Gamay and Brett ('14 Coquelet Chiroubles VV)

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If you think history and culture evolve rationally to get the best out of surrounding conditions, you are reading different histories than I do. History and culture are surds that regularly confronts philosophic theories.

A slower reading will show that I was not being deterministic, but saying that the choice of what variety to plant and how to vinify it is not random culture, but culture that in some manner evolved from dealing with soil and climate conditions.

Obviously, you won't grow grapes where you can't grow them. But there's a lot of Rube Goldberg contraption variation even in pure climate response. If there had been no massive frost in 1956, the Southern Rhone would probably still be mostly olive tree country (that might be preferable to some of you). Short term economics, accidental availability of one thing rather than another, human caprice and a lot of other variants are all going to have fairly large effects. Even biological evolution is haphazard. If we had done bi-pedalism well, we wouldn't have lower back pain. Now add in historical accident and cultural caprice and you have a far better idea of how not only winemaking will develop. Natural selection provides constraints and boundaries. It really doesn't sculpt things monolithically, though.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by VLM:
I'm fairly brett averse but I do sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between brett and reduction.

Does anyone know the relationship between brett, "baby diaper" and "mouse"? Is there any or are they all separate bacteria?

We have to keep in mind that aromas are the presence of certain molecules that may be created or enhanced by bacteria. If by baby diaper you mean one of the aromas created by the presence of brett, they are different molecules. According to the Australian Wine Research Institute, "Mousiness" is created by 2-acetyltetrahydropyridine (ACTPY), 2-ethyltetrahydropyridine (ETPY) and 2-acetylpyrroline (ACPY). Most sources seem to associate it with some species of lactobacillus, although brett has also been fingered. Among other things, Brett produces or encourages 4-Ethylphenol (associated by some with bandaid and some horsey-barnyard) and 4-Ethylguaiacol, (the clovey-spicey aroma).

On the other hand, based on personal experience changing my kids' diapers, I could imagine your baby diaper might be caused by sulfides or mercaptans!

 

[BJ]

I am not embarrassed to admit I'm somewhat foggy on differences between types of flaws. The one that keeps driving me crazy is the peanuty, sharp, closed, compressed thing often accompanied by a bit of spritz and cloudiness in the wine even after it's had time to settle.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by BJ:
The thing I find most alarming is that producers who typically have not had brett issues are starting to show up with them - more mainline low volume producers. For example last night opened an 06 Chave Mon Coeur, pretty much undrinkable.

I see. You opened up a 13 year old Côtes-du-Rhône Rouge that is sold (currently) for less than $20 a bottle and you are upset with how it showed, and are also willing to make an "alarming" generalization about a producer based on this experience, despite the fact that wine is made 1) from purchased fruit and 2) is raised in a different cellar than the rest of the production, also with 3) different cooperage.

This whole contention strikes me as unintentionally hilarious. Perhaps drink the wine a bit earlier next time. Or step up your appellation: I recently opened up a bottle of 06 Chave "Offerus" St. Joseph Rouge that was showing well, although fully mature, as one would expect.

 

[BJ]

Levi, I think you're awesome, but that's ridiculous. This had nothing to do with an over the hill wine, it had to do with a badly flawed wine. I frankly drink country wines in this age range all the time and they are often great. I merely mentioned the last flawed bottle I had. I could have just as easily mentioned something just released. It is a known problem, on par with overoaking and premox - do you not experience it?

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

Every definition of natural that I've encountered treats destemming as not an intervention, but I see your point. Other examples might be batonnage and lees aging, which pass the nothing added/nothing subtracted test, but could be called interventions.

And what about temperature controlled fermentations, O.? Especially in light of climate change, must a naturaliste rely solely on deep limestone caves?

Mark Lipton

ETA: Fuck you, autocorrect

 

[Jayson Cohen]

These discussion of natural wine always lead me to yearn for a rigid definition, like X concentration (or zero) of added SO2 and at least other specific practices that are forbidden. That would be a start. Effectively calling “natural” unadulterated expression of terroir, which is how it is romantically described, is somewhere between BS and disingenuous to me, and beside the point. Whatever you call terroir, “expression” of it unequivocally means humans intervene in growing the grapes and making the wine. It’s how we intervene that is obsessive and divisive. On this point I don’t understand “nothing added, nothing subtracted”. Sounds like an advertising pitch. Choices are made at every step in viticulture and viniculture. Hence I’m back to a longing for definitions.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by BJ:
Levi, I think you're awesome, but that's ridiculous. This had nothing to do with an over the hill wine, it had to do with a badly flawed wine. I frankly drink country wines in this age range all the time and they are often great. I merely mentioned the last flawed bottle I had. I could have just as easily mentioned something just released. It is a known problem, on par with overoaking and premox - do you not experience it?

