and stabilizer [27]. Gelatin: hydrolyzed collagen (porcine), which is converted into glutin during cooking. Glutin possesses strong gelling properties.

2.2. Jelly Preparation

Each jelly variant was prepared using 1 l of wine. Two-thirds of the wine volume were heated to 70 °C, while one-third was boiled together with the gelling agent (except gelatin, which must not be boiled—gelatin was dissolved in wine and then heated to 60 °C). The following gelling agents were used: 8 g of agar, 40 g of vegan gelatin, and 14 g of gelatin.

Due to the naturally low sugar content of red wines, 40 g of sucrose was added. The mixture was homogenized using a handheld homogenizer and brought to the required temperature. When adding the agents to red wines, sugar was added simultaneously. The mixture was thoroughly stirred to ensure sugar dissolved and did not form clumps with the gelling agents. It was then poured into the remaining wine (2/3 volume) and mixed again.

Agar and vegan gelatin must be dissolved while heating to 70 °C, whereas gelatin dissolves without heating and is then cooked at 60 °C. After mixing, all variants were heated—gelatin to 60 °C, and agar and vegan gelatin to 70 °C. The prepared jelly was poured into sterilized containers, cooled to room temperature, and stored at 5 °C for 10 days prior to analyses and sensory evaluation.

No additional additives or stabilizers were used, respecting the natural character and nutritional value of the final product.

2.3. Instruments and Analytical Methods

Immediately after the wine bottles had been opened, basic analytical values were measured according to standard in-house procedures [25]. Total acidity, volatile acidity, and pH were determined using standardized OIV methods [28] with a Titroline Easy instrument (SI Analytics GmbH, Mainz, Germany). Residual sugar, acetic acid, and sugar-free extract concentrations were measured using the FTIR spectrometer Alpha (Bruker Optik GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany), with results evaluated automatically using the Opus 8.0 software with the Wine Wizard application.

Sugar and acid contents are particularly important for some gelling agents. Glycerol content was determined using the Rebelein colorimetric method [25,29]. Titratable acidity and sugar contents were also determined by classic titration and reductometric methods after hydrolysis [15]. Alcohol content was assessed by distillation using a Gibertini Distillatore. Extract density was measured with the help of the distillation device to melt the jelly. Density was determined using a pycnometric method.

Antioxidant capacity (DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) and total phenolic content (TPC) were assessed following the method of Charoenphun et al. 2025 [23]. Absorbance was measured using the SPECORD 50 PLUS spectrophotometer (Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany). DPPH absorbance was measured at 515 nm and expressed in milligram Trolox equivalent per gram of jelly. TPC absorbance was measured at 700 nm and expressed in milligram gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per gram of jelly. Each sample was measured in triplicate.

2.4. Sensory Analysis

The sensory evaluation of the wines was carried out according to the OIV 100-point rating scale (scores).

Wine jellies are a popular delicacy among consumers for their specific and intense flavor. The study therefore focused on consumer appeal using sensory evaluation. The jellies were evaluated for user-friendliness with the aim of comparing varieties and gelling agents, as well as the influence of the starting material (wine) on jelly quality. The evaluation was conducted by ten trained panelists using standard methodology [15,24].

Initially, a survey was used to determine key attributes affecting consumer choice, such as color, price, availability, and particularly quality and taste parameters. The most relevant of these—those that could be influenced by production and had the strongest impact—were selected for the final evaluation. An unstructured scale from 0 to 10 was used to evaluate Consistency (too runny > ideally gelled > too firm); Clarity (dull appearance, weak color > clear appearance, vivid color); Taste (sour > neutral > sweet); and Bouquet (weak or with off-flavors > clear, varietal aroma).

2.5. The Hypothesis

The hypothesis of this research is that grape-based jellies must exhibit both the desired gelling ability and sensory properties that are appealing to consumers. It was also assumed that the input ingredients and gelling agents would transfer their distinctive properties into the final jelly product. For this purpose, grape varieties known for their pronounced aroma were selected, with the expectation that these characteristics would be recognizable in the final product.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All analytical measurements were performed in triplicate, while sensory evaluations were repeated ten times (evaluated by ten panel members). The results were analyzed by ANOVA with two factors (gelling agent and grape variety), and Tukey’s test at p = 0.05. Correlations between sensory attributes (consistency, appearance, taste, bouquet) and technological parameters (gelling agent, grape variety) were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation. PCA (principal component analysis) was used to identify the key attributes of input materials and their effect on the final jelly products. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica 14.0 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

To make a quality wine jelly, it takes both the skills of a wine expert, to select the right varieties, and an experienced cook. Turning the wine into this delicacy means keeping the essence of the wine and complementing it with the subtle and original taste of the resulting jelly [4,30]. The result tends to be a blend of flavors that do not stand out as much when drinking wine and are often overlooked. When selecting a wine for jelly making, great emphasis is placed on its character. The alcohol content is reduced by evaporation at boiling, but need not be zero.

