Like the call of cuckoo or the thwack of leather against willow, the annual 'middle-aged writer turns his attention to natural wine column' is a sign that spring is in the air.
I wonder if the dogmatism of natural wine could stand to learn from the beer world. There are plenty of "natural" beers, ones made without cultured yeast, sometimes even with wild fermentation and without hops! But one methodology/ideology of brewing doesn't impact the other, and for most other beer fans I know, there's nothing nicer than having a bottle shop sticking trad German lager, a hype craft DIPA and a new wave organic wild fermented ale.
Great article, I was a hipster those same years, Henry- ugh, looking back I feel so weird about that. But I worked at recording studios and was a fashion designer and it went with the territory. Now I see a hipster drinking wine and don’t bother asking what they are drinking- the conversation can quickly disintegrate. I do NOT want to be lectured by some (usually a hipster man- sorry) about how we should only drink natural wines, blah, blah. It has happened to me far too many times.
Progressively we've moved towards doing as little as possible to our wines. Wild yeasts, no fining or filtration and only a small sulphur addition on bottling and we're so happy with them. What we have found though is that it's a completely different market. They are still unconventional to many/most consumers.
I'm sure you've already (or will soon) read Simon's article he just posted today, which makes a great companion piece to this write-up. It's almost like you two coordinated this!
Two choice quotes, that gel beautiflly with your own points:
"I’ve often wondered what makes the difference: why does one zero-zero grower make clumsy, dirty tasting cuvées where another (like Vino Gross) achieves such incredible purity? I decided to pay them a visit to find out more."
"The couple didn’t start by wanting to make sulphite-free aka zero-zero wines, however they realised that as they reduced sulphite usage 'the wines became more open.' He adds that 'we simply discovered this through our work, it wasn’t a case of wanting to make sulphur-free wine just for the sake of it.' Whilst almost all wines are now vinified and bottled with no other ingredient than grapes, Michael takes a pragmatic approach. He told me 'in my work, no dogma - if something is needed, I’ll add it.' From the current releases (2022), only Haloze Blanc had minimal sulphites added."
I went a bit mad for making what I thought were vin nature between 2000 and 2005. Even so, our wines were too clean for hardcore Parisian natural wine bars which led me to the understanding that some people wanted the unpalatable as a sign of their dedication.
I made a bunch of red wines (esp. Syrah) that were flawed by having excessive sediment that was tainted by oxidation. Filtering the wine (@3 microns) was sufficient to eliminate this. I also doubled the amount of total SO2 to 35-50mg/L at bottling. So no longer vin nature but much nicer, more stable wines.
I think trying (and failing) to make naturel wine really improved the conventional wines that I've made since.
there is still quite some gap between chaptalisation/cultured yeasts(in still wine)/liberal so2 and the muddy, faulty nonsense some people still call natural wine though....ie. a LOT of wines that are pure, elegant, age-worthy, vibrant and expressive of their place that are very much considered natural (to all those except the most doggedly dogmatic). It doesn't have to be so black and white!
Your closing paragraph?! Maybe I wasn’t clear. Trying to say that cultured yeasts/chap/liberal so2 etc that you like aren’t normally associated with balanced natural wines… Not liking gunky/faulty flawed mouse ridden wines doesn’t mean that the only better alternative has cultured yeasts/chap/tons of so2 etc. It’s a good while I’ve attempted to get this point across online, cos it seems to never land!
I remember top end red burgundy of the 1980s and earlier as being uniformly bretty along with such greats as Beaucastel and Musar. A bit of farmyard was what people loved about them. In fact a lot of wine from those days would now be seen as faulty or, ironically……natural.
I'm not saying that the only alternative to funky wines are additions, I'm saying I'm not dogmatic. Wines without, great! A little help along the way, fine by me!
Feel free. I was also amused that you mentioned tasting natural Cinsaults. It was, I felt, the only really successful vin nature red that we made. And continued to make as nature. I found 6 bottles of 2015 the other day (we sold the property in 2016) and it's still drinking very well.
By contrast, heavier reds and especially Syrah, did not work well as vin nature, at least not from our domaine. But then Syrah there was always disappointing to me and I think our terroir was better suited for "rustic" varieties.
Vin nature est d'abord, un vin de terroir. Not a recipe.
This is exactly the type of thinking we need to demand of winemaking. You make wines that showcase the place as best as you can, if it becomes apparent that you are having to do too much to "make" wine, then it's time to ask bigger questions about the place and varieties you are working with, not what other tricks you can do in the cellar.
I appreciate the honesty here, but I think we’re missing a deeper thread.
You rightly point out how natural wine began as a reaction to spoofed, over-manipulated wines and for a while, that pushback felt necessary and urgent. But what happens when the practices that once defined the movement stop serving the wine itself? When method overshadows place?
That’s a real question. And it’s worth asking. I’m all for going after dogma. But let’s not throw out the good things that preceded it… the transparency, the challenge to convention, the way it brought farming back into the conversation.
If what comes out of all this noise, contradiction, and courscorrection is more honesty and better wine across the board, then every single cloudy bottle was worth it.
I let my palate decide that. Personally, I never know how we're going to make our wine until the moment the grapes are harvested. I guess the advantage we have is doing fourteen harvests you have experience to draw on until.... something happens.
I wonder if the dogmatism of natural wine could stand to learn from the beer world. There are plenty of "natural" beers, ones made without cultured yeast, sometimes even with wild fermentation and without hops! But one methodology/ideology of brewing doesn't impact the other, and for most other beer fans I know, there's nothing nicer than having a bottle shop sticking trad German lager, a hype craft DIPA and a new wave organic wild fermented ale.
