The Elephant in the Cellar

          I’ve enjoyed the Syrah discussion, and am pleased to be asked back for another round. This time, I want to see what the nation’s foremost wine geeks think about an issue that I think is vitally important but never seems to be addressed much beyond eye-rolling shrugs and head shaking.
          This elephant in the room—or, if you will, the wine cellar—is viticultural and winemaking practices that subvertly change the nature of wines being marketed as honest expressions of special vineyards.
          Here’s where I come from, as simply as I can state it. I started drinking wine for the obvious reasons, long before I got excited about it. What was it that finally engaged me to the point where I’ve now spent thirty-odd years thinking about—no, pondering wine on a daily basis? In a word, truth and beauty (okay, two words, but I’ve always thought they were synonymous).
          Most of you will recognize the script: young guy goes to Europe and discovers that each mystical, magical place has its own drinkable essence called wine. This local wine contains the landscape, architecture, culture, and everything else that gives a sense of place. Plus you get a buzz, especially helpful when you decide to, say, sit in a café across from Rouen Cathedral for an entire day to experience the changing light on that iconic façade as recorded by Claude Monet in his amazing 31-painting series.
          Honestly, I’ve long since forgotten what wines I drank that day, if I ever knew; they were mostly fresh, local quaffers served proudly in carafes. But I can still clearly remember what some of them tasted like. Ditto the anonymous riesling I drank after hiking along the Mosel near Trier, and the plump, juicy red in that Alentejo hill town. And couldn’t we all go on and on in that vein? (And isn’t it fun to open a few bottles and trade the actual stories?)
          My point is that it’s been at least 10 years since I’ve been confident that I was getting that kind of signal impression from wines of the New World, especially California. Truth be known, I’ve come to doubt the truth and beauty quotient of modern European wines, as well.
          I’ve put it in terms of confidence because it’s become very difficult to know for sure whether a given wine is telling a real story about a real place, or a fiction that may be based on actual events yet has been cleverly enhanced to be what the producer thinks I want to taste or would be willing to pay for. For example, a cult-stature Pinot Noir which I raved about to anyone who would listen before being told by an informant in a commercial lab that the producer had doctored the wine with Mega Purple, supposedly to make up for “deficiencies” in the fruit. I wasn’t just embarrassed. I felt betrayed.
          In fact, I’ve come to suspect that California, in particular, is increasingly a bottled lie. Marketing campaigns that represent wines as pure expressions of special sites are quite often overtly deceitful. I believe that many wines that are represented as pure expressions of exalted sites are concocted, that is, heavily engineered to hit a desired note. And it’s not that I think that every wine has to be from a single block of vines, produced without any technique whatsoever. I don’t doubt that a great winemaker is like the resourceful teacher who knows how to help a child reach her full potential. But plastic surgery? C’mon. Nor do I have a problem with a good appellation or AVA wine. I just want to know that I’m tasting the true essence of grapes grown in a particular place or places.
          Most of you are familiar with consulting outfits like Enologix, a firm that helps wineries engineer their wines to get high scores (and actually guarantees higher scores). And many of you either make wine yourselves or have made a point of getting hands-on experience in vineyards and wineries. So I’m not here to break any shocking news, nor to lecture or instruct. My point, rather, is to try to move the conversation toward an objective examination of what a fine is, what it should be, and how various viticultural and winemaking techniques may support or contradict a wine’s stature. And please note that I’m deliberately excluding mass-market table wines from the discussion, although I believe, ironically, that most of them are relatively non-manipulated for economic rather than ethical reasons. Let’s focus on wine that expensive because it’s ostensibly a remarkable manifestation of a given summer in a certain place.
          My position going in is that many of the currently accepted winemaking practices (particularly additions such as acid, water, enzymes, tannin, concentrate, etc.) compromise the integrity of the fruit itself, and therefore defeat the ideal of fine wine. They also effectively insult the producers who endeavor to embrace the ideal without cheating. The contrarian might say, “Hey, if Mega Purple is used correctly, not even the most experienced taster can spot it.” Well, maybe not. But is that the point? Hey, if Barry Bonds hits the ball out of the park, who can deny that the ball actually did leave the park? (Yes, yes, I’ve spent long evenings with my redneck wine-geek friends chewing on topics like HGH, Photo Shop, Dolby sound, computers in academics, you name it.)
          Other practices (such as mechanical de-alcoholization, reverse osmos, and various applications of oak essence) seem to me in poor taste, or contrary to the spirit of fine wine, without necessarily triggering my “foul!” alarm. Still others, including chapitalization, irrigation, temperature-controlled fermentation and sterile filtration, may be considered unacceptable manipulations by some yet are already established beyond the point of practical debate.
          And then there’s the whole yeast thing—yikes, where do we start with that?
          So: Truth and beauty versus (or enhanced by) Voodoo vinemaking. Any thoughts?
Parents
  • This is an extremely interesting thread, one that I heard about this weekend and was excited to read.  Interesting points all around, however, I think that you are all missing a huge point - 99.9% of the wines in the world are manipulated.  Don't believe that?  Well, sorry to pull back the curtain on the wizard. They are simply no "natural wines"  Well, ok Gravner and Radikon. Whens the last time you drank more than a glass? The stakes are too huge, especially for the most high profile wines ie First Growth Bordeaux, Grand Cru Burg, the wines that you all think are pure. There is too much money at stake. Trust me, they dont tell these sort of things to sommeliers, but they do tell other winemakers, because they know they can't BS the people that know the tricks.

