Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
'Natural wine' ?
'Natural wine' ?
Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
last twelve months ?
It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
subject.
http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine.html).
It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
Any suggestions ?
Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
last twelve months ?
It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
subject.
http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine.html).
It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
Any suggestions ?
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
panicmouth@gmail,com wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> last twelve months ?
>
> It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
> and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> subject.
>
> http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine.html).
>
> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> Any suggestions ?
>
"Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
blog: http :// www .joedressner,com
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
panicmouth@gmail,com wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> last twelve months ?
>
> It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
> and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> subject.
>
> http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine.html).
>
> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> Any suggestions ?
>
"Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
blog: http :// www .joedressner,com
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:
> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> selection massale).
What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
the used ones used for?)
--
I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!
On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:
> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> selection massale).
What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
the used ones used for?)
--
I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
Adam Funk wrote:
> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
> the used ones used for?)
>
New oak barrels are exactly that: oak barrels which haven't yet been
used to make wine. New oak barrels, especially high toast ones or ones
made from American oak, are notorious for imparting very strong flavors
to the wine that have nothing to do with the grapes themselves. Many
people like those flavors; others do not. If you drink enough wine, you
might conclude (like I have) that new oak is like makeup: used with
restraint and a sense of artistry, it can enhance, but used clumsily it
can be grotesque. YMMV, of course.
Quercophobically yours,
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
Adam Funk wrote:
> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
> the used ones used for?)
>
New oak barrels are exactly that: oak barrels which haven't yet been
used to make wine. New oak barrels, especially high toast ones or ones
made from American oak, are notorious for imparting very strong flavors
to the wine that have nothing to do with the grapes themselves. Many
people like those flavors; others do not. If you drink enough wine, you
might conclude (like I have) that new oak is like makeup: used with
restraint and a sense of artistry, it can enhance, but used clumsily it
can be grotesque. YMMV, of course.
Quercophobically yours,
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:
>> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
>> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
>> the used ones used for?)
>
> New oak barrels are exactly that: oak barrels which haven't yet been
> used to make wine. New oak barrels, especially high toast ones or ones
> made from American oak, are notorious for imparting very strong flavors
> to the wine that have nothing to do with the grapes themselves. Many
> people like those flavors; others do not. If you drink enough wine, you
> might conclude (like I have) that new oak is like makeup: used with
> restraint and a sense of artistry, it can enhance, but used clumsily it
> can be grotesque. YMMV, of course.
OK! But that does mean that the winemakers who oppose new oak are
expecting other winemakers to do their dirty work (turning new oak
into old oak) for them.
On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:
>> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
>> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
>> the used ones used for?)
>
> New oak barrels are exactly that: oak barrels which haven't yet been
> used to make wine. New oak barrels, especially high toast ones or ones
> made from American oak, are notorious for imparting very strong flavors
> to the wine that have nothing to do with the grapes themselves. Many
> people like those flavors; others do not. If you drink enough wine, you
> might conclude (like I have) that new oak is like makeup: used with
> restraint and a sense of artistry, it can enhance, but used clumsily it
> can be grotesque. YMMV, of course.
OK! But that does mean that the winemakers who oppose new oak are
expecting other winemakers to do their dirty work (turning new oak
into old oak) for them.
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
Adam Funk wrote:
> OK! But that does mean that the winemakers who oppose new oak are
> expecting other winemakers to do their dirty work (turning new oak
> into old oak) for them.
Well, it's hardly regarded as dirty work. Many famous French chateux
will only use a barrel once and then discard it. So, other wineries
less enamored of the flavor of new oak will buy those used barrels for
their own use. Alternatively, a wine maker can fill his new barrel with
water, let it stand for a month or so and then dump the water. That's
supposed to remove a lot of the new oak flavor. In case you're asking
why a winemaker would want to use an oak barrel if they don't like the
flavor of oak, here's the answer: aging wine in oak amounts to a
low-level oxidation, rounding out a lot of the flavors and also imparts
some tannins to the wine to help it age. Thus, many winemakers seek out
"neutral oak" barrels to accomplish this.
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
Adam Funk wrote:
> OK! But that does mean that the winemakers who oppose new oak are
> expecting other winemakers to do their dirty work (turning new oak
> into old oak) for them.