That's a really interesting point. I think beer is a much broader church with a wider array of flavours that are considered acceptable.
A bit of sulphur and a bit of filtering are two very good things when making stable,palatable and attractive wines.
Great article, I was a hipster those same years, Henry- ugh, looking back I feel so weird about that. But I worked at recording studios and was a fashion designer and it went with the territory. Now I see a hipster drinking wine and don’t bother asking what they are drinking- the conversation can quickly disintegrate. I do NOT want to be lectured by some (usually a hipster man- sorry) about how we should only drink natural wines, blah, blah. It has happened to me far too many times.
Progressively we've moved towards doing as little as possible to our wines. Wild yeasts, no fining or filtration and only a small sulphur addition on bottling and we're so happy with them. What we have found though is that it's a completely different market. They are still unconventional to many/most consumers.
Really enjoyed reading this. Looking forward to Part 2.
I'm sure you've already (or will soon) read Simon's article he just posted today, which makes a great companion piece to this write-up. It's almost like you two coordinated this!
Two choice quotes, that gel beautiflly with your own points:
"I’ve often wondered what makes the difference: why does one zero-zero grower make clumsy, dirty tasting cuvées where another (like Vino Gross) achieves such incredible purity? I decided to pay them a visit to find out more."
"The couple didn’t start by wanting to make sulphite-free aka zero-zero wines, however they realised that as they reduced sulphite usage 'the wines became more open.' He adds that 'we simply discovered this through our work, it wasn’t a case of wanting to make sulphur-free wine just for the sake of it.' Whilst almost all wines are now vinified and bottled with no other ingredient than grapes, Michael takes a pragmatic approach. He told me 'in my work, no dogma - if something is needed, I’ll add it.' From the current releases (2022), only Haloze Blanc had minimal sulphites added."
https://themorningclaret.com/p/vino-gross-slovenia-zero-zero-wines
I went a bit mad for making what I thought were vin nature between 2000 and 2005. Even so, our wines were too clean for hardcore Parisian natural wine bars which led me to the understanding that some people wanted the unpalatable as a sign of their dedication.
I made a bunch of red wines (esp. Syrah) that were flawed by having excessive sediment that was tainted by oxidation. Filtering the wine (@3 microns) was sufficient to eliminate this. I also doubled the amount of total SO2 to 35-50mg/L at bottling. So no longer vin nature but much nicer, more stable wines.
I think trying (and failing) to make naturel wine really improved the conventional wines that I've made since.
That's really interesting. I might quote you in the follow up thing on Friday.
there is still quite some gap between chaptalisation/cultured yeasts(in still wine)/liberal so2 and the muddy, faulty nonsense some people still call natural wine though....ie. a LOT of wines that are pure, elegant, age-worthy, vibrant and expressive of their place that are very much considered natural (to all those except the most doggedly dogmatic). It doesn't have to be so black and white!
I agree! I don't think anything in the piece suggests otherwise.
Your closing paragraph?! Maybe I wasn’t clear. Trying to say that cultured yeasts/chap/liberal so2 etc that you like aren’t normally associated with balanced natural wines… Not liking gunky/faulty flawed mouse ridden wines doesn’t mean that the only better alternative has cultured yeasts/chap/tons of so2 etc. It’s a good while I’ve attempted to get this point across online, cos it seems to never land!
I remember top end red burgundy of the 1980s and earlier as being uniformly bretty along with such greats as Beaucastel and Musar. A bit of farmyard was what people loved about them. In fact a lot of wine from those days would now be seen as faulty or, ironically……natural.
I'm not saying that the only alternative to funky wines are additions, I'm saying I'm not dogmatic. Wines without, great! A little help along the way, fine by me!
Unfortunately ‘a little help’ is probably harder to define - in terms that most will agree on - than natural wine itself!
Amen, Ruth!
Feel free. I was also amused that you mentioned tasting natural Cinsaults. It was, I felt, the only really successful vin nature red that we made. And continued to make as nature. I found 6 bottles of 2015 the other day (we sold the property in 2016) and it's still drinking very well.
By contrast, heavier reds and especially Syrah, did not work well as vin nature, at least not from our domaine. But then Syrah there was always disappointing to me and I think our terroir was better suited for "rustic" varieties.
Vin nature est d'abord, un vin de terroir. Not a recipe.
This is exactly the type of thinking we need to demand of winemaking. You make wines that showcase the place as best as you can, if it becomes apparent that you are having to do too much to "make" wine, then it's time to ask bigger questions about the place and varieties you are working with, not what other tricks you can do in the cellar.
I appreciate the honesty here, but I think we’re missing a deeper thread.
You rightly point out how natural wine began as a reaction to spoofed, over-manipulated wines and for a while, that pushback felt necessary and urgent. But what happens when the practices that once defined the movement stop serving the wine itself? When method overshadows place?
That’s a real question. And it’s worth asking. I’m all for going after dogma. But let’s not throw out the good things that preceded it… the transparency, the challenge to convention, the way it brought farming back into the conversation.
If what comes out of all this noise, contradiction, and courscorrection is more honesty and better wine across the board, then every single cloudy bottle was worth it.
I think sod the practices. If it tastes good, it is good 😊
I think that's right, but wouldn't you also like to know whether you're drinking something more akin to wine than Coca Cola?
I let my palate decide that. Personally, I never know how we're going to make our wine until the moment the grapes are harvested. I guess the advantage we have is doing fourteen harvests you have experience to draw on until.... something happens.
Thanks Reegan, some good points. Will be looking at the influence of natural wine on Friday or maybe next week.
Weren’t we all !
I am not entirely sure we would have been friends from 2001-2013 🤣
I was a bit of tit.