Let me first state that I haven’t had enough natural wine to firmly state whether or not I’m in or out. I’ve had some pretty funky ones that, quite frankly, I didn’t like. I’ve never had a natural red that I liked, but whites have been closer. To me, so many of what I’ve tried had an oxidative sense that tastes and smells like wine that had been open too long or aged way past its optimum drinking window.
With a few recent discussions here and on the CT forums, I started thinking about how we evaluate them. For most (myself included), we seem to compare them to “standard” wines (by which I mean wines with all of the usual treatments allowed / non-natural wines) and I’m not so sure if that’s fair. When I read posts and talk to real natural wine enthusiasts and makers, it seems to me they’re not seeking to make wines or taste wines that smell or taste like their “standard” wine counterparts. Rather, they’re trying to make wine 1.) in a very purposeful way, and 2.) that is somewhat funky, different, interesting. So, should we be evaluating natural wines in a different way? Perhaps we should evaluate them in relationship to a whole different set of standards? I wouldn’t evaluate mead or a fruit wine with the same qualifications of a standard grape wine, so why would I do that for natural wines?
I’m not sure where I stand on this, but I thought I’d throw it out there and could see some interesting discussion coming.