Sulfur isn't such a bad thing (TN: La Clarine Farm mourvedre)

[Jim_Brennan]

I’m absolutely more partial to the AFWE side of the spectrum, with one exception… I largely avoid SS wines that aren’t very young. Supply chain to consumer is way too variable.

And, while I can’t prove it, I also hold reduced S in combination with gentler pressing as a potential culprit for premox in wines like Huet that are historically long agers but have had some challenges post 2000.

Jim, I don’t know any details about the winemaking at Huet, but you’re certainly right that too many of their bottles since 2000 haven’t aged as they used to.

I strongly suspect that climate change is a factor in the premox/poor aging problem. Even if grapes are picked early at the same acid levels (aka TA, total/titratable acidity) as they “use to be”, the gradually rising temps of CC cause higher pHs (at the same TA). Lower pHs are a huge factor in oxidation resistance…and not because SO2 is more effective at low pH (SO2 is more effective at killing microbes at low pH, unrelated to oxidation)…low pH changes the oxidation chemistry in wine making oxidation more difficult & less likely.

Eric, that’s a great point. IMO these things are never one factor, but almost certainly the result of a combination of factors. A gradual change in pH doesn’t seem likely to create a rapid increase in problems like premox. However, in combination with less SO2 and gentler pressing which began around 2000 (I believe Gilman noted in one of his Huet reports several years ago), maybe this created a bit of a tipping point towards more noticeable instances.

[Jim_Brennan]

Remind me again what’s so incredibly horrible about sulfur that it needs to be avoided at all costs–I forget?

The beer industry lobbied for warning label makes them sound scary. Tied into that is the myth that they’re a major cause of “red wine headache” and the like.

But, really, they have a big impact on wine. They dull, mute, narrow aromas/tastes. They also add structure, darken a wine’s fruit expression, add a structural component. We did a side batch or two with different wines each year for several years using an alternative product (derived from grape seeds) that’s naturally antimicrobial and antioxidant. With most wines most people greatly preferred the no sulfite version. A couple were more like 60/40 for the no sulfite, while one greatly benefited from the structure and focus the SO2 gave it.

Was this done blind?

[Wes_Barton]

Remind me again what’s so incredibly horrible about sulfur that it needs to be avoided at all costs–I forget?

The beer industry lobbied for warning label makes them sound scary. Tied into that is the myth that they’re a major cause of “red wine headache” and the like.

But, really, they have a big impact on wine. They dull, mute, narrow aromas/tastes. They also add structure, darken a wine’s fruit expression, add a structural component. We did a side batch or two with different wines each year for several years using an alternative product (derived from grape seeds) that’s naturally antimicrobial and antioxidant. With most wines most people greatly preferred the no sulfite version. A couple were more like 60/40 for the no sulfite, while one greatly benefited from the structure and focus the SO2 gave it.

Was this done blind?

Not usually. Various tastings and open houses over the years. Not sure it would make a difference. If anything, there might be a little skepticism about the “alternative” wine. But, this is in an atmosphere where a bunch of our wines were from uncommon grapes, which is sort of blind eyes-wide-open for many. So, preferences are all over and honest. If the same people are 90/10 on one pair and 20/80 on another…

[Mikael_OB]

A majority of the best wines I have had comes with lower sulfur levels, however requires much more skills/knowledge and care in every step of raising the wine.

On the subject of “natural” wines I feel the discussion many times can lose sight of the bigger picture. There is an impressive number of winegrowers managing to offer very high quality and terrific “natural” wines. Are there winegrower who bring out faulty or bad wines? For sure.

On the other hand what is the percentage of terrific wines not considered “natural”, taking into account all factory produced wines found in supermarkets etc.? My guess, lower, much lower than compared with “natural” wines.

[larry_schaffer]

A majority of the best wines I have had comes with lower sulfur levels, however requires much more skills/knowledge and care in every step of raising the wine.

On the subject of “natural” wines I feel the discussion many times can lose sight of the bigger picture. There is an impressive number of winegrowers managing to offer very high quality and terrific “natural” wines. Are there winegrower who bring out faulty or bad wines? For sure.

On the other hand what is the percentage of terrific wines not considered “natural”, taking into account all factory produced wines found in supermarkets etc.? My guess, lower, much lower than compared with “natural” wines.

Please objectively define ‘terrific’ please . . .

Cheers.

[Mikael_OB]

A majority of the best wines I have had comes with lower sulfur levels, however requires much more skills/knowledge and care in every step of raising the wine.