Well, it's hardly regarded as dirty work. Many famous French chateux
will only use a barrel once and then discard it. So, other wineries
less enamored of the flavor of new oak will buy those used barrels for
their own use. Alternatively, a wine maker can fill his new barrel with
water, let it stand for a month or so and then dump the water. That's
supposed to remove a lot of the new oak flavor. In case you're asking
why a winemaker would want to use an oak barrel if they don't like the
flavor of oak, here's the answer: aging wine in oak amounts to a
low-level oxidation, rounding out a lot of the flavors and also imparts
some tannins to the wine to help it age. Thus, many winemakers seek out
"neutral oak" barrels to accomplish this.
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
On May 8, 4:23=EF=BF=BDpm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg,com > wrote:
> On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:
>
> > "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. =A0It ref=
ers
> > to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> > favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> > little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> > selection massale). =A0
>
> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? =A0(I'm
> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
> the used ones used for?)
>
> --
> I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!
As to how you get used oak, tyically in "old days" a producer might
bring in a few new barrels to replace ones that were leaking (or if
production had increased). Typically these barrels would be used as
part of the elevage of the biggest wines in the stable. Or, a producer
might buy used barrels from another producer who typically used more
new oak (like the classified growths in Bordeaux, or most GC
Burgundy, etc).
Another factor in the perception of "new oak" is that heavier toasts
of the barrels tend to increase oak flavors.
Size of barrels in another factor. A 225L barrique has more surface
area proportionally than a big foudre.
On May 8, 4:23=EF=BF=BDpm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg,com > wrote:
> On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:
>
> > "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. =A0It ref=
ers
> > to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> > favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> > little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> > selection massale). =A0
>
> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? =A0(I'm
> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
> the used ones used for?)
>
> --
> I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!
As to how you get used oak, tyically in "old days" a producer might
bring in a few new barrels to replace ones that were leaking (or if
production had increased). Typically these barrels would be used as
part of the elevage of the biggest wines in the stable. Or, a producer
might buy used barrels from another producer who typically used more
new oak (like the classified growths in Bordeaux, or most GC
Burgundy, etc).
Another factor in the perception of "new oak" is that heavier toasts
of the barrels tend to increase oak flavors.
Size of barrels in another factor. A 225L barrique has more surface
area proportionally than a big foudre.
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
On May 8, 2:39 pm, Mark Lipton <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote:
> panicmo...@gmail,com wrote:
> > Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> > last twelve months ?
>
> > It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> > Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> > blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
> > and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> > subject.
>
> > http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> > difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> > feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> > Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> > called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> > here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine....).
>
> > It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> > extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> > 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> > Any suggestions ?
>
> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
> just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
> For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
> blog: http :// www .joedressner,com
>
> Mark Lipton
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
I could not resist. The ultimate natural wine, is vinegar. There are
some misinformed people that take it as a matter of faith that natural
or organic is superior. This is a theology, and not based on
scientific facts or reason. It usually is useless to argue with people
with such beliefs, just as it usually is useless to argue with someone
about which religion, if any, is the best. More reasonable people try
to do what makes the best product, be it drink or food. This may be to
do nothing in some cases, or if may involve many steps by man in
others. While man has done some things that harm, on the average many
more things have been done right since the scientific era. One need
only mention the greatly increased life span in developed nations that
have enough money for food and other essentials for a healthy life.
There was a time when 50 years was very old.
On May 8, 2:39 pm, Mark Lipton <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote:
> panicmo...@gmail,com wrote:
> > Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> > last twelve months ?
>
> > It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> > Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> > blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
> > and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> > subject.
>
> > http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> > difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> > feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> > Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> > called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> > here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine....).
>
> > It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> > extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> > 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> > Any suggestions ?
>
> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
> just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
> For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
> blog: http :// www .joedressner,com
>
> Mark Lipton
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
I could not resist. The ultimate natural wine, is vinegar. There are
some misinformed people that take it as a matter of faith that natural
or organic is superior. This is a theology, and not based on
scientific facts or reason. It usually is useless to argue with people
with such beliefs, just as it usually is useless to argue with someone
about which religion, if any, is the best. More reasonable people try
to do what makes the best product, be it drink or food. This may be to
do nothing in some cases, or if may involve many steps by man in
others. While man has done some things that harm, on the average many
more things have been done right since the scientific era. One need
only mention the greatly increased life span in developed nations that
have enough money for food and other essentials for a healthy life.
