Sulfur isn't such a bad thing (TN: La Clarine Farm mourvedre)

I tend to be sympathetic to less interventional winemaking, but this no-sulfur theology drives me nuts. The notion is that with low or no sulfur, the grapes and terroir will show through.

The only problem is when the wines, instead, are overwhelmed by some biological nastiness. Then all natural wines start to taste alike.

A case in point: I’m in Upstate New York this week, in an area that’s a bit of a wine retail wasteland. In a store in that has almost no wine I’d want to buy, I spotted the 2016 La Clarine Farm - Mourvedre - Cedarville. Chambers Street hosted a tasting of La Clarine wines a couple of years ago and I liked their albarino and I bought a bottle of their tempranillo, which seemed promising. So, when I spotted the La Clarine among the rather grim offerings yesterday, I grabbed it. I’m always interested to try Sierra Foothills wines, and this was 12.7% ABV, so that was intriguing, too.

Sad to say, it was fairly funky on opening, and a bit weird and bitter on tasting. Not at all pleasant. Then there was a bit of mousiness at the back – the telltale tipoff that a wine was made without added sulphites. (It’s a byproduct of lactobacillus.)

My guests took small sips and went back to the white. I put the rest of the bottle in refrigerator. Tonight the mousiness was overwhelming and the wine was extremely volatile, in a really nasty way. This was not “lifted” but solvent-like. (A thorough rinsing did not remove the mousiness. I had to rewash the glass. It was more tenacious than any TCA.)

FYI, this was bottled under screwcap, so this isn’t case of oxygen exposure through a flawed cork.

The winery’s website explains the philosophy:

Why was everyone automatically adding SO2 at the crusher, and then at every racking? … Textbooks will give you good reasons to do these things. But textbooks are also concerned with merely making “sound” wine. I wanted more than that.

A more sensible person than I would have moved ahead slowly, experimenting perhaps with using less sulfur one year, maybe with a batch or two with “wild” yeasts. Not me. I decided to throw all those things out, at once, and start at zero.

No added yeasts. No SO2 at the crusher unless there is a good reason to do so. … No SO2 addition at any point in the process unless I needed to. …

But I wasn’t going to do any of that stuff either. If I really screwed up, it would just go down the drain…

I don’t want to pick on a small winery where the wines are plainly made with passion and commitment.

But the answer to the question of why people add sulfur is so that wines don’t turn out like this. So they are, at a minimum, sound. And so consumers like me don’t have to pour a $32 wine down the drain.

Sorry. Rant over. You may continue.

La Clarine label.jpg2530×2849 736 KB

My note, the exact opposite, which of course does not contradict - and one could posit, it entirely supports - your point about sulfur:

Perhaps you’re not sensitive to mousiness. I find it repulsive – much more than most faults (e.g., brett, even TCA). Something like a third of the population doesn’t not perceive it.

On the other hand, the volatility on day two was pretty dramatic.

As you said, variability is one of the risks.

Storage temperature is everything in a wine like this. Two different experiences are not unexpected, which is kind of the problem.

Yes, not just storage temps, of course, but the whole distribution chain and the wine store temps, and time. I’d guess this wine was bottled a bit over 2 years ago, plus it made it all the way across the country.

At first you missed my point, but I think you close with it. SS is good, when it’s good; and its really bad, when it’s bad. It’s variable. Amazing to me that anyone would risk so many hundreds of dollars on Allemand SS given that SS can be like catching a falling knife. I buy some Bojo SS as I like it very much, plus they are cheap and, IMHO, meant to be consumed young, but I am ok with the risk and variability at this lower price point.

It was Louis Martini that sold a delicate, unstable moscato only at the winery, wasn’t it? They warned you to have a cooler in your car for it and to keep it refrigerated until consumed. That was a novelty, and they were honest. And the wine was cheap, as I recall.

Distributing a wine that’s vulnerable enough that everything needs to be perfect in order for the bottle to arrive in the consumer’s hands in sound condition is … well … not right.

(FYI, the store, for all its shortcomings, has always been well air-conditioned. But heaven knows what happened between the Foothills and the Hudson Valley.)