"The thing I find most alarming is that producers who typically have not had brett issues are starting to show up with them - more mainline low volume producers" is what you wrote, and then you went on to cite a 13 year old bottle of Chave Côtes-du-Rhône. Do you have any other examples from Chave that you would like to put forward to support the conclusion that you shared publicly? Please cite them, if so.

Perhaps you are unaware that brett can develop in a bottle over time. Or that shipping and storage conditions can play in a role in the development of brett in a bottle.

Basically, you waited too long to open the bottle, as is your perogative. But you are blaming the producer for this decision on your part, which is lame of you.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by BJ:
Levi, I think you're awesome, but that's ridiculous. This had nothing to do with an over the hill wine, it had to do with a badly flawed wine. I frankly drink country wines in this age range all the time and they are often great. I merely mentioned the last flawed bottle I had. I could have just as easily mentioned something just released. It is a known problem, on par with overoaking and premox - do you not experience it?

"The thing I find most alarming is that producers who typically have not had brett issues are starting to show up with them - more mainline low volume producers" is what you wrote, and then you went on to cite a 13 year old bottle of Chave Côtes-du-Rhône. Do you have any other examples from Chave that you would like to put forward to support the conclusion that you shared publicly? Please cite them, if so.

Perhaps you are unaware that brett can develop in a bottle over time. Or that shipping and storage conditions can play in a role in the development of brett in a bottle.

Basically, you waited too long to open the bottle, as is your perogative. But you are blaming the producer for this decision on your part, which is lame of you.

Yeah, but for brett to develop in the bottle it has to be there in the first place which means there was an issue in the cellar, if you find brett to be an issue.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
These discussion of natural wine always lead me to yearn for a rigid definition, like X concentration (or zero) of added SO2 and at least other specific practices that are forbidden. That would be a start. Effectively calling “natural” unadulterated expression of terroir, which is how it is romantically described, is somewhere between BS and disingenuous to me, and beside the point. Whatever you call terroir, “expression” of it unequivocally means humans intervene in growing the grapes and making the wine. It’s how we intervene that is obsessive and divisive. On this point I don’t understand “nothing added, nothing subtracted”. Sounds like an advertising pitch. Choices are made at every step in viticulture and viniculture. Hence I’m back to a longing for definitions.

I'm actually totally OK with "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" for natural wines. I think that most of the wines identified that way would be uncontroversial.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

originally posted by VLM:
I'm fairly brett averse but I do sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between brett and reduction.

Does anyone know the relationship between brett, "baby diaper" and "mouse"? Is there any or are they all separate bacteria?

We have to keep in mind that aromas are the presence of certain molecules that may be created or enhanced by bacteria. If by baby diaper you mean one of the aromas created by the presence of brett, they are different molecules. According to the Australian Wine Research Institute, "Mousiness" is created by 2-acetyltetrahydropyridine (ACTPY), 2-ethyltetrahydropyridine (ETPY) and 2-acetylpyrroline (ACPY). Most sources seem to associate it with some species of lactobacillus, although brett has also been fingered. Among other things, Brett produces or encourages 4-Ethylphenol (associated by some with bandaid and some horsey-barnyard) and 4-Ethylguaiacol, (the clovey-spicey aroma).

On the other hand, based on personal experience changing my kids' diapers, I could imagine your baby diaper might be caused by sulfides or mercaptans!

Ha! It was more about the band-aid side of baby diapers. Thanks for the response, so I guess the answer is sort-of, maybe?

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

Every definition of natural that I've encountered treats destemming as not an intervention, but I see your point. Other examples might be batonnage and lees aging, which pass the nothing added/nothing subtracted test, but could be called interventions.

And what about temperature controlled fermentations, O.? Especially in light of climate change, must a naturaliste rely solely on deep leadership mestones caves?

Mark Lipton

I'm hardly an arbiter, Mark, but I consider temperature controlled fermentations to be an intervention, unlike naturally cold caves. Perhaps analogous to malos blocked by SO2 or sterile filtration versus simply not happening.

If one goes to motive, a temperature controlled fermentation often seeks to emphasize primary (fruit) flavors over secondary (fermentation) flavors, whereas a naturally cold cave will simply produce whatever it produces, independent of intent.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

Every definition of natural that I've encountered treats destemming as not an intervention, but I see your point. Other examples might be batonnage and lees aging, which pass the nothing added/nothing subtracted test, but could be called interventions.

