It’s curious that such threads seem to lead to a lot of people saying ‘I don’t like natural wines’.
Maybe people should post ‘I don’t like Burgundy’ every time there’s a thread on that topic if they feel that way. Etc.
3 Likes
This is not a convincing argument for natural wine, which has its own well established ecosystem and isn’t a rebellion; it exists side by side with the existing establishment. The entire point of natural wine is that it must exist in opposition, it can’t be the established name in the region.
1 Like
Bojo, Jura.
1 Like
Wait what? Why is that the point of natural wine?
Of course it can. The biggest establishment names in Beaujolais today (Lapierre Foillard) are natural winemakers who revolted against the previous establishment (Duboeuf).
That cycle will continue.
1 Like
I think some of that is absolutely true (and you know I love the Rieslingstudy events that you do). But isn’t the prescription then just “do more marketing of small producers”?
1 Like
How do you define natural wine? To illustrate my thinking, go to RAW WINE and drink through all of the tables, not just the big-ish names. A large portion is flawed to the point of undrinkable (mouse, excessive VA, etc.). Some will be fine or enjoyable. Maybe five wines (not producers) will be great. Many of the better natural producers are not going to RAW so that percentage is an exaggeration of the market as a whole, but there is a lot of bad natural wine out there.
I would call the Foradori wines as “great”. They are natural wines but Elisabetta doesn’t wear it on her sleeve.
Tom
I try a fair amount of “natural” wines. Some of them are absolutely dreadful/flawed. It’s a minefield out there. There are very few that I actually buy for myself. The Elisabetta Foradori are the shining exception.
Tom
1 Like
This is, again, elision. You are talking about “low intervention” wine, which is not what this thread is about. I find these discussions frustrating, because people use these terms interchangeably, but they’re very much not.
This is more elision. There are certain producers that make natural/low intervention (call it whatever you want) wine which are now respected, absolutely. What is being described in the article is NOT THAT. The article is describing a certain ecosystem of wines being drunk in New York, Paris, etc. Those are not the same. As a simple example - are DRC or Cristal low intervention wines? Absolutely! Are they natural wines? Obviously not. Talking repeatedly about “low intervention wines” obfuscates the issue in a very unhelpful way.
1 Like
@Robert_Dentice , I agree - natural wine has been great for its continued pull and bringing in newer and younger wine drinkers. We have that movement to thank for a lot!
This is going to be longer, but bear with me:
Let me do a comparison to my other industry, film. Which is really down on its feet right now in a way that makes winemaking look good 
. And the reason is pretty simple - since everything went into a streaming war with the tech companies taking over Hollywood, entertainment has lost its scarcity value. It’s just a commodity now. You pay each month, and you can watch as much as you like. There is no price difference between a high end show or a low end show, it’s all the same. Release the whole season in one go? Sure, why not (further devaluing the product).
Without scarcity, there can be no value. Or put it in economic terms, the marginal cost goes to zero.
I feel we’re battling the same thing in wine as in entertainment in many ways. Just like the Netflix viewer isn’t loyal to Netflix, the natural wine drinker isn’t loyal to a producer. They’re loyal to the ecosystem. And what follows from this: natural wine drinkers are less into brands. You can not build report with them in the same way you used to be able to do with older generations. They’re fickle, conditioned by social media’s constant change, input and newness. That makes them challenging to invest and market to.
I’m sure natural wine will lead to later wine collection. But I’m not so sure we will be able to build loyal customers dedicated to brands as we once were. And that’s something both the film and wine industry is going to have to figure out.
1 Like
Great. Back to definitions.
1 Like
Of course they are the same. Lapierre and Foillard were on ALL of those natural wine hipster bar/restaurant lists 10-15 years ago, especially in Paris. The names have changed because that’s the way these things always work.
Of the current crop of natural wine darlings, a few will survive and become the established names of tomorrow, most will fail. As always.
3 Likes
Great to see someone has finally found a clear answer to the million dollar question: what is the definition of natural wine.
Atleast you seem very certain about it.
1 Like
I’m very certain the terms are different, not that I have clear definitions for them. But, then, when you say you have a cellar full of low intervention wines, presumably you mean Cristal and DRC, yes?
Yes lets go with the reason for me not having DRC in my cellar is because i don’t see it as “low intervention”
I don’t know exactly how any of those wines are made, so I cannot answer the question.
3 Likes
RAW WINE was mentioned here. So here is what is required to be labelled as a natural wine on their site:
- The entirety of the domaine from which the grapes are issued must be farmed organically and/or biodynamically.
