Short version: I tried wines from La Garagista. Lots of people love them, but I didn’t. What am I missing?
Long version: I was up in Vermont for the eclipse and thought it would be apropos to enjoy something local with dinner. La Garagista is a natural winemaker in Vermont with a strong reputation, on WBers and with critics. Eric Asimov recently called them “perhaps the most creative wine project in the US”. I’ve had La Garagista twice before- a pet-nat (Ci Confonde) and a red (Blood Root Kindle). I decided to mix it up so I got a skin contact white called Lupo in Boca. They didn’t have a regular white available.
The pet nat and red that I’d had were definitely not my style; so much brett, so much barnyard, I could barely drink them. But it’s been a couple of years and my tastes have evolved. I thought it would be worth another try. I have to say, that this time the levels of Brett were even higher than I remember and the VA was off the charts. The wine in the glass looked an unappetizing cloudy brown. There was a little fizz that I don’t think was intentional. I saved the open bottle in the fridge overnight hoping for improvement, but it just got worse. I had to pour it out.
I have experience with other natural winemakers, and I generally like them. I can tolerate a little mousiness or brett or VA, but I really struggled with these wines from La Garagista. They just seemed to have so many formal flaws (brett, VA, incomplete fermentation). I don’t mean to knock them; they seem like passionate winemakers that many people love, including experienced respected critics like Eric Asimov, but I couldn’t find anything redeeming about the wines. I consider myself an adventurous drinker, but I really couldn’t drink these. I’m wondering what I’m missing, because clearly I’m missing something here.
Thanks,
Noah
Here are pics:
The bottle certainly looks nice cooling down in the snow (big snowstorm a few days before).
Very few white surfaces in my AirBnB to use as a backdrop to show the color of the wine. The sink was all I had (already dark outside when I opened it so white snow was no longer an option), it’s not meant to be a commentary on where the wine eventually ended up.
From the looks of that glass of wine, I think I see what you were missing: you tried the wines and formed an opinion of them instead of overlooking the flaws because “natty”.
It’s possible or even likely that you aren’t missing anything, and I appreciate that you aren’t lumping all other natural wines in with the experience you’ve had here. That said, there are so few people on this board with any real natural wine experience beyond “I tried a few randomly and they were flawed so I won’t go back”. I’m curious how many helpful responses you’ll be able to get, as opposed to people just piling on because they have the belief that “natural wines” = “flawed product”.
It’s been a while - tasted / bought some bottles somewhere around 2016/2017. At the time, Ci Confonde and Ci Confonde Rose were very very good - clean, crisp, fresh. On the flip side I also bought Loups Garoux which went down the drain. In 2022 I found a bottle of 2015 Ci Confonde in the corner of the cellar and opened it - it was incredible and I wished I had more. The name of the wine was appropriate… a pet nat at 7 years? Ci Confonde!
I like a lot of natural wines and I find La Garagista to be too high variance for my tastes. I’ve really enjoyed some and not liked at all even more.
They are working with hybrids some of which like Marquette have barely a decade of serious commercial use, let alone natural winemaking. In addition, Vermont gives them widely variable vintage conditions. In short, they are ice skating uphill in many ways. I respect what they are doing, but that doesn’t mean that I (or anyone) has to like the wines nor are you missing anything if you don’t.
What you’re missing is your hard-earned money that you forked over for these flawed wines. If a winery is making a pet nat that’s generally a red flag right there. Combine that with multiple off bottles and it’s clear the best thing one can do is pack any remaining bottles from La Garagista in a rocket and send them to the moon with a Pium! sound like the one on this shirt from La Garage bakery here in Buenos Aires.
This is a ridiculous comment and emblematic of the narrow-minded arrogance of ‘conventional’ wine drinkers. There’s plenty of decent pet nat out there. Is it profound? No. Is it for everyone? Probably not. Is there some dreck? Yes. No less dreck than conventional, and it can be downright enjoyable. Get over yourself.
Edit: Someone will now inevitably reply with ‘natural wine is a minefield’. A statement nobody, including me, disagrees with. It’s definitely more of a minefield than conventional wine. But let’s not ever forget that there’s oceans of unremarkable / barely drinkable conventional wine. Wine that none of us conventional wine lovers would ever let pass our lips. Wine that is technically sound while being utterly boring.
Well, I was drinking and loving Mark Angeli around the year 2000, then representing Massa Vecchia and Radikon a few years later. I was wholesaling Gavevat in 2006, imported the likes of Belluard and France Gonzalvez. I forget all the other “natural” wines I’ve loved and worked with over the years. But sure, label me as a conventional wine drinker or whatever you like. I’ll be here enjoying some Stormy Weather.
