sulfur

Some of the lower-case Piedmontese producers may be conditioned by the fact that there is quite a bit of blatant Greenmarketing going on there, the talk without the substance.

Examples: a famous producer of Barbaresco was recently seen ploughing with a horse in one of his vineyards, surrounded by photographers. The journalists looked as if they bought it. Another example: Fontanafredda was recently taken over by the industrialist who seems to be buying up half of the Piedmontese wine business, and the marketing at last year's Vinitaly used the line 'Ecoparco Fontanafredda,' as if the estate was primarily a nature reserve. Maybe the same kind of thing happens in France, I don't know, but it could make one cynical.
 
Oliver:

There are some notable exceptions, I guess.
But I was talking more about people who actually DO the natural winemaking thing.
Simply having a rented horse pose for pictures or putting up a sign doesn't cut it, and people who go to the bother of farming in a way that is intentionally more laborious will no doubt complain about those who don't do the work but want the accolades.
But within the group of people who actually do the work (get the certifications, drastically reducing pesticide use to a bare minimum of basic sprays, etc) I don't often see the questioning of motives or sincerity.

Regards,
 
I'm unclear on the difference(s) here.
Click to expand...
The original version in this current subthread makes it clearer. But let me see if I can harden the distinction. Remember that this is only a personal shorthand, not something meant to be a meaningful (or Meaningful) contribution to wine thought:

Lower-case "natural" means trying to make whatever seems like "natural" to the winemaker and within the boundaries of sense and common understanding, and might be seen as a synonym for "more natural" or "as natural as possible." Trying to do less until such a point is reached that a clear gulf exists between methodologies, or philosophies, or whatever one wants to call a given set of actions.

Upper-case "Natural" means making sure everyone, and most especially those who make wine the same way that you do and those who buy wine made the way you do, is aware that you make "natural" wine, and how you make it, and why. It doesn't really say much about the practices themselves, which may be identical to anyone's in the above category, as it does one's intent to use the open knowledge of them for a purpose beyond growing grapes and making wine.

One is a practice, or perhaps better a desire. The other is an identity and might even be a set of rules. It's like the difference between making a California wine from traditional Rhne grapes and calling yourself a Rhne Ranger (or helming the group). It's the difference between being pleased to learn one's wine is on the shelf at Terroir and visiting Terroir to explain why one's wine should be on their shelf. This is all very reductive, but it's in the ballpark with the distinction I'm making.

And none of it means the word "natural" isn't still fraught with problems in this sphere, even aside from the pushback it seems to engender.

The answer to the rest of your questions is yes/no/sometimes. You probably shouldn't try to divine how I feel about "natural" wine from this thread. My feelings are complicated.

Some of the lower-case Piedmontese producers may be conditioned by the fact that there is quite a bit of blatant Greenmarketing going on there, the talk without the substance.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the expressed crux of their (and some journalists') complaints, yes, though they're a little shy on specific blameworthy targets when pressed. And to be honest, there's no way to differentiate this sort of suspicion from the similarly-expressed suspicion of whatever a given producer isn't doing. As mentioned in an earlier post, among the things described to me as "stupid," "idiotic," "insane," or -- my favorite -- "impossible" over the last week: native yeast fermentations, organic farming, biodynamic farming, Cascina Tavijn, the use of non-native grape varieties, Gaja, micro-oxidation, low sulfur, no sulfur, grignolino, Giacosa (really!), adding tannins, removing tannins, fixing color, not fixing color, bottling in any season other than winter, concrete or cement, barriques, and the internet.

That last one, at least, was right.

But within the group of people who actually do the work [..] I don't often see the questioning of motives or sincerity.
Click to expand...
Sometimes of fidelity, though.
 
Wasn't there a piece recently by someone "natural" who observed that someone "Natural" should have had grass growing between their rows but didn't?

just guessing on the nN distinction
 
originally posted by Thor:
Enough so that it arrives at its destination intact and has some reasonable chance of surviving to be consumed intact. That might be zero or it might be more, depending on the wine and the destination. I have neither a fetish for, nor a jihad against, nor an allergy to, so I don't require any particular number. I respect winemakers who have reasons for their choices. I have problems with winemakers who are indifferent to the state of their wine once it leaves their cellars. But it's a big world, and there's no lack of options along this continuum.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Since SO2 is a natural by-product of fermentation, the current, trendy obsession with zero-sulfur wines seems to me rather... unnatural. That said, it's obvious that unless one is an obsessive German riesling producer, what we (meaning conscientious growers everywhere) all strive for is to keep the SO2 at the lowest possible level while keeping the wine stable.
 
originally posted by Hank Beckmeyer:
originally posted by Thor:
Enough so that it arrives at its destination intact and has some reasonable chance of surviving to be consumed intact. That might be zero or it might be more, depending on the wine and the destination. I have neither a fetish for, nor a jihad against, nor an allergy to, so I don't require any particular number. I respect winemakers who have reasons for their choices. I have problems with winemakers who are indifferent to the state of their wine once it leaves their cellars. But it's a big world, and there's no lack of options along this continuum.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
Click to expand...

I also totally identify with this position. But, I wonder, what about winemakers who use much higher doses of sulfur to prevent malos (e.g., many German riesling makers)? You're still entitled to Natural/natural if you use small doses of sulfur to prevent something natural like spoilage, but are you still entitled to either if you use much bigger doses to prevent something equally natural like malos?
 
That's forcing the wine into a position, isn't it? So one could rightly question how "natural" it is.

But I do like that style, myself. But I don't like to be able to smell or taste the sulfites upon opening a bottle. Why not just filter it? If you're "making" the wine anyway, why not put yourself into a position to use as little sulfur as possible?
 
originally posted by Thor:
The original version in this current subthread makes it clearer. But let me see if I can harden the distinction....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response, Thor.
I think I see where you're coming from on this.

originally posted by Thor:
You probably shouldn't try to divine how I feel about "natural" wine from this thread. My feelings are complicated.
Click to expand...

I aspire to someday being able to term my feelings on the subject as "complicated". Right now they're too scattered for that.

Cheers,
 
I like that little hint of gunpowder.

I like the little screams of bacetria.

I like the little extra jolt it gives to my buzz.
 
originally posted by VLM:
I like sulphur
I like that little hint of gunpowder.

I like the little screams of bacetria.

I like the little extra jolt it gives to my buzz.
Click to expand...

Mistah Kurtz, he dead.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Bruce G.:
originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
But what is spoilage, really?
Click to expand...

Entropy mis-managed.
Click to expand...

Well put, but to my palate "spoilage" means this natural wine tastes like that natural wine (no matter the producer)......which is to say terroir, typicity and vintage characteristics are thrown out the window in the name of naturalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top