On the subject of "Natural Wines"

Jeff Grossman

Jeff Grossman
* On the subject of "Natural Wines," since the definitions can be vague, I have decided to pontificate a bit. Something tells me some of our readers have a bit of spare time on their hands.

It seems clear that everyone who is familiar with the concept of natural wines can agree that the grapes are supposed to be farmed organically (or optionally with Bio-dynamic principles or preparations also used). It should be safe to continue from this precept, and assume that the wild (native or indigenous) yeasts do the fermentation, and that the wines are bottled with minimal intervention, save a small optional addition of SO2, which acts as a preservative and anti-oxidant. Simple enough, no?

But what I (and many others) have noticed is that the market is now flooded with so-called natural wines, often unfined and unfiltered, and all sporting cute, new-age labels. Some of them are marketed as natural wines because no sulfites are added, even though they are made with chemically farmed grapes! Others are subject to a sliding scale of sulfur levels, as "natural" proves a very sellable label. I noticed lately a prominent direct to consumer mail order "Natural Wine Club" on the West Coast that promises that all the wines are natural and are under 75ppm of SO2 total. When I talk to winemakers in France and they say "C'est nature," they specifically mean there is NO sulfur added whatsoever. When one consults with the leading natural wine associations in the world (remember there is no official certification yet), total SO2 is generally acceptable at levels under 40ppm for dry whites and reds.

Now, this is a complicated subject, as there are different types of measurable SO2 in wines - namely free (non-binding) and binding - and the total level can vary depending on many factors, BUT!....it's still generally agreed that a natural wine could have a tiny addition of SO2, but should rest around or under 40ppm.

Maybe it runs in the family, but both my father and I are sensitive to wines that have total sulfur levels above 40ppm (give or take), so the idea that a wine with 75ppm could be termed "natural" is a bit mind-boggling to me. To be completely clear about the wines we are featuring in our Natural Wine Sampler Case, I have selected ONLY wines with no addition of SO2. The first truly natural "natural wine case!"

Please understand, this is by no means a claim that the wines are better. I often find that wines without any addition of sulfites might have benefited from a small dose to prevent them from being overly wild (some NO SO2 added wines are frankly quite flawed). This is just an effort to highlight the women and men who believe in their farming and the natural acidity and fortitude of their wines, and venture to do what could be considered one of the hardest things to do in the winemaking world - make a true, pure wine of terroir without any additions or manipulation.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, feel free to email me at elillie@chambersstwines.com

-Eben Lillie
 
Very nice, and could not be otherwise, given the person and pedigree. But I am still waiting for a natural wine sampler case where the seller says "The value added that we offer compared to other natural wine sellers is that in these we found no v.a., mouse or brett."
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
On the subject of "Natural Wines"*It should be safe to continue from this precept, and assume that... the wines are bottled with minimal intervention"
Minimal intervention is usually where I get tripped up. For example, why do so many natural wine promoters think aging in barrels is ok, but adding oak chips is not "natural"? Or why is microbullage often frowned upon - it's just bubbles of oxygen.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Very nice, and could not be otherwise, given the person and pedigree. But I am still waiting for a natural wine sampler case where the seller says "The value added that we offer compared to other natural wine sellers is that in these we found no v.a., mouse or brett."

Hate mouse (always), can live with reasonable levels of brett (Beaucastel), sometimes love va (Leon Barral).
 
originally posted by scottreiner:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Very nice, and could not be otherwise, given the person and pedigree. But I am still waiting for a natural wine sampler case where the seller says "The value added that we offer compared to other natural wine sellers is that in these we found no v.a., mouse or brett."

Hate mouse (always), can live with reasonable levels of brett (Beaucastel), sometimes love va (Leon Barral).

Understood; by declaring a wine to be (noticeably) defect-free, the merchant won't be catering to those who enjoy this or that defect.
 
Yes, defects can contribute to the complexity of wine. But they remain defects, objectively speaking (as I understand the term), as forms of contamination or deterioration.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Objectively speaking? With regard to taste? How do you understand the term?

I am making a distinction -- perhaps unsustainable scientifically and linguistically --, between a defect and its perception. I see brett, v.a. and mouse as defects because they are contamination/deterioration*, yet many of us like some of them in small doses and consider that they add complexity. Those who like them will bristle at hearing them called a defect, but it could still be called a defect that they like.

By analogy, the missing limbs of the Venus de Milo are part of its enduring charm yet nobody would deny that they are, objectively-speaking, losses with respect to its original state. Objective losses that generate subjective gains, perhaps, but still losses. I understand brett, v.a. and mouse as defects, as objective losses with respect to an ideal, "uncompromised" (objection! objection!) state. Objective losses that can generate subjective gains, but which are still defects.

*some will say that fermentation itself is a form of deterioration and that entropy guarantees that all natural processes are a kind of deterioration; hard to disagree, yet I wonder if there isn't some use to distinguishing between outright deterioration and conversion from one state to another equally desirable state.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Objectively speaking? With regard to taste? How do you understand the term?

I am making a distinction -- perhaps unsustainable scientifically and linguistically --, between a defect and its perception. I see brett, v.a. and mouse as defects because they are contamination/deterioration*, yet many of us like some of them in small doses and consider that they add complexity. Those who like them will bristle at hearing them called a defect, but it could still be called a defect that they like.

By analogy, the missing limbs of the Venus de Milo are part of its enduring charm yet nobody would deny that they are, objectively-speaking, losses with respect to its original state. Objective losses that generate subjective gains, perhaps, but still losses. I understand brett, v.a. and mouse as defects, as objective losses with respect to an ideal, "uncompromised" (objection! objection!) state. Objective losses that can generate subjective gains, but which are still defects.

*some will say that fermentation itself is a form of deterioration and that entropy guarantees that all natural processes are a kind of deterioration; hard to disagree, yet I wonder if there isn't some use to distinguishing between outright deterioration and conversion from one state to another equally desirable state.

The distinction depends on either a commonlyu accepted definition of what constitutes allowable biological presence in the wine, yeast for instance, and what constitutes unallowable presences, brettomyces, for instance, or some accepted scientific distinction. The first possibility is not an objective distinction but an intersubjective one, and for your purposes, I expect would work just fine: in other words even those of us who like some amount of some kinds brett, would admit that much of the wine world considers brett an intrusion. The second alternative really tests the meaning of "objectivity" as it tries to use it to enforce taxonomic distinctions as natural realities.
 
Objectively acceptable or even good: small but perceptible amount of VA
Objectively bad: any Brett or mousiness

(Others) discuss in Rabbit Hole.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Objectively acceptable or even good: small but perceptible amount of VA
Objectively bad: any Brett or mousiness

(Others) discuss in Rabbit Hole.

Well, yes, arbitrary obiter dicta are one defense against rabbit holes.
 
Back
Top