3.1. Analytical Evaluation of Wines and Jellies

Thanks to the identical production technology and material support for the production of the tested wines and the experience of the cellar master, the wines were of very high quality and the analytical values of the wines studied were similar (Table 1). For technology reasons, it was not possible to prepare a control sample with absence of a gelling agent. Therefore, the original wine itself, from which the jelly was made, was used in lieu of a reference sample as a compromise. The difference in residual sugar is due to the production technology of the red wines and was compensated by addition of appropriate amounts of sugar.

The objective in the production of the jelly was to achieve similar residual sugar and acid values in order to better compare the varietal characteristics and gelling agents. The resulting analytical values of the wine jellies produced (

Table 2. Average analytical values of the wine jellies (n = 3).

Wine Variety	Gelling Agent	Alcohol (% vol.)	Extract (g·L−1)	Acidity (g·L−1)	Residual Sugars (g·L−1)	Density (g·cm−1)	TPC (mg GAE·g−1)	DPPH (mg TEA·g−1)
Pálava	Agar	7.06 ± 0.07	51.1 ± 0.4	7.5 ± 0.4	42.45 ± 0.23	1.09 ± 0.06	0.28 ± 0.04	0.29 ± 0.03
	Vegan gelatin	6.74 ± 0.05	50.8 ± 0.5	7.1 ± 0.4	42.6 ± 0.3	1.03 ± 0.07	0.40 ± 0.04	0.38 ± 0.04
	Gelatin	7.54 ± 0.06	52.0 ± 0.4	7.6 ± 0.4	42.6 ± 0.3	1.03 ± 0.07	0.38 ± 0.04	0.31 ± 0.03
Moravian Muscat	Agar	6.11 ± 0.06	41.6 ± 0.4	6.0 ± 0.4	41.59 ± 0.29	1.08 ± 0.08	0.28 ± 0.04	0.31 ± 0.03
	Vegan gelatin	6.08 ± 0.06	43.5 ± 0.3	5.5 ± 0.3	41.7 ± 0.3	1.01 ± 0.09	0.37 ± 0.03	0.35 ± 0.04
	Gelatin	6.79 ± 0.06	42.9 ± 0.3	5.7 ± 0.4	41.8 ± 0.3	1.03 ± 0.08	0.36 ± 0.04	0.31 ± 0.03
Agni	Agar	7.27 ± 0.08	69.0 ± 0.5	7.0 ± 0.4	41.0 ± 0.4	1.10 ± 0.08	0.88 ± 0.05	0.90 ± 0.06
	Vegan gelatin	6.87 ± 0.07	68.0 ± 0.6	6.6 ± 0.4	41.1 ± 0.3	1.10 ± 0.08	1.85 ± 0.07	2.16 ± 0.10
	Gelatin	7.98 ± 0.08	70.0 ± 0.6	6.9 ± 0.4	40.86 ± 0.28	1.10 ± 0.08	1.61 ± 0.07	1.73 ± 0.09
Rosa	Agar	7.59 ± 0.06	77.1 ± 0.6	5.4 ± 0.4	41.3 ± 0.3	1.20 ± 0.10	0.97 ± 0.05	0.91 ± 0.04
	Vegan gelatin	7.21 ± 0.07	76.9 ± 0.6	4.89 ± 0.29	41.03 ± 0.29	1.11 ± 0.08	1.96 ± 0.07	2.04 ± 0.01
	Gelatin	8.15 ± 0.10	78.3 ± 0.7	5.0 ± 0.4	40.7 ± 0.3	1.10 ± 0.07	1.86 ± 0.08	1.83 ± 0.07

) show similar values, where the measured values more or less correspond to the analytical values of the source wine. However, the alcohol content of the jelly was interesting in that it was similar for all three preparations. The gelatin-based jellies would be expected to have a much higher alcohol content because they do not undergo boiling, whereas the agar products, which have to be prepared at a higher temperature, would be expected to have a lower alcohol content.

Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity

Regarding the production of wine jellies, it can be pointed out that their popularity is growing among those consumers who are looking for new and unconventional products, preferring more natural sources of coloring and flavoring, and at the same time paying more attention to the composition of their food. The use of wine or its derivatives, such as wine lees, offers a wider spectrum of phenolic compounds and a more intense color with greater stability. In addition, recent published scientific texts show that dried wine lees have a very high antioxidant capacity, a significant amount of anthocyanins, and a positive effect on the sensory properties of the final product, which has been documented in the development of gelatin confectionery made from wine [8,11].

Heating during jelly preparation may lead to degradation of some phenolic compounds, which may result in a reduction in the antioxidant and phenolic content [31]. Similar results are also reported by Devi et al., 2024 [32]. The interaction of the wine and the gelling agent, e.g., the pH of the wine, can also influence the final antioxidant and phenolic content. This is apparent even when comparing the increase in substances between gelling agents, which is also different [33]. Vegan gelatin increased the antioxidants and phenolic content most significantly, while agar increased it the least. For example, previous studies have claimed [23,27], that DPPH somewhat decreases as the amount of the gelling agent increases, whereas TPC becomes more prominent. Red wines have been confirmed to have significantly higher TPC and DPPH values compared to white wines [34,35,36,37]; in our case, five-fold. This is observed with other products, for example, wine lees [8,38].

The results for the phenolic and antioxidant contents of the jelly are significantly influenced by the gelling agent and, in our opinion, especially by the preparation technology [33]. When the jelly is heated, both water and alcohol evaporate, which can cause these substances to concentrate, and their heat degradation can also occur. This is also confirmed by authors [6,39], who used water for dilution, and who report that the phenolic and antioxidant contents increase relative to concentration of the original material (must, extract, wine). It was confirmed that the agar, which was heated and whose admixed content was the lowest, showed the lowest values of the phenolic and antioxidant contents. On the other hand, gelatin, which must not be heated to a high temperature during preparation, retained these beneficial substances. In the case of vegan gelatin, the higher phenolic and antioxidant contents may be due to the higher dosage of the gelling agent, which has bound these beneficial substances to itself [27].

3.2. Sensory Evaluation of Wines and Jellies

The sensory evaluation of the wines (scores and tasters’ summaries) and jellies (evaluation of individual parameters) is presented in

Table 3. Sensorial characteristics of wines and jellies.

Wine Variety	Sensory Evaluation	Gelling Agent	Consistency	Clarity	Taste	Bouquet
Pálava	83.3	Agar	8.2 ± 0.25 df	1.4 ± 0.16 c	4.8 ± 0.13 c	6.1 ± 0.10 b
		Vegan gelatin	5.1 ± 0.18 h	3.8 ± 0.13 d	5.5 ± 0.17 acd	6.8 ± 0.20 abc
		Gelatin	8.8 ± 0.13 de	8.3 ± 0.15 f	5.1 ± 0.10 cd	6.5 ± 0.17 ab
Moravian Muscat	84.6	Agar	7.0 ± 0.15 ab	1.7 ± 0.15 c	5.2 ± 0.20 cd	7.9 ± 0.18 de
		Vegan gelatin	4.2 ± 0.13 g	4.5 ± 0.17 de	6.0 ± 0.15 ab	8.1 ± 0.18 d
		Gelatin	7.9 ± 0.10 cf	8.3 ± 0.15 f	5.7 ± 0.15 ad	8.4 ± 0.16 d
Agni	81.4	Agar	7.2 ± 0.20 ac	5.6 ± 0.16 b	6.8 ± 0.20 ef	6.9 ± 0.18 ac
		Vegan gelatin	6.4 ± 0.16 b	4.8 ± 0.13 e	6.9 ± 0.10 f	6.9 ± 0.10 ac
		Gelatin	8.8 ± 0.13 de	6.1 ± 0.18 ab	6.0 ± 0.15 ab	6.2 ± 0.13 ab
Rosa	82.9	Agar	7.3 ± 0.21 ac	6.5 ± 0.17 a	6.5 ± 0.17 bef	6.5 ± 0.17 ab
		Vegan gelatin	6.9 ± 0.18 ab	6.0 ± 0.15 ab	6.7 ± 0.15 bef	6.8 ± 0.20 abc
		Gelatin	9.1 ± 0.10 e	6.5 ± 0.17 a	6.1 ± 0.18 abe	7.3 ± 0.15 ce

Note: Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation; Means values accompanied by a letter in the column are significantly different, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Each column explores all together.

. The results of the 2-factor ANOVA allow a clearer understanding of how each factor (grape variety and gelling agent), as well as their combination, affects sensory characteristics. Thus, for the parameters Bouquet, Consistency, and Clarity, some relationships can be detected, whereas for Taste they are not so significant. A more detailed description of the specific parameter is given below. The white must variety Moravian Muscat was sensorially rated the best at 84.6 points (according to the OIV 100-point rating scale), which ranks the wine as very good, free of defects and diseases. It was a sweet wine with a distinctive varietal aroma. The Pálava variety was sensorially assessed at 83.3 points. It was a sweet wine, typical of the variety, with a pleasant tartness in the aftertaste. The blue cider variety Agni was sensorially rated similarly at 81.4 points. The wine was characterized as full-bodied, intensely red, reminiscent of Muscat and slightly Tramin aromas. The Rosa variety was sensorially rated at 82.9 points. The wine was dark red, with a strong Tramin aroma.

The work was mainly focused on the sensory comparison of wine jellies made from commonly available gelling agents. This is because even if these products are nutritionally or health-wise very interesting, their market success is often determined by their sensory appeal to consumers.

3.2.1. Comparison of Consistency

One of the most important user-related parameters is the consistency of the final jelly. The ideal consistency has been discussed in multiple studies [40,41], with the consensus being a semi-liquid, gel-like mass. These authors unanimously highlight differences in jelly consistency depending on the type of fruit component, gelling agent used, and the storage temperature [13,14,16,42,43].

From Figure 1, it is clear that the firmest consistency was achieved using gelatin (in both red and white wine jellies), similar to the work of Lam et al. 2025 [33], particularly with the Rosa variety, closely followed by agar. A more jelly-like (less firm) consistency was seen in jellies made with vegan gelatin [42], especially those produced from white wines. The most consistent results across different gelling agents were seen in jellies made from the Rosa variety.

3.2.2. Comparison of Appearance—Clarity

Clarity, or the presence of suspended particles, along with color, affects the attractiveness and consumer usability of the product. The use of jelly in culinary contexts can be influenced by packaging, color intensity, and how it looks when spooned or spread. Consumers generally prefer a clearer, glossier surface to a matte one [20]. Our findings confirm this. According to Figure 1, the type of wine used significantly affects appearance and consumer appeal. In white wines, agar-based jellies appeared particularly cloudy and matte [43], with vegan gelatin showing similar effects to a lesser degree [20] (Figure 2). With red wines, the naturally dark red color made clarity more difficult to assess objectively. Perhaps for this reason, jellies made from red wines using agar or vegan gelatin were rated more favorably than their white wine counterparts. On the other hand, gelatin-based jellies—especially from Pálava and Muscat—were nearly clear and sparkled, receiving the highest clarity ratings. Thus, gelatin is recommended as the most suitable gelling agent for achieving attractive visual properties, a conclusion also supported by [15].

3.2.3. Comparison of Taste

Sensory evaluation of taste is highly subjective and is often discovered by the consumer only after purchase. Nevertheless, together with bouquet, it is a key parameter that determines product popularity and likelihood of repeat purchase. In this experiment, sugar and acid content were adjusted and measured prior to jelly preparation to even out varietal differences and isolate the effects of the gelling agent. Ideally, jelly should have a balanced ratio of sugars and acids, though as with wine, a sweeter taste is generally more favored [44]. We sweetened the red wines to approximately match the sugar levels of the white wines, so all samples should have been similarly sweet.

Still, sensory differences were observed, especially in perceived acidity [20]. Similar results are also reported by Babaoglu and Ökten 2025 [45]. Lower sensory ratings correlated with higher perceived acidity, while higher ratings were associated with sweeter impressions. This may also be affected by the type of sugar: for example, heating sucrose can convert it to fructose, which tastes sweeter. This might explain the sweeter perception of jellies made from red wines with added sucrose. However, a lower rating does not mean the jelly tasted worse—just differently. Red wine jellies (possibly due to tannins) were generally perceived as sweeter than white wine jellies.

As seen in Figure 1, sensory taste scores for white wine jellies ranged from 4.9 to 6 points (neutral to mildly acidic), while red wine jellies, enhanced by added sugar and possibly higher alcohol content, were perceived as sweeter. The sweetest-tasting jelly was made from the Agni variety using vegan gelatin.