On the subject of “natural” wines I feel the discussion many times can lose sight of the bigger picture. There is an impressive number of winegrowers managing to offer very high quality and terrific “natural” wines. Are there winegrower who bring out faulty or bad wines? For sure.

On the other hand what is the percentage of terrific wines not considered “natural”, taking into account all factory produced wines found in supermarkets etc.? My guess, lower, much lower than compared with “natural” wines.

Please objectively define ‘terrific’ please . . .

Cheers.

Hi Larry,

Not sure wine falls under objective with taste and preference being subjective. If you prefer something to measure by then maybe consider scores? Someone with broad cover that you value or perhaps an avr of a few different critics…

Cheers!

[Wes_Barton]

A majority of the best wines I have had comes with lower sulfur levels, however requires much more skills/knowledge and care in every step of raising the wine.

On the subject of “natural” wines I feel the discussion many times can lose sight of the bigger picture. There is an impressive number of winegrowers managing to offer very high quality and terrific “natural” wines. Are there winegrower who bring out faulty or bad wines? For sure.

On the other hand what is the percentage of terrific wines not considered “natural”, taking into account all factory produced wines found in supermarkets etc.? My guess, lower, much lower than compared with “natural” wines.

Please objectively define ‘terrific’ please . . .

Cheers.

And, my point in the old “natural wine” debates is a hell of a lot of artisan producers who aren’t considered “natural”, are objectively as natural. Especially, if you allow for the abuse of low sulfite levels, guided by the knowledge of those particular grapes by a skilled winemaker. What’s the impact of low sulfite usage compared to vineyards regularly bathed in copper sulfate? Does making a bretty, VA laden wine from a vineyard in dead soil make it natural, or just seem natural? If skillful minimal sulfite use is okay, then we have many many hundreds of natural wine producers in CA (though some may have a wine here or there that needed >gasp!< an acid add.)

[john_stimson]

Remind me again what’s so incredibly horrible about sulfur that it needs to be avoided at all costs–I forget?

The beer industry lobbied for warning label makes them sound scary. Tied into that is the myth that they’re a major cause of “red wine headache” and the like.

But, really, they have a big impact on wine. They dull, mute, narrow aromas/tastes. They also add structure, darken a wine’s fruit expression, add a structural component. We did a side batch or two with different wines each year for several years using an alternative product (derived from grape seeds) that’s naturally antimicrobial and antioxidant. With most wines most people greatly preferred the no sulfite version. A couple were more like 60/40 for the no sulfite, while one greatly benefited from the structure and focus the SO2 gave it.

Also, various microbes are inhibited at different levels of sulfite. That’s the thought of low-sulfite producers like Ridge, where they use enough to prevent bad stuff from happening, while not so much to prevent positive contribution from wimpier yeasts.

Of course my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I’ve had a number of orgasmicly fabulous wines over my career of wine appreciation, and I presume all were fairly well sulfured. Most all were also 15-30 years old. I’m also pouring a number of white burgs and chablis down the drain that have not stood the test of time. I wonder how this discussion of low/no sulfur wines applies to wines that are expected to age for a long, long time, and perhaps not be ready for 10-20 years.

[John_Morris]

Remind me again what’s so incredibly horrible about sulfur that it needs to be avoided at all costs–I forget?

Of course my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I’ve had a number of orgasmicly fabulous wines over my career of wine appreciation, and I presume all were fairly well sulfured. Most all were also 15-30 years old. I’m also pouring a number of white burgs and chablis down the drain that have not stood the test of time. I wonder how this discussion of low/no sulfur wines applies to wines that are expected to age for a long, long time, and perhaps not be ready for 10-20 years.

I was thinking along similar lines – a 1949 JJ Prum Feinste Auslese and a 1959 Huet late harvest wine – two of the greatest I’ve ever tasted, which were no doubt sulfured out the wazoo. Also, many Northern Rhones from the 70s and 80s. I could go on. Would they have been better with less sulfur? I don’t know. It’s hard to imagine some of those being any better.

I wonder what sulfur usage was like in Barolo and Barbaresco pre-1990. Typically, you don’t get a lot of reduction in those wines. Perhaps the acid and tannin levels allowed for less SO2. But they were aged for such long periods that I’d guess that winemakers were liberal with the sulfur. Anybody know?

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

A majority of the best wines I have had comes with lower sulfur levels, however requires much more skills/knowledge and care in every step of raising the wine.

On the subject of “natural” wines I feel the discussion many times can lose sight of the bigger picture. There is an impressive number of winegrowers managing to offer very high quality and terrific “natural” wines. Are there winegrower who bring out faulty or bad wines? For sure.