    In Rod's definition, chaptalization, acid additions watering back, etc are all manipulation.  Lets look at a so called manipulation - enzymes.  Why would a winemaker use this?  Because stress the vineyard, weather through site, low yield, deficit irrigation, etc causes low nitrogen levels in the grape. If you ferment with low nitrogen levels, you get slow sluggish fermentations resulting in off odor production ie H2S, VA, etc.  And this is especially important if you are using so called "native fermentations"  Dont even get me started on that one. (Unless you have been making wine in the same cellars for 20+ years, you dont have native yeast strains.  You end up fermenting on something like EC118 or Pasteur red that someone used a few years back.)  Try to pt that wine in the market and even the most hard core traditionalists will call it faulty.  Without going through all the additives, I will tell you that everyone uses something to some form. (Id be happy to write a blog about Joe's suggestions, outlining what all these things do.)  And the ones that you wouldn't suspect are the worst.  In Walla Walla, we had a very famous French consultant with a pedigree at some of the most famous Old World wineries.  The amount of additives I saw put in those wines was MIND BLOWING.  Where do you think he learned to use that?

    What I agree with is that if you are going to manipulate, however you define that, tell people that you do.  I'll start.

    At Gramercy, we use the following additives:

    cultured yeasts.  Why?  I want to know what is fermenting my wine.  Like I said, in a custom crush facility, native yeasts aren't strong enough to fight the commercial yeast used by other wineries.  Id rather ferment on D21, D80 instead of EC 118 or who knows what.

    Nutrients.  - Our soils are nitrogen deficient. We need DAP and superfood to prevent stuck, slow fermentations.

    Acid.  I used .5g/l on the Walla Walla Syrah in 2005. Only once.  Since then I instead top with cooler climate Columbia Valley Syrah and pick much earlier.

    Water.  I add water to many cuvees.  Why?  Because I don't want to make high alcohol wines.  I pick very early, but sometimes you still need 5 gallons of water or so to take the wines down a bit.  I see this as actually diluting a bit of flavor, or a lot of flavor, so you need to be more diligent in the vineyard.

    And that's all we add. Also, we pick extremely early.  I am almost always the first to pick a specific vineyard.  I dont pick on flavor.  Too late and too ripe by the time the grapes taste sweet.  We dont use much new oak - max 10% on Syrah, 30% on Cab.  Our wines are earthy and acid driven.  So what does this create?  It creates a HUGE uphill battle, one that few are willing to try to summit.  The general consumer doesn't get our wines.  They are too acidic and weird for the general consumer. They don't get 95+ points. So I work my ass off trying to get these wines into the market. (WHich I love, by the way) And the phase that totally drives me nuts and the reason for this post - when sommeliers say

    "I love these wines, but we just can't sell them."

    And there lies the problem, ladies and gentlemen of the wine world.  If you are going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk and stop buying wines "because they sell."  If you want to make a change, you have to start with your buying practices.  they game is exactly the same for the winery as well as the wine buyer.  They winery is trying to make a product that they are both happy with AND that they can sell.  And, for 99.9% of the restaurants/retailers, they are trying to create a list that customers will buy from.  We are all feeding the same demon.

