This just cracks me up, re "Natural Wine"

[bob_poirier]

@Markus S

@etomasi

Honestly, I don’t know why people hate on fun, interesting wines that drink well in their youth. As long as natural wines are tasty, not expensive, and go with food; I don’t see much to hate.

Exactly. They are simply another extension of what the grape can go if they are not allowed to be doctored. No reason to hate.

For the same reason people hate on high octane, full throttle wines, because they don’t like them, this is a wine board and it’s been a slow day.

[Jeremy_C]

While I agree there has been some disdain shared here wrt the style of wines being discussed, there is also the argument that the term “natural” is simply inaccurate and problematic. Those are separate discussions.

[David_Bu3ker]

@Jeremy C

While I agree there has been some disdain shared here wrt the style of wines being discussed, there is also the argument that the term “natural” is simply inaccurate and problematic. Those are separate discussions.

And it’s just a repeat of the same, tired debate that happens every 12-18 months, when someone writes a natural wine piece. Nothing meaningful has changed since the last time.

As for natural wine being “marketing”, let me know the next (first) time a natural wine producer takes out a full page article in Wine Spectator.

[Wes_Barton]

@G. Shields

@Jeremy C

It seems to me that the term “natural” in this context is most certainly a marketing decision, akin to the common use of “organic.” But that’s not to say that some/many of the wines aren’t worth seeking out and trying.

Maybe, but let’s add some nuance to the concept of marketing here… for the one-man-show slightly hippy young vigneron in the Loire, it maybe marketing in the sense of the image that he or she projects of how they approach their craft, but other than a simple website and choice of salon there isn’t much else… maybe a FB site…? It’s only really marketing vs. the old-school guy who slathers his vines in chemicals, does strictly no communication and just leverages AOC for his stand at the salon dés vignerons indépendants… but it ain’t marketing like the classed growth Bordeaux with full colour glossy ad in Revue de Vin de France or the Napa estate with deluxe tasting room etc…
For me, this is therefore less ´marketing’ and à bit more ’just who I am’…

On top of that, if the wine is going to be a little cloudy or drop a lot of sediment, that can freak out mainstream expectations. A warning to expect cloudiness would likely hurt sales, but also prevent a slew of returns from freaked out purchasers who didn’t even bother to try the wine. Does that sound like marketing? Not in the pejorative sense.

[Wes_Barton]

@larry schaffer

Not to sound like a ‘broken record’ here, but I think one of the challenges here is that there are plenty of ‘shades of gray’ here that make it difficult to make ‘absolute’ statements.

I understand where Eric is coming from - if you are a ‘minimalist’ but do not adhere to ‘strict’ natural leanings (perhaps you filter, for instance) because you don’t want to ‘deal with’ the possibility of bacterial or yeast blooms in bottle), what do you ‘call’ yourself? And regardless of what it is, you usually get ‘lumped in’ with 'commercial wineries that use chemicals and ‘tricks’ to make wine ‘more consistent’. I don’t think that’s true at all - hence the ‘shades of gray’ comment above.

There are many paths to making wine - and to me, the key is being pragmatic, not dogmatic. If you’ve tried and dig these ‘natural’ wines, that’s great for you. If you don’t mind how ‘variable’ they can be, that’s great as well. Let’s just say that we can agree to disagree and move on.

Cheers.

Jaime Goode used the term “authentic wine”. Now he’s throwing around the word “true”. To me, those wouldn’t quite be the same as what many are calling “natural”, but would encompass the best of those, plus the many who go as far in that direction as possible without making flawed wines.

Lost in this debate about the fringe is that healthier soil yields more complex wine. (Healthier does not equate to overly nutrient rich.) Sulfite dulls wines, a low-sulfite wine will be more aromatically expressive, lighter on the palate, more open. Fining and filtering can strip complexity. Residual pesticides and fungicides making it into the must can inhibit a lot of yeasts, preventing them from adding complexity to a wine.

There’s a lot to strive for. Peaks to climb, without falling off a cliff. There’s a lot of exciting stuff going on right now. Often it’s long resume assistant winemakers branching off with a small label, taking their ideas to fruition, while keeping their real jobs making “safe” wines.

[David_Bu3ker]

People are doing great work across the w8nemaking spectrum.

It’s a real shame that threads arguing about articles drown out the discussions about actual wines.

[larry_schaffer]

@Wes Barton

@larry schaffer

Not to sound like a ‘broken record’ here, but I think one of the challenges here is that there are plenty of ‘shades of gray’ here that make it difficult to make ‘absolute’ statements.

I understand where Eric is coming from - if you are a ‘minimalist’ but do not adhere to ‘strict’ natural leanings (perhaps you filter, for instance) because you don’t want to ‘deal with’ the possibility of bacterial or yeast blooms in bottle), what do you ‘call’ yourself? And regardless of what it is, you usually get ‘lumped in’ with 'commercial wineries that use chemicals and ‘tricks’ to make wine ‘more consistent’. I don’t think that’s true at all - hence the ‘shades of gray’ comment above.

There are many paths to making wine - and to me, the key is being pragmatic, not dogmatic. If you’ve tried and dig these ‘natural’ wines, that’s great for you. If you don’t mind how ‘variable’ they can be, that’s great as well. Let’s just say that we can agree to disagree and move on.

Cheers.

There’s a lot to strive for. Peaks to climb, without falling off a cliff. There’s a lot of exciting stuff going on right now. Often it’s long resume assistant winemakers branching off with a small label, taking their ideas to fruition, while keeping their real jobs making “safe” wines.

Care to define ‘safe’ wine?

[Jeremy_C]

@D@vid Bu3ker

@Jeremy C

While I agree there has been some disdain shared here wrt the style of wines being discussed, there is also the argument that the term “natural” is simply inaccurate and problematic. Those are separate discussions.

And it’s just a repeat of the same, tired debate that happens every 12-18 months, when someone writes a natural wine piece. Nothing meaningful has changed since the last time.

As for natural wine being “marketing”, let me know the next (first) time a natural wine producer takes out a full page article in Wine Spectator.

I’m more than allowed to share my opinion on an issue.

And yes, it is marketing. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that; in fact, I believe any successful business owner should market their product(s).

[Anton_D]

Interesting topic!

I went to check the criteria for being a ‘natural wine.’

The following basic criteria are generally accepted by most natural wine producers and organizations:

Organically or biodynamically grown grapes, with or without certification.

Dry-farmed, low-yielding vineyards.

Hand-picked.

No added sugars, no foreign yeasts, no foreign bacteria.

No adjustments for acidity.

No additives for color, mouth-feel, minerality, etc.

No external flavor additives, including those derived from new oak barrels, staves, chips, or liquid extract.

Minimal or no fining or filtration.

No heavy manipulation, such as micro-oxygenation, reverse osmosis, spinning cone, cryoextraction.

Minimal or no added sulphites aka sulfites. (I think it should be none if they wanna really be pure about it.)

_

I see no problem with any of that, I suppose it’s when a winemaker claims some sort of position of superiority over his/her fellow winemakers by calling himself/herself a maker of ‘natural wine.’

So, the argument makes sense when taking about one way or another being inherently ‘better.’

Regarding biodynamics - is putting a chopped off bull’s head in a vineyard a ‘natural’ thing, or would that be adding something that wasn’t there to begin with? I’d consider it a manipulation, even if I think it doesn’t really do anything.

I would consider adding ground horn silica ‘to improve photosynthesis’ a manipulation, as well. same with “horn manure.”

I don’t think ‘natural wines’ have an automatic position of superiority, so I can see why a ‘normal’ winemaker might be put off. For me, it’s an "I don’t care’ thing.

[Wes_Barton]

@larry schaffer

Care to define ‘safe’ wine?

Just being straight-forward, conventional. Basically, doing what others are doing, staying inside the box, being happy making the same wines every year without putting much effort into learning. Being happy making good wines with fruit that could make better wine.

[Anton_D]

@larry schaffer

Care to define ‘safe’ wine?

No bareback wine making?

[David_Bu3ker]

@Jeremy C

@D@vid Bu3ker

@Jeremy C

While I agree there has been some disdain shared here wrt the style of wines being discussed, there is also the argument that the term “natural” is simply inaccurate and problematic. Those are separate discussions.

And it’s just a repeat of the same, tired debate that happens every 12-18 months, when someone writes a natural wine piece. Nothing meaningful has changed since the last time.

As for natural wine being “marketing”, let me know the next (first) time a natural wine producer takes out a full page article in Wine Spectator.

I’m more than allowed to share my opinion on an issue.

And yes, it is marketing. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that; in fact, I believe any successful business owner should market their product(s).

Of course you are allowed to share it. I am also allowed to disagree. I am not censoring you. I just think you are wrong.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

@D@vid Bu3ker

@Jeremy C

@D@vid Bu3ker

And it’s just a repeat of the same, tired debate that happens every 12-18 months, when someone writes a natural wine piece. Nothing meaningful has changed since the last time.

As for natural wine being “marketing”, let me know the next (first) time a natural wine producer takes out a full page article in Wine Spectator.

Of course you are allowed to share it. I am also allowed to disagree. I am not censoring you. I just think you are wrong.

Natural winemakers don’t take out full page ads in the Wine Spectator because they have chosen a different more “natural” path with their markeing than Spectator ads. A Spectator ad would undercut the “stand” they’ve taken to get people to notice them

Feel free to disagree…or to just bitch about me being condescending to you again.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

@Wes Barton

“It exists because it proclaims itself so. It is a fantasy of marginal producers.” Robert Parker, perhaps the world’s most powerful wine critic, has called natural wine an “undefined scam”.

So…much…irony.

Such a great post! This made my day…

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

@Jeremy C

It seems to me that the term “natural” in this context is most certainly a marketing decision, akin to the common use of “organic.” But that’s not to say that some/many of the wines aren’t worth seeking out and trying.

