How much importance to you give to “Natural” wines in your wine selection process?
0 voters
In your wine selection process, how important to you is it that the wine was produced “Naturally”?
A working definition for the purpose of this poll:
[Organically, Fukuoka or biodynamically grown grapes, hand picked, no added sugars or foreign yeasts, minimal additives, no heavy manipulation, minimal or no added sulphur]
interestig poll Mike. I answered “somewhat important” but really would have picked “Important” i.e. something a bit more that somewhat since I prefer low intervention wine and tend to shop from importers like Dressner who favor producers like that… but I don’t do the research and get so dogmatic about it that I move up to the Very Important category.
Its only relevant in that its fun to watch people get worked up over such an irrelevant concept. I view it like any other preference. U like em? Great. If I find one I like ill drink it. Not unlike a vegetarian dish.
Given your definition, Mike…Not Important. Why rule out Fukuoka but include bioDynamic??
Tom
I picked “somewhat important” as well.
I like the concept as stated for the poll, but I’m also skeptical that without some sort of standard or certification process, wineries can claim “natural” while doing whatever they want (or need) to do, and we’re just falling for marketing jargon from a winery.
I’m also pragmatic to the point that I realize sometimes Mother Nature will throw a curveball. For example, imagine a heat spike just before harvest sends sugars skyrocketing, and therefore the winemaker, who normally wouldn’t do this, considers watering back. Here the choices are (1) refuse to water back and make a wine representative of the vintage or (2) water back and make a wine more representative of the style the winemaker would prefer to make. As a consumer, I may not care to drink (1) even if I find it more in line with “ideas I like” i.e. more “natural”. I may not even care to drink (2) but, what if this is a producer I’m loyal to, which would I prefer? My pragmatism tells me to take #2, if the other option is to hope someone else buys his or her wine this year, and I can still get it next VOTC.
The above situation is different in my mind to a winemaker who waters back normally (wrong clone or variety planted for the climate/soil) or one who uses it as a tool to tweak the raw material instead of using thoughtful practices in the vineyard.
This is why I believe winemakers and growers have a difficult time nailing down exactly what should constitute or how one would certify a natural wine. Even if the intentions are good, there are times when some manipulation may be necessary to produce a salable product. I believe intention counts for quite a lot here.
That considers somewhat of a gray area for me. I can draw a bright shining line however between your average “natural” wine or one that is shocked with so much SO2 to kill every living organism, inoculated with a commercial yeast, then tweaked with water/acid/sugar and/or ro’d for water or alcohol, to create a certain flavor profile. Here the process is more akin to producing a consistent industrial food product, and has little to do with the kind of wine I’d be interested in.
Summary, I like the idea, understand the differences at the extremes, but skeptical of the marketing of it, and pragmatic enough to be wary of the gray areas.
Rick - I think this question is so fundamental to fine wines and I’m a little surprised the subject gets so little play here.
Tom - don’t get pedantic with me! (you are of course right - see my edit above)
This characterizes my point of view as well. I’ve mainly gravitated to winemakers in the natural wine movement since I like the wines so much. Which is not to say that I’ve liked all the natural wines I’ve tried of course or that I would avoid a wine I liked that did not fall into that camp.
I have nothing against the concept, but in reality, “natural wines” as you’ve defined it has no bearing on my wine selection process at all. But that’s not to say that I “only care what is in the glass” - it’s far from a black/white distinction between a strict definition “natural wines” and wines produced in ways that I have a problem with. There are many growers and winemakers I have great admiration for - people who strive for growing fruit with no chemical fertilizers, etc. but are not strictly organic, those who make wines with minimal intervention (but who choose to use cultured strains of natural yeast rather than “native fermentations”, for example) - but would not fit within the narrow and exclusive definition of “natural” as stated here.
Having just finished Alice’s “Naked Wine” book, I’m now onto Jamie Goode’s “Authentic” wine.
The word “sustainable” is becoming more prominent in my thinking - sustainable to the environment, to the local community - and (importantly) also to the winemaker (economic sustainability).
What I’m seeing is the emergence of a pragmatic approach to “natural” wines, which focuses on (something like) manipulating grapes as minimally as possible to create the optimum expression of a vineyard site in any given vintage. From my take on Alice’s book, she was mildly taken back when several of her favorite natural winemakers were following this pragmatic approach as opposed to a strict interpretation.
I believe that the vast majority of the wines I purchase currently follow (to a greater or lesser degree) this pragmatic approach to natural wine.
Make no mistake, natural winemaking is expensive. This is not an issue for supermarket wines, but more the kinds of wines that are purchased by Berserkers.
That’s far closer to what I like to see from growers and winemakers. There are those who see “natural” wine as requiring some sort of ideological purity, but to me a less strict and more pragmatic approach will more often be a better one. Of course some may be able to make consistently fine wines if they choose to take a stricter approach, but I don’t see any reason to insist that it’s the only way to go.
Ok, I’ll bite… why? ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
If it’s only in regard to “supermarket wines”, then who cares? But I’m guessing you mean in regard to making other, similar priced and positioned wines.
Generally it’s only the people who are attacking the natural wine movement from whom I’ve seen a requirement of ideological purity.
Attacking or defending? If you’re not “natural” what are you? Shame, shame if you’re not burying manure filled cow horns.