Well done on having an open mind on those wines (and I’ll tell you the handful of Radikons I’ve had have been too ‘out there’ for me - so even I tread quite carefully there!). Hopefully you understand I wasn’t ‘labeling’ you, but responding to your comment about pet nat, which essentially put down an entire segment of the natural wine market. That comment is exactly the sort of thing we see time and time again on this board from those who do focus on ‘conventional’ wines. If that’s not you, then cheers.
If a winery is making a pet nat that’s generally a red flag right there.
No problem. Just like Tom Hill, I don’t mind stirring the pot a little if it provokes discussion that enables learning. I’m also well aware that these discussions usually rehash the same old points and wind up nowhere. I tend to stay away from any staunch labeling. For instance, I recently posted on one of Sean Thackrey’s wines. I can’t remember his exact quote but I think he said he switched to pitching yeast once he looked at his wine under a microscope. No way would hardcore “natural” winegrowers consider his wines natural but they were anything but conventional and I don’t think anyone would deny that they were very much ‘ailve’ and wild. You wouldn’t believe the amount of people- good tasters/buyers- that used to spit Ganevat back at me before he was well known. People didn’t understand the spritzy co2. Ditto for Valentini. Returned bottles were not uncommon. All three of those wineries remain some of my all-time favorites.
One of my favorite producers down here is Riccitelli. He makes one called Kung Fu. Haven’t tried it. Looks like a real thirst quencher made from 50/50 malbec and pinot noir in a rose style.
Nice. Speaking of conventional, El Prefe has a great wine list, especially considering that it’s a fairly mainstream restaurant. It always has several interesting selections. As far as I know, the owner was originally a somm. Not sure when you were last here but unfortunately prices there, along with almost everywhere here, sure aren’t what they used to be. Used to go all the time just as things were reopening from Covid and two of us out the door for around $20 total with appetizer, main, and dessert. Probably close to $65/person for that now.
Limited experience with la garagista, but I had one last summer that I loved and one last week that I couldn’t get into. It seems like there’s a pretty high instance of bottle variation, but as noted they do a lot of work with hybrids which are going to present flavors differently than euro wine grapes and can be a bit jarring. When they’re on they can be really special, but the threshold for being off is a bit different than just being uninspiring grape juice.
Imagine that there was a category of wines that were randomly flawed by winemaking choices. Let’s for the sake of argument call this category “white Burgundy” and the flaw “premox”. So you’d buy wines in this category and some would be amazing and some would be undrinkable and it was hard to tell which bottles would be affected, though over time and due diligence some patterns emerged.
How many bottles of white Burgundy would you continue to buy knowing that poor winemaking would cause you to dump a percentage of them down the sink?
My point here is that calling out poor winemaking decisions whether the end result is premox or elevated VA/Brett/Mouse/Oxidation isn’t arrogance. It’s simply a decision about how to allocate finite wine dollars.
On 1 - I think this is so important. We aren’t done with grapes! Even though there have been so many years to figure out “X version of Pinot on Y hill in Burgundy” - we aren’t done yet! What’s around the river bend? Someone will make the next Cab Sauv and I want to play a small part (it’s not like I’m buying cases of La Garagista every year) to keep space availible for innovation in wine.
On 2 - I like the idea, as things warm up, of really thoughtful wine makers getting early into regions and learning the soils and micro-climates. Related unrelated - I also like Vermont.
These pieces I enjoy are in the context of my acceptable “risk curve” for faulty bottles. I think La Garagista is at a price point and availability where I don’t mind taking risk and having to dump. Other wineries, for example Hiyu or Marguet champagnes, are outside my curve and so even though I have reasons to like them, and have had great bottles, I don’t buy them anymore. Everyone’s curve will be different and many of the people you mentioned have very generous risk curves due to either their preferences or their place ITB.
if it provokes discussion that enables learning. I’m also well aware that these discussions usually rehash the same old points and wind up nowhere. I tend to stay away from any staunch labeling. For instance, I recently posted on one of Sean Thackrey’s wines. I can’t remember his exact quote but I think he said he switched to pitching yeast once he looked at his wine under a microscope. No way would hardcore “natural” winegrowers consider his wines natural but they were anything but conventional and I don’t think anyone would deny that they were very much ‘ailve’ and wild. You wouldn’t believe the amount of people- good tasters/buyers- that used to spit Ganevat back at me before he was well known. People didn’t understand the spritzy co2. Ditto for Valentini. Returned bottles were not uncommon. All three of those wineries remain some of my all-time favorites.