The British/American Divide Over Natural Wine

In London last week it was all natural all the time.

Wine wise.

The city and restaurants rolled out the reception, reinforcing their wine lists with natural stuff. The red carpet unfurled, yet under the carpet hid trouble. Lurking was a demon, wild, sometimes oxidative, sometimes delicious and some times undefinable wines that came not in three colors but four, and one of them was perceived as brown instead of orange.

Natural wine bashing has become something of a sport in the world and in the United States over the past few years,  but on my home turf there isn't this volume of outrage. However, across the pond, some of the British press was obsessed with chopping off a serpents head, or at least dosing it with sulfur. Several posts popped up, some pro and some con some hedging. 

One columnist admitted he liked some of the wines,  but his readers weren't ready for them. On Monday afternoon, in response to that, his colleague, a smiling and happy Fiona Beckett said almost with almost triumphant rebellion, "Look around you. I think that the consumer is far more ready for these wines than our wine writers." 

It was hard not to notice that 800 people jammed the consumer day, willing to spend 18 pounds a pop for the experience. The atmosphere was charged. This was a be-in. This had the hope and spunk of long ago. But yet, some were scowling. 

 In my presentation on Sunday, there were a few who came to challenge not to converse. That was okay. One local wine writer was dominating,  trying to focus on flaws. The next day flaws were again the focus at Doug Wregg's presentation on how to sell the wines to restaurants. There, wine writer Margaret Rand,  pirated the conversation. Flaws once again. She admitted that there some lovely wines out there but there were too many that were wrong: she pointed to oxidative flavors and aromas. Flawed beyond redemption. I would have rather the response was, "There are those nuts outside loving these wines, but they're flawed. I don't get it. Can you explain where you find the charm here?" But instead they were simply wrong and flawed and I supposed, needed to be deported. Kidding aside, the woman was so upset, it was as if her whole life and study was upended. And that was the problem. It probably was and it probably will me.

London has more MWs per inch or those chasing WSET exams than  New York has barristas. The city is wine education's nervous system and the nexus of wine education denies the existence of wines made without or with low sulfur. And so they are wrong. Yet people love them. It was that simple. It might well mess with some heads and be terribly provocative.

Wine training dictates that there is a right and wrong way for a wine to taste. Where some of us believe a wine smothered in New Oak or even overly stirred lees is 'flawed' by the nature of its manipulation, and ruins the taste of the wine or normal amounts of sulfur, are flaws, the thusly trained MS or MW, is taught to reject the smell and taste of oxidation (nuts, orange peels)  in even small amounts as part of the general wine picture. They reject perceived volatile acidity (nail polish, cider)as well as any trace of brett (sheepiness). Cloudy wines? Don't go there. A fourth color of wine? