Gamay and Brett ('14 Coquelet Chiroubles VV)

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Luddite spoofing! What a charming concept. I can just see Ned Ludd condemning machine looms while espousing 3D printers as an allowable alternative to hand looms.

Well, my exposure to revisionist thinking (or, perhaps, just more informed thinking) about the Luddites leads me to think that they would only oppose spoofulation if it were to displace human labor in the cellar.

Mark Lipton

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Luddite spoofing! What a charming concept. I can just see Ned Ludd condemning machine looms while espousing 3D printers as an allowable alternative to hand looms.

Well, my exposure to revisionist thinking (or, perhaps, just more informed thinking) about the Luddites leads me to think that they would only oppose spoofulation if it were to displace human labor in the cellar.

Mark Lipton

We are clearly mixing metaphors now. The machine loom was the spoof as was the elimination of human labor.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

Are you sure you don't just mean "primitive"?

Interestingly no, I'm not sure. Apologists of natural wine note its similarity to wine made before chemical companies started to peddle chemical farming and modern technology started to appear in cellars (though SO2, acid, sugar and oak were already established additions). Vasco Croft of Aphros makes his anfora wines in a cellar without electricity. In spirit, please feel free to propose the term Primitive Wine as a replacement for Natural Wine.

I think we run into problems in the lab. There's a good argument to be made that natural winemaking (as commonly understood) should require extra vigilance and expertise there.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Luddite spoofing! What a charming concept. I can just see Ned Ludd condemning machine looms while espousing 3D printers as an allowable alternative to hand looms.

This has the makings of a good short film

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

I used to think so, but have been finally disabused. Perhaps this was closer to the truth in the days of the founding fathers, several of whom are now dearly departed, leaving the place somewhat more eclectic. Dressner, for sure, would have not put up with some of the pre-revolutionary recidivism we've been seeing.

Sorry. I’ll jump back in because i am feeling my oats and because I really think this is BS on at least 2 levels. 1. That there is any recidivism actually going on, which I suspect goes hand-in-hand with some assumptions you are making (e.g., trying to equate people on this Board with certain well known early naysayers not on this Board, which is a logical jump and not fair). 2. That Joe Dressner, who brought natural wine to the main stream in my view, or others who are no longer with us, held your views. Not only don’t you need to argue about what the dearly departed thought (but I’ll take a stab at it), it also doesn’t help your argument. Part of the push here for better definitions is that “you know natural when you see it” or “nothing added, nothing removed” is pushed to the limits by views that take it to the extreme, especially when it is actually the margins here that are interesting. The issue isn’t rigidity. It’s some level of rigor.

While Joe was a notorious bombast as well as a champion of natural wine, he never went as far as you go. I never heard him complain about temperature control or neutral wood conceptually, ever. (If you show me, I’ll believe it.) Marc Olivier, e.g., AFAIK was a forerunner of what Joe wanted and a friend of his— he used / uses(?) temperature control. Joe certainly sought low to no sulphur, which he hated, organic/biodynamic viticulture, no tractors for sure if you can swing it, hand picking, no additives like enzymes, no chap., no acidification, no roto. These are all practices that I’d say are inarguably and understandably squarely part of what it means to be natural. That’s easy.

But if you take it too far and perhaps define natural ultimately as a flexible philosophy, then in my view that’s where there starts to be a definitional problem. It’s acceptable to view natural wine that way but not very satisfying to many of us. Is cap punching allowed? That’s not natural. How about pumping over? Certainly not natural. How about old-school submerged cap. Not natural. How about topping off casks? No way that’s natural. Temperature control? Forget it. What about a clean cellar and exactly how you clean the cellar? Hmmm. But Brett and TCA and fungi are natural.

So we can all like good “natural” wines and hate bad ones even if some of us have different issues with the label and its amorphous boundaries. Doesn’t mean we are “bad” recidivists betraying the “founders” somehow. The current discussion is considerably different than top-down crapping on the whole idea of natural wine, which I don’t read anyone here doing.

A last word on Joe and Burgundy. Hard to know how to fit this into his natural wine bent. He loved 100% new oak Rousseau Chambertin as much as anyone I ever met or saw drink it. Talk about serious Dressner pours. He also crapped on Dujac as much as anyone I knew, and gave me infinite public shit for it in the way only he could when he thought I liked Dujac. (I never did.) RIP, Joe.