On the other hand what is the percentage of terrific wines not considered “natural”, taking into account all factory produced wines found in supermarkets etc.? My guess, lower, much lower than compared with “natural” wines.

Not sure I agree with this at all.

1. most “super market” wines are mediocre and uninspired. That’s
   Considerably different than most “off” natural wines.

2. there’s a heck of a lot of excellent German Riesling with relatively high levels of SO2 added. So the concept that low sulphite wines are superior is mostly an argument among factions, none of whom are actually crediting the other side accurately. I have not had many “terrific” natural wines. The better ones are mostly “interesting”, “crushable”, “fresh”, “quirky”, “low alcohol” (I support this for sure), and the like.
   I don’t have a “natural” producer where the tagline “Roulot is Roulot” applies. And Roulot uses plenty of SO2.

3. how many aged wines are you talking about? I understand that most “natural” wines are intended by the producer to be consumed in the near term. They also look good when compared in youth at side by side tastings with wines having sulfites(although I don’t completely agree with some of Wes’ conclusions). But that’s usually only in youth. My experience is that as the wines age, few SS wines really continue to evolve towards the quality levels of excellent artisanal wines.

So to say that the percentage of natural wines that are “terrific” is higher than wines that use sulphites, requires that you drag low end factory manufactured wines into the equation. At least in order to not have much of the “natural” wines be Russian roulette compared to crafted wines. In a niche vs niche comparison, say wineries under 10,000 cases(where most natural and most artisan producers are), I would guess that the better percentage of the “terrific” wines would be weighted heavily to the artisanal side.


4) who are your “terrific” producers? I like Nikolaihof a ton and would count them. I’ve had terrific bottles from Radikon, and some less so. Metras…not my style, but there are some palates(Trimpi and Alfert) that I highly respect here that enjoy it. I’d love to get a wider range of terrific natural producers?

[Adam_Frisch]

Claus Preisinger is pretty solid across the board.

But some of the darlings of the natural world, like Frank Cornelissen and Meinklang I’ve never had much luck with, personally.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

In the Loire, I think there was a tendency to reduce SO2 in the 2000s, and other producers (e.g., Baumard) had premox issues as well. At Dom. Closel in Savennieres, they started picking earlier to avoid botrytis because they were committed to using less sulfur and they couldn’t do that with botrytis, the proprietress told me at a tasting a few months back. The Closel wines are very different now than they were in the early 2000s – much leaner and lighter. So the style changed dramatically because of the commitment to reducing sulfur.

Leaner and lighter and don’t age. I loved Domaine du Closel, and the wines were beautiful through 15-20 years of age. The last bottles that I bought were tired at 5.

While there’s plenty of “fun” low/no Sulphur producers, losing some of my favorite “terrific” producers to the natural style has been really disappointing. Dom. Marcel Deiss as well…

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Claus Preisinger is pretty solid across the board.

But some of the darlings of the natural world, like Frank Cornelissen and Meinklang I’ve never had much luck with, personally.

I’ll check out the Claus Preisinger wines.


The Frank Cornelissen and his wines are about my least favorite in the world. The “I can never learn anything from anybody else because my site is unique but you should fund my bouncing off of every branch on the how to make wine tree” schtick is revolting in it’s arrogance.

You need to know the rules to break the rules. Gravner is great. Cornellissen is a hack. And he and his wines may be getting better but the swill he sold at +$100/btl is a joke-in my very vehement opinion. But then I learned what I was doing by working for free and selling wines at value, instead of spinning bs to writers.

[DougS]

I totally agree about Cornelissen. Garbage wines with a garbage story, and seemingly little-to-no effort to improve things.

I also think the claim that more low/no SO2 wines are great is not true at all. Even Gravner has been highly variable for me, with multiple bottles going down the drain. The only producer in that camp that’s provided pinnacle wine experiences for me is Musar. Of course, some like Patricia Green aren’t so extreme or dogmatic and do make great wines, but theirs is a totally different philosophy (thankfully) than the SO2-is-evil schtick. The vast majority of wines I’ve had that I would call truly great were probably made with more typical (whatever that means) levels of SO2.

[John_Morris]

But I don’t know that this winemaker is “passionate” or “committed”(IMO). If a winemaker is passionate about or committed to a vineyard, it seems like they would want a slightly less “volatile” form of demonstrating the terroir? Especially if getting a much higher rate of quality only required a bit more care in the cellar and a small addition of a non-toxic(although HIGHLY unpleasant to inhale) element. One that can be obtained in an organic form, and is also a staple in most vineyard spray programs…probably including the one his mourvedre fruit came from.