There was a time when 50 years was very old.
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
cwdjrxyz wrote:
>> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
>> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
>> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
>> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
>> selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
>> just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
>> For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
>> blog: http :// www .joedressner,com
>>
>> Mark Lipton
>> --
>> alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
>
> I could not resist. The ultimate natural wine, is vinegar. There are
> some misinformed people that take it as a matter of faith that natural
> or organic is superior. This is a theology, and not based on
> scientific facts or reason. It usually is useless to argue with people
> with such beliefs, just as it usually is useless to argue with someone
> about which religion, if any, is the best. More reasonable people try
> to do what makes the best product, be it drink or food. This may be to
> do nothing in some cases, or if may involve many steps by man in
> others. While man has done some things that harm, on the average many
> more things have been done right since the scientific era. One need
> only mention the greatly increased life span in developed nations that
> have enough money for food and other essentials for a healthy life.
> There was a time when 50 years was very old.
If our average lifespan is no longer 50 years it is not because
"natural" has been eradicated or because food is now laced with
chemicals. The improvements are to be attributed mainly to maintaining
simple hygiene rules (grossly absent in the old days), eliminating
seriously adulterated food (very commonplace in the old days), and
improved medicine. Going back to making wine and food in less
interventionist ways will not make us die at 50.
Theology or not, dressner carries some truly remarkable wines. As I
mentioned in my previous post, organic or "natural" does not necessarily
mean superior, there is plenty of certified organically grown plonk
around. But many of the best winemakers do abide to a
non-interventionist form of winemaking, with a light hand. Personally, I
find most high-tech wine insipid, and if all wine were to go that way
there would be no reason to have a newsgroup ;-)
Sectarian or theological, these movements are harmless and can produce
some interesting results. [OT: the analogy with faith is irresistible:
even extremely irrational things like religion, when moderately
practiced at a personal level, can make for a better person; of course,
one can also become a better person without the need for such artifices]
Of the "natural" currents the most extreme are the proponents of
biodynamics (forget for now the even more extreme types like
"cosmoculture"...). I find the "science" behind biodynamics quite
annoying and laughable, and the philosophy of the founder of biodynamics
abominable, but paradoxically the belief in such nonsense (example:
"biodynamic wine does not oxydize" - dixit Nicola Joly himself, go see
his web site!) ensures one thing: that the winemaker cares a lot about
his wine and about how he makes it. Unlike other fundamentalist
beliefs, such oenotheologies are harmless and at least produce a few
good or interesting results. You do not have to go for unreliable
no-SO2 wines (biodynamics and SO2 are compatible). Biodynamics is a
sectarian belief if there ever was one, but the "results" are truly
remarkable (which does not imply a causal connection, of course) and the
number of top winemakers embracing it is astounding.
But getting back to the "natural" trend, the problem with this
"movement" is that, in France and Italy at least, it is fraught with
contradictions and inconsistencies.
Firstly, it is very much sectarian and tends to break up into factions
that spend more time fighting each other than trying to get a foothold
on the market or fighting high-tech winemaking. These factions are
sometimes no more than groups of friends, drinking partners mostly ;-)
Even the biodynamic types are now split up into warring feuds.
Secondly, and mainly, the entire movement is incapable of defining what
"natural" means, and steadfastly refuses to do so, even when asked; most
refuse to go for organic certification. Since there are no rules, you
get some "natural" winemakers who chaptalize or use lysozymes or use
huge amounts of SO2 (a self-proclaimed leader of the movement admitted
to these highly interventionist practices when I questioned him at a
round table discussion). These inconsistencies to a lot of harm to the
credibility of the movement and of those who actually make great wine.
Thirdly, some of the wines are not good and even present gross defects.
I do not object to wines having slight volatile acidity, but a shameless
self-promoter like Cornelissen makes undrinkable crap around mount Etna
and sells it at the regular meetings of the "natural" trend at over 40€
to a gullible queue of believers, and even gets the press to write about
his stuff. Others make wines that are inconsistent, fragile or
unpredictable. This is a real shame, because at most of these meetings
there are at least 1/3 of the winemakers that make really good stuff.
The "natural" guys are their own worst enemies, as you can plainly see.
If they don't get their act together, flavoured corrected mass-produced
high-tech soulless wines will win in the end...
