Guides

Articles

Media

E-Learning

Resources

Community

Explore

The Elephant in the Cellar

Rod Smith

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?

  • 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.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous

    I would argue that there are to factors that are in play here that need to be focused on.  The first is that in this forum we as a group are fundamentally aware of the manipulation of wine in order to create a product that the market "demands", the general public is either not aware or chooses to remain  oblivious.  Second, the business of making wine and being profitable at it in turn directs many producers to pay heed to the market versus the terroir.

    I was approached recently at a dinner party by the host and they asked me to be honest about their choice of wine.  The host, knowing my profession said, "I sorry about the wine, I just do not know which ones are good."  My response was, "  There are no bad wines, there are just wines that are made differently."  While at one  point I was attempting to be diplomatic I think the the comment had poignancy when it comes to the fact that as a whole most people are unaware of the practices involved. I for one think that listing the ingredients on the label may seem the only way to introduce the practice to the public at large, but I think that it would be detrimental to the image of wine and the ability to charge a premium for wines.  Even though the practice exists does a large portion of the customer base care?  I would argue no.

    A call from my sister last thanksgiving gives a little glimmer as to the power of the market.  She was in the wine aisle of the supermarket and had already selected her wines. She wanted to know if the wines that she had chosen we "good" (again this notion of good or bad wines).  Before she could mention what she had purchased I said to her,  "you have a chardonnay and a red wine and they have cute animal on the label."  Her response, "yes, how did you.."  I interrupted, "Then sis you have the right wine for you."  The power of the market at play.    Producers need to stay in business and if that means using the cute cuddly critter marketing and producing wine that is adulterated to meet market tastes than that is what they will do.

    I think that for right now keeping the elephant in the closet is best.  I feel it is our job as sommeliers to take these "market tastes" and lead the customer away from their comfort zone.  

    Now should a wine that is manipulated falsely claim that it is expression of terroir.  Perhaps labeling could be the answer, but not the ingredients. We have "Estate" on labels why not something similar for those that choose not to manipulate?

  •                Interesting comments and observations, all. Thanks for joining in.

    However, the discussion is a little off the track I had in mind, and I’d like to see if we can reset it slightly—assuming anyone’s interested in continuing. If not, we can drop it. If so, allow me to restate a few things.

    First off, several of you have assumed that the phrase elephant in the cellar refers to the kind of high-alc fruit bomb that embodies the current red wine paradigm. You could read it that way, but it’s not what I meant. I’m using the phrase elephant in the room (cellar) in the classic sense, as a metaphor for a significant issue that begs to be addressed and yet is ignored.

    A number of you have eloquently made the point that winemaking is, by definition, the manipulation of raw fruit into an alcoholic beverage. Quite so, but there’s more to it than that. This particular alcoholic beverage has drawn a lot of really smart and discerning people (we can all agree on that, right?) into a nearly fanatical interest and devotion. Why is that?

    I maintain that it’s primarily due to a mystical connection with the Cosmos and Mother Nature (and a nice buzz, of course). That’s implicit in all wines, and explicit in wines meant to represent appellations, estates, and vineyards—terroir-driven wines, if I may be excused a rare use of that loaded term.

    Here in the first decade of the 21st century, many producers are practicing techniques and using additives that threaten to exceed the parameters of honesty, if not basic decency, of winemaking. How many producers? That’s hard to say because it’s all very secretive. The top manipulation consulting companies, Enologix and Vinovation, each claim thousands of customers, but they operate under strict non-disclosure rules. Commercial wine labs offer similar consultation and products (for example, check the url provided by Matt Stamp, above) but they, too, operate under the Cone of Silence. And it’s no secret that wine-altering substances like Mega Purple are very profitable products.

    I’ve mentioned Mega Purple several times because it embodies the controversy. Derived from grapes, it’s technically a natural substance (a form of grape concentrate). And yet its effects are, to many observors, unnatural.

    Now, I don’t have a problem with deepening the color, sweetening the palate, and smoothing the texture of a vin ordinaire. Wine is a commercial product, after all, and it’s incumbent on the producer to provide good value to the customer, often with fruit that leaves something to be desired. As Enologix president Leo McClosky remarked in the LA Times (see above), “When you can’t create value in the vineyard, you have no choice but to create it in the winery.” Fair enough, I say.

    On the other hand, those effects change the basic must in ways that could be considered to cross the line between honest winemaking and fabrication. That might be okay for ordinary table wine, but what about for wines presented as natural expressions of geography—the kind of wines that presumably lured all of us to immerse ourselves in the wine world?

    I would say that attempting to market a wine as terroir-driven creates a responsibility to limit manipulations in the cellar to those which do not alter the essential nature of the wine. And it doesn’t matter whether we can taste the manipulations or not—it’s a matter of principle.

    Or not? Some of your comments sound like maybe you don’t care if it’s real Chablis or faux Chablis, as long as its in the sensory ballpark for Chablis.

    Care to discuss this further, or move on to something more exciting?

    By the way, have you tried diluting a California chardonnay with mineral water? It really does kind of taste like Chablis!

  • This is a terrific discussion.  

    I agree with Cristof.  What about the average wine drinker?  They are our guests.  I believe that they do actually care that a wine is made from organically grown grapes, hand-picked with love, or biodynamically farmed.   But do they really care when they drink a wine?  If the wine has the profile that they gravitate towards, does the guest care if the wine is an elephant or not.   Manipulation in wine is like the a chef making green beans taste sublime.    

    Last summer I spent six weeks in Beijing serving wine to dignitaries during the 2008 Beijing games.   I learned that since there is no regulations for wine authenticity in China, the wine that said "Made in China" could have been manufactured in China with juice from Chile.    I found these finished wines to be disjointed, unbalanced and unappetizing.  The Chinese thought the wine was terrific.  Who is correct?

    Technology can be an asset.   Stainless steel tanks in wineries, Cryovac machines in kitchens.  Is micro-ox a positive or negative advancement?    

    But when I drink wine, I want the wine to be a pure expression of a time, a place and a person who made the choice to put the wine into a bottle.  

  • Like trends and fashions, many wine manipulations will pass in and out of favor.  And as climate change presents new challenges to winemakers all over the globe, we may see an upswing in manipulation so that they can contiue to produce the wines the consumer has become accustomed to.  Throughout history, wine has been one of the most "messed with" consumables, and will contiune to be so.  Let's not get behind more labeling requirements or restrictive laws...those can pose dangerous precedents and are hard to retract once their relavance wains.

    On the other hand, as I taste new world wines, I am finding more, not less, restraint in winemaking styles.  The desire to produce wines that are elegant and food-friendly are themes that recur time and time again when I meet with winery owners and winemakers alike.  I think our primary role as those with educated palates should be to promote wines from quality producers.  We are the lucky few who can decern the elephants and help others avoid them.

App Store Google Play
© 2025 GuildSomm

Join to continue reading.

GuildSomm members enjoy exclusive access to educational content, classes, and a robust professional network. If you're a wine professional, GuildSomm is for you! Our members represent every facet of the industry and stage of a beverage career.

Join now