[Drinking] Natural wines

Goldstone1976 said:

Margaret River is my favourite Oz wine region - with one exception: if I’m having a red meat laden BBQ, then you can’t beat a Barossa.

I can’t speak to your other observations since I’ve never visited. One day I will, hopefully. I’m envious that you have!

Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:

I have a longstanding prejudice against Australian wine.

Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:

I have a longstanding prejudice against Australian wine.

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

What’s the reason?

Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:

Most great dishes, drinks, etc, rely on balance. In terms of wine that means fruit/sugar and acid (and in the case of red and some white wines, tannins).
Let's take a white wine, being a wine dullard, I prefer wines with good (ie more) acidity -- German Rieslings tend to have this -- whereas especially in the 90s and 00s the more popular style would be for (sickly) fruit- (and oak-) driven Australian Chardonnays. These are the kinds of wines that are instantly appealing (first sip), but once you get onto the second glass, they're cloying and not particularly drinkable.
Australia deliberately surfed that wave of high fruit, low subtlety, low acidity wines for several decades and, as a consequence, have a reputation for that now. To be fair, they're moving away from it now.
If we translate this argument into beer, I like sours and not high alcohol, syrupy porters, etc

Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:

Most great dishes, drinks, etc, rely on balance. In terms of wine that means fruit/sugar and acid (and in the case of red and some white wines, tannins).
Let's take a white wine, being a wine dullard, I prefer wines with good (ie more) acidity -- German Rieslings tend to have this -- whereas especially in the 90s and 00s the more popular style would be for (sickly) fruit- (and oak-) driven Australian Chardonnays. These are the kinds of wines that are instantly appealing (first sip), but once you get onto the second glass, they're cloying and not particularly drinkable.
Australia deliberately surfed that wave of high fruit, low subtlety, low acidity wines for several decades and, as a consequence, have a reputation for that now. To be fair, they're moving away from it now.
If we translate this argument into beer, I like sours and not high alcohol, syrupy porters, etc

Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:

I have a longstanding prejudice against Australian wine.

Click to expand...

McTavish said:

There are different definitions of what makes wine natural but the main point is that sulphur dioxide is not used in the wine-making (or some people would say only used in small amounts on bottling). As sulphur dioxide is one of the products of fermentation, it is almost impossible to have a wine that is completely free of sulphites but natural wines have much lower levels than most more conventional wines.

SO2 is used as an antioxidant and to kill yeast and bacteria so unless the winemaker is very skilled and has an extremely clean cellar, many natural wines will be "off" - oxidised or spoiled by bacteria. Quite a few end up as a murky cross between sherry and cider with a bit of added vinegar. You may find that some beard-stroking hipster will tell you that this is how wine is supposed to be but it's not.

There are some sublime "natural" wines but there are far more that are absolutely horrible. And the good ones are often very expensive. And the bad ones are also often very expensive...

Most decent winemakers are pushing towards using lower amounts of sulphur as its use before bottling can deaden flavours but most wines below £10 have to use sulphur for economic reasons as much as anything. Cheap wine tends to mean more sulphur, however there is far less sulphur in wine than in things like dried fruit.

Click to expand...

Goldstone1976 said:

I would describe myself as a knowledgeable, avid wine drinker and collector, with a sizeable cellar containing wines from around the world. There is not a single ‘natural’ wine in my collection, nor will there be. It’s shit. Hope that helps.

Lowish sulphur? Sure, providing the maker really knows what they’re doing. None? That’s like saying ‘I’ll have a steak, but make sure there’s no protein in it. Oh, and no fat either’.

Click to expand...

Goldstone1976 said:

I would describe myself as a knowledgeable, avid wine drinker and collector, with a sizeable cellar containing wines from around the world. There is not a single ‘natural’ wine in my collection, nor will there be. It’s shit. Hope that helps.

Click to expand...

McTavish said:

To a certain extent that depends on your definition of natural. If you mean the absolute avoidance of any additives at all then you are probably right that you don't have any. But if you accept the more widespread definition of total sulphites below 20 or sometimes 30 or even, for white wines, 40mg/l of total sulphur then you may well have "natural" wines in your cellar.

I have tasted a lot of natural wine, some natural by design and some falling in to the wide definition of "natural" due to the practice of the winemaker. Many of the latter are fantastic, many of the former are not but there are still some good ones.

There is nothing about sulphur that makes it intrinsic to wine (as fat and protein are to a steak), it's just really difficult to consistently make good wine without it.

Click to expand...

Goldstone1976 said:

I don't disagree with the factual parts of your post (except, perhaps, the implication that 40mg/l of total sulphur (even in a white) could reasonably be described as 'natural').

It's your last phrase that drives my opinion: "it's just really difficult to consistently make good wine without [the addition of sulphur]".

Firstly, I would remove the word "consistently".

Secondly, and most importantly to me, given that assertion, why would one wish to buy such wines (which are also typically more expensive than the non-natural equivalent) and take the punt, since we agree that "many of them" are not very good?

I would estimate that I've tried c200 'natural' (by design) wines in total - the results would show roughly the following: 1 or 2 'very good' (92+, imo); 3-5 'good'; maybe 10 (88-92); 'ok, but I wouldn't buy it' (83-87); 100 'nah, thanks - pretty unpleasant' (75-82); 80+ 'utterly undrinkable' (<75).

If I add all the other wines I've tasted together (several thousand), I wouldn't get to 80+ <75 point wines in total. The balance is far, far too heavily stacked against me enjoying a natural-by-design wine to warrant the expenditure.

Click to expand...

McTavish said:

unless the particular [natural] wine had been recommended by someone I trust.

Click to expand...

Goldstone1976 said:

It’s shit.

Click to expand...

McTavish said:

For the factual part 40mg/l for whites and 30mg/l for reds and sparkling are the limits set out by the Association des Vins Naturels. Other organisations have different levels.

In my experience, the rate of success is getting better, however, like you, I wouldn't choose to drink natural (by design) wines if something else were available unless the particular wine had been recommended by someone I trust. It's a bit like Burgundy...

However, the natural wine movement has forced the entire wine world to examine the way it operates. To me it's a bit like Punk - there was a huge amount of rubbish, a few really good things but it changed the way people thought about music for ever.

Click to expand...