It would be good if "natural" could be defined as a simple set of rules,
not too drastic or not too close to any one guru of the wine world; such
rules would simply exclude any heavy handed "corrective" techniques and
ensure that consistently good wines could be produced. The emphasis
would be on ecologically viable viticulture, healthy mature grapes and
clean simple winemaking. With these three basic elements, the winemaker
does not need a heavy hand, and his customers can drink good wine well
into their 90's...
cheers
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
cwdjrxyz wrote:
>> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
>> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
>> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
>> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
>> selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
>> just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
>> For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
>> blog: http :// www .joedressner,com
>>
>> Mark Lipton
>> --
>> alt.food.wine FAQ: http :// winefaq.hostexcellence,com
>
> I could not resist. The ultimate natural wine, is vinegar. There are
> some misinformed people that take it as a matter of faith that natural
> or organic is superior. This is a theology, and not based on
> scientific facts or reason. It usually is useless to argue with people
> with such beliefs, just as it usually is useless to argue with someone
> about which religion, if any, is the best. More reasonable people try
> to do what makes the best product, be it drink or food. This may be to
> do nothing in some cases, or if may involve many steps by man in
> others. While man has done some things that harm, on the average many
> more things have been done right since the scientific era. One need
> only mention the greatly increased life span in developed nations that
> have enough money for food and other essentials for a healthy life.
> There was a time when 50 years was very old.
If our average lifespan is no longer 50 years it is not because
"natural" has been eradicated or because food is now laced with
chemicals. The improvements are to be attributed mainly to maintaining
simple hygiene rules (grossly absent in the old days), eliminating
seriously adulterated food (very commonplace in the old days), and
improved medicine. Going back to making wine and food in less
interventionist ways will not make us die at 50.
Theology or not, dressner carries some truly remarkable wines. As I
mentioned in my previous post, organic or "natural" does not necessarily
mean superior, there is plenty of certified organically grown plonk
around. But many of the best winemakers do abide to a
non-interventionist form of winemaking, with a light hand. Personally, I
find most high-tech wine insipid, and if all wine were to go that way
there would be no reason to have a newsgroup ;-)
Sectarian or theological, these movements are harmless and can produce
some interesting results. [OT: the analogy with faith is irresistible:
even extremely irrational things like religion, when moderately
practiced at a personal level, can make for a better person; of course,
one can also become a better person without the need for such artifices]
Of the "natural" currents the most extreme are the proponents of
biodynamics (forget for now the even more extreme types like
"cosmoculture"...). I find the "science" behind biodynamics quite
annoying and laughable, and the philosophy of the founder of biodynamics
abominable, but paradoxically the belief in such nonsense (example:
"biodynamic wine does not oxydize" - dixit Nicola Joly himself, go see
his web site!) ensures one thing: that the winemaker cares a lot about
his wine and about how he makes it. Unlike other fundamentalist
beliefs, such oenotheologies are harmless and at least produce a few
good or interesting results. You do not have to go for unreliable
no-SO2 wines (biodynamics and SO2 are compatible). Biodynamics is a
sectarian belief if there ever was one, but the "results" are truly
remarkable (which does not imply a causal connection, of course) and the
number of top winemakers embracing it is astounding.
But getting back to the "natural" trend, the problem with this
"movement" is that, in France and Italy at least, it is fraught with
contradictions and inconsistencies.
Firstly, it is very much sectarian and tends to break up into factions
that spend more time fighting each other than trying to get a foothold
on the market or fighting high-tech winemaking. These factions are
sometimes no more than groups of friends, drinking partners mostly ;-)
Even the biodynamic types are now split up into warring feuds.
Secondly, and mainly, the entire movement is incapable of defining what
"natural" means, and steadfastly refuses to do so, even when asked; most
refuse to go for organic certification. Since there are no rules, you
get some "natural" winemakers who chaptalize or use lysozymes or use
huge amounts of SO2 (a self-proclaimed leader of the movement admitted
to these highly interventionist practices when I questioned him at a
round table discussion). These inconsistencies to a lot of harm to the
credibility of the movement and of those who actually make great wine.
Thirdly, some of the wines are not good and even present gross defects.
I do not object to wines having slight volatile acidity, but a shameless
self-promoter like Cornelissen makes undrinkable crap around mount Etna
and sells it at the regular meetings of the "natural" trend at over 40€
to a gullible queue of believers, and even gets the press to write about
his stuff. Others make wines that are inconsistent, fragile or
unpredictable. This is a real shame, because at most of these meetings
there are at least 1/3 of the winemakers that make really good stuff.