I don’t get it. It mostly comes off as ego to me. As in, “I’m not going to play basketball with hoops. I only play with peach baskets.”

What I meant was that he is not trying to make wines to a formula or to please crowds, which I commend.

But the commitment seems to be to an abstract philosophy of “natural” that in practice makes the wine kind of a crap shoot.

[m_ristev]

the ironic thing is cornelissen now adds sulphur to all of his wines (and filters them as well). is he still making natural wine?

[Adam_Frisch]

Only had Gravner a few times and although never flawed, just not very pleasurable wines in my opinion. They’re just too serious those oak aged skin-contact wines. Take the fun out of drinking.

[larry_schaffer]

Adam,

Interesting comments for sure. I’ve had a couple of Gravners in the past few years and they were certainly ‘thought provoking’ wines and singular in how they speak. ‘Fun’ is an interesting word choice. And I guess it just depends upon what type of experience you want - which I think comes into play here.

From what I’m hearing from this thread and others, when folks experience a low to no sulphur wine that is ‘made well’, it allows fruit / terroir expression ‘more clearly’ perhaps than a wine that has added sulfur. I’ve not had that experience, at least not on a consistent enough regularity to see the cause/effect relationship. And that’s the key - if we as winemakers choose to do something, there should be a ‘result’ that we can point to to explain why we’ve chosen to do so.

Loving the conversation and hope to see it continue . . .

Cheers.

[CFu]

A majority of the best wines I have had comes with lower sulfur levels, however requires much more skills/knowledge and care in every step of raising the wine.

On the subject of “natural” wines I feel the discussion many times can lose sight of the bigger picture. There is an impressive number of winegrowers managing to offer very high quality and terrific “natural” wines. Are there winegrower who bring out faulty or bad wines? For sure.

On the other hand what is the percentage of terrific wines not considered “natural”, taking into account all factory produced wines found in supermarkets etc.? My guess, lower, much lower than compared with “natural” wines.

Not sure I agree with this at all.

1. most “super market” wines are mediocre and uninspired. That’s
   Considerably different than most “off” natural wines.

2. there’s a heck of a lot of excellent German Riesling with relatively high levels of SO2 added. So the concept that low sulphite wines are superior is mostly an argument among factions, none of whom are actually crediting the other side accurately. I have not had many “terrific” natural wines. The better ones are mostly “interesting”, “crushable”, “fresh”, “quirky”, “low alcohol” (I support this for sure), and the like.
   I don’t have a “natural” producer where the tagline “Roulot is Roulot” applies. And Roulot uses plenty of SO2.

3. how many aged wines are you talking about? I understand that most “natural” wines are intended by the producer to be consumed in the near term. They also look good when compared in youth at side by side tastings with wines having sulfites(although I don’t completely agree with some of Wes’ conclusions). But that’s usually only in youth. My experience is that as the wines age, few SS wines really continue to evolve towards the quality levels of excellent artisanal wines.

So to say that the percentage of natural wines that are “terrific” is higher than wines that use sulphites, requires that you drag low end factory manufactured wines into the equation. At least in order to not have much of the “natural” wines be Russian roulette compared to crafted wines. In a niche vs niche comparison, say wineries under 10,000 cases(where most natural and most artisan producers are), I would guess that the better percentage of the “terrific” wines would be weighted heavily to the artisanal side.


4) who are your “terrific” producers? I like Nikolaihof a ton and would count them. I’ve had terrific bottles from Radikon, and some less so. Metras…not my style, but there are some palates(Trimpi and Alfert) that I highly respect here that enjoy it. I’d love to get a wider range of terrific natural producers?

Overnoy. Terrific and fits the “roulot is roulot” criteria (and price)

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

I totally agree about Cornelissen. Garbage wines with a garbage story, and seemingly little-to-no effort to improve things.

I also think the claim that more low/no SO2 wines are great is not true at all. Even Gravner has been highly variable for me, with multiple bottles going down the drain. The only producer in that camp that’s provided pinnacle wine experiences for me is Musar. Of course, some like Patricia Green aren’t so extreme or dogmatic and do make great wines, but theirs is a totally different philosophy (thankfully) than the SO2-is-evil schtick. The vast majority of wines I’ve had that I would call truly great were probably made with more typical (whatever that means) levels of SO2.

I know Jim was at the raw wine festival with PGC, but there’s no difference in what they do and what I or Vincent, or 100% of the other small Oregon wineries regularly championed on this board do.

The vast majority of great wines that I have had, have come from smaller producers of integrity, making wine with a focus on quality rather than dogma. It’s far and away my preferred type of producer.