Ok. Back to my hole.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Well, I disagree with many aspects of the above characterization, which includes things I never said and don't believe. If it were just a few, delivered in good faith by brain and not oats, it might be worth setting the record straight, item by item, however tedious, but the misconceptions (for example, anyone who understands the concept of natural as outlined in Keith's blog post from 2012 can figure out that cap punching, pumping over, submerged cap and neutral wood are no violation) are only too confirming of the discontinuity between how this board seems to me today and how it seemed to me earlier (which may, of course, be my user-illusion). Even granting that you may be an outlier, I find the degree of cognitive dissonance a bit too much (again, the problem might be me, but I sense no analogous self-doubt in you). So, since you reject non-rigid conceptions of natural and I, on my end, don't converse with cereals, there is really not much left to say.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Well, I disagree with many aspects of the above characterization, which includes things I never said and don't believe. If it were just a few, delivered in good faith by brain and not oats, it might be worth setting the record straight, item by item, however tedious, but the misconceptions (for example, anyone who understands the concept of natural as outlined in Keith's blog post from 2012 can figure out that cap punching, pumping over, submerged cap and neutral wood are no violation) are only too confirming of the discontinuity between how this board seems to me today and how it seemed to me earlier (which may, of course, be my user-illusion). Even granting that you may be an outlier, I find the degree of cognitive dissonance a bit too much (again, the problem might be me, but I sense no analogous self-doubt in you). So, since you reject non-rigid conceptions of natural and I, on my end, don't converse with cereals, there is really not much left to say.

I’ll just go back to taking about wine then. I don’t think we can understand each other in writing or that I’m an outlier or an extremist— that might be Jeff — but if you come to NY, I can open a nicely aged magnum of 2004 Clos des Briords — no oatmeal though — and we can try again. BTW no one has ever called me a cereal. I’ve been called much worse though.

 

[MLipton]

Wow, I'm now beginning to regret even starting this thread. Anyway, at the risk of inflaming passions further, I'll mention what I recall about Joe Dressner and the natural wine label. Back when Cory was publishing his "31 days of natural wine" on his blog Saignee, I recall Joe D. organizing one of his early "Real Wine Attacks." I recall him stating on WD that he chose the label real wine because he knew what it meant, whereas he thought that the label "natural wine" was ill-defined and co-opted by poseurs (NB: O., I am not calling you a poseur or even hinting at it). He was commenting largely on what he was seeing in Paris wine bars at that time, but I do recall him explicitly rejecting the label for the wine he imported.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled programming,
Mark Lipton

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Indeed, this is why I said earlier that Joe did not like the label natural wine. He mostly referred to deal wine, a term so obviously in your face that one would hardly be tempted to formalize it. Many of you knew him better than I did, though, and should feel free to correct me.I don't

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Moi, extreme? The devil you say.

How about I re-present for you Dressner's own writing?:

The Official Fourteen Point Manifesto on Natural Wine
By Joe Dressner

1. Hold your wallet tight when someone tells you they love "Natural Wine." All of a sudden it is popular to say you are making natural wines, that you are drinking natural wines, that you just love natural wines. Wines come in bottles, not slogans, and unless you are talking about actual growers, vintages or vineyards, you are blowing hot air. The Natural Wine Movement hates all sloganeering and please leave us out of your exhortations.

2. Years ago I asked a clerk at Brooks Brothers how to tie a bow-tie. She patiently answered that a Gentleman either knew how to tie a bow-tie or did not know how to tie a bow-tie. The same applies to Natural Wine. If you have to ask what Natural Wine is then please reintroduce yourself to the flavors, smells and textures of nature. The Natural Wine Movement can help you, but you must do most of this work yourself.

3. The Natural Wine Movement is not a movement with a leader, credo and principles. If you think there is a Natural Wine Movement sweeping the world, triumphantly slaying industrial wineries and taking no hostages, then you are one delusional wine drinker. The Natural Wine Movement thinks that you might want to lessen your alcohol consumption for a few months.

4. But wouldn't life be simpler if we had just one big category of natural wine to direct the poor consumer who is faced with so many baffling options? The Natural Wine Movement believes that wine is complicated and turning wine into neat categories is what made America and Madison Avenue great, but not what makes one Romorantin taste better than another Poulsard. And that doesn't even leave room for Counoise and Pinot Fin. Broad categories are great for soda, juice, low carbon footprint beverages, eating and drinking locally and romance novels. Leave Natural Wine alone.

