If a non-natural technique provided a better wine would the winemaker use it? If the principle is making the best wine then they would use the non-natural technique.
this is precisely what I mean by drawing bright lines - I don’t think you can call a wine natural or non-natural without doing so and, since the proponents don’t clearing define what it is (or isn’t) it’s meaningless to say “this wine is natural, that one is non-natural.” To the degree someone is using the term natural to differentiate their wine, it’s BS since the term doesn’t have a clear, accepted meaning.
I think the movement to ID some wines as natural is a misguided reaction the high brix, extracted wines that take fruit and manipulate it with little regard to what the vineyard gives.
Adam - exploring where lines are drawn can certainly help clarify concepts, but you need to approach it in that spirit I think. To use your example of original sin… looked at from the point of view of a believer in the idea, the issue of what happens to a baby who dies is an interesting conundrum. Looked at from outside, you can resolve that by discarding the idea of original sin entirely.
To bring this back to wine, you can explore the idea of natural vs manipulated wine if you define certain practices as being on one side, others on the other side and explore WHY you’ve classified things that way, but that exercise relies on the belief that one can draw such a line at all. The second you admit that there’s not such a bright line the entire debate becomes non-rational much as the original sin debate does if you simply posit that there’s no such thing.
Berry - I don’t think there’s really debate that many approaches can produce tasty wine (though the definition of tasty is somewhat personal). As I understand it the natural wine proponents argue that minimal intervention preserves diversity by letting the vineyard and vintage difference show through more clearly and that this results in more interesting wines than the same fruit would yield if manipulated. The italicized part is key - you can’t compare a minimal intervention Pinot Noir and a Champagne. You CAN compare two Champagnes or two Pinots from the same fruit source and ask what happens if you intervene a lot vs a little in context.
I agree with Keith here. Guys like Hank, Steve E, Abe and others are not taking over the market share. In fact, they comprise a minute portion. And notifying the buyer what the vineyard and winery practices are doesn’t really constitute marketing per se, just as nutritional content is more an FDA requirement. However, when Kendal Jackson puts out their “natural” Merlot, I think the term will have reached it’s demise.
Berry- you bring up some good points. In Champagne, there certainly is a current trend of low to zero dosage. In terms of oak, it is a big influence on the juice and clearly manipulates the final product. Many of the winemakers following natural wine making methods, employ little to no oak. Again, the term is really representing a range. The criteria is individually set. Just like pradikit, one man’s kabinet is another’s Spatlese, etc…
Adam - There’s a world of wine outside of Sonoma Co. The majority of natural wine I consume is not from the US and the majority of those producers use little to no oak.
Thanks for the geography lesson. Really…a world of wine outside of Sonoma. Thanks for that info!
Seriously, I drink lots of Old World Wines but haven’t had many reds not aged in oak. Can you give me an idea of some of the producers? What do they age them in – stainless, concrete?
Berry mentioned “charred oak,” which, by extension, means new oak. It’s rather disingenous to argue the point that old world producers are using oak when, in fact, the barrels they use are old and neutral. The point is, those that are of the natural wine ilk generally don’t use new charred barrels as it goes against the mindset of minimal intervention. Granted, Biodynamics says nothing about the use of new oak, but, again, it’s a mindset of less is more.
I wasn’t responding as much to Berry’s comment as to Greg’s when he said “The majority of natural wine I consume is not from the US and the majority of those producers use little to no oak.”
I am seriously not aware of many producers that make red wine that use little or no oak. Oak, new or used, provides a level of oxygen ingress in the wines that doesn’t exist in tanks, and concrete is different as well.
Yes, but in relation to natural wines, when one says no oak, one usually interprets that as no new oak, at least in circles that regularly discuss natural wines. Technically accurate? No, but the meaning is understood. At least that’s been my experience.
Great Brad. You know, somebody says something that I think is interesting — as I have wondered about trying to make a red without any oak (we have stainless steel drums that we use for some of our whites – wondered about it on Pinot Meunier) – and I ask about it. – I get one comment saying that there’s a world of wine outside Sonoma (as if that is news) and someone else calling me disengenous.
Didn’t call you disingenuous, just your oak argument. Didn’t mean to harsh your mellow,or anything. I enjoy your participation and your efforts, but just disagreed with your oak point. Granted, I do realize Gregg’s response was a little persnickety.
Okay…so, Brad, do you know of any reds (other than Noveau) that aren’t aged in oak at all? I am still wondering - I’d love to try some - natural or otherwise.
