Accepting Flawed Wines...

RachelSigner as an article in PIX:
https://www.pix.wine/the-drop/embrace-wine-flaws/
On why we should accept.. no, embrace... flaws in wines and not expect "perfection" from them. In particular, she seems to embrace "mousiness" in wines.
She has a legitimate point... to a degree. But the level, or degree, of those flaws is a personal judgement we all have to make and decide where we draw the line. When the level of mousiness in a Natural wine so so high that I flee in fear of catching hantavirus.. sorry... that I cannot accept.
She decries the insistence by wine lovers for "perfection" in wine guess I don't know of any wine lover that demands "perfection" in their wines. I call "straw man" on that one. CharlesShaw Chard is a "perfect" wine, absolutely no flaws.. but also totally devoid of character and boring as hell.
Anyway, a (not so interesting) article that has a point... to a degree.
Tom

[Jenise]

She'd be right if she were giving it away. But the buyers of a product you sell shouldn't need a manual to figure out how or when to enjoy it. She's not entitled to patronage, she has to earn it.

Wow, I don't want to stress the winemaker too much, asking for a sound product.
You know, when you go to the diner for breakfast, if the toast is burnt, the sunny side up egg is hard yolk, and the coffee is dilute, just live with it.
Seriously, I look for the good- I try to like- every wine I try (I'm an easy grader!). I can tolerate (even enjoy) some brett, some VA, and maybe a little mousiness. But if it's enough to keep me from enjoying wine I'm not going to drink it.

[Robin Garr]

Here's the money quote:

As a natural wine drinker and maker, I am calling for a new way of thinking about flaws.

Young or old vintners can make mistakes. The good ones don't try to sell a flawed product, but learn from their mistakes. I'm not o fan of this vintner's approach of selling even if flawed.

Good grief. Why did people stop just crushing the grapes, putting them in a vat, and letting the wine make itself? Because they got tired of ropy wines, wine that had turned to vinegar, and exploding casks and bottles. Techniques had been developed to prevent such things from happening. Louis Pasteur developed pasteurization because a winemaker had commissioned him to look into why so much flawed wine was being shipped to Paris, and to develop ways to prevent it. We don't need anything as drastic as pasteurization these days (although Louis Latour still uses it), but the principle remains the same. These days, flawed wine is totally unacceptable.

The best winemakers in Burgundy all say that they let the wine make itself. But they jump in with their bag of tricks when things start to go bad. IMO that's exactly how it should be.

Natural wine just for natural wine's sake comes with a downside. You can and will end up with flawed wines. IMO it's the winemaker who has to be prepared to bear the consequences of this, not the consumer. That being said, I'm not advocating for squeaky-clean industrial-type winemaking either. But the consumer has a right to expect the product to be free of genuine, out-and-out flaws. TCA aside, most consumers have probably never encountered a truly flawed wine. I've only ever seen one bottle of ropy wine, which was being returned to the merchant who replaced it without question. I've gotten a couple of fizzy bottles that shouldn't have been, but that's my only experience with true flaws.

-Paul W.

I have tried to enjoy natural wines and have in some cases succeeded, but I will not support any wine with my dollars that I don't find to be enjoyable.

Winemakers shouldn't have to make excuses for hat they put out there, basically along the lines of Well, OK is is pretty crappy, but hey - it is natural. The marketplace will have its way and they will/should fail.

Domaine d'Andezon tried natural winemaking with their Cotes du Rhone back in the 1990s. The problem was severe bottle variation. Some bottles were astoundingly good and offered excellent QPR. Others, often from the same case, were horribly undrinkable. It was a total crapshoot. They've long since sorted out this quality problem, but it illustrates the hazards of below-minimalist winemaking intervention.

-Paul W.

The other 'natural' winemaking method that seems to work fairly well in most cases is to use 'native' yeasts, that is whatever yeast happens to be on the skins when the grapes are harvested. I asked a prof I know in the wine area how often that leads to hung ferments and such and what was the practice in that case. He wouldn't accuse anyone of anything, but the gist was that if the wild ferment hung on you, it would likely be started again, and that wouldn't be with wild yeast and the winery would probably forget to take the 'wild yeast' off the label, as - hey - the ferment started with that didn't it?

My unspoken question was just how much of a start does it need to be before you can rationalise the claim of wild yeast - "Hey, I think I saw a bubble, go ahead and toss in the cultured yeast now"?

Here's the money quote:

As a natural wine drinker and maker, I am calling for a new way of thinking about flaws.

I support her thoughts about approaching wine w/ an open mind. But still you cannot rationalize drinking flawed wines...
realizing that flaws are in the mind of the beholder. To me..."Kansas out-house" in not a flaw because of past experience.
But it has to be a two-holer in the dead of Summer!!
Tom

The other 'natural' winemaking method that seems to work fairly well in most cases is to use 'native' yeasts, that is whatever yeast happens to be on the skins when the grapes are harvested. I asked a prof I know in the wine area how often that leads to hung ferments and such and what was the practice in that case. He wouldn't accuse anyone of anything, but the gist was that if the wild ferment hung on you, it would likely be started again, and that wouldn't be with wild yeast and the winery would probably forget to take the 'wild yeast' off the label, as - hey - the ferment started with that didn't it?