5. The poor consumers facing so many baffling choices are not really so confused. They need to learn how to trust and explore their tastes. If they like crappy industrial wine, why slap them around? Let them learn and go with their instincts, eventually they will come around. The pointists and tasting notes crowd are obscurantists who wants them to believe it takes the training of a brain surgeon to appreciate wine. The Natural Wine Movement believes everyone has the right to drink and eat badly, to watch horrible movies, read crappy books and watch CSI Las Vegas, CSI Miami or CSI New York. Forensic evidence tells us that wine drinkers can mature and blossom and find nuance more charming than the world of Awesome and Mind Blowing!

6. Jules Chauvet used to say being determines consciousness. The Natural Wine Movement doe not expect the Wine Industrial Complex to be won over to natural fermentation, low sulphur and what-have-you. Even if it were, it would still be making unfathomable, undrinkable stuff. Stop condemning the Parkers, Rollands, Eisenmeyers, Wine Spectators, Cult Wineries with 16 Degree swill, Southern Wine & Spirits and the Andre Tamers of the world (actually, Andre Tamer is a very good importer of Spanish wine but I have a grudge against him, with good reason, and threw his name in here for no other particular reason). Honestly, they live in another world than we do.

7. Please leave us alone. Great natural wine is made in small quantities and there will never be enough to go around. Industrial Wine can satisfy thirst, I suppose, as can water, diet Sprite, Tomato Juice from local farmers and Gatorade. If everyone jumps on the natural wine bandwagon there will be a tendency to get bigger to satisfy demand and quality will be compromised. We will be overwhelmed by corporate types who want to cash in on the next big thing. We'll have to form a new movement and find a new vague concept that hipsters all over the world will embrace (like Real Wine). The Natural Wine Movement likes to drink in peace and doesn't want to become a marketing scheme for bloggers, wineries, retailers, distributors, importers with brain cancer, journalists and virtual reality television shows. We like being marginal.

8. The Natural Wine Movement abhors earnestness. Please don't tell us your stories about leading a sulphur-free life and how wild yeast fermentation made you kinder to your loved ones and pets. Humorless activism to promote wine is an oxymoron. Getting smashed, eating well, and laughing with good friends are key to our movement. We actively campaign for the drinking age to be lowered to sixteen-year-old, like in good old France. We also enjoy being contemptuous of other people around us, somewhat randomly, particularly when we are on the second or third bottle.

9. Another thing we dislike is self-importance. The wine milieu is saturated with so many very important people it makes the mind dizzy. The Wine Spectator even organizes events for the very important to meet their very important peers from all around the world. The Natural Wine Movement does not attend these conferences. We don't go to the Miami, Aspen, Boston, Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Elmira or Washington Wine Week Celebration. We're not important enough to attend and don't want to become that important.

10. Sure, there are big shots even in our marginal milieu. Certain vignerons, certain importers, certain restaurateurs and certain major private drinkers. We do our best to rotate big shots, searching as far as the former Czechoslovakia for media darlings. We're a democratic group based on the French principles of Liberté, Fraternité et Copinage! The Natural Wine Movement knows no lider maximo and is dedicated to the notion that we can all be René Mosse for one day! By the way, I'm not sure what Copinage means, but it sounds good.

11. Is there really a difference between Natural, Biodynamic, Real and Organic wines? There sure is, but is it really productive to blab about the differences? We like mystery and suspense and so do you or you wouldn't be glued to your television sets watching CSI New York. The Natural Wine Movement hates precision, detail and facts. For instance, when someone asks a member of The Natural Wine Movement for the exact variety composition of a blend, we just make up some percentages. Often they don't add up to 100% because no one really cares. We don't care and you don't care. If the terroir is expressive then the grape varieties are transparent. We are not in California.

12. So, can you make natural wine in the New World? Maybe and we'd love to try some examples. No doubt there are great sites and we're confident that our colleagues in the New World will find their way over the next few decades and centuries. Planting the right variety on the right root stock and not having all those unsightly clones would be a good start. The Natural Wine Movement salutes the courage and audacity of our New World brethren.

13. Doesn't this make us a bunch of fascists who want to dictate taste to everyone else? Not really, The Natural Wine Movement doesn't look for converts. If you want to hang around with us, that's wonderful, but we're just nice people looking for a nice buzz. Ever meet Olivier Lemasson I can't imagine a softer-spoken, nicer guy. He has two young kids to feed and buying a case of Olivier's wine would be of great assistance to him.

