[Drinking] Natural wines

[Goldstone1976]

This is all I need to know.

Amusing contribution, and thanks for the compliment.

However, I would observe that [MENTION=30352]McTavish[/MENTION] clearly knows his stuff. He has a somewhat different opinion to me and is, imo, worth listening to (you might, but I won't. Obviously.)

 

[Goldstone1976]

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... quite so!

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.

How about this: give me a recommendation of a natural by design wine that you think I might like, and I'll try it and report back? Budget: South of £100. As we both know, that's plenty big enough to get a truly brilliant wine if you know what you're doing, so I assume it's true for natural by design wines too.

 

[Machiavelli]

How about this: give me a recommendation of a natural by design wine that you think I might like, and I'll try it and report back? Budget: South of £100. As we both know, that's plenty big enough to get a truly brilliant wine if you know what you're doing, so I assume it's true for natural by design wines too.

I'd recommend the fancy whites from Roches Neuves range. One or two of his small production reds stood out too, but I can't remember which (and I only tasted the then current vintage). One word of caution: I'm aware that there's always a romanticisation when in situ. While we're in this turf, Coulee de Serrant tend to get rave reviews -- don't know if you've tried their wines (I arranged to visit them to, and turned up, but couldn't find them -- I quite like that, it was a nice place to visit on route).

 

[Goldstone1976]

I'd recommend the fancy whites from Roches Neuves range. One or two of his small production reds stood out too, but I can't remember which (and I only tasted the then current vintage). One word of caution: I'm aware that there's always a romanticisation when in situ. While we're in this turf, Coulee de Serrant tend to get rave reviews -- don't know if you've tried their wines (I arranged to visit them to, and turned up, but couldn't find them -- I quite like that, it was a nice place to visit on route).

Yes, I do plan to try that as I saw your earlier recommendation - thanks. I'm keen to get a recommendation from McTavish as his attitude to natural by design wines seems to be more generally positive than yours.

 

[McTavish]

How about this: give me a recommendation of a natural by design wine that you think I might like, and I'll try it and report back? Budget: South of £100. As we both know, that's plenty big enough to get a truly brilliant wine if you know what you're doing, so I assume it's true for natural by design wines too.

I am not an evangelist for Natural wine - I don't like the term and I don't like many of the wines - so don't have a stream of names ready to go. I am just probably slightly more open to them than some.

First I would recommend Esprit Nature form Henri Giraud Champagne. They are not natural extremists their motto is "Let nothing be banned, nothing mandatory; simply make good wine naturally," but their entry level wine is both philosphically and technically natural with less than 20mg/l of total sulphur.

I know more about South African wine than anything else so Testalongo springs to mind. Their Chenin called "I Am The Ninja" is excellent and for something a little more unusual (but still good) try their "El Bandito Mangaliza" which is made from Hárslevelű.

For the more bargain end of things, have a look at Waterkloof in South Africa. They make wine naturally with no additions at all apart from a small amount of SO2 on bottling. I am fairly certain that many of them remain below the "natural" limit and they are certainly made naturally with wild yeats, no enzymes etc. Their Sauvignon Blancs are good and the have a wine called Circle of Life White which was excellent last time I tasted it a couple of years ago..

From Beaujolais Daniel Bolund is the business. Again he adds a little SO2 on bottling to keep things stable.

I think the main divide in philosophy is between those who routinely use a bit of sulphur on bottling (whilst still remaining within or close to the generally accepted limits for total sulphur) and those who don't and are willing to accept that their wines often oxidise or suffer from bacterial spoilage because "that's natural". I am firmly in the use-sulphur-but-as-little-as-practical camp.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I am not an evangelist for Natural wine - I don't like the term and I don't like many of the wines - so don't have a stream of names ready to go. I am just probably slightly more open to them than some.

First I would recommend Esprit Nature form Henri Giraud Champagne. They are not natural extremists their motto is "Let nothing be banned, nothing mandatory; simply make good wine naturally," but their entry level wine is both philosphically and technically natural with less than 20mg/l of total sulphur.

I know more about South African wine than anything else so Testalongo springs to mind. Their Chenin called "I Am The Ninja" is excellent and for something a little more unusual (but still good) try their "El Bandito Mangaliza" which is made from Hárslevelű.

