Worst wine, and perhaps worst wine chemistry, ever?

WINE TALK
21

The only possible issues with the winescan is that it’s hard to get in the lab and use it without Jeff gently caressing it the whole time.

22

NOBODY TOUCHES MY PRECIOUS!!

23

Never had the wine but, based on the description from Garagiste and the comments of those who have had it, I must say it nice to see a retailer offering candid remarks rather than someone else’s remarks or generic compressed ass sunshine. [welldone.gif]

24

Nice blog post and then a GREAT comment from Randall Graham:

Private Site" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

25

So, what makes this wine so “natural”. No So2 added? It just sounds like a trainwreck of a wine that shouldn’t have been sold. We have a few no sulfite winemakers here up in Humboldt and it is a tough row to hoe. The wines aren’t speaking of the terroir, they are speaking of oxydation, lactobacillus, pediococcus, and brettanomyces. [bleh.gif] As Rodney Dangerfield says, “no offense”.

26

Was just going to post the Gonzo Gastro blog as well, Roberto.

But even more of an endorsement was the recent piece by Matt Kramer on WS Online. Josh, have you checked that out?

Frank Cornelissen - Diner's Journal Blog - The New York Times" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

27

John - You raise a point that I’ve long wondered about. The most fervent proponents of natural wine (Feiring, Rosenthal, et al) seem more than willing to overlook some of these flaws. In fact, Rosenthal has indicated that he finds Brett to be overly maligned and somewhat indicative of terroir. I tend to prefer more natural wines myself, but I can’t but feel this line of thinking is just a rationalization.

28

Agreed. In an environment that too often caves to the mundane or the sensational, t’s uplifting to read such intelligent, thoughtful commentary.

29

Brett does not speak of terroir, it speaks of the particular strain you have in your winery. Some strains can add a spiciness, that can be attractive, but it will deffinately dull varietal aromas and flavors. Some strains just smell like a stable that hasn’t been cleaned in weeks.

It is possible (and many are doing it) to make wines that are natural in the sense that they have been fermented with native yeasts, spontaneous ML, and low or no amounts of new oak. Picking the grapes at a time when there is plenty of natural acidity, so you don’t have to use much So2, etc. These are the wines that speak of the soil and place they come from. I don’t consider wine “flaws”(oxydation and microbial/yeast spoilage) terrior… Just my buck o five.

30

I don’t think the issue is so easily settled.
Even if Brett is from the cellar and not from the vineyard, it is still possible to make a case that Brett incidence and Brett-related characters in some wines are at least partially related to terroir.

Cheers,

31

Yes, I do see your point. But it is all relative to how one defines terroir. The same argument could be made for a number of “spoilage” microbes- where does the line get drawn…? To me, rogue yeast strains and vigorous microbial populations can be easily brought in or introduced to the vineyard and winery, and therefore do not contribute to terrior or a sense of place.

32

God Bless Randall Graham.

Here is what I think is the issue: There is something like an implicit social contract between winemaker/wine merchant and wine consumer that we generally give little thought to, but is always there. > You give someone some money with the expectation that your experience of the goods that you receive in exchange will conform to a certain expectation of experience. > You expect your bottles to not be “corked”, leaky, sun or heat-damaged, etc. and if they present that way, it is reasonable to expect your money back (emphasis added).

I wish all other winemakers believed the same. Unfortunately, too many act as if it were ok to sell someone their science experiments. I believe this applies equally to those who over-manipulate and those who fail to intervene when appropriate.

33

I don’t think the line gets drawn, but just kind of peters out… white fades to grey fades to black.
Botrytis is clearly something that can be tied to terroir. I’d argue the same can be true for some instances of VA and Bret (among other “spoilage” microbes). Obviously things are less clear for acetic acid bacteria and Brett than they are for Botrytis, since nobody really suggests that botrytis-related effects can happen to any degree in the cellar (under almost all conditions).
One important point here is that Bret can have a very profound impact upon a wine’s flavor and aroma profiles… even if we can tie the presence of Bret (and related sensorily important compounds) to terroir, this wouldn’t provide much of an “excuse” for the wine in question. At least not for those who like balance, and who like a fuller array of terroir-related characters to wind up the glass. Even if Bret is award “friend of terroir” status, an excessive amount of it (organoleptically speaking) would at best be considered akin to something like an over-extracted wine, where some terroir-influenced fruit components (phenols, etc) are present in the wine in levels detrimental to the proper expression of others.

Then again, I kinda like Bret…

Regards,

34

Yes, indeed.
I found myself agreeing with what he wrote, which is cause for worry.
Though in matters of marketing he’s always been very much the pragmatist.

I wish all other winemakers believed the same. Unfortunately, too many act as if it were ok to sell someone their science experiments. I believe this applies equally to those who over-manipulate and those who fail to intervene when appropriate.

I doubt that some of the winemakers in question would consider what they put out to be “science experiments”. Maybe “conceptual art pieces” is a term closer to their hearts.
Eventually someone is going to bottle air and position it as the most unmanipulated wine possible.