And what about temperature controlled fermentations, O.? Especially in light of climate change, must a naturaliste rely solely on deep leadership mestones caves?

Mark Lipton

I'm hardly an arbiter, Mark, but I consider temperature controlled fermentations to be an intervention, unlike naturally cold caves. Perhaps analogous to malos blocked by SO2 or sterile filtration versus simply not happening.

If one goes to motive, a temperature controlled fermentation often seeks to emphasize primary (fruit) flavors over secondary (fermentation) flavors, whereas a naturally cold cave will simply produce whatever it produces, independent of intent.

So if I’m a Gung-Ho young vigneron who wants to make natural wine but can’t afford a cold cellar, I’m shit out of luck? And why should motive matter? Nathan, do you still know it when you see it now?

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
These discussion of natural wine always lead me to yearn for a rigid definition, like X concentration (or zero) of added SO2 and at least other specific practices that are forbidden. That would be a start. Effectively calling “natural” unadulterated expression of terroir, which is how it is romantically described, is somewhere between BS and disingenuous to me, and beside the point. Whatever you call terroir, “expression” of it unequivocally means humans intervene in growing the grapes and making the wine. It’s how we intervene that is obsessive and divisive. On this point I don’t understand “nothing added, nothing subtracted”. Sounds like an advertising pitch. Choices are made at every step in viticulture and viniculture. Hence I’m back to a longing for definitions.

I am dead set against a rigid definition of natural. Not only would that be unnatural, but one of the strengths of the concept is precisely it's lack of rigidity. Natural winemakers have to have the choice to be as natural as a vintage conditions allow without impairing their livelihood when diseases strike the vines or bacteria strike the cellar.

I have never heard anyone define natural as "unadulterated expression of terroir." I agree that would be pretty stupid.

Of course humans are needed to express terroir. Humans plant things and then harvest them and then make products. Without humans and what they plant, terroir remains silent, unexpressed.

Nothing added/nothing subtracted as a process ethic has nothing to do with the fact that choices have to be made. Of course choices have to be made. This particular definition of natural, which is reasonably widespread, simply states that such choices must not include adding substances to wine or subtracting substances from wine.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

Every definition of natural that I've encountered treats destemming as not an intervention, but I see your point. Other examples might be batonnage and lees aging, which pass the nothing added/nothing subtracted test, but could be called interventions.

And what about temperature controlled fermentations, O.? Especially in light of climate change, must a naturaliste rely solely on deep leadership mestones caves?

Mark Lipton

I'm hardly an arbiter, Mark, but I consider temperature controlled fermentations to be an intervention, unlike naturally cold caves. Perhaps analogous to malos blocked by SO2 or sterile filtration versus simply not happening.

If one goes to motive, a temperature controlled fermentation often seeks to emphasize primary (fruit) flavors over secondary (fermentation) flavors, whereas a naturally cold cave will simply produce whatever it produces, independent of intent.

So if I’m a Gung-Ho young vigneron who wants to make natural wine but can’t afford a cold cellar, I’m shit out of luck? And why should motive matter? Nathan, do you still know it when you see it now?

The question does not make sense. A young vigneron who makes natural wine normally will not want to control fermentation temperatures, and if temperatures go so high as to threaten to ruin the wine, he can cool the tanks by splashing the sides with cold water.

 

[BJ]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by BJ:
Levi, I think you're awesome, but that's ridiculous. This had nothing to do with an over the hill wine, it had to do with a badly flawed wine. I frankly drink country wines in this age range all the time and they are often great. I merely mentioned the last flawed bottle I had. I could have just as easily mentioned something just released. It is a known problem, on par with overoaking and premox - do you not experience it?

"The thing I find most alarming is that producers who typically have not had brett issues are starting to show up with them - more mainline low volume producers" is what you wrote, and then you went on to cite a 13 year old bottle of Chave Côtes-du-Rhône. Do you have any other examples from Chave that you would like to put forward to support the conclusion that you shared publicly? Please cite them, if so.

Perhaps you are unaware that brett can develop in a bottle over time. Or that shipping and storage conditions can play in a role in the development of brett in a bottle.

Basically, you waited too long to open the bottle, as is your perogative. But you are blaming the producer for this decision on your part, which is lame of you.

Yeah, but for brett to develop in the bottle it has to be there in the first place which means there was an issue in the cellar, if you find brett to be an issue.

Yeah, sorry Levi, I'm not buying it. Perhaps I shouldn't have called out Chave based on one vintage of one cuvee (can't afford "real Chave" anyway), but there's no need to patronize. Yes, of course I know that flaws can show up over time, and if a wine sees heat or sits in a refrigerator or stands up for a while can all lead to problems of all sorts. But I can equally tell you that there are certain producers I have never experienced these issues with, there are producers I frequently experience them with, and there are producers I used to never experience them with, but now do. BTW, these bottles showed no signs of problems with the cork.

