I have had several conversations in the past few weeks about flaws in wine.
Specifically the perception that natural wines are more flawed than processed wines.
Dagan from TerroirSF told me yesterday that he has a lower tolerance for flawed wines now than when he opened his natural wine bar.
The problem with wine flaws is that they are sometimes, but not always, in the eye of the beholder. As you will see from the flaws listed below, some wine drinkers like these characteristics, in moderation anyway.
And yes,undoubtedly, wines made naturally do have certain vulnerabilities. The grapes must be pristine and the wine cellars 'clean', at least from bacteria that will harm the wine. These natural winemakers know they can not fix a problem via chemical means, i.e. the additives listed below for manipulated wines.
In this context, I am using the term 'manipulated' interchangeably with 'processed'.
By that, I mean, wines that have started out in a vineyard managed via chemicals. From there the grapes move into a cellar where they are made into a consistent product by any means necessary. This might simply include lots of time in toasty new oak barrels and adding commercial yeast strains to impart specific flavors.
But we all know it can also include additions like oak powder, added acids and tannins to provide balance (since it was not achieved naturally), purple dyes for added color and generous lashings of sulfur, just in case.
I am not a sans soufre wine zealot (no added sulfites) by any means. But I do believe sulfur should be added judiciously and minimally. It should not be dumped into the wine simply because the grape and/or winemaking hygiene was not good enough.
It should not be used to cover winemaking flaws.
Natural wines do "walk the line'. They are full of personality, and can be incredibly exciting and gorgeous. They are the vinous equivalent of the sophisticated, world traveling aunt full of exotic stories at Thanksgiving. Definitely not the ruddy faced cousin who works in finance in Nebraska.
My point is that any wine can be prone to perceived or real faults. I have encountered every one of the below faults many times, in both natural and processed wines.
Common wine flaws, found in both natural and processed wines:
Corked wine or Trichloroanisole 2,4,6 TCA - can come from wine corks, barrels or wine cellar environment. Imparts wet cardboard and musty aromas
Brettanomyces yeast - Can be from wine cellar, barrels,and/or grapes. Imparts 'barnyard', gamy, horsey aromas. Some winelovers love these flavors in wine, in moderation, others hate it even in tiny amounts.
Cooked wine or Madeirization - Yep, wine that has had its temperature raised and therefore turns brown and rancid. Or nutty and delicious, depending on the wine. Madeira is a wonderful example of the latter.
Volatile Acidity - Acetic acid bacteria can be found in wine barrels, wine cellars and grape surfaces themselves. Imparts vinegar and even nail polish remover aromas and flavors.
Reduction - Wines made with as little oxygen contact as possible, imparts a rubber tire smell. These aromas can sometimes lessen with decanting.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Amy!
Nice post. I don't think that natural wines have more flaws
then processed wines. There are more and more natural
wines available today and like anything else, there are
great ones and there are bad ones. Just like bad processed
wines, bad natural wines will have flaws such as the ones
you list. Some of these "flaws" are in the eyes of the
beholder.
I personally feel that volatility is not a flaw and that
without it, a wine will seem less vibrant and less aromatic.
Of course, I have to state that there is good and
bad volatility. I don't want my wine to
smell like vinegar, but volatile aromas can be very
enticing.
I also don't feel that hints of "oxidation" (often
found in unsulfured wines) can add a certain element
to the wine's aromas that I personally find very interesting
and exciting. But of course there is a limit to this as
well and I have tasted too many natural wines that were
in my opinion too oxidized and that's when I consider
oxidation a flaw.
TCA is a flaw in any wine, processed or natural.
Bret is a personal thing. You either dig it or not.
Reduction is something that you can often find in both
processed and natural wines and can typically "burn" off
with a little air.
Personally, I also have a lower tolerance for flaws in wine
now that I drink natural wines. When I drink what many
consider a "quality" processed wine, I often find the
wine to be sterile. This too me is a serious flaw which
in a "quality" natural wine I do not find. In a quality
natural wine, I don't find sterility, rather vitality.
cheers!
If you really mean "a greater variety of possible flaws" as compared to "more often flawed", I would say no on both.
I suppose one could really question just what "flaw" means in reference to wine. A "mainstream" conventional definition would consider such things as brett and VA and any degree of oxidation as flaws. Actually they would probably consider some residual CO2, cloudiness, or sediment flaws also.
At least "natural" wines are alive. Most "flawless" polished commercial wines are also effectively dead. That's a big flaw in my book.
I personally see most manipulations as flaws.
So really by my definition, the vast majority of
commercially "correct" wines are actually flawed.
According to most health inspectors, fast food chains don't serve flawed food, however in my
estimation that's all they serve. I am unwilling to let
the biggest offenders define what is good and what has flaws.
I think the crux of the matter here is the definition of 'flaw'. Often it's the people/companies with the biggest mouths (read 'marketing budget') who get to de facto define these terms. Apart from 'flaw', a good example would be the word 'quality'. It's now generally taken to mean what 'industry' wants it to mean, ie that a product has passed a series of tests. For example, oranges: chromo-spectrographic test to see if its the 'correct' shade of orange, dimensional test, to see if the diameter is 'correct', etc, etc, and lastly a little sticker; all of these tests really have nothing to do with 'quality' and say nothing on whether its going to taste nice and be juicy! They just mean that the product has complied with a number of arbitrary functional specifications! Maybe there is even a machine that detects blemishes in the skin where the orange has been rubbing against a branch, and calls that a 'flaw' when in fact it has no impact on the taste or quality at all!!!
As Vinosseur says, many so-called 'flaws' have been defined away from us.
While my tolerance for flaw has lessened, my appreciation has increased. Some wines such as Syrah, when affected by brett, can hold up to it. However, on pinot noir, I find it disgusting. Even the dreaded VA (volatile acidity), in a wine like Magma, doesn't bother me -- but on certain cab francs, it is all too intrusive. I guess beauty is still the province of the beholder, and isn't that nice?
Post a Comment