35

="Bruce G
Then again, I kinda like Bret…

Favre? neener

36

John - You raise a point that I’ve long wondered about. The most fervent proponents of natural wine (Feiring, Rosenthal, et al) seem more than willing to overlook some of these flaws. In fact, Rosenthal has indicated that he finds Brett to be overly maligned and somewhat indicative of terroir. I tend to prefer more natural wines myself, but I can’t but feel this line of thinking is just a rationalization.

Maybe they just can’t tell? Or don’t know what they’re talking about? Or figured out a marketing gimmick.

I think your skepticism is warranted.

Brett is overly maligned? Because the winemaker knows exactly how much is going to be in each batch of wine he makes and we’re supposed to respect his choices? In fact he has no idea.

I don’t get the logic behind comments like Rosenthal’s. I guess we’re supposed to randomly select certain things that will be allowed to occur at random, or perhaps a specific set of things that are OK to occur randomly?

On the other hand, the winemaker decides to pick the grapes this week instead of next or instead of last, he decides to macerate for this many days instead of that many, he decides to keep temps at this degree instead of that, he decides to use oak vats/cement/stainless, whatever. He makes all kinds of decisions but pretends that the grapes just jumped off the vine and fermented themselves because that’s “natural” or “noninterventionist” whatever the F that means. And then he doesn’t bother to clean the place out because well, a little filth is all about terroir baby.

It’s not rationalization. It’s a load of shit. The winemaker is extremely careful all along, even obsessive, and then decides to allow completely random events after he’s almost done? What if he randomly picked grapes over a month? That would really show terroir wouldn’t it, since some would be ripe, some green, and some in between. Anything a winemaker does, once he decides to plant grapevines that are selected clones and that would not grow naturally in his field, is interventionist. And there isn’t anything wrong with taking steps to preserve what he’s taken pains to produce.

It’s not a knock to Rosenthal and I have enjoyed many of his wines. But BS is BS.

37

I don’t think Rosenthal is talking about bad cellar hygiene and making excuses for it. I think he is referring to site specific brett. Yes, it does exist. I work with one zin vineyard block that has a small touch of brett every year. Anything picked outside this block is fine. So I’d say that it IS part of that patch of soil, and does indeed reflect that terroir. I know of other vineyards which do the same.

The idea that all natural wines are made by dirty hippies is nonsense. Most people I’ve met who choose to work this way are rather humble, thoughtful folks who are trying to let their land and the vintage express itself, and not to craft, control and dominate the year’s harvest. Yes, there are always decisions that are to be made, but the main difference is one of letting the wine become what it becomes (I know, quite zen). Hence, no or little new oak, ambient yeasts, nothing added to the wine (acids, tannins, etc) nor nothing taken away (de-alcing, filtering, etc).

Greg, your comment about sticking grapes in a vat outside and just letting them go is in fact how Cornelissen chooses to work - he’s got a bunch of small vats in his backyard, out in the open. He wants the influence of the day and night temperatures to mark the fermentations. I believe that Sean Thackery ferments this way too, outside, although he may choose to inoculate his musts.

Frank Cornelissen is really an artist who has chosen grapes as his medium, don’t you think?

I know that these wines will not appeal to everyones’ tastes, and that the Cornelissens are probably the most extreme natural wine out there, but I am glad they exist. The offer another perspective on what wine is and its relationship to our lives. They certainly are not to be despised or feared. Its just wine, after all.

38

These are extreme wines and Frank Cornelissen is pushing the boundaries of non-interventionist winemaking. I love them and have several cases of them. It is sad to see the harsh statements from winemakers in this thread. Even if you hate the wines you should respect a person who moves to Mount Edna in Sicily to make the wines that he wants to make in extreme conditions (check out the picture of his vineyard in the link below). It can’t be very easy and it is surely not financially rewarding. According to Matt Kramer’s recent article the vineyard that produces the Magma wine is 3.7 acres at an elevation of 3000 feet. This vineyard produces just 800-1000 bottles from 6500 vines of which three quarters are on ungrafted roots planted in 1910. Each vine produces one tiny cluster. Cornelissen is clearly a passionate winemaker with an iconoclastic approach to winemaking and I greatly respect him and a few other winemakers who push the boundaries.

Vineyard:

http://vinosseur.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/img_0002.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kramer Article:

http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/41298" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

39

Passion and iconoclasm mean nothing when the wine turns out like crap. People spend their hard-earned pennies on a bottle of wine & it is some blundered grade school science experiment? That’s not passion, that’s irresponsibility to my wallet.

40

I had seen the Matt Kramer piece and mildly scratched my head, but it does seem the sort of thing that would appeal to him.

Robert, I appreciate what Frank Cornelissen is trying to achieve, and it is a great story, no doubt, but the wines I’ve drunk have been absolutely flawed beyond belief. And I don’t think it’s a matter of preference. I can drink a really really ripe really really oaky Napa Cab or Aussie Shiraz and say “wow I hate the style but the wine is sound” where as with the Cornelissen wines, I love the story but the winemaking is disastrous.

His winemaking is akin to believing that refrigeration is interventionist and salmonella is part of the natural terroir of chicken.