There has been a lot of bad wine even into the 20th century. This occurred due to various causes, be it bad from the beginning, spoiled as it was slowly consumed from barrel, oxidized from imperfectly sealed corks, or adulterated. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others all had notorious difficulties importing wine without it being adulterated along the way. They were also in the position of needing to import wine, there was not enough local production. There are centuries worth of books dealing with how to correct problems with wines. There was certainly good and great wine but I believe it was far less prevalent than today.
Without that time machine, who knows? We can certainly guess and assume, in an educated manner, but the “natural” wine people claim that wine was made “naturally” from 6000BCE to 1950CE.
You don’t know if those good bottles might have been just as good or better with a little SO2, though. It doesn’t make sense to say they’re great because there’s little or none added (I don’t know what Vatan does). Have you done side by side comparisons of the same wine (any wine) with and without? Even if it’s just a tiny bit less expressive, I’d rather have the SO2 so I can be much more sure that I’m not about to open a bad bottle.
I knew Jesus was an AFWE.
There are producers who make sulfite and no sulfite versions of the same wines, so you can get a feel for the amazing characteristics that only no sulfite wines can have.
A little winemaking experience will give you a feel of the sub-obvious impact of various SO2 level on the same wine. Think darker, heavier, dull, even graphite-y. What level of SO2 is optimal depends on the wine, preference and open-mindedness. Don’t judge no sulfite wines by the sucky failures. The best ones are amazing. This is still new ground, with cutting edge winemakers finding their way. It may not be the time to fill the cellar with the stuff, but it is worth paying attention.
I don’t judge them all by the bad ones. I do have a problem with the fact that even some of the celebrated ones suffer from such extreme bottle variation that quite a few bottles aren’t good to drink. There aren’t many producers I’m aware of making versions of the same wine with and without. Only Lapierre in Beaujolais comes to mind. Can you name some others? I can’t get the no-sulfur Lapierre Morgon in my market, so I haven’t had it. I’m interested to do some comparisons of my own. It seems that most producers who dogmatically use very little or none have no interest in making wine any other way, so there’s no chance for comparison. In those cases, there’s no way of saying whether or not the quality of the wine has anything (maybe more than a tiny bit, but I’m not even sold on that) to do with the lack of SO2.
Roberto Rogness wrote:
Do you guys really think that Thomas Jefferson spent money to send Margaux and Haut Brion to the colonies because it was crap? Or that everything George Sainstbury said about the wines of his time was fanciful nonsense?
Bordeaux of the 18th century was not supposed to age, especially for 50 years. The only wines then that you aged were sweet or fortified or both.
By Saintsbury’s time, I doubt that the wines would now be considered “natural.” This was after the time of copper and synthetic pesticides.
Allemand comes to mind.
This.
I’ve had no-sulfur wines that are gorgeous, and the same wine from another bottle was undrinkable. This should be a back and forth discussion, but many folks have made it into a declaration of Us-vs-Them, which of course turns things reactionary and emotional.
I think another thing we need to consider in the US (and as an importer it’s something I struggle with) is how do these wines travel? Put them on a truck, then in a reefer, then on a boat, then back to a truck to the warehouse, then on another truck to your local store/restaurant, and finally in a bag to your dinner table. That’s a lot of movement and temperature variations offering many chances for spoilage. I’ve tasted natural wines in Europe that were stunning, only to bring them back (and just in a plane mind you) and they were undrinkable (we called one sample “vin de cornichons”, or “pickle wine” it was so bad, and this from a producer who was supposedly fantastic).
Frankly, Clarke nails it: wineries need time to figure this stuff out. But in our culture of instant gratification we expect a new winery’s first vintage to be great, especially if they’re doing something that is currently popular (ie making a natural wine) because we want to believe in the philosophy.
Has anyone been to a US wine shop that stores Cornelissan wines at or below the recommended 16 C?
Tony Coturri used to tell me that his library contained bottles that were 15+ years old and still going strong. This subject is really interesting. I’m not sure there are many areas in wine where I’ve found such a wide range of quality as in the no-sulfite category.
Well stated - and I agree wholeheartedly. CAN these wines age beautifully for 50 years? I’m sure it’s possible - if a number of factors align themselves correctly in order to do so. WILL most age beautifully that long? Most likely no . . .
I somewhat agree with what Clark had to say, but I think it’s more than ‘terroir’ or making sure the site will work that will determine ageability. To me, that’s an ‘easy out’ - if it didn’t age, you obviously weren’t growing the right variety for that site or that site just won’t work . . .
It has more to do about the balance between very careful winemaking, elevage at cooler temps, and, probably most importantly, continual storage at cooler temps, including during shipping.
These factors also come into play with wines that are susceptible to brett and even to many unfiltered wines - we accept ‘bottle variation’ but it is possible to reduce much of this with better shipping and storage conditions (and perhaps screwcapping the bottles ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
).
Cheers!
Eric, re older wines not meant to age:
An article in Italian Wine & Spirits detailed the cellar inventory and drinking habits of 16th century Pope Paul III as recorded by his loyal Cellarmaster, Sante Lancerio, who wrote a book on this subject (curiously dedicated to Cardinal Guido Ascanio Sforza who is identified as the Pope’s grandson?). While current critics like to pontificate (so to speak) about the TASTE of a wine with flowery prose and numerical scores, Lancerio was much more concerned with wine’s uses. He addresses such practical matters as how the wine of Avignon (present day Chateauneuf-du-Pape) “is good for the French since it tempers their prickliness” and how a certain Spanish Red “is very spirited and powerful, not a wine for gentlemen but many Spanish say that if you keep some in certain earthenware jars buried underground for 100 years you will find it drinkable”. Then he raves about what we would call Greco di Tufo: “His Holiness constantly drank it with every meal and even wanted to have it with him in his travels because it is not overpowering and therefore was good for bathing the eyes each morning and also the private parts”…
While I’m sure Tony was correct, I had enough of his wines that were microbial disasters to become very skeptical of unsulfured wines that have to pass through the three tier system. It was particularly disappointing because I liked many of the sound bottles I opened, just not enough to keep playing Russian roulette.
While numerical scores are common these days, descriptions have been around for some time. From James St John in 1788 writing of the wines of Romanee and St. George, “These wines exhale a most delicate perfume, which the French call le bouquet, and which bear some distant resemblance to that of raspberries.- They have nothing of the purple colour of inferior Burgundy wines, but much incline to the colour of vermillion: and after deglutition leave a most delicious flavour on the palate.”
I believe a red Spanish wine that lasted for 100 years in the 16th century to be rare if true. Tim Unwin in Wine and the Vine writes, citing Enjalbert and Enjalbert, that for the royal court in Valladolid, Spain up until 1606, white wine was the fine wine of choice. These were matured for several years underground.
We’ll, he did tell me he bottles barrel by barrel and the wines he was talking about are in HIS library, not at the other end of delivery, even directly from him. As a retailer I found his field blend to be the most consistent and suspect there’s a reason for that.
Yes, I’ve been served a few bottles that were high school biology class experiments.
If I found out a producer did that and never added sulfur, I’d probably spend my money elsewhere. The risk of spending $100 to get 1 drinkable $25 bottle just isn’t worth it.
There are so many T shirts that come to mind - - -
“Jesus was an AFWE”
“What would Jesus drink?”
“Jesus Saves - - - Old Burgs”
“Forgive me father for I have sinned - - - I drank a Saxum”