Impressions December 2019

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Florida Jim:

originally posted by robert ames:

so still no explanation of how malolactic is blocked without intervetion.

The only way I can think of is extreme cold.
But then you’d have to sterile filter at bottling.
Best, Jim

Yup. IMHO sterile filtering is, ceteris paribus, a negative but hardly a deal breaker. I've had some fine wines that were sterile filtered.

How exactly does one make wine without any intervention? Catch the grapes in a bucket as they fall and hope for the best? Does shaking the vine or squishing them a bit count as intervention? I'm being facetious, but criteria for designating a particular intervention negative per se eludes me in many cases.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Generally, I think of the distinction as being between interventions that change the wine from wine to a grape-like beverage and those that don't. This can, of course, be highly subjective, but then so is wine preference anyway. I am not automatically in favor of malo, lots of wine I like, in particular, many rieslings, are made without it, and making non-sulfured wine always presents dangers for importing. So, while I like many natural wines I have tasted, and could do with more of them, I'm unwilling to get ideological about it. But Oswaldo and I have had this argument before.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Bravo, Christian, for observing that the world actually occurs in shades of grey. All wine-making is intervention, by definition. You have to decide which ones suit your palate.

The physical ones - harvesting, pressing, racking, etc. - seem fairly essential though even they can be done to excess (roto fermenter, excessive batonnage).

Additions seem to zig-zag across the line in the sand: package yeast, sulfur, Purple, aggressive barrel toast, etc.

Subtractions seem to be mostly on the dark side: spinning cone, reverse osmosis devices, filtration, etc.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
How exactly does one make wine without any intervention? Catch the grapes in a bucket as they fall and hope for the best?

Isn't this, more or less, Movia Lunar? I've had really good bottles of that in the past. Haven't had one for a while now.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
How exactly does one make wine without any intervention? Catch the grapes in a bucket as they fall and hope for the best?

Isn't this, more or less, Movia Lunar? I've had really good bottles of that in the past. Haven't had one for a while now.

Yes, pretty much. Often a great wine.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Generally, I think of the distinction as being between interventions that change the wine from wine to a grape-like beverage and those that don't. This can, of course, be highly subjective, but then so is wine preference anyway. I am not automatically in favor of malo, lots of wine I like, in particular, many rieslings, are made without it, and making non-sulfured wine always presents dangers for importing. So, while I like many natural wines I have tasted, and could do with more of them, I'm unwilling to get ideological about it. But Oswaldo and I have had this argument before.

I'm becoming less ideological after an alarming increase in the volatility of the wines we taste.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

originally posted by Florida Jim:

originally posted by robert ames:

so still no explanation of how malolactic is blocked without intervetion.

The only way I can think of is extreme cold.
But then you’d have to sterile filter at bottling.
Best, Jim

Yup. IMHO sterile filtering is, ceteris paribus, a negative but hardly a deal breaker. I've had some fine wines that were sterile filtered.

How exactly does one make wine without any intervention? Catch the grapes in a bucket as they fall and hope for the best? Does shaking the vine or squishing them a bit count as intervention? I'm being facetious, but criteria for designating a particular intervention negative per se eludes me in many cases.

The most practical definition, I think, is still "nothing added, nothing subtracted." But it, too, has flaws. The general point, as you of course know, is to let then wine be what it wants to be, rather than what the winemaker wants it to be. But, again, lots of subjectivity, since the wine's fondest ambition may be to become very fine vinegar.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

The most practical definition, I think, is still "nothing added, nothing subtracted."... lots of subjectivity, since the wine's fondest ambition may be to become very fine vinegar.

I recall Joe Heitz in an interview saying something very much like that regarding vinegar. That's a pretty good definition, but still tricky for wine. E.G. fining - you add something, it attracts something else, and drops out of the final liquid. I guess that's subtraction, but not addition. What about letting it sit in a big container long enough for all kinds of matter to settle out - subtraction or no? If that's natural, why would a loose filtration (a faster means to a similar end) be unnatural? And so on...

No or homeopathic SO2 added is a major barrier to purchase for me, unless I have great confidence in the winemaker's mastery of chemistry or lab resources, and the wine's handling in distribution.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Any idjot can make a wine without sulfur, we who are interested have to scavenge for those who do it right.

 

[Brézème]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

How exactly does one make wine without any intervention? Catch the grapes in a bucket as they fall and hope for the best? Does shaking the vine or squishing them a bit count as intervention? I'm being facetious, but criteria for designating a particular intervention negative per se eludes me in many cases.

Reminds me of classical music experts appreciation about rock and roll back in the '60s...
A dead end thinking,really.
Which does not mean that I agree with 100% of what's happening with the natural wine movement.

 

[Anders Gautschi]

I recall reading somewhere that Bernard Faurie keeps impeccable notebooks on the domain's output. You could ask him.

This.
At least from early 2000 on every cuvée has its particular numerical code stamped on the bottle, beside the etiquette. It doesn't help much, since almost every year there are different cuvées. I once asked him how I should be able to discern the different cuvées once I pull the bottle out of my cellar in a couple of years. He stared at me and said: Well, its obvious! Just check the numerical code!

edited to add: Visiting with Bernard Faurie is a treat! He's a humble man, not easy to understand even if your french is ok, but very passionate, precise and curious. Too bad he will retire soon.

 

[Anders Gautschi]

originally posted by georg lauer:
Are people feeling still very positive about more recent Faurie vintages? This sounds all very appealing and I am tempted to get some of the current available vintages (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 is what I could readily find).

Thanks
Georg

That's easy: Get everything you can get for a reasonable price, as he probably will retire soon. 2011 and 2012 are starting to drink well, 2015 I would bury deep down in the cellar, if I recall correctly 2015 Bessards was only bottled in Magnum but is a treat, 2017 Gréffieux-Bessards was delicious a couple of weeks ago, Bessards-Méal already closed up. If you can you should really try to get your hands on 2016.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Anders Gautschi:

originally posted by georg lauer:
Are people feeling still very positive about more recent Faurie vintages? This sounds all very appealing and I am tempted to get some of the current available vintages (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 is what I could readily find).

Thanks
Georg

That's easy: Get everything you can get for a reasonable price, as he probably will retire soon. 2011 and 2012 are starting to drink well, 2015 I would bury deep down in the cellar, if I recall correctly 2015 Bessards was only bottled in Magnum but is a treat, 2017 Gréffieux-Bessards was delicious a couple of weeks ago, Bessards-Méal already closed up. If you can you should really try to get your hands on 2016.

I have a little 2007 and 2010 in the cellar. I'll keep my eyes open for 2016. Thanks.