This is REALLY well thought out and written, must reading:
Totally agree, Roberto. Very well thought-out & written piece by Keith.
Tom
Excellent article!
I ran across this article a few days ago, and I agree that it’s a very well written and well thought out assessment of the subject, and frankly mirrors my thoughts about “natural” wine. I considered posting the link, but then thought that the subject has been debated here repeatedly, and I figured it would once again bring out the guns blazing.
On that note, I’ll just add this: ![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}
Slow day for Roberto?
If I’m not mistaken, that post was linked several months ago. It’s religion at this point and not worth rehashing.
Well, I for one had not seen Keith’s piece, which is very well done. I am basically in agreement with Keith on the dogma associated with the term “natural wine.” But what nags me is that there are hundreds, indeed thousands, of mainstream yet traditional producers who seem to make “natural” wine and yet are not thought of that way…
“I didn’t have to ask him [the wine bar waiter] what he meant by “natural wines.” I understood, and he understood that I understood.”
Unless the over-riding practical test is to eliminate sulfur, or reduce it to the point of living deep in the danger zone, I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of the wines I buy, drink, and cellar are natural wines. But these wines were not what that wine bar waiter was thinking about, nor his customer.
Yeah, don’t miss the comment from the guy who says he finds the term “natural wine” as offensive as racial slurs.
I would tip heavily if upon entering the wine bar and asking for “a natural wine” the server responded with “sheeeeeet neeegrow, that was all you had to say” while doing his/her best SLJ.
Can you suggest a pairing for a Royale with Cheese?
I don’t know Lew. Wines that I like and drink under the vin natural moniker begin in the vineyard with organics, sustainable farming and often biodynamics or even better, the practice developed by Masanobu Fukuoka. For me, this is important and will likely reduce the set of producers significantly. If, as a practice, winemakers are adding SO2 at every opportunity rather than as necessary, this too would not be desirable. Winemakers must have a goal and then adjust as necessary, as opposed to winemaking by design or formula.
annndddd. now we get into the snob part of natural wine. The assumption in the above statement is that producers who don’t follow Gregg’s favored practices are hacks who follow a formula. And you wonder why people object?
Organic? According to who? What if they don’t certify but follow organic principles whenever possible… but aren’t willing to lose a year’s production to remain ideologically pure? I remember asking what would happen if someone followed all the principles of natural wine but at the end oaked the crap out of the wine. No, they probably wouldn’t… but oak is natural. So how much of this is just hipster rephrasing of ‘minimal intervention’ where we trust the producer to do the right things, intervene as little as possible given the vintage but don’t ask them to worship at the altars of every god we like?
Rick-your statement is full of more assumptions than you accuse me of. I’m not interested in policing wine production. I’m only speaking from my perspective and not for the anyone else. And to your example of over oaking a wine that has remained previously unmanipulated. I wouldn’t touch it. And like you say, it would never happen, because anyone that meticulous would never ruin their product as you describe.
I still think it is mostly “straw man” showmanship.
The so-called natural movement seems to believe that wineries other than themselves use oak chips, Mega Purple and reverse osmosis machines at every turn, which is simply not the case. Inherent in their self-definition of being natural aways begs the question “Natural as compared to what and who?” Natural, by its very definition means those not included in the definition are… what? Un-natural. I would love any of the so-called naturalists to mention a single winery they know of that uses the techniques they rail against. But they do not. Instead they just insinuate that since they are natural, the “others” are not natural. Who wants “un-natural” wine? See their marketing angle? It is subtly insulting.
I respect those that are as natural as possible and do not have to label themselves as such to make themselves look better. That is a sign of true confidence. If you really believe what you believe, why not just go about one’s winemaking that way and let the chips fall as they may? The fact they must add their “natural” moniker and yell it from the mountain tops just shows what the real purpose is… marketing and sales.
Winemaking is a human interaction with nature. No winemaking is “natural.” All natural wine is vinegar. All the rest is degrees of intervention against the inevitable. SO2 adds are not natural. Oak is not a natural part of wine. Pruning is not natural. Planting in rows is not natural. Controlling fermentation temperature is not natural (anyone who claims to be natural and in ANY way controls fermentation temperature needs to go to church for confession.) Clonal selection, even en massale, is not natural. Choosing cultivated, grafted rootstock is not natural. Picking a month after veraison is not natural, at least compared to what the birds want, which is the reason the grapes are as they are. Racking for clarification is not natural. They are all human interventions and all the “naturalists” do these things, so how can they claim they deserve the title they have self-bestowed on themselves?
Wine IS a human intervention. It is a matter of degree, not “naturalness.” It is a sliding scale where no one can clearly define the range, but this one small group has claimed to be the Brahmins of truth and fidelity to something in which there can be no absolute definition, only variations. This is my big problem with them. They have claimed the high ground without justification and are using it as a wedge. That may indeed be great marketing, but it does not mean it is truth.
PS- I agree, it is a well-written article. It certainly got this discussion going!
I propose the words “hand crafted” as a non pejorative opposite of “natural”…would that calm some people down? Or perhaps some translation of the French term which means “elevated”, I always liked that one.
OR, going the other way, how about using “Retro Vinification” instead of “Natural”?
A while back I visited with John Raytek of Ceritas, whose wines I had never tasted up until that time. After trying them I felt that the style of the wines were not quite what I go for, although I understood what he was trying to do and respected the work he had done. One thing that struck me was when I asked him “Why are you making wine in this style?” He responded “I am just making the kind of wines I like to drink.”
Who can argue with that!