The "natural" guys are their own worst enemies, as you can plainly see.
If they don't get their act together, flavoured corrected mass-produced
high-tech soulless wines will win in the end...
It would be good if "natural" could be defined as a simple set of rules,
not too drastic or not too close to any one guru of the wine world; such
rules would simply exclude any heavy handed "corrective" techniques and
ensure that consistently good wines could be produced. The emphasis
would be on ecologically viable viticulture, healthy mature grapes and
clean simple winemaking. With these three basic elements, the winemaker
does not need a heavy hand, and his customers can drink good wine well
into their 90's...
cheers
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
On May 8, 1:45 pm, panicmo...@gmail,com wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> last twelve months ?
>
> It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
> and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> subject.
>
> http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine....).
>
> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> Any suggestions ?
"Montresor manages its vineyards only by natural means without the
use of chemical pesticides or herbicides."
Dee
On May 8, 1:45 pm, panicmo...@gmail,com wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> last twelve months ?
>
> It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> blog (see here : http :// www .wineanorak,com /blog/labels/natural%20wine.html)
> and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> subject.
>
> http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> here : http :// www .vinography,com /archives/2005/10/what is an authentic wine....).
>
> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> Any suggestions ?
"Montresor manages its vineyards only by natural means without the
use of chemical pesticides or herbicides."
Dee
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
Dee Dee wrote:
>>
>> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
>> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
>> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>>
>> Any suggestions ?
>
>
> "Montresor manages its vineyards only by natural means without the
> use of chemical pesticides or herbicides."
I would not call them "extreme organic". In fact, I doubt they are
certified organic at all.
Europe is full of wineries that make such claims, and think they need
nothing more than their good name to guarantee this. Without the
guarantee of a serious organic certification by an organization
certified and conformant to national laws and european directives, these
claims are virtually meaningless and constitute nothing more than
marketing hype. Considering that certification costs little and even
gives right to generous grants, not to mention the marketing advantages,
there is no reason for a company not to get certified (other than that
maybe they do not comply with their own claims?).
I am not a staunch defender of wines from organically grown grapes,
mainly because I find that on the whole this does not make for better
tasting wines. OTOH many of the wines I like are from organically grown
grapes.
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
Dee Dee wrote:
>>
>> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
>> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
>> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>>
>> Any suggestions ?
>
>
> "Montresor manages its vineyards only by natural means without the
> use of chemical pesticides or herbicides."
I would not call them "extreme organic". In fact, I doubt they are
certified organic at all.
Europe is full of wineries that make such claims, and think they need
nothing more than their good name to guarantee this. Without the
guarantee of a serious organic certification by an organization
certified and conformant to national laws and european directives, these
claims are virtually meaningless and constitute nothing more than
marketing hype. Considering that certification costs little and even
gives right to generous grants, not to mention the marketing advantages,
there is no reason for a company not to get certified (other than that
maybe they do not comply with their own claims?).
I am not a staunch defender of wines from organically grown grapes,
mainly because I find that on the whole this does not make for better
tasting wines. OTOH many of the wines I like are from organically grown
grapes.
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
in article 5ad4l2F2npnr1U1@mid.individual,net , Mike Tommasi at
nobody@tommasi.org wrote on 5/8/07 10:31 PM:
>
> I am not a staunch defender of wines from organically grown grapes,
> mainly because I find that on the whole this does not make for better
> tasting wines. OTOH many of the wines I like are from organically grown
> grapes.
>
Are you familiar with Coturri, from Glen Ellen, in Sonoma, CA? Tony Coturri
insists he adds no SO2 or any other chemical stabilizers or preservatives of
any sort to his wine. The grapes are all certified organic and the wines do
not carry the 'contains sulfites' warning on the labels.
We've been trying his Syrah, Pinot, Zin and a blend called Albaretto for a
while. For the most part they exhibit a huge fruit-forward quality, rather
high alcohol and something of "larger-than-life" profile (the Zin is almost
late harvest in style). He bottles by the barrel (one would presume to
avoid unwanted cross-over of runaway problems between barrels) and the
most-heard comment is that the wines are "Forrest Gump"s - you never know
what you're going to get in each bottle. I generally enjoy them, but
they're lot often what I'd call 'varietally correct'.
in article 5ad4l2F2npnr1U1@mid.individual,net , Mike Tommasi at
nobody@tommasi.org wrote on 5/8/07 10:31 PM:
>
> I am not a staunch defender of wines from organically grown grapes,
> mainly because I find that on the whole this does not make for better
> tasting wines. OTOH many of the wines I like are from organically grown
> grapes.