For the more bargain end of things, have a look at Waterkloof in South Africa. They make wine naturally with no additions at all apart from a small amount of SO2 on bottling. I am fairly certain that many of them remain below the "natural" limit and they are certainly made naturally with wild yeats, no enzymes etc. Their Sauvignon Blancs are good and the have a wine called Circle of Life White which was excellent last time I tasted it a couple of years ago..

From Beaujolais Daniel Bolund is the business. Again he adds a little SO2 on bottling to keep things stable.

I think the main divide in philosophy is between those who routinely use a bit of sulphur on bottling (whilst still remaining within or close to the generally accepted limits for total sulphur) and those who don't and are willing to accept that their wines often oxidise or suffer from bacterial spoilage because "that's natural". I am firmly in the use-sulphur-but-as-little-as-practical camp.

Many thanks for the recommendations. I'll get a couple - probably "Ninja", Bolund, and Giraud - and report back...

 

[Goldstone1976]

[MENTION=30352]McTavish[/MENTION] [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION]

Don’t you just hate it when proven (on a sample size of one, I hasten to add) mistaken?

I received a free bottle of Giraud Esprit Nature champagne (as recommended by McT) in the post and have just drunk it. I have not looked it up.

Tasting notes:

Bright, clear, greeny gold.
Effervescent mousse, fine (very fine) bubbles.
Nose: yeast, complex, green plum
Palate: apple, huge minerality (not flinty really, more limestone), a touch of sweet red fruit (suggesting >50% Pinot), very clean, distinct terroir characteristics. Decent, but not seriously impressive, length.
Estimated price: £55
Score: 92

A very pleasant, distinct wine. Would very happily drink it.

Bugger.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

[MENTION=30352]McTavish[/MENTION] [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION]

Don’t you just hate it when proven (on a sample size of one, I hasten to add) mistaken?

I received a free bottle of Giraud Esprit Nature champagne (as recommended by McT) in the post and have just drunk it. I have not looked it up.

Tasting notes:

Bright, clear, greeny gold.
Effervescent mousse, fine (very fine) bubbles.
Nose: yeast, complex, green plum
Palate: apple, huge minerality (not flinty really, more limestone), a touch of sweet red fruit (suggesting >50% Pinot), very clean, distinct terroir characteristics. Decent, but not seriously impressive, length.
Estimated price: £55
Score: 92

A very pleasant, distinct wine. Would very happily drink it.

Bugger.

I admire your ability to spell effervescent after drinking a bottle of champagne.

Out of interest (and complete ignorance of this beyond regularly buying a £10 shiraz that I think is the bee's knees), is the score you're giving these wines entirely personal, or is there a supposedly universal basis to it?

 

[Goldstone1976]

I admire your ability to spell effervescent after drinking a bottle of champagne.

Out of interest (and complete ignorance of this beyond regularly buying a £10 shiraz that I think is the bee's knees), is the score you're giving these wines entirely personal, or is there a supposedly universal basis to it?

It’s based on a specific, hugely influential (and divisive) wine critic: Robert Parker.

In reality, it’s a 20-25 point range, since anything under 75-80 is (to a wine snob like me - and him - undrinkable). Other critics use a 20 point system for this reason (though I haven’t seen a score of under about 11 or 12, meaning that they use ‘0.5’s to differentiate.

My score of 92 reflects my opinion of the wine, using Parker’s scoring system.

I find that my scores closely match his for Rhône, Californian, Oz, and (yes) champagne. But not for most other regions.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

It’s based on a specific, hugely influential (and divisive) wine critic: Robert Parker.

In reality, it’s a 20-25 point range, since anything under 75-80 is (to a wine snob like me - and him - undrinkable). Other critics use a 20 point system for this reason (though I haven’t seen a score of under about 11 or 12, meaning that they use ‘0.5’s to differentiate.

My score of 92 reflects my opinion of the wine, using Parker’s scoring system.

I find that my scores closely match his for Rhône, Californian, Oz, and (yes) champagne. But not for most other regions.

Thanks, that's genuinely interesting. I've just looked this up, and on the Robert Parker website it seems to go from "Average" at 80 to "very good" at 89, does that mean that any wine above 80 is worth at least trying? Put another way, what score represents a positive recommendation?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Thanks, that's genuinely interesting. I've just looked this up, and on the Robert Parker website it seems to go from "Average" at 80 to "very good" at 89, does that mean that any wine above 80 is worth at least trying? Put another way, what score represents a positive recommendation?