14. Who appointed me to speak for The Natural Wine Movement, you ask? I seized control three years ago in an epic battle with François Ecco and Arnaud Erhart. Since then, I have been the official public spokesman for me, myself and I.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Dressner also wrote, at the time of Marcel Lapierre's death:

The Natural Wine Movement that Marcel inspired was never codified. There is no manifesto, no rules, no codes. It was very much a movement of copinage (I don't really know a good translation for this word, but you might try a google search). There were early excesses and there are current failures. But over the years, Lapierre mastered the craft of natural winemaking and his wines even became reliable. Reliably delicious.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

My source for his writings is Captain Tumor Man hisself, as preserved by the Wayback Machine.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Thanks for reposting that, Jeff, refreshing and really on point.

Mark, your thread may have generated moments of frustration, but you are not responsible for drift, and all this issue-fermentation has got to be useful on some level. I think that most people, not just Dressner, agree that "natural" is not the ideal label, so that's not an important issue. It's the label that stuck, and most of us "veterans" have moved beyond griping about its inadequacy.

Otoh, the new wave of radical natural wine defenders that I see on hipster Facebook fora show quasi-religious fervor, are scarily uncritical of what they love, and treat any gripe about the epidemic of natural wine faults resulting from the trendiness of sans soufre as a sign that you are a revisionist Trotskyist. Dressner's 14 points should be the basis of a reeducation program for these johnny-come-latelies.

ps: Eric Texier's two or three elucidations of Chauvet's thinking in these pages several years ago also deserve a repost

 

[JasonA]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Moi, extreme? The devil you say.

How about I re-present for you Dressner's own writing?:

The Official Fourteen Point Manifesto on Natural Wine
By Joe Dressner

8. The Natural Wine Movement abhors earnestness. Please don't tell us your stories about leading a sulphur-free life and how wild yeast fermentation made you kinder to your loved ones and pets. Humorless activism to promote wine is an oxymoron. Getting smashed, eating well, and laughing with good friends are key to our movement. We actively campaign for the drinking age to be lowered to sixteen-year-old, like in good old France. We also enjoy being contemptuous of other people around us, somewhat randomly, particularly when we are on the second or third bottle.

 

[Tristan Welles]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
And here I was thinking for the last decade that we were the premier wine board for natural wines...

We are?

Time for a refresher...

Oswaldo, my friend Popper wants me to ask: Is it possible for a wine-maker to avoid spinning cones and rotofermenters and all the other trickery and yet make a non-natural wine?

define non-trickery!

 

[Tristan Welles]

Rereading points 8 and 9 of Dressner's manifesto I immediately experience a frisson of recognition. Some of the most ardent proponents of 'natural wine' are clearly indicted therein.

Similarly, rereading the entire document I feel much more at ease in continuing to enjoy, ia, Leoville-Barton, VCC, Pol Roger, Clerico while thinking the natural wine movement sensible.

Chaucun a sa copinage.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Tristan Welles:
Rereading points 8 and 9 of Dressner's manifesto I immediately experience a frisson of recognition. Some of the most ardent proponents of 'natural wine' are clearly indicted therein.

Similarly, rereading the entire document I feel much more at ease in continuing to enjoy, ia, Leoville-Barton, VCC, Pol Roger, Clerico while thinking the natural wine movement sensible.

Chaucun a sa copinage.

This definitely resonates.

Is the present-day ascendancy of points 8 and 9, even as compared to when Joe wrote this, a problem as long as enough natural (real?) wines are very good and no one takes away our VCC and Pol Roger? Points 8 and 9 really speak to human nature throughout history; no avoiding them.

 

[Peter Creasey]

I probably don't want to know how in the world Houston came to be mentioned among the others on the list in Item #9.

. . . . Pete

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Points 8 and 9 really speak to human nature throughout history; no avoiding them.

What is so funny about #9 (NB: my sample size is thankfully tiny) is that those folks (100% men) who have an overweening sense of self-importance or are just blowhards, frequently, when queried, love big, oaky California cabernets.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Points 8 and 9 really speak to human nature throughout history; no avoiding them.

What is so funny about #9 (NB: my sample size is thankfully tiny) is that those folks (100% men) who have an overweening sense of self-importance or are just blowhards, frequently, when queried, love big, oaky California cabernets.

In my experience No. 9 is definitely not restricted to men or those who like big, oaky Cal cabs, although they are a large subset.