I used to be on the “not a defect” side but I have moved the other way. Too many wines are spoiled by Brett, and while there may be an occasional bottle that gains some interest or complexity, I would be happier if none of my bottles had any of it. I have had two entire cases of wine (2001 Vieux Mas des Papes and 1990 Bosquets des Papes - late release in 2000) spoiled with bottles ranging from bearable to undrinkable.
BTW I like Musar, Beaucastel and Pegau and have never had undrinkable bottles of any, but I think they would all be better rid of Brett.
To quibble - Brett is a always a defect, or a flaw. Wines and other things can retain an essential beauty, to a point, with certain flaws. In that sense, Brett is different from TCA, and has a bit in common with volatile acidity. TCA is a killer. Brett and VA depend n the wine, the specific bottle and the taster’s semsitivites.
A wine with a certain amount of Brett can be intriguing the way a friend with a hot temper can be fun company, so long as both are in check at the right moments. When they aren’t, bad things ensue.
I agree that brett and VA are similar. From a microbial POV, I gather that there is always some, just like there is always some VA. If I am wrong on that, please correct. No offense will be taken. In the case of VA, I believe that the right amount (below threshold to notice as an individual note) is part of what makes older wines taste great. Brett, I think, almost never improves a wine, but some wines are delicious in spite of it, in low to moderate amounts.
Jim, this is the best reply I’ve seen in this thread, and comes closest to my opinion on Brett. I might go a step further to say that some flaws can actually enhance the beauty of an object. A little Brett, even if technically a flaw, can in some wines make them better to my palate.
To quibble - Brett is a always a defect, or a flaw. Wines and other things can retain an essential beauty, to a point, with certain flaws. In that sense, Brett is different from TCA, and has a bit in common with volatile acidity. TCA is a killer. Brett and VA depend n the wine, the specific bottle and the taster’s semsitivites.
A wine with a certain amount of Brett can be intriguing the way a friend with a hot temper can be fun company, so long as both are in check at the right moments. When they aren’t, bad things ensue.
Ergo, to answer the question posed at the start of the thread, it IS a defect. One might enjoy having a fly in their soup for the additional flavour imparted, but it’s still defective soup.
Thanks. I will say my post was primed by a glass of Chateau de Fonsalette 01. My guess is that people for whom no level of Brett is acceptable would hate this wine. I loved it.
Not quite. Your fly strikes me as the equivalent of TCA. I prefer the salt analogy for Brett. I have had dishes I would have salted less that were still quite fine.
Sorry, Alex. No. I believe in evaluating each wine as an experience, not as an attempt to make it fit into a catechism. Do a search in my opinion of Pegau of late and see if you want to repeat this post.
To go back to the original post, Brett in a 2010 St Emilion is definitely a defect.
It would be better if brett didn’t exist in older Rhones, etc as it does introduces a lot of variability to certain estates. But I can tolerate it in small quantities.
For you, Brett is like salt. Too much, no good; but the right amount perfects the wine like a well-salted dish?
So, when you drink a clean wine, do you sometimes think “this is ok, but it would be better with a moderate ‘just right’ amount of Brett”?
Is that the feeling of most of the pro-Brett contingent here? You like clean wines just fine, but the right amount of smoky dung or band-aid can make it better?
Good question, and one that can have a few answers depending upon who you talk to and the specific type of filter used. Generally, sterile filters remove bacteria and yeast cells that would possibly continue to ‘evolve’ as the wine ages in bottle, and when and how they grow would depend upon a number of factors, most importantly storage/shipping conditions and the presence of any residual sugars, even minute amounts. The reality is that nearly all flavor and aroma molecules are smaller than the pore size of most sterile filters used, at .45 microns, and therefore ‘slip through’ the filters and make it into the finished wine.
Some winemakers argue that what perhaps may be stripped out of wines during filtration are colloids, larger molecules made up of polysaccharides and other materials, including anthocyanins, that may affect mouthfeel. But this really has never been proven . . . so we’re left with the usual ‘conventional wisdom’ that filtering ‘strips’ a wine without really being able to show what is being stripped . . .
Here’s a good article from a few years back on the issue if you’re interested:
And here’s a slide from lectures at UC Davis given by Linda Bisson, one smart cookie, which breaks down the basics of filtration and different types of systems used . . . .
Bottom line - it may or may not strip a wine of ‘other things’, depending upon the winemaker you speak with. The only word of caution I would have here is that unless a winemaker bottles some filtered and some unfiltered and follows these for awhile, there truly is no way to know with certainty . . .
This was a response to the OP who indicated judges dumped wine based on a reported flaw without trying it. It’s akin to presenting a plate of food that contains an ingredient one might not like, but refuses to try the dish.
I have a high brett tolerance, and actually enjoy it in some wines, Joguet for example. Some of my favorite Bordeaux have been some questioned on this thread, like the Talbots, Gruard Laroses of the '80s, which are wonderful wines. Meyney '82 and '86. La Lagune '82. Montrose '86 and '89. These wines had some funk, and I loved them for it. I do not want wines to be stripped or filtered of some natural flavors. Drank a 2009 Dme Guion from loire with a little funkiness to it.
If you asked me, in theory, would I want a clean wine or a bretty wine, I would answer “clean” every time. I have had wines with brett that I have enjoyed, but I never wish for it. The wines worked in spite of their flaw - their various virtues balanced out the Brett, and perhaps arguably found ways to work with it. I enjoyed an older Southern Rhone wine last night that I suspect had a little Brett, and it was none the worse for it, though I couldn’t say it was necessarily improved by it.
In that sense my salt analogy doesn’t work perfectly - salt’s absence can ruin a dish or render it bland in a way that the absence of Brett will not ruin a wine. Too much of either, on the other hand…
Jim, you didn’t quite say it, but it seems you may agree that Brett is - always - a defect. Tolerable to some extent, but never more desirable than the lack of it.