Should we be evaluating natural wine differently?

WINE TALK
21

I would venture that all three of those wines use S02…

22

Perhaps not Bea, but I can’t be sure. He was more interested in talking about art and architecture than wine during my visit (not the old man, the son whose name escapes me).

23

I love Cappellano, but no way would I categorize them as natural wine.

1 Like
24

Interesting profile here: Cappellano - Rare Wine Co.
Native ferm, rustic old school winemaking, a block of own-rooted vines, staunchly traditional. The only question would be sulfite use. There’s quite a range between various natural wine definitions how much is allowed. I’d guess not much is used, and it’s actually quite possible none is needed.

Would you consider Edmunds St. John a natural wine label?

25

I have a ternary system : hate it, quite like it, and, love it.
If pushed I can split hate it into : ‘not with a barge pole’ and ‘why bother’.

26

On the matter at hand, “natural wine making” is not an excuse. (Nor is biodynamic, skin contact, cork, sulphur, traditional methods, yadda yadda).

27

Built into the question “should we evaluate natural wine differently?” is the following logic

  1. Natural wines (perhaps) needs it’s own category, for quality review
  2. Because it typically does not rate as well
  3. Because there is a price to pay for obsessing on “natural”
  4. And against everything else, it can’t compete
  5. So let’s give it a break and treat it with kid gloves instead of forcing them to compete
  6. Meaning that asking the question provides its own answer
  7. That overall it’s not as well liked
  8. And if it were as good (or better) this question would not be asked.

PS- It’s still a very fun topic to discuss. [cheers.gif]

1 Like
28

No

29

That would be my guess, too. The low/no-sulfur bandwagon doesn’t seem to have gained much momentum in Piedmont. I’d guess that the long wood aging of the nebbiolos would just be too risky without sulfur.

30

I looked at the early posts (I was number 2), and I don’t see it. Mostly, “drunk what you like”. I do see a young man shaking his fists at the sky, though

31

And your point would be? That one’s age determines whether or how one appreciates wine? And that “We all know what natural wines are”?

Got it.

Of course, some of the posts above would indicate that there’s not complete agreement, but hey, it’s a boomer thing. Let’s rag on them. They’re all stupid.

rolleyes

1 Like
32

Nothing added but low amount of SO2. Sweet Alice praises Steve’s wines as natural. What’s your reasoning?

33

That I don’t care about labels. I just love the wines, and have been drinking them since before anybody cared about stupid labels.

Steve’s wines (if you decide to label them as “natural”) are actually a good example of why we don’t need a separate evaluation process. His wines are just delicious.

Of course having Captain Filtration come quiz people on natural wine is a bit of a laugh as well.

34

I prefer open top fermented farmhouse ales and sour beers to many of the natural wines I’ve had.

We hosted a wine dinner with a vintner at a local brewery known for their open fermented sours and barrel aging program. When the brewmaster and I took the vintner on a tour he remarked they were making natural wine just subbing out the grapes. Thought that was interesting.

(BTW, the space lent itself to a wine dinner perfectly. With no wineries for hundred of miles it was as close to a winery dinner as you’ll get. Particularly with the stacks of barrels they keep for their barrel aging program. Highly recommend using a similar space if you’re ever looking for a fun place to host a dinner.)

35

I really liked this one from Adam Tolmach

https://www.ojaivineyard.com/2017-sans-soufre-ajoute/

36

0 - I wouldn’t drink it
2 - I would drink it
3 - I would buy it
4 - I would buy it again
5 - I would cellar it as a birth year wine for my child

37

I’m perplexed at not only this topic but many of the responses.

First and foremost: I am in agreement that the term “natural” is entirely inappropriate, as it somehow presupposes that all other wine is somehow “unnatural”.

That aside, low/minimal intervention wine is just that - wine without the the dependency on additives, invasive procedures like R/O, or the heavy use of pesticides, insecticides or herbicides. To me, that indicates an incredibly talented winemaker. It takes a lot of hard work to do nothing. Many commercial and conventional wineries are more focused on convenience than time.

The problem with natural wine is the adoption by misinformed, “anti knowledge” kids who have single handedly made the category synonymous with faults. “Give me that dirty wine”. They don’t want to study, they don’t want to read or even travel - they just want to drink what is deemed cool. This is not reflective of natural wine, or the community at all. As usual, it’s a few idiots who have wrecked it for everyone.

Let me ask you, are you familiar with any of the following producers: Chateau Le Puy, Marko Fon, Overnoy, Ganevat, Gravner, Radikon, Paraschos, Aci Urbajs, Thevenet, Lapierre, Pearl Morisette, Zorjan, Didier Daganeau, Anne Claude LeFlaive…shall I go on? Are these “lesser” producers? All listed abide by “natural” practices. I’d be hard pressed to find any wine enthusiast or sommelier tell me any examples of these wines are “less complex” than their conventional counterparts.

The fact is, natural wine can and should be clean, there are just a lot of bad examples of it out there and it has become the scapegoat for faults. There’s also a hell of a lot of bad conventional wine out there too, but no one is calling out these folks for being heavily reliant on chemicals when they make their adjustments.

Plus, to add insult to injury, we’ve got all these minimal-ish intervention guys wanting to exploit the term. As my good friend Sean said with a great analogy: “Like fake tits. I love fake tits. Don’t pretend that you have great genetics, just enjoy your giant fake tits.”

Enjoy the false dichotomy and respect the craft - whatever practices are employed. Honesty and disclosure are what it’s about, not whether the styles should be segregated or judged differently.

1 Like
38

I agree with almost everything you say, other than the fake tits. Oh, and your statement that bad conventional over manipulated wines (which are, essentially, fake tits) slide through without criticism

39

And then there is the Johnson system (no, its not what you think!).
Extracted from former edition of Hugh Johnson’s invaluable Pocket Wine Guide
One Sniff: Minimum score, Emphatically, No Thanks.
One Sip: A step up
Two Sips: Faint interest - or disbelief!
A Half Glass: Slight hesitation
One glass: Tolerance, even general approval
…
Two glasses: You quite like it, or there is nothing else to drink
Three glasses: More than acceptable
Four: : It tickles your fancy
One bottle: : More than satisfaction
Second bottle. : Is the real thumbs up
…
A full case. : You are not going to miss out on this one
…
And ultimately
The Whole Vineyard
(Which is a bit of an inside joke)

40

i dont think expectations should change for a natural wine, besides possibly aging potential.

but wines number one job is to be pleasurable to drink. either it is or it isnt. now, a natural wine might have a different set of aromas or flavors than even the exact same grapes treated with a bunch of sulfur or cultured yeast, and i dont necessarily think that is something that should be held against it. But I do think that faults in wine are considered faults for a reason. a wine doesnt just get to have overwhelming VA, TCA, or oxidation because its natural. It shouldnt be overly green because they refused to pull out the grass they dont cut in the vineyard. but is it bad that its more brambly fruited or less extracted? i dont think so.