3.2.4. Comparison of Bouquet

For the average consumer, assessing varietal bouquet (a flavor characteristic typical of the grape variety) can be difficult. However, a prominent bouquet is desirable in wine jelly, as it helps distinguish the product from jellies made with other fruit [44,45], and even allows for differentiation between grape varieties. Identifying varietal bouquet requires experienced tasters familiar with the specific varieties used.

According to Figure 1, the varietal bouquet was retained in all samples, and all jellies exhibited flavors typical of the grape varieties used. However, sensitivity to these varietal notes varied by taster, so the averaged scores may not fully capture their distinctiveness. The strongest varietal bouquet was recorded in gelatin-based jellies made from Moravian Muscat (average 8.3 points). This Muscat variety was the most easily identifiable and scored highly across all gelling agents (ranging from 7.9 to 8.3 points).

3.3. Principal Component Analysis

PCA was used to identify the main correlations within the dataset based on production and sensory parameters. As shown in Figure 3, the first two principal components explained 61.35% of the variability (F1: 34.84%, F2: 22.51%). Factor 3 added only 20.19%. The biplot illustrates that most observed characteristics had a significant influence on jelly parameters. The gelling agent correlated moderately with sensory and compositional attributes such as clarity, consistency, and alcohol, whereas wine variety was linked more with taste, DPPH, and total phenolic content (TPC).

From this, we can conclude that Factor 1 strongly affects consumer acceptance of wine jelly. Parameters like residual sugar and extract can be easily influenced by adding sugar, making them less dependent on variety or gelling agent. Factor 2 affects production characteristics and helps differentiate which parameters are more influenced by the gelling agent versus the wine variety. Interestingly, bouquet does not correlate with any major factor, aligning with our sensory results—where bouquet was the most difficult parameter to assess reliably.

PCA led to a clear separation of samples by gelling agent, with gelatin showing the greatest distinctiveness compared to agar and vegan gelatin (Figure 4). Figure 5 shows modest differences across grape varieties but clearly highlights distinctions between red and white wines. The size of the ellipses indicate greater variability in white varieties, while their orientation shows that Factor 1 had more influence on red varieties and Factor 2 on white ones.

4. Conclusions

This study focused on the production of wine jelly using different wine varieties and three types of gelling agents. In terms of health benefits, the total phenolic content of white jellies ranged from 0.274 to 0.402 mg GAE·g⁻¹ and that of red jellies from 0.884 to 1.965 mg GAE·g⁻¹. Antioxidant capacity was from 0.287 to 0.384 mg TEA·g⁻¹ for white jellies and from 0.895 to 2.155 mg TEA·g⁻¹ for red jellies. The results clearly demonstrated that the final properties of the jelly—particularly consistency, clarity, taste, and bouquet—are significantly influenced by both the type of wine used and the gelling agent applied.

For the production of wine jelly with emphasis on sensory, taste, and content properties and the subsequent use of this product in modern enogastronomy, the most ideal gelling agent is vegan gelatin, which had the highest values of total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity. It preserves the aromatic predisposition of the variety, gives a good bouquet and taste to the resulting jelly, and does not have such a fundamental lack of clarity in the product. In terms of the consistency of the resulting jelly, the samples using gelatin had the highest stiffness (strength), followed by agar and then vegan gelatin. In terms of the clarity of the jelly, gelatin was the most popular among the tasters, followed by vegan gelatin and then agar, which was shown to produce a dull appearance.

Appearance is a very important parameter for consumers, thus limiting the use of agar, especially in white varieties, where the matting due its use is pronounced. In terms of taste and bouquet, there are no significant differences between the gelling products. The slightly higher alcohol content of gelatins was confirmed, which is due to the fact that the gelatin does not undergo a boiling process during the preparation of the jelly, during which the alcohol evaporates to a greater extent. However, alcohol is an inherent component of wine jelly. If consumers prefer alcohol-free options, they can use the alternative of grape must jelly. When comparing the taste of the samples examined, the jellies made from red wines, which gave a more sweet impression, were better than the jellies made from white grape varieties, which contained more acidity. The tannin content of red wines increases the stiffness of the resulting jelly, which is not always desirable. Due to the higher aroma of all the selected varieties, all the varieties tested were relatively recognizable, Muscat being the best in the experiment, and this was the case for all the gelling agents used.