Natural Wine

Remy Charest has a wonderful piece on Natural Wine over at Palate Press. A must read for some much needed balance on the issue of what is and is not “natural”.

My take: Making a wine without sulfur is crazy if you want consistency in your product. I’m not speaking of vintage to vintage consistency, I’m talking about bottle to bottle consistency from the same vintage. For those who make wine without sulfur and do it well, more power to them.

Where I have a problem is when reviewers and importers deign to instruct producers on how wine should be made. Just as there are no atheists in the foxhole, there are no real non-interventionest winemakers when you are staring down the barrel of a lost vintage. Happily this is a fact that Remy’s article makes perfectly clear.

My suggestion to those writers who feel that any wine not produced in a “natural” way is worthy only of a flush down the nearest latrine, is to take the time to verify that the wines you enjoy are actually as natural as the producers claim. That means testing them at a lab for, at the very least, free SO2. If you were a curious writer you could do more. It would be incredibly useful if natural wine advocates were able to properly ascertain where the nuances they enjoy emanate from.

Perhaps elevated amounts of volitile acidity are what you find enjoyable. Or, maybe, it’s the sometimes sweet and fruity aroma of ethyl acetate. Some folks might like a little red apple and sherry mixed in with their juice in the form of acetaldehyde. Perhaps it’s a mixture of all of the above and more; a wild cocktail of wine bug aromas.

A little independent testing would reveal what it is specifically about the natural wines they drink and recommend that they find so appealing. Because, and this is my real point, the only difference between a wine made with the addition of SO2 and one without is the elevated presence of various compounds that, in high enough concentrations, are considered wine faults.

Cowardly Wineries

Chateau Ste. Michelle in Washington has decided to “stay neutral” on the controversial free market wine proposition I-1100 up for a vote in 2 weeks in Oregon. They happen to be the largest member of the Washington Wine Insititue, which is against the initiative for incomprehensible reasons. Incomprehensible, that is, based on their statements. Here’s their basic position:

If all the laws are crossed out,” Leonard said, “that would allow retailers to force wineries to pay for the best shelf space and for advertising and promotional materials. That will tip the scales against small wineries.”

Wineries currently face these same pressures via proxy from wholesalers. Producers are simply one relationship removed from doing anything about it. And that’s if they can even land a spot in a wholesaler’s catalogue. And that’s assuming that the wholesaler does anything at all to try and sell their wine.

My take: The only reason a winery would come out against a free and open market for wine is if they are cowards afraid to compete based on the talent of their people or the strength of their brand. If you are large, your relative strengths are going no where. Conversely, if you are a small producer in WA and I-1100 passed, your ability to make a dent in the market through your own efforts is limited only by your marketing ingenuity and brand equity.

The folks afraid to play the incentive game with all the cards on the table are dross that should be swept aside so that room for real entrepreneurs will emerge. Protectionism breeds incompetence, laziness, and cowardice. Harsh, but true.

Sadly I-1100 is polling at less than 50%, so it appears the meek will live to cower another day.

Important Stuff, Snarky Rant, Wine Industry News