The lack of definition on the term “natural” and the varying levels to which different winemakers(I am speaking to Oregon specifically here, my knowledge beyond my region is non-existent) actually adhere to the more commonly offered ideas of what natural wines are would corroborate your thought. (IMO)

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

@Wes Barton

@G. Shields

@Jeremy C

It seems to me that the term “natural” in this context is most certainly a marketing decision, akin to the common use of “organic.” But that’s not to say that some/many of the wines aren’t worth seeking out and trying.

Maybe, but let’s add some nuance to the concept of marketing here… for the one-man-show slightly hippy young vigneron in the Loire, it maybe marketing in the sense of the image that he or she projects of how they approach their craft, but other than a simple website and choice of salon there isn’t much else… maybe a FB site…? It’s only really marketing vs. the old-school guy who slathers his vines in chemicals, does strictly no communication and just leverages AOC for his stand at the salon dés vignerons indépendants… but it ain’t marketing like the classed growth Bordeaux with full colour glossy ad in Revue de Vin de France or the Napa estate with deluxe tasting room etc…
For me, this is therefore less ´marketing’ and à bit more ’just who I am’…

On top of that, if the wine is going to be a little cloudy or drop a lot of sediment, that can freak out mainstream expectations. A warning to expect cloudiness would likely hurt sales, but also prevent a slew of returns from freaked out purchasers who didn’t even bother to try the wine. Does that sound like marketing? Not in the pejorative sense.

I would disagree.

These producers are not seeking mainstream but rather are seeking new and explorative consumers. I have a friend who purposefully racks his wine with some lees, and then ifthe leeshave settled, stirs the bottling tank to specifically get some sediment into the bottles. This presents a “natural” profile(and he deserves the moniker and I enjoy his wines) for their marketing.

And, as noted, I enjoy the wines, but I feel that “natural” based upon the chatter of those producers should be wines as the wine wants to be, i.e. ifit doesn’t have sediment and you add it back…that’s technique as opposed to natural.

While I don’t actually enjoy the Marcel Lapierre wines, I have never had a cloudy or corrupt bottle. They are generally very straightforward in their presentation and without any of the affectations of many “natural” wines. Solid wines if not my thing.

[ericleehall]

@mark rudner

@Mark_Edwards

@James Sanders

Why experiment when there are so many good $70 Pinots available?

Legitimately can’t tell if this is satire or not.

thank you. i’m hoping it is. i think…

@James Sanders

Guilty. Eric sells $70 Cali Pinot that he describes with terms that make this natural wine lover shudder–e.g. “cherry cola,” “lush,” creamy," and “silky smooth.” No offense, Eric . . …

No offense taken. I work hard to try to achieve those adjectives above. It’s no accident I make the kind of wine I like, from the appropriate locations. What I mean by this is that even though I quite like a lot of Burgundys, I don’t try to make Burgundy in California.

[DougS]

@Marcus Goodfellow

Natural winemakers don’t take out full page ads in the Wine Spectator because they have chosen a different more “natural” path with their markeing than Spectator ads. A Spectator ad would undercut the “stand” they’ve taken to get people to notice them

Yes, anyone who uses the word “natural” to describe their wines is absolutely using that as a marketing tool.

[David_Bu3ker]

@Marcus Goodfellow

Feel free to disagree…or to just bitch about me being condescending to you again.

I do disagree, and you are being condescending.

Happy?

[Nathan_V]

@larry schaffer

@Wes Barton

@larry schaffer

Not to sound like a ‘broken record’ here, but I think one of the challenges here is that there are plenty of ‘shades of gray’ here that make it difficult to make ‘absolute’ statements.

I understand where Eric is coming from - if you are a ‘minimalist’ but do not adhere to ‘strict’ natural leanings (perhaps you filter, for instance) because you don’t want to ‘deal with’ the possibility of bacterial or yeast blooms in bottle), what do you ‘call’ yourself? And regardless of what it is, you usually get ‘lumped in’ with 'commercial wineries that use chemicals and ‘tricks’ to make wine ‘more consistent’. I don’t think that’s true at all - hence the ‘shades of gray’ comment above.

There are many paths to making wine - and to me, the key is being pragmatic, not dogmatic. If you’ve tried and dig these ‘natural’ wines, that’s great for you. If you don’t mind how ‘variable’ they can be, that’s great as well. Let’s just say that we can agree to disagree and move on.

Cheers.

There’s a lot to strive for. Peaks to climb, without falling off a cliff. There’s a lot of exciting stuff going on right now. Often it’s long resume assistant winemakers branching off with a small label, taking their ideas to fruition, while keeping their real jobs making “safe” wines.

Care to define ‘safe’ wine?

How about conventional, I think that is adequately descriptive.

What the Guardian piece points out and what I have anecdotally noticed, is that most of the very best vignerons are adopting a lot of the “natural” wine practices. Maybe not semi-carbonic, but certainly the farming, ambient yeast, the handling, the restricted use of sulfur. Big or otherwise commercial operations can’t do the types of things that small producers from less fancy areas can pull off. No one is going to hire Marc Angeli at Henriot (or even Huet for that matter).