For me, I’d say a minimum of 86-87. But that’s me...

 

[McTavish]

[MENTION=30352]McTavish[/MENTION] [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION]

Don’t you just hate it when proven (on a sample size of one, I hasten to add) mistaken?

I received a free bottle of Giraud Esprit Nature champagne (as recommended by McT) in the post and have just drunk it. I have not looked it up.

Tasting notes:

Bright, clear, greeny gold.
Effervescent mousse, fine (very fine) bubbles.
Nose: yeast, complex, green plum
Palate: apple, huge minerality (not flinty really, more limestone), a touch of sweet red fruit (suggesting >50% Pinot), very clean, distinct terroir characteristics. Decent, but not seriously impressive, length.
Estimated price: £55
Score: 92

A very pleasant, distinct wine. Would very happily drink it.

Bugger.

Glad you enjoyed it. It generally retails at about £40 - £45 and I think is exceptional value at that price.

It should be noted that a small amount of sulphur is added on bottling so it is not an extreme no-added-sulphur-at-all wine.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Glad you enjoyed it. It generally retails at about £40 - £45 and I think is exceptional value at that price.

It should be noted that a small amount of sulphur is added on bottling so it is not an extreme no-added-sulphur-at-all wine.

It’s exceptional value at that price.

Noted.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Very interesting exchange of posts regarding the Giraud Esprit Nature. I’ll keep an eye out for it...Berlin is becoming more and more natural so I will need a list of go-tos if I’m able to successfully navigate the evolving restaurant landscape.

As an aside, after being scared off natural wines I have since tried Drappier Brut Natur which was perfectly acceptable to me...and very very dry. I have no idea about Drappier but I’d be interested to hear any thoughts.

[MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION] I think it’s fair to say you have an exceptional and sensitive palate. How did this come about? I’m guessing there’s some element of training? Is it just years of experience at the wine glass or something more formal?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Very interesting exchange of posts regarding the Giraud Esprit Nature. I’ll keep an eye out for it...Berlin is becoming more and more natural so I will need a list of go-tos if I’m able to successfully navigate the evolving restaurant landscape.

As an aside, after being scared off natural wines I have since tried Drappier Brut Natur which was perfectly acceptable to me...and very very dry. I have no idea about Drappier but I’d be interested to hear any thoughts.

[MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION] I think it’s fair to say you have an exceptional and sensitive palate. How did this come about? I’m guessing there’s some element of training? Is it just years of experience at the wine glass or something more formal?

The Drappier you mention is zero dosage (no added sugar) - that accounts for its dryness. I recall racing citrus and good minerality, but would have to check my notes for more detail.

I’d describe my palate as ‘very good for an amateur/semi pro’. In golfing terms, perhaps a handicap of 6-ish. I’d do well in a blind tasting of amateurs, but taken apart by the pros. Except if it was Syrah, where I fancy I’d hold my own.

You absolutely can improve your skills by experience. The more you taste, the better you get (‘the more I practice the luckier I am’ applies as much here as it does to any technical subject or playing an instrument) - providing one retains focus and discipline in tasting. You have to maintain concentration.

However, I also think that having some natural skill helps. No matter how much I practised I’d still be shit at playing football.

In my case, I’d put any expertise I have down to 60% practice, 10% reading, 20% learning from others (one of my tasting groups has two MWs in it), and 10% formal training - I’ve completed two courses (sort of A level/undergrad standard).

It’s interesting (to me) - for what is a subjective subject, there’s a high degree of consensus about both what constitutes a good wine and on the relative merits/demerits of a particular wine.

I find it endlessly fascinating. To create a compelling wine the maker has to master farming, meteorology, and biochemistry, as well as having the skill to predict how the flavours will change post-bottling. On top of all that, they have to be an artist/craftsman too. It’s hugely complex. One mistake in any area can potentially ruin what would otherwise have been a magnificent wine.

Added to which, it all changes annually - next year’s harvest will be different to this.

 

[McTavish]

As an aside, after being scared off natural wines I have since tried Drappier Brut Natur which was perfectly acceptable to me...and very very dry. I have no idea about Drappier but I’d be interested to hear any thoughts.