- Grapes must be hand-harvested.
- No yeasts may be added, except in the case of the second fermentation of sparkling wines, when neutral yeasts may be used.
- No blocked malolactic fermentation.
- No winemaking additives (yeasts, enzymes, vitamins, lysozymes etc) may be used in the cellar except for low levels of sulfites. Growers/makers are asked to supply analysis paperwork detailing total levels of sulfites for each wine they present at RAW WINE. These levels are made available to users. If growers/makers do not add any sulfites whatsoever, the mention “no added sulfites” appears but we do require analyses and the total SO2 appears on the wine’s information. ****** Please note: no sulfite totals may exceed 50 mg/l regardless of colour or style.
- No ‘heavy-manipulation’ has been carried out using winemaking gadgetry such as reverse osmosis, cryo-extraction, spinning cone, and so forth.
- No sterile filtration or pasteurisation.
- Most of the wines showcased will not have been fined or filtered. If a grower/maker’s wine has been fined or filtered, it will be clearly labeled as such. Only vegetarian-friendly fining agents allowed.
That applies to a good portion of my cellar, and most of the above rules also apply to INAO’s Vin Méthode Nature.
This is more or less how I define “natural wine” these days. Then there are the Zero-Zero elitists, which I see as just a sub-segment within the natural wine world.
And then there’s fashion and style. Many current “natural wine” winemakers aim to produce light, early-drinking wines now, but again, that’s just fashion. You can make glou glou wines with a lot of additives if you want to.
I hope thats a better and actual useful answer @Greg_K.
8 Likes
Thank you, Rahsaan.
All you folks bitching and moaning about “natural” wine can sell me your bottles of the Beaujolais producers mentioned as well as your bottles of Overnoy and Ganevat. I’ll generously pay you pennies on the dollar since those wines are natural, and therefore, you must think they’re crap. 
Like ANY wine genre, 95% are gonna be crap. Hell, I have absolutely NO use for overextracted and overwrought wines (can you say SQN and the overwhelming majority of Napa Cab?). They’re crappy for my palate. I barely consider them wine, but I don’t get on others for drinking them.
Basically, just f*cking stop with lambasting what others like.
rant off
5 Likes
Your post is fair enough, and in my anecdotal interactions with younger people drinking natural wines there is definitely beginning to be some aside commentary on the inconsistency of the overall genre.
Reading through the thread, the varied responses seem to be a real reflection of the wider audience for natural wines…some love them, some are intrigued, some are cynical, and some have had bad experiences.
In my opinion, “natural wine” is becoming a mature part of the general wine paradigm. Just the same way Parker and Spectator scores were a huge driver and onramp for new wine drinkers 30 years ago, and then settled in to being something one can take or leave as one chooses. Natural wine is doing something very similar. The wines are here to stay, and at the same time many of the newer drinkers attracted by the concept of unameliorsted wines are also becoming more comfortable sorting out the better versions.
While I don’t feel I am in the “natural wine” camp, I am absolutely not in the four square, overly safe, “well made” grocery store wine camp. I’d take natty wine everytime over Meiomi or Chateau St. Michelle (who are considerably better than Caymus but still not interesting to me). It’s routinely held here that there is more good wine made now than there used to be but when I was first getting into wine, I thought Brett was cool and funky was, mostly, a positive. When it misses Natty wine tends to miss a bit harder than the funky wines I drank 30 years ago, but it does have great examples as well.
Overall, I’m glad there are people out there aspiring to the natural wine mantra and who are willing to have the wines turn out however they do. It’s brought a lot of people into having a glass of wine, and it broadens the available choices for everyone.
7 Likes
It’s all set and setting when it comes to a discussion like this - I know how I define the term for myself personally. In order to have any productive conversation about natural wine we’d have to most past the semantics. Or even just move on from the posturing. On WB, it’s safe to assume that any discussion around “Natural Wine” will be mostly about the schlock (there’s a lot of it).
I think your second and third sentences here hit a nail on the head. Allemand SS on paper could be considered natural but I think eludes that classification because of the audience the wine has. There will be wines from these ecosystems that will have staying power. Usually those types of wines tend to stay darlings of the “IYKYK” natural wine proponents but also are adopted by more conventional wine drinkers.
1 Like
Thanks for that post Lasse.
It’s interesting but in Oregon some of the natural producers have embraced filtration within the ethos of their wines. One posted a photo of a French press being plunged to their IG account with a commentary on why filtration was ok.
3 Likes