>
Are you familiar with Coturri, from Glen Ellen, in Sonoma, CA? Tony Coturri
insists he adds no SO2 or any other chemical stabilizers or preservatives of
any sort to his wine. The grapes are all certified organic and the wines do
not carry the 'contains sulfites' warning on the labels.
We've been trying his Syrah, Pinot, Zin and a blend called Albaretto for a
while. For the most part they exhibit a huge fruit-forward quality, rather
high alcohol and something of "larger-than-life" profile (the Zin is almost
late harvest in style). He bottles by the barrel (one would presume to
avoid unwanted cross-over of runaway problems between barrels) and the
most-heard comment is that the wines are "Forrest Gump"s - you never know
what you're going to get in each bottle. I generally enjoy them, but
they're lot often what I'd call 'varietally correct'.
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
Midlife wrote:
> in article 5ad4l2F2npnr1U1@mid.individual,net , Mike Tommasi at
> nobody@tommasi.org wrote on 5/8/07 10:31 PM:
>
>
>> I am not a staunch defender of wines from organically grown grapes,
>> mainly because I find that on the whole this does not make for better
>> tasting wines. OTOH many of the wines I like are from organically grown
>> grapes.
>>
>
> Are you familiar with Coturri, from Glen Ellen, in Sonoma, CA? Tony Coturri
> insists he adds no SO2 or any other chemical stabilizers or preservatives of
> any sort to his wine. The grapes are all certified organic and the wines do
> not carry the 'contains sulfites' warning on the labels.
>
> We've been trying his Syrah, Pinot, Zin and a blend called Albaretto for a
> while. For the most part they exhibit a huge fruit-forward quality, rather
> high alcohol and something of "larger-than-life" profile (the Zin is almost
> late harvest in style).
What you describe matches my experience with most wines with no added
sulfites, they always seem to me transparent, able to transmit their
aromatic charge more directly. They are also usually short-lived and
extremely fragile, and short of treating them with the same care that
one would give to a bottle of fresh milk, they cannot be enjoyed normally.
I would advocate putting an end to meaningless labelling like "contains
sulfites", which applies to wines exceeding a ridiculously low threshold
of SO2 (and therefore to almost ALL wines), and establishing a "low
sulfite" label that guarantees reasonable limits for SO2, much lower
than current EU rules and a little higher than current labelling
requirements.
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
Midlife wrote:
> in article 5ad4l2F2npnr1U1@mid.individual,net , Mike Tommasi at
> nobody@tommasi.org wrote on 5/8/07 10:31 PM:
>
>
>> I am not a staunch defender of wines from organically grown grapes,
>> mainly because I find that on the whole this does not make for better
>> tasting wines. OTOH many of the wines I like are from organically grown
>> grapes.
>>
>
> Are you familiar with Coturri, from Glen Ellen, in Sonoma, CA? Tony Coturri
> insists he adds no SO2 or any other chemical stabilizers or preservatives of
> any sort to his wine. The grapes are all certified organic and the wines do
> not carry the 'contains sulfites' warning on the labels.
>
> We've been trying his Syrah, Pinot, Zin and a blend called Albaretto for a
> while. For the most part they exhibit a huge fruit-forward quality, rather
> high alcohol and something of "larger-than-life" profile (the Zin is almost
> late harvest in style).
What you describe matches my experience with most wines with no added
sulfites, they always seem to me transparent, able to transmit their
aromatic charge more directly. They are also usually short-lived and
extremely fragile, and short of treating them with the same care that
one would give to a bottle of fresh milk, they cannot be enjoyed normally.
I would advocate putting an end to meaningless labelling like "contains
sulfites", which applies to wines exceeding a ridiculously low threshold
of SO2 (and therefore to almost ALL wines), and establishing a "low
sulfite" label that guarantees reasonable limits for SO2, much lower
than current EU rules and a little higher than current labelling
requirements.
