Technically it may be a defect, and yes it is unpredictable (as are other aspects of aging wine, like cork integrity). But for my palate a little of the right kind of Brett does enhance the wine.
Alex H-C, maybe this analogy works better for you: we have many microbes in and on our bodies. Some are essential to life. Others are just along for the ride. But if they get out of control, they can make us sick or kill us. We all carry baggage, but it doesn’t make us flawed to the point that we should be discarded, unworthy of consideration like the wine Alex R mentions in the OP.
Analogies aside, the underlying point is that for many of us, it’s a matter of degree. I understand that for some, even the tiniest degree is unattractive, even though I don’t share that dislike.
Regarding bottle variation among brett infected wines - when I’ve had clean showing and brett showing bottles of the same wine, the clean one has always been better. Even a mild amount of brett, small enough that a lot of people don’t pick it up, masks more than it contributes, complexity-wise.
I also don’t have any patience with the borderline ad hominem argument that if you don’t like brett then you no doubt subscribe to the UC Davis philosophy of squeaky-clean, soulless winemaking.
I can tolerate low levels of 4-EG phenols (smoke, sweat, barnyard), but I despise 4-EP (medicinal, Band-Aid) at any perceptible level. And I’ve never found any wine - not even an otherwise uncomplicated cheapo - that’s improved by the presence of Brett.
I am sorry if you were offended. The post was really not meant to be condescending. I think my analogy works better than the one you criticized, and it was meant for the entire board even though I named you. In any case, my point remains that it’s not a black and white issue for many of us. It’s a matter of degree.
And therein lies one of my biggest issues with brett. You CAN control it if you choose to, but many winemakers simply do not. Once a wine is sterile filtered, you won’t have any new growth, so the chance of further blooms is reduced. Therefore, ‘bottle variation’ is minimized. Yet this most of the time does not happen.
One other pet peeve I have are wineries that state that ‘there was no brett in the wine at bottling - I had it tested in a lab.’ In these cases, those tests will come back with ‘levels are below detection limits’ . . . and this is NOT the same as ‘brett does not exist.’ So even with minute levels of brett that may lie below these limits, given the right conditions in storage or transport, they can still have blooms and therefore lead to massive bottle variations . . .
I would argue that what some people feel is brett is not really the organism afterall. To dismiss a wine because it technically has a fault is rather obtuse and myopic imho. If you liike or dislike a wine, whether judging or just consuming, your senses should be the arbitrator.
As much as I respect Gerhard (and I do mean that), I think his answer is consistent with or a manifestation of his love of southern Rhones, which are the most frequently brett-spoiled wines on the planet in my experience.
It is always and invariable a flaw. It results from a disdain for or disinterest in hygienic practices. It may not always be evident, and when evident it may not always be disqualifying for some, but it is always a flaw.
Great points as usual, Gregg. Yep, at the end of the day, if you like it, that’s the only thing that should matter . . . .
That said, it goes both ways, and I can understand folks dismissing a wine because it has brett in it.
Your point can also be applied to other ‘faults’ as well - some folks don’t mind elevated levels of VA in a wine, whereas some are really sensitive to this. And can applied to things like the amount and presence of new oak in a wine - some don’t dig it when it ‘takes over’ the characteristics of the fruit whereas others really enjoy what it brings to a wine.
Simply that what others think they perceive as brett could be intrinsic to the variety/terrior. For example mourvedre in the southern rhone or Bandol can show flavors and/or aromas which may seem like brett to some.
I have always though if the offender be it brett or va is A component of the wine some may say its flawed to some degree based on their threshold.
However if the offender is THE component of a wine and all else is lost then its a fault.
Wineries that have brett can sterile filter the brett yeast out but the byproducts of that activity are still in the wine. Same goes for VA you can sterile filter out the bacteria that causes it but the effects will still be evident in the wine.
Very true - but once you filter that wine, the chances for increased levels of brett or VA are virtually zero, especially with brett. So you are correct in that the effects that had already taken place will be in that subsequent wine, but you are, in effect, locking them in without a risk of an increase.
After attending the Harry Karis tasting on CDP, I am firmly convinced that Brett is a flaw. A bad one at that. I don’t mind a bit of brett in young wines. I’ve had tons of rhones and even some Italian syrah that was laced with brett. They can be fun wines, and I do not mind a touch of stable and musk.
But, I’ve now had some serious experience with wines that have aged 1-5 decades with brett. The brett destroys the wine. The wines I’ve tried become incredibly uniform, and show a pruney, sweatty, slightly fecal funk that masks all of the exciting freshness and complexity that should persist in a winery-stored wine. The Karis tasting was incredible. The fresh wines (4 of about 12 wines) were lauded and extensively praised, while the brett bombs were tasted with a slight grimace and a “wow, these are…interesting.” More than anything, the uniformity of taste from the brett bombs from the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s was astounding. Those profiles should have been drastically different, and yet they weren’t. They were all simply unpleasant, and in the same way.
^That “young wines” comment is important, and something I wanted to come back to. Some clean young wines are so bold that they aren’t particularly fun (for some, at least) to drink, even if they will ultimately evolve into greatness. A little contamination from something like brett or geosmin can tame a wine and make it approachable, and thus enjoyable, young. (It’s funny when someone used to these dirty wines tastes a clean wine and thinks its overripe when it clearly isn’t.)
Anyway, I don’t think increasing the enjoyability of cradle-robbing what could’ve been a great wine by compromising its potential is worth it.
Yes well said and better explained than I did. I also want to add that its not really the brett yeast itself its the byproduct it forms 4EP and 4EG that spoils the wine. Though with membrane RO filtration those can be removed as well as excess VA.
If the filtration is done correctly and free so2 corrected for ph there is almost no chance for the wine to get worse if stored correctly post fermentation.
You might be right; it’s hard to know what any other person is tasting, or, maybe more accurately, how acutely they can taste
. To dismiss a wine because it technically has a fault is rather obtuse and myopic imho. If you like or dislike a wine, whether judging or just consuming, your senses should be the arbitrator.
I don’t think that most people who say they dislike brett object to the fact that the wine has a “fault” merely in a technical sense… it’s because it actually does have a fault, a real one that diminishes the wine or even ruins it. And we are relying on our senses to tell us that there’s a level of brett we dislike; why else do you think everyone around the table says BRETT! when they sniff a particular wine?
IMO Brett is not a defect. I actually like a small amount of Brett of a certain kind, since it brings nice elements (truffle, violet) to the mix. Too much Brett, though, is a defect.
And since we don’t really know how to control the level of Brett bloom, it is cause for concern.
I think it would be worthwhile to see about cultivating stable, benefical Brett populations in our wines. All too often the prescription for a noticeable Brettanomyces influence in wine is to engage in zero tolerance, shock-n-awe responses like sterile filtration or velcorin addition.
I wonder if it is not possible to use traditional cellar practices combined with a long-term approach, to deal with the problem. Some estates often seem to have a pleasant level of Brett influence that doesn’t grow nasty with age. Other estates produce wild card wines, where each and every bottle is a roll of the dice.
What sets these estates apart?