NYTimes: Asimov on French Vin de Soif

WINE TALK
1

Interesting article by Eric Asimov in today’s NYTimes:

Asimov: Vin de Soif

on French Vin de Soif wines.

He says: “Many of these bottles lean in the direction of natural wine, which, with its aim of knocking wine off its pretentious pedestal and promoting it as relaxed and fun, gave new energy to the vin de soif category.”
Not sure I totally agree with that statement. To some, Natural wines are more about religious dogma and not so much offering up good drinking wines.

His recs:

Combel-la-Serre Cahors Le Pur Fruit du Causse 2021, 12.5 percent, $19

Fabien Jouves Vin de France À Table!!! 2022, 12.5 percent, $19

Domaine des 13 Lunes Vin de Savoie Apremont 2022, 11 percent, $22

Pierre-Olivier Bonhomme Vin de France Le Telquel 2022, 13 percent, $22

Domaine des Marrans Beaujolais-Villages 2023, 12.5 percent, $22

Laurent Saillard Vin de France La Pause 2023, 13 percent, $25

Maison Clusel-Roch Coteaux du Lyonnais Les Traboules 2021, 12.5 percent, $25

Arnaud Lambert Crémant de Loire NV, 12.5 percent, $26

La Famille Mosse Vin de France Moussamoussettes 2022, 12.5 percent, $29

Du Grappin Bourgogne-Aligoté 2022, 12 percent, $32

2

Are you saying that Asimov is factually wrong and that most wines you and he would call vin de soif don not laso “lean in the direction of natural wine”? Or are you making and unfalsifiable and ideological statement: since you take natural wines to be based on a religious dogma, they cannot be good drinking wines and, thus, are not vin de soif?

What about that list? Do some, many, all, none “lean in the direction of natural wine”? Do you know?

1 Like
3

Without bias against Asimov’s specific recommendations in the article (haven’t tried most of them so what do I know?) I also look askance at the same statement for a different reason: I am unaware that the “aim” of natural winemaking was to knock wine off its “pretentious pedestal” so much as to critique perceived artifice or manipulation in modern winemaking. In so doing, some may have gotten carried away to the extent that their marketing ended up just as pretentious. Not at all trying to knock all self-identified “natural winemakers” here, just thinking Asimov was a little breezy with his claim.

1 Like
4

Well, Jonathan… as you know, I like to [stirthepot.gif] sometimes. Just doing a bit of that.
But I do agree with John’s comment below.
Tom

5

So here’s the logic, I would guess, behind Asimov’s claim: vin de soif is, by definition, a simple, low alcohol, unoaked, unextracted (hence low alcohol), tasty wine. Those properties already get you a lot of the way there toward a natural wine. On low alcohol, let’s remember that the term refers back to the 19th century, during which much water was contaminated and wines were simple and often made to quench thirst in the place of water. Many, if not most of those wines would have been plonk. Making the wine tasty was a later requirement. Still, they also would have leaned in the direction of natural.

Whether today’s wine makers are pretentious and whether the wines too frequently tolerate flaws, are not to the point. Flaws don’t have to be there for wines to be natural and winemakers’ pretentiousness is a good reason to get irritable with the winemakers, but doesn’t say much about the wine.

4 Likes
7

was this post a test to see if anyone clicked on the article to read it?

1 Like