RT
I picked “what’s in the glass”, but was tempted to select “I don’t know what it is”. I am looking forward to reading both the Fering and Goode books and perhaps they will open my eyes to something I don’t currently see.
Wine, as most of us know it is a created product, artisinally, or mass produced. Depending on the dogmatic level of opinion people hold, it lends itself to all manner of hypocrisy. I shop one day at Costco and the next at my local farmer’s market. I know people here in Seattle who would laugh in my face and call me a walking lie for doing so. I call it being pragmatic. I travel for work 60% of the time. At the end of a long day after being at multiple customer sites, I am inclined for a Hilton club sandwich, despite the fact that I take the idea very seriously tto support local, sustainable merchants, farmers and winemakers.
Wine is a luxury. Everyone on this board buys it because they can afford it. The “natural” or sustainable argument seems to lack substance when viewed through that lens. I’m not feeding it to my children, and I’m certainly not drinking it to be healthy, and I haven’t heard that the “unnatural” wines I drink are as potenially as harmful to me as say, a soy heavy diet, so I just can’t pursue it with vigor. I read the Chambers Street mailers about French “natural” winemakers and it always sounds lovely, but when one considers the carbon footprint impact to get me those wines in Seattle, doesn’t it completely defeat the purpose of worrying about all this?
I would need a new option to really encapsulate my feelings on the topic. How about this:
It is important to me because I believe that less manipulated, organically grown wine (with minimal external additives) tastes better. I am not enamored with it from a rigid/dogmatic/religious or marketing standpoint especially if it is microbiologically unstable.
PS - I prefer wine with sulfur
Btw- my post on this matter in no way means that I wouldn’t respect anyone who took this very seriously. It doesn’t necessarily resonate with me, but neither does vegetarianism and I respect people who think differently than me.
As the points outlined there show, pragmatism (or doing one’s best) leave a lo of room for hypocrisy or whatever you want to call it.
Lastly, the wine producer who most closely meets “natural” wine that I can think of in Washington, K Vintners. They don’t use 100% Biodynamic, and add sulfur, but the rest they have down. This does not include the Charles Smith wine labels.
Ohhhhh…man…it’s a race to the finish, it is…Mike vs. Tom…see who gets to put up the first BR!!! 
I’m about 2/3’rds of the way thru Jamie’s book. This is the book you want to read on natural/naked/authentic wines. Free of all the whiny/preachy tone of other books.
He doesn’t tell you what makes or doesn’t make a natural wine. He just lays it out what the various options are and lets you, then, decide if a wine is natural or not. Very
non-judgemental, by and large, in his take on these wines.
The chapter on sustainable I had a bit of trouble trying to get my arms around. The statement by one winemaker that it must also be sustainable for the winemaker/grower,
in terms of profitability, is pretty important.
I particularly liked Jamie’s chapter on minerality, a concept I believe exists, but have a damnable time explaining. I’ll have to reread that chapter several times.
As w/ all of Jamie’s writing…absolutely top-notch. A first-rate read.
Tom
Wow… and you see no difference between an artisanal product and a mass produced one?? Tell me, would you be fine with a fully synthesized product as long as it tasted good?
Depending on the dogmatic level of opinion people hold, it lends itself to all manner of hypocrisy. I shop one day at Costco and the next at my local farmer’s market. I know people here in Seattle who would laugh in my face and call me a walking lie for doing so. I call it being pragmatic. I travel for work 60% of the time. At the end of a long day after being at multiple customer sites, I am inclined for a Hilton club sandwich, despite the fact that I take the idea very seriously tto support local, sustainable merchants, farmers and winemakers.
I don;t know what this has to do with wine. At all. Except in the rare instance when you’re buying wine in such circumstances, I don’t see what your travel schedule of tiredness has to do with anything. I understand how they’d affect which supermarket you hit up, but the relevance to wine escapes me.
Wine is a luxury. Everyone on this board buys it because they can afford it. The “natural” or sustainable argument seems to lack substance when viewed through that lens. I’m not feeding it to my children, and I’m certainly not drinking it to be healthy, and I haven’t heard that the “unnatural” wines I drink are as potenially as harmful to me as say, a soy heavy diet, so I just can’t pursue it with vigor.
Are you trolling? Because no one is talking about the health effects of intervention here, it’s about the relationship of vineyard, vintage and winemaker. Those of us who pursue low intevention wines don’t hold this up as healthier or anything of the like - we believe that the wines are more interesting, that diversity is preserved and that when someone manipulated a wine too much the signature left by THOSE grapes grown in THAT place during THAT vintage is obscured or lost.
I read the Chambers Street mailers about French “natural” winemakers and it always sounds lovely, but when one considers the carbon footprint impact to get me those wines in Seattle, doesn’t it completely defeat the purpose of worrying about all this?
I;m sorry but this post comes off as either trollish or clueless. Who’s even talking about the carbon impact of wine or the relationship of low intervention winemaking to that?
THIS. It’s more interesting and tastes better. Wines made with less intervention tend to have more variance and personality than those that are heavily manipulated. Where the line is… well that’s the fun discussion and probably isn’t easy to answer/
PS: Mike - it’s too late to change the poll, but the “I only care about what’s in the glass” option can be read as biased… that people who care about intervention levels don’t care about what’s in the glass as much. I’d bet that most of us care very much and, in fact, that’s why we care about how the wine is made… what ends up in the glass.