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
> http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
We're not yet selling a product, although we do intend to start to
start importing later this year. At the moment the site is purely
informational. You can find our position on 'natural wine' as a term
in the section 'Wine terminology' ( http :// www .morethanorganic,com /wine-
terminology).
Obviously, we don't agree with the 'vinegar' argument, principally
because, as Joe Dressner points out, there is a group of winemakers
within France who describe themselves in this way, as well as cavistes
and restaurants who specialise in 'vin naturel'. They even have a
website ( http :// www .lesvinsnaturels.org/). We need a way to describe
these wines in English and 'natural wine' seems like the most sensible
translation. I suppose another option would be to adopt the French
term. Dressner himself prefers 'real wine' I think.
The other reason the term is useful, within the EU at least, is the
mess the law is currently in over organic and biodynamic wine.
Winemakers have effectively been forced to find an alternative because
the term 'organic wine' is illegal and the term 'wine made from
organically grown grapes' is not strict enough. There are plenty of
wines made industrially from organically grown grapes.
A bigger problem is agreeing exactly what qualifies as 'natural wine'.
Until that's done, you can't get a system of certfication running. Our
attempt at a definition is here ( http :// www .morethanorganic,com /
definition-of-natural-wine) but it should be seen as just that, an
attempt. There's another one, fairly similar, on wikipedia ( http ://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural wine).
Incidentally, how did you find morethanorganic ? It's only about a
month old and is still teething really. Nor is it set in stone, so any
feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Oliver Morgan
http :// www .morethanorganic,com /
> http :// www .morethanorganic,com puts quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
We're not yet selling a product, although we do intend to start to
start importing later this year. At the moment the site is purely
informational. You can find our position on 'natural wine' as a term
in the section 'Wine terminology' ( http :// www .morethanorganic,com /wine-
terminology).
Obviously, we don't agree with the 'vinegar' argument, principally
because, as Joe Dressner points out, there is a group of winemakers
within France who describe themselves in this way, as well as cavistes
and restaurants who specialise in 'vin naturel'. They even have a
website ( http :// www .lesvinsnaturels.org/). We need a way to describe
these wines in English and 'natural wine' seems like the most sensible
translation. I suppose another option would be to adopt the French
term. Dressner himself prefers 'real wine' I think.
The other reason the term is useful, within the EU at least, is the
mess the law is currently in over organic and biodynamic wine.
Winemakers have effectively been forced to find an alternative because
the term 'organic wine' is illegal and the term 'wine made from
organically grown grapes' is not strict enough. There are plenty of
wines made industrially from organically grown grapes.
A bigger problem is agreeing exactly what qualifies as 'natural wine'.
Until that's done, you can't get a system of certfication running. Our
attempt at a definition is here ( http :// www .morethanorganic,com /
definition-of-natural-wine) but it should be seen as just that, an
attempt. There's another one, fairly similar, on wikipedia ( http ://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural wine).
Incidentally, how did you find morethanorganic ? It's only about a
month old and is still teething really. Nor is it set in stone, so any
feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Oliver Morgan
http :// www .morethanorganic,com /
Re: 'Natural wine' ?
oli@morethanorganic,com wrote:
> Obviously, we don't agree with the 'vinegar' argument, principally
> because, as Joe Dressner points out, there is a group of winemakers
> within France who describe themselves in this way, as well as cavistes
> and restaurants who specialise in 'vin naturel'. They even have a
> website ( http :// www .lesvinsnaturels.org/).
Too bad that this web site is so hard to navigate. It would be useful to
have an easily accessible link giving 1) the list of all members, 2) the
rules for vin naturel. While I can find some names of winemakers, the
rules seem to be "no additives". As mentioned earlier, by this
criterion almost none of the winemakers can honestly say they abide by
this principle, some members of this group actually use sugar and
enzymes and almost all use SO2.
> The other reason the term is useful, within the EU at least, is the
> mess the law is currently in over organic and biodynamic wine.
> Winemakers have effectively been forced to find an alternative because
> the term 'organic wine' is illegal and the term 'wine made from
> organically grown grapes' is not strict enough. There are plenty of
> wines made industrially from organically grown grapes.
True, but there is nothing implicitly wrong with making wine
industrially (I assume you mean "in large quantities"). Most may be
uninteresting but that does not change things. And besides, there are
larger wineries that make very good wine.
I would have agreed with you if you had stated that "there are plenty of
bad wines made from organically grown grapes".