If you look at his website (and know how he makes wine,) it is clear that he could use the natural moniker if he chose. Instead, what he has on his site is far more interesting than any “natural” self-label could do. That is why I respect his goals so much…
The mission at Ceritas is to craft single vineyard expressions of place through Chardonnay and Pinot Noir. The sources for our fruit in and along northern California’s coastal ranges were carefully chosen for their winegrowing merits and also for their singularity. Each allows us the opportunity to craft balanced and distinct wines which will stand out on the dinner table. Just as oysters grown in Tomales Bay taste altogether different from those grown in Puget Sound, our wines are reflective of the growing seasons and soils from which they came.
In the vineyard we allow our sustainable farming practices to be dictated by observation and empiricism rather than by prescriptive farming. We believe that biodynamic farming methods, and focused and sitespecific attention, give the vines the greatest opportunity to experience each growing season, to respond accordingly, and ultimately to yield grapes with the unmistakable flavors and smells of their time and place.
In the winery, we keep things simple. We look at winemaking from a standpoint that owes more to tradition than it does to cutting-edge innovation — we more often find ourselves trying to understand what not to do rather than what to do. The crafting of each vintage is like a journey, in which nature sets its own course. Our role is to adapt, to proceed with humility, and to learn.
Now THAT makes me want to root for the guy. 
Question: would he object if his distributor pitched them as Natural Wines and got placements / sales because of that?
Would you?
I don’t think those work too well. You can still make wines by hand and add tons of Diamonnium Phosphate… by hand. Or you can make it with pumps for pumpovers and still do ambient yeast ferments. The size of the fermentation lot often determines the level of “hand craftedness.” Retro does not work well because the term could mean the 80s, 70s, 1870s…there is no way to know and winemaking was very different in all three periods.
I just don’t see why a “term” is necessary at all. Just say how you make it, why you do it that way, then pour the wine and see if they like it. I sense (and believe) that what is happening with the naturalists is that they are “setting the table” for the consumer by saying "we are in a different league and the usual qualitative evaluations do not apply to us because we are natural and everyone else that gets scores and sells for $100+ are manipulating their wines. Thus, what I want you to look for is “naturalness” and not “quality.”
In Keith’s article the somm comes out and says “We have some natural wines for you to try.” Think about it… WHY does he say that? If someone at a restaurant ever asks me such a thing I will ask them to point to the un-natural wines on their list and explain why they carry un-natural products! I can’t wait to see their reaction when I ask that. If the so-called natural wines are so good, just mix em in with the rest of the list and they should stand on their own without the natural-hype. Right? So then why the moniker? The answer to me, is clear.
You’re the one ranking farming techniques as to their desirability. Not me.
I’m only speaking from my perspective and not for the anyone else.
Understood.
And to your example of over oaking a wine that has remained previously unmanipulated. I wouldn’t touch it. And like you say, it would never happen, because anyone that meticulous would never ruin their product as you describe.
Note your assumption that adding oak is ‘ruining’ the wine. For my palate I’d agree, but my point is that oak is natural. You cannot object to a wine being called natural based on oak level. You CAN object to it being called “low intervention”. This is one reason I like Alice F’s term “Naked wine” since it doesn’t try to hide behind a seemingly neutral word and speaks to the style of the wine being produced as much as the production methods.
Look, in a few hours I’ll be drinking Volnay from Lafarge, d’Angerville, Montille, Pousse and others. Some of those could reasonably be called natural. Others not so much. What does that tell us about the term?
Me, I’m a fan of the fact that the natural movement has lead to a questioning of how much wine is manipulated and has posited a competing aesthetic to the Parkerized, high concentration model. But there’s a tinge of hipsterism to a lot of the copy written about it that doesn’t help.
Among the wines people on this site care about, I pretty much know how all of them are made. I can say with great accuracy that the so-called naturalists, if we assign them a 100% natural score (which they do not deserve) and them compare what everyone else does, the others would score between 75-95% on their scale. It is not like the naturalists are at 100% and XYZ winery with a 98-point score is at 20%. Organic, near organic and Biodynamic vineyards are not at all uncommon out there anymore. Ambient yeast ferments are legion. Less and less racking is becoming commonplace. The one big difference is in nutrient additions. Most wine musts in Mediterranean climates are often short of key nutrients requires to aid and finish fermentation, even in cold years like last year and even at 23 brix. So, rather than see their ferments stick (talk about an intervention!) they supplement their ferments with amino acids and yeast hulls, etc in varying amounts as insurance. It is a lesser of two evils most of the time. If someone wants to claim that such intervention is proof that the North Coast is not the best place for growing grapes, I can live with that! But it does not mean winemakers are making Frankenwines just to please critics. The other big difference is the use of new oak, which has its detractors and backers. Some of the uses of RO and the like do happen now and then but it is not a go-to technique. More and more winemakers are just doing much larger saignees before the ferment to accomplish the same thing in a more “natural” way.
I actually agree with Rick Gregory (hell has frozen over) that I do see some benefit to the discussion. The high-end wine buying public is not aware however that long before the so-called naturalists came onto the scene, high-end wine was already continually moving towards less intervention. No winery worth its salt uses as much pesticides in their vineyards. Many are organic and biodynamic. Row planting orientation and other canopy techniques are being used to naturally better align ripeness at lower brix levels. Ambient yeast ferments are all over the place. Fining and filtering are rarely done. The list goes on and on. The natural wine movement did not invent this, and in fact I believe the larger evolution towards it resulted in their birth, not the other way around.
I am a big, big fan of the book “Authentic Wine” by Goode and Harrop because it treats “Naturalness” and “Authenticity” as an unreachable goal, which it is. It is more a state of mind and a progression rather than the absolute notion some winemakers would like people to believe.
well done. particularly loved the closing paragraph. the trickle effect is one where the real benefit to wine lovers lie.