I’m curious whether you are going to return the wine - and if not, why?

This is not a ‘sound’, regardless of the reason. The only way to ‘change things’ is to not accept this. And you shouldn’t have to - and shouldn’t have to eat the cost.

It’s the principle . . .

Cheers.

Allemand SS is the perfect example of a wine that’s a success story for non sulfur additions. But they don’t make the wine like natural winemakers make it. All it is is no sulfur in the bottle. They don’t do the semi carbonic ferm etc

I thought Allemand used some whole cluster on his Sans Soufre…in which case he does do some partial carbonic

Oh true, i forget he does do some semi carbonic maceration. You’re right

Well . . . I’m not a fan of the whole ‘partial carbonic’ term. Sure, may a small % of grapes make it all the way through the entire fermentation process unbroken? Of course. But my guess is that with a variety like syrah, the vast majority ARE broken and therefore not carbonic-like. And the fermentation is not in the absence of oxygen.

I prefer.to use the term partial whole berry fermentation.

Cheers.

I generally view SS and most of my local “natural” wines as the modern version of €3 European farmhouse wines. Inexpensive and close to home, what’s the harm in tasting?

But I don’t know that this winemaker is “passionate” or “committed”(IMO). If a winemaker is passionate about or committed to a vineyard, it seems like they would want a slightly less “volatile” form of demonstrating the terroir? Especially if getting a much higher rate of quality only required a bit more care in the cellar and a small addition of a non-toxic(although HIGHLY unpleasant to inhale) element. One that can be obtained in an organic form, and is also a staple in most vineyard spray programs…probably including the one his mourvedre fruit came from.

I don’t get it. It mostly comes off as ego to me. As in, “I’m not going to play basketball with hoops. I only play with peach baskets.”

I was on the La Clarine Farm list for a year a few years back and my experience is similar to John’s. It was sorta amusing to pour them for others. Most folks couldn’t drink them.

Hank must be familiar with this since I remember in his terms and conditions he states “I don’t like them” isn’t a valid reason for returns. Not the sort of thing you expect to see posted prominently on a winery’s web site. It’s still there:

https://www.laclarinefarm.com/the-wines.html

Here’s the full text:
“Our wines are unfiltered, unfined, and alive, so please expect some sediment and/or haze in some of the wines. It is not a sign that the wine is defective. Please contact us if you think a bottle might be “off” - we want you to be happy with your purchase - but remember that “I don’t like it” is not a reason for return.”


The following text is on the front page:
"We make wine as naturally as possible, the goal being to add no yeast, sulfur dioxide, oak chips, enzymes or concentrates in the cellar, and no chemicals, fertilizers or tillage in our vineyard.

We allow fermentations to occur spontaneously, and allow them to complete in their own time (this can take up to 6 months!). Every vintage has its own rhythms. We age our wine in neutral containers, never in new oak, and let the wine develop without sulfur additions or excessive racking.

We bottle when the wine is “complete” (when a wine eventually comes together and is harmonious). We then add a minimal amount of sulfur to ensure the bottles you receive are safe from the rigors of travel and fluctuating temperatures."

It is such a complicated subject. I have had so many great no SO2 wines and of course so many bad ones. What really troubles me is a large number of wine professionals in the natural world don’t understand that mousiness is a major flaw. Additionally when I buy a natural wine for $20-40 and it is flawed I chalk it up to it comes with the territory. Yet when I order a $200+ bottle of natural wine and it is flawed it is extremely frustrating.

Lastly Hudson Valley is NOT Upstate

I’m absolutely more partial to the AFWE side of the spectrum, with one exception… I largely avoid SS wines that aren’t very young. Supply chain to consumer is way too variable.

And, while I can’t prove it, I also hold reduced S in combination with gentler pressing as a potential culprit for premox in wines like Huet that are historically long agers but have had some challenges post 2000.

And this is the problem.

It is at least a problem. Another is that many (most?) end users do not have proper storage themselves. And that, generally at least, staying power is an issue.

Jim, I don’t know any details about the winemaking at Huet, but you’re certainly right that too many of their bottles since 2000 haven’t aged as they used to.