As G1976 implies "Brut Nature" is nothing to do with it being a natural wine, it is an indication of how much sugar has been added (or not added in this case).

 

[Goldstone1976]

As G1976 implies "Brut Nature" is nothing to do with it being a natural wine, it is an indication of how much sugar has been added (or not added in this case).

Yep.

I was being gentle in correcting HT. He’s a touchy devil, easily riled...

 

[Machiavelli]

[MENTION=30352]McTavish[/MENTION] [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION]

Don’t you just hate it when proven (on a sample size of one, I hasten to add) mistaken?

I received a free bottle of Giraud Esprit Nature champagne (as recommended by McT) in the post and have just drunk it. I have not looked it up.

Tasting notes:

Bright, clear, greeny gold.
Effervescent mousse, fine (very fine) bubbles.
Nose: yeast, complex, green plum
Palate: apple, huge minerality (not flinty really, more limestone), a touch of sweet red fruit (suggesting >50% Pinot), very clean, distinct terroir characteristics. Decent, but not seriously impressive, length.
Estimated price: £55
Score: 92

A very pleasant, distinct wine. Would very happily drink it.

Bugger.

I actually like it when I'm proved wrong and, when applied to wine, it makes for a more pleasurable intake.
I remain open yet still underwhelmed on natural wine. That is an improvement on my position two years ago and I found McTavish's explanation persuasive, especially the punk analogy, which has made me more curious. In no small part, this is because the natural wine movement may be bringing wine closer back to its roots. Part of this is about French prejudice against globalisation -- international grape varieties, scientific winemaking, Parker's palate and daft point scoring , etc -- and about emphasising difference. When put like that, isn't the natural wine movement just highlighting wine's greatest strength?

 

[Machiavelli]

Very interesting exchange of posts regarding the Giraud Esprit Nature. I’ll keep an eye out for it...Berlin is becoming more and more natural so I will need a list of go-tos if I’m able to successfully navigate the evolving restaurant landscape.

As an aside, after being scared off natural wines I have since tried Drappier Brut Natur which was perfectly acceptable to me...and very very dry. I have no idea about Drappier but I’d be interested to hear any thoughts.

[MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION] I think it’s fair to say you have an exceptional and sensitive palate. How did this come about? I’m guessing there’s some element of training? Is it just years of experience at the wine glass or something more formal?

My view is G1976 is being characteristically modest in his response to this. He's set the task of being exposed to what Withnail was after and, from where I'm perched, has pretty much succeeded on that front. This isn't just down to the quality of wines imbibed, but also down to that willingness to keep learning, and also those he drinks/tastes wine with. On that night we bumped into each other in 4&C, I'd given him a wine blind, and he got the grape, area and producer, and that indicates to me that he knows his onions, and wine.
When I worked in the biz, my palate was a lot sharper than it is now and that's in large part because I'd regularly try wines blind. Doing this forces you to concentrate and -- returning to the point I began with in my previous post -- forces you to reflect on the mistakes you make. Understandably, many people want to relax and not give that focus when drinking/trying wine, but that's the best way to improve your palate and understanding. I don't think G1976 mentioned the blind tasting point, but I'd say that's probably the best way to learn. When it comes down to it, there aren't that many elements to focus on in wine tasting (colour, smell, fruit, tannin, acidity, mouthfeel) so it's not as difficult to start doing as many imagine.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Jay on top form today

https://www.theguardian.com/food/20...l-2-london-brave-and-compelling-and-delicious

“a short list of low-intervention wines that could do with a little more intervention.”

“To drink there was indeed wine, of a sort. I’ve already moaned about it, but I’ll do so again. It’s a list written by fans of natural wines so ardent, so committed, they’ve probably been to all the gigs, bought the T-shirts, and then scribbled love letters to them with little hearts to dot all the ‘i’s. A gewürztraminer, at £49, is a whacking 14% and smells of filthy farmyard. It’s cloudy to start and completely opaque at the bottom, like Dyno-Rod had just been in to clear a blockage and wants to show you what the problem was. It also means the cheapest bottle is £28 and much of the list is over £40. It’s odd because food prices, at between £5 and £19 a dish, are thoroughly reasonable. Yeah, I know. I clearly don’t like the wines.”