> A bigger problem is agreeing exactly what qualifies as 'natural wine'.
> Until that's done, you can't get a system of certfication running. Our
> attempt at a definition is here ( http :// www .morethanorganic,com /
> definition-of-natural-wine)
This is actually not bad and a lot better than the lesvinnaturels.org
site, but unfortunately you will find that most of the winemakers that
regularly meet in France under the "natural" label do not meet these
criteria. And in the absence of a means for independently certifying
that these criteria are met, the whole thing is meaningless.
I am disappointed to read that the rules apply only to wine made
# in small quantities,
# by an independent producer
Is wine made in small quantity and/or by an independent producer more
natural? Not at all!
Would it not be best to open up the world of natural wine to larger
wineries? I personally prefer small producers, but large wineries can
make very good wine.
Would this not give more weight to the natural wine "lobby" and maximize
the chances of success?
How do you define small? Recently a meeting of "natural" winemakers was
held in Montpellier, and the limit for "small" was set to around 35
hectares, which was enough to exclude from the forum one of the most
credible producers and promoters of quality non-interventionist
winemaking. I call that shooting oneself in the foot.
Remove those two criteria that have no bearing on the "naturalness" of a
wine, and you actually have a good definition, right down to the more
reasonable SO2 levels that I advocated in my previous post. Oh, BTW,
please also define an SO2 level for sweet wines... there is natural
botrytis! ( www .sapros.org )
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
oli@morethanorganic,com wrote:
> Obviously, we don't agree with the 'vinegar' argument, principally
> because, as Joe Dressner points out, there is a group of winemakers
> within France who describe themselves in this way, as well as cavistes
> and restaurants who specialise in 'vin naturel'. They even have a
> website ( http :// www .lesvinsnaturels.org/).
Too bad that this web site is so hard to navigate. It would be useful to
have an easily accessible link giving 1) the list of all members, 2) the
rules for vin naturel. While I can find some names of winemakers, the
rules seem to be "no additives". As mentioned earlier, by this
criterion almost none of the winemakers can honestly say they abide by
this principle, some members of this group actually use sugar and
enzymes and almost all use SO2.
> The other reason the term is useful, within the EU at least, is the
> mess the law is currently in over organic and biodynamic wine.
> Winemakers have effectively been forced to find an alternative because
> the term 'organic wine' is illegal and the term 'wine made from
> organically grown grapes' is not strict enough. There are plenty of
> wines made industrially from organically grown grapes.
True, but there is nothing implicitly wrong with making wine
industrially (I assume you mean "in large quantities"). Most may be
uninteresting but that does not change things. And besides, there are
larger wineries that make very good wine.
I would have agreed with you if you had stated that "there are plenty of
bad wines made from organically grown grapes".
> A bigger problem is agreeing exactly what qualifies as 'natural wine'.
> Until that's done, you can't get a system of certfication running. Our
> attempt at a definition is here ( http :// www .morethanorganic,com /
> definition-of-natural-wine)
This is actually not bad and a lot better than the lesvinnaturels.org
site, but unfortunately you will find that most of the winemakers that
regularly meet in France under the "natural" label do not meet these
criteria. And in the absence of a means for independently certifying
that these criteria are met, the whole thing is meaningless.
I am disappointed to read that the rules apply only to wine made
# in small quantities,
# by an independent producer
Is wine made in small quantity and/or by an independent producer more
natural? Not at all!
Would it not be best to open up the world of natural wine to larger
wineries? I personally prefer small producers, but large wineries can
make very good wine.
Would this not give more weight to the natural wine "lobby" and maximize
the chances of success?
How do you define small? Recently a meeting of "natural" winemakers was
held in Montpellier, and the limit for "small" was set to around 35
hectares, which was enough to exclude from the forum one of the most
credible producers and promoters of quality non-interventionist
winemaking. I call that shooting oneself in the foot.
Remove those two criteria that have no bearing on the "naturalness" of a
wine, and you actually have a good definition, right down to the more
reasonable SO2 levels that I advocated in my previous post. Oh, BTW,
please also define an SO2 level for sweet wines... there is natural
botrytis! ( www .sapros.org )
--
Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
email link http :// www .tommasi.org/mymail
Next: Ot:YouBurp
Previous: Takahashi of Wacom Corp attempting Theft-by-Deception re: Gabriellii Winery...