To provide a few examples particular to Beaujolais, some producers I would bet good money on that I could grab an old bottle and not experience brett/VA type flaws, even with shaky provenance:
Roilette
Brun
Chermette
Thivin
Chanrion
Tete
Desvignes

Some examples of producers I would expect to see flaws in and thus do not purchase:
Coquelet
Charly Thevenet
Metras
Pacalet
Michel Guignier

Some producers that formerly would be in the first category but at some point started to have problems:
Marcel or Matthieu Lapierre (first flawed bottle in 08)
JP Thevenet
George Descombes

Believe me, those last three are beloved producers for me. I visited Marcel Lapierre multiple times and sadly spent a decent part of an afternoon with him several months before he died. I have tasted with Jean Paul Thevenet, he is a splendid guy. I am guessing the changes have to do with generational changes.

So Chave is safe from the wolf pack but watch out everyone else.

 

[slaton]

originally posted by BJ:
Some producers that formerly would be in the first category but at some point started to have problems:
Marcel or Matthieu Lapierre (first flawed bottle in 08)
JP Thevenet
George Descombes

Curious, as I've had notable bad or spoiled bottles from Lapierre and G Descombes as far back as I've been drinking these wines, probably 2004 or 2005 vintage. I haven't drunk enough Thevenet to comment (at most one bottle per vintage).

To provide one example, the 2005 VV wines from Georges Descombes were my favorites from the vintage, truly incredible wines. But most bottles had small to moderate amounts of brett and the wines had completely cracked up by 2015 due, I assumed at the time, to insufficient SO2.

I've probably had more off/flawed bottles of Lapierre than any other Beaujolais producer except Metras. For this reason I eventually stopped buying both Lapierre and Metras, other than single bottles here and there. Others seem to have better luck with these wines.

That said - while it's fun to postulate, in truth I have no idea for any given bottle whether an issue originates in the cellar or in the supply chain. Short of obvious clues, like wine travel across the cork and seepage.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

Every definition of natural that I've encountered treats destemming as not an intervention, but I see your point. Other examples might be batonnage and lees aging, which pass the nothing added/nothing subtracted test, but could be called interventions.

And what about temperature controlled fermentations, O.? Especially in light of climate change, must a naturaliste rely solely on deep leadership mestones caves?

Mark Lipton

I'm hardly an arbiter, Mark, but I consider temperature controlled fermentations to be an intervention, unlike naturally cold caves. Perhaps analogous to malos blocked by SO2 or sterile filtration versus simply not happening.

If one goes to motive, a temperature controlled fermentation often seeks to emphasize primary (fruit) flavors over secondary (fermentation) flavors, whereas a naturally cold cave will simply produce whatever it produces, independent of intent.

So if I’m a Gung-Ho young vigneron who wants to make natural wine but can’t afford a cold cellar, I’m shit out of luck? And why should motive matter? Nathan, do you still know it when you see it now?

The question does not make sense. A young vigneron who makes natural wine normally will not want to control fermentation temperatures, and if temperatures go so high as to threaten to ruin the wine, he can cool the tanks by splashing the sides with cold water.

I honestly think you make no sense. I erased my long response to this and your other post. Natural now depends on motive. Temperature control is not natural unless it’s natural. The natural winemaker has to aspire to the undefined ideal but be flexible and practical if necessary. I give up. I’m going back to posting pretty pictures on Instagram.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
I erased my long response to this and your other post. Natural now depends on motive. Temperature control is not natural unless it’s natural. The natural winemaker has to aspire to the undefined ideal but be flexible and practical if necessary. I give up. I’m going back to posting pretty pictures on Instagram.

I sympathize.

The problem is that the definition of 'natural' used above, and by the Hammer Head, involves mind-reading, a notoriously uncertain skill. I think what they are trying to say is something like this: A wine is natural if the winemaker is trying to make a wine that speaks of its cepage and its place; further, that extraordinary problems may be addressed with cellar wizardry but those techniques are not to be used otherwise.

This definition is just as weak as the other... the term 'extraordinary' is ill-defined, and it says nothing about stems or stirring nor whether non-natural-sounding local traditions are legit.

So, in the end, a 'natural wine' is much like 'art': it is, if its maker says it is.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

And here I was thinking for the last decade that we were the premier wine board for natural wines only to encounter this level of otherunderstanding, even taking into account that it is an imprecise term.

Time for a refresher from our very own Keith & kin.