I finally had an opportunity to read the article, and I found it a bit vague, but I guess you could say the same thing for the term “natural wine”. As in food, there are no defined parameters. That granola bar might have a huge “all natural” label on it, but really? Natural? I don’t think anyone would claim be be able to recognize many of the original ingredients.
But then again, can anyone recognize that wine used to be grapes?
I liked the article. Natural wine isn’t about marketing, at this point anyway. Most consumers have no idea about natural wines. Most geeks don’t even know what natural wine really means, myself included. Eric does a good job at offering a definition, acknowledging that even then there’s no hard and fast line about what’s exactly natural and what isn’t.
To me, it ends up being in the intent of the producer. Are you trying to produce something true to the site, the year, the grape(s)? Or are you trying to fix problems or otherwise compensate for what the wine doesn’t seem to have, in order to make it something “better?” One’s natural to me, the other is fine but something different.
A final thought – we’re talking about natural “wine.” I think old oak is fine. It doesn’t add oak flavor but even though it isn’t an inert vessel, we’re talking about making wine, not grape juice. You can have influence on the wine and it still be natural. The idea is to take fruit and produce wine that expresses that fruit, with minimal input. Old oak’s fine by me.
Adam - You said, “I know very few red wine winemakers, natural or otherwise, that use little or no oak”. I took that to mean those in your hood. It was a poorly constructed tongue in cheek. Neutral oak is what I was referencing when using no oak, though there are some producers that use alternative aging vessels. Cement and stainless steel are common. Then there are the amphora users like Frank Cornelissen, Gogi Dakishvili, Gravner & Radikon (whites). The use of neutral oak is perfectly fine to my tastes. I’m interested in expression of the variety & place. Clearly new oak manipulates this endeavor. I want to stress that natural wine is nothing more than another application. There’s room at the table for all. I enjoy Burgundy, Cote Rotie, CdP, even Valtelina, to name a few. The majority of these wines see some new oak. I prefer conservative wine making, applying old school methods, with limited new oak use.
If your serious about trying natural wines, I suggest you head down to SF and taste at Terrior. The guys will certainly point in the direction.
With the caveat that I work with these, here are a few quickies:
St. Martin de la Garrigue- Coteaux du Languedoc, Cuvee Tradition
Joguet- Chinon, les Petites Roches, Cuvee Terroir and Cuvee de la Cure
Dupeuble- Beaujolais
Salvard- Cheverny Rouge
Domaine de la Chanteleuserie- Bourgueil, Alouettes
Allegrini- Valpolicella
Librandi- Ciro Rosso Classico
Mastroberardino- Lacryma Christi del Vesuvio Rosso
Prunotto- Barbera D’Asti, Fiulot
Valle Reale- Vigne Nuove Montepulciano d’Abruzzo
Almira- Los Dos Garnacha/Syrah
Bodegas Piqueras- Castillo Almansa, Garnacha Tintorera
Rioja Vega- Rioja Joven
The article, for me, didn’t say much except that Asimov likes Natural Wines. The problem is that all wines are natural, just some are more natural than others. The aim of natural winemaking should be to try to express your terroir as best you can, not to be “more natural” than your competitors.
Natural winemaking isn’t doing nothing. Total non-intervention makes vinegar. Every winemaker marks their stamp on the wine. Choosing when to harvest, temperature of ferment, yeasts, bacteria, maceration, ageing regime, fining, blending ,…
Use of oak is a stylistic choice. I hadn’t really thought about it in the way discussed here, as nearly every winemaker I know in the Languedoc-Roussillon makes some reds with and some without oak. I think there is great skill, as well as great terroir, in making a fabulous wine without using oak. Oak, along with other winemakers tools, is a bit like makeup. You can slap in on with a trowel and make a pretty girl look like a tart. You can disguise an ugly face and make a plain one attractive. Well-used, it can make a beautiful woman even more stunning but there is also something incredibly attractive about a natural beauty with no make-up at all.
Not sure that I follow (both the “all are natural” part and the competitive part) I’m not sure if anyone is trying to be more natural than the competition, most are just trying to tell their story of how their wines are made.
Do we really have to argue about everything. I think all that Asimov said is that there are a lot of good wines made using more organic winemaking processes. I do not believe that he ever said that there were not good wines from producers who did not use these methods. And, he clearly said that there are poor wines by some producers using more organic winemaking processes.
It certainly is my sense that wineries that are more dedicated and more careful about details (both in the vineyard and in the winery) make better wines. One way in which some producers have expressed this is by going back to their roots and making wines in a more organic way. Many of those wines are delicious. That is not to say that there also are not good wines make in other ways. What exactly is the argument about?
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}