My unspoken question was just how much of a start does it need to be before you can rationalise the claim of wild yeast - "Hey, I think I saw a bubble, go ahead and toss in the cultured yeast now"?

I'm sure that happens. But with modern knowledge (temperature control etc) hung fermentations are not so likely, and it's also quite possible that careful growers isolate some of their native yeasts just in case. The first commercial yeasts were produced in the 1960s, and yet somehow wine has managed to be make for millennia. I've never bought a wine due to a claim of native yeasts, but I assume most who say they do (though few actually mention on label), generally do.

The other 'natural' winemaking method that seems to work fairly well in most cases is to use 'native' yeasts, that is whatever yeast happens to be on the skins when the grapes are harvested.

That works as long as the wild yeast is 'good' yeast. When I toured Chateau Beaucastel in the late 1990s I was struck by how industrially clean everything was in the winemaking area. Everything was stainless steel and absolutely immaculate. I would have had no qualms about eating off the floor. The guide mentioned that the harvested grapes are steam-cleaned before crushing and fermentation. A light went on in my head. I remarked later to my companions, "Beaucastel's brett problem is in the vineyard. Their indigenous yeast is Brettanomyces. The brett comes in on the grapes. That's why they steam-clean them." A decade or so later, Chateau Beacastel admitted that this indeed had been the case. They seem to have solved their brett problem--not sure how they did it.

-Paul W.

Interesting, Paul.

I visited them in the 90s but they didn't breathe a word about it of course. The bret issues was well known - you might get 3bb out of a case that were clearly affected and they lost a lot of confidence in their wine. That is one of the risks a winery takes when they go with wild yeasts. I recall seeing Errazuriz doing it and wondered if the risk was worth the extra PR they figured they might attract by being a 'natural' wine.

In this case Beaucastel was decidedly not going with wild yeasts. They were trying to wipe them out. The b-word was never mentioned on our tour, and they hand-waved concerning the steam-cleaning step. They had indigenous brett in their vineyard and they knew it. But the only solution I can think of for that problem is to tear up all the vines, disinfect the land, let it lie fallow for a couple of years (disinfecting annually), then replant and hope. Not economically feasible. Perhaps when the normal replanting cycle came around they took advantage of the opportunity to wipe out the wild yeasts.

-Paul W.

Actually my view on wine flaws is very similar to that expressed in the article. But I'd add a few points:

1) I don't see why the experience of the winemaker should affect how I regard a wine

2) I don't think I am sensitive to mousiness, so I couln't comment on that

3) TCA is very different to the production flaws discussed in the article. It has no place in wine, and is disgusting, so down-the-sink and/or claim a refund as far as I am concerned

4) Alcohol, bretty aromas, VA, and various other aroma, are all fermentation products. I don't see why some should be more or less acceptable than others.

5) For me, the question of over-riding importance is: Irrespective of what other people think, how much pleasure does this wine give me?

Only last night I had a wine that had much more than a hint of brett and VA, and I loved it. If you disagree that is fine, but don't tell me it is faulty as if that idea has some sort of objective validity and I'm an idiot for not recognising it.

No absolutes - peoples' liking or tolerance for things like acidity, residual sugar and funkiness varies widely. Personally, I ca take a bit of bret or general funk in, for instance, Rhone wines, but it is situational - I'd reject it in a Beaujolais.

I like it when winemakers do the silk purse from sow's ear trick. Several decades ago I was talking to winemaker Bill Jekel about a very unusual Pinot Blanc he had turned out that showed a little residual sugar, so it was way outside normal practice but having said that, not unattractive. He told me that the fermentation had hung on that batch and nothing he did would kick it into action again, so he just bottled it as a late harvest PB!

I share that writer's dislike of the missionary zeal of the advocates squeaky clean wines. If we follow them, all traces of pyrazine, brett, VA, etc. would be abolished, which IMO would make for much less interesting wines. Some of my favourite bottles have had one or more of these "flaws", but in moderation and in balance with other elements; these include Musar, most left bank clarets, most Loire CabFranc, many Rhônes.......

On the other hand, I am equally suspicious of the missionary zeal coming from the advocates of "natural" wines. I have limited experience of them and do not stretch out for them without a recommendation from a source well calibrated to my palate.

It's a matter of balance which is subjective from person to person.

Agree 100% with Tim about missionary zeal in either direction. Also about balance and subjective opinion.

It's (just?) wine, and no one should feel under any pressure to like or dislike any particular one. I think I like wines that many would say are too bretty but even I have my limits.

In that sense many so-called faults are no different to almost any other aspect of wine. I also like acidity and tannin for example, but I have my limits, and many others who generally drink cheaper wine would have much lower limits.

I share that writer's dislike of the missionary zeal of the advocates squeaky clean wines.

That much I agree with. I was at a tasting once where the winemaker at a small CA vineyard was pouring his syrah. I told him that it was a beautiful syrah, only missing some of the smoky nuances of the Northern Rhone to make it perfect. I meant it as a compliment. The winemaker went ballistic and started ranting about how brett was an absolute flaw and had no place in wine and so on and so on.... Apparently UC Davis sometimes succeeds too well in instilling a sense of the role of proper hygiene in winemaking and the result is this sort of zealot.

-Paul W.