About as clear as a glass of unfined, unfiltered wine.
As John has suggested, many unfined/unfiltered wines are produced and enjoyed each year without a problem. As Joe says, some winemakers believe the rewards outweigh the risks, particularly when care is given to ensure a high level of stability pre-bottling.
Cheers,
Notice my qualifiers, the mention of risk …employing one or both is probably a good idea which are similar to your use of many and some.
Qualifiers are the result of serpentining ideology, which I suppose you and I are doing. Me, I never dreamed of not fining and filtering my wine, but I am out of business now, so maybe I was all wrong. I have been unlucky in life to have contracted dysentery in Iran and giardia in New York–I filter my well water at .5 microns, just in case.
Definitely a ‘cya’ but it also clearly states what their return policy is - whether you agree with it or noy 
I’ve paid the price for not filtering a couple of times. One vintage was thrown away after bottling and before release, and another suffered from a lot of bottle variation. So I’m gun-shy about bottling unfiltered. I’ve also felt that there was no real cost to the wine in cross-flow filtration beyond perhaps extending the bottleshock period. Still, I usually bottle up an unfiltered case of each vintage to be able to follow its evolution in comparison to the filtered version. My general experience has been that the wines become more similar to each other over the course of the first couple of years in bottle. The unfiltered wines may tend to have a little more volume and a little more obvious oak, and the filtered versions can be a little more refined/precise. I haven’t had a consistent preference for one over another, so filtering has seemed a very worthwhile way to cut the risk of having things go south in the bottle. More recently, however, I found that the '06 vintage of both pinot and syrah showed a much more marked difference between the filtered and unfiltered bottles. The unfiltered versions showed a lot fuller and more energetic than the filtered versions that were starting to tire. So, on the subject of ageability, I’m starting to rethink my stance on filtering. Clark Smith will tell you that graceful aging is largely a function of the colloidal structure of the wine, and that filtering will cost a wine in that regard. I’m taking his advice more seriously in light of recent experience. The good news on this front may be the new chitosan products that could turn out to be effective enough to enable more wineries bottle microbially sound wines without having to filter.
Makes sense, but of course the operative words are “graceful aging.” That won’t happen if things go south, which is the risk. I do remember a re-fermentation in one of my wines with RS, not because I didn’t filter, but because the filtration was not sterile.
Well now that the producer is known, the funny thing is I have never had any issues with aging their wine. Sure, some vintages are better than others, but I have had their wine going back to 1999 and I can think of only a handful that I would say were flawed or aged poorly.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to just type Jaffurs? 
For those wines that you paid the price for not filtering, did you have scorpions or plating done? Was there RS or nitrogen left in them? Was the pH over 3.6 and was the free so2 at bottling .5 or .8 mol.
I have definitely talked to many old timers that got burned at one point in the past. Though there are new tools we have not they did not have. We now have crossflow as an option they did not have in the past that is far superior to plate and frame set ups.
True, but that was funny!
I appreciate the response.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what “serpentining ideology” means (sounds vaguely malevolent).
My views on filtration are based on science and personal experience. There may be some underlying ideology in there as well. But I’d prefer to call it “philosophy” rather than “ideology” as the latter can sometimes be used to indicate a dogmatic approach; I’m no fan of dogma.
And, for those reading who may mis-understand your post, we’re not filtering for fear that customers might otherwise contract dysentery or giardia.
I know you understand that point, Thomas. But I’m not sure everyone esle does.
Regards,
Bruce, If I could I’d include a squiggly line–serpentine.
You know, after posting I did think about the potential dysentery confusion, but I said to myself, “who cares?” At this point, only the diehards are tuned in.
OK, our ideology is really philosophy. I can buy that 
Seriously, we are largely in agreement. There’s no doubt in my mind that a difference between non-filtered wine and filtered wine can be felt and even seen, as it relates to depth or heft. Filtering does do some stripping, but I’ve never felt it does enough to warrant the risk of forgoing it. Then again, I produced only white wine, which looks ugly to me when it isn’t cleaned up.
Most people do not store their wines in a temperature controlled or naturally cool wine cellar. They ship wines in the summer, they store wines above the refrigerator. They put wines in beautiful racks in the living room or the dining room in direct sunlight.
My guess is that the winery has had a number of complaints from customers who are normal Joes, doing the above, rather than geeks like us who are obsessive in how we store wines. Wines that are not filtered and not fined are more suseptible to being ruined by improper storage than are more “stabilized” wines. My guess is that the winery is tired of complaints from people who mishandled the wines and now are complaining that it is the winery’s fault the wines went bad. So, they are warning these people off.
Good public service.
I’m afraid this is getting off topic, but here’s the answer. This was '03 (brett) and '05 (pedio), and I think I was relying on plating then. Now, I wouldn’t bottle unfiltered without a scorpions test giving the green light. Both wines would have been under 3.6 and dry. Didn’t test N, but neither got fed during fermentation. I’m usually around 25-30 ppm free SO2 at bottling, but I don’t remember these cases in particular – should have been higher, as it turned out. The real achilles heel in the bottling scheme was trying to go unfiltered in a situation where several wineries are sharing the same bottling truck on the same day. You either subject yourself to all the bugs that passed thru the whole setup earlier in the day, or you bring everything to a grinding halt for several hours while everything gets re-sanitized for your 120 case lot. Neither is a very good option, and that’s one of the reasons I moved to filtration. Now that I’m in my own production facility and have a bit more control over bottling (and have larger lots), I’m more willing to revisit the prospect of going unfiltered.
Sounds like sharing needles!
Even with a scorpion test, though, you cannot be certain. The results will say ‘not detected’ but detection is not absolute; it’s only as good as the limits of the test.
I remember a winemaker here in the past saying that his wine could not have brett because the tests showed it ‘didn’t have any’ . . .but it did
Cheers