    I lie awake at night wondering if I should change the style, it would sure be an easier life.  I'd get much higher scores, sell out quickly and worry a heck of a lot less. But my heart just tells me no.  I won't manipulate for higher alcohol, more fruit, etc.  I want pure and natural wines.  But we have to start seeing broad support for this in the market.  Or the guys that really want to make these wines will either give up or be forced to give up.

Comment
  • This is an extremely interesting thread, one that I heard about this weekend and was excited to read.  Interesting points all around, however, I think that you are all missing a huge point - 99.9% of the wines in the world are manipulated.  Don't believe that?  Well, sorry to pull back the curtain on the wizard. They are simply no "natural wines"  Well, ok Gravner and Radikon. Whens the last time you drank more than a glass? The stakes are too huge, especially for the most high profile wines ie First Growth Bordeaux, Grand Cru Burg, the wines that you all think are pure. There is too much money at stake. Trust me, they dont tell these sort of things to sommeliers, but they do tell other winemakers, because they know they can't BS the people that know the tricks.

    In Rod's definition, chaptalization, acid additions watering back, etc are all manipulation.  Lets look at a so called manipulation - enzymes.  Why would a winemaker use this?  Because stress the vineyard, weather through site, low yield, deficit irrigation, etc causes low nitrogen levels in the grape. If you ferment with low nitrogen levels, you get slow sluggish fermentations resulting in off odor production ie H2S, VA, etc.  And this is especially important if you are using so called "native fermentations"  Dont even get me started on that one. (Unless you have been making wine in the same cellars for 20+ years, you dont have native yeast strains.  You end up fermenting on something like EC118 or Pasteur red that someone used a few years back.)  Try to pt that wine in the market and even the most hard core traditionalists will call it faulty.  Without going through all the additives, I will tell you that everyone uses something to some form. (Id be happy to write a blog about Joe's suggestions, outlining what all these things do.)  And the ones that you wouldn't suspect are the worst.  In Walla Walla, we had a very famous French consultant with a pedigree at some of the most famous Old World wineries.  The amount of additives I saw put in those wines was MIND BLOWING.  Where do you think he learned to use that?

    What I agree with is that if you are going to manipulate, however you define that, tell people that you do.  I'll start.

    At Gramercy, we use the following additives:

    cultured yeasts.  Why?  I want to know what is fermenting my wine.  Like I said, in a custom crush facility, native yeasts aren't strong enough to fight the commercial yeast used by other wineries.  Id rather ferment on D21, D80 instead of EC 118 or who knows what.

    Nutrients.  - Our soils are nitrogen deficient. We need DAP and superfood to prevent stuck, slow fermentations.

    Acid.  I used .5g/l on the Walla Walla Syrah in 2005. Only once.  Since then I instead top with cooler climate Columbia Valley Syrah and pick much earlier.

    Water.  I add water to many cuvees.  Why?  Because I don't want to make high alcohol wines.  I pick very early, but sometimes you still need 5 gallons of water or so to take the wines down a bit.  I see this as actually diluting a bit of flavor, or a lot of flavor, so you need to be more diligent in the vineyard.

    And that's all we add. Also, we pick extremely early.  I am almost always the first to pick a specific vineyard.  I dont pick on flavor.  Too late and too ripe by the time the grapes taste sweet.  We dont use much new oak - max 10% on Syrah, 30% on Cab.  Our wines are earthy and acid driven.  So what does this create?  It creates a HUGE uphill battle, one that few are willing to try to summit.  The general consumer doesn't get our wines.  They are too acidic and weird for the general consumer. They don't get 95+ points. So I work my ass off trying to get these wines into the market. (WHich I love, by the way) And the phase that totally drives me nuts and the reason for this post - when sommeliers say

    "I love these wines, but we just can't sell them."

    And there lies the problem, ladies and gentlemen of the wine world.  If you are going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk and stop buying wines "because they sell."  If you want to make a change, you have to start with your buying practices.  they game is exactly the same for the winery as well as the wine buyer.  They winery is trying to make a product that they are both happy with AND that they can sell.  And, for 99.9% of the restaurants/retailers, they are trying to create a list that customers will buy from.  We are all feeding the same demon.

    I lie awake at night wondering if I should change the style, it would sure be an easier life.  I'd get much higher scores, sell out quickly and worry a heck of a lot less. But my heart just tells me no.  I won't manipulate for higher alcohol, more fruit, etc.  I want pure and natural wines.  But we have to start seeing broad support for this in the market.  Or the guys that really want to make these wines will either give up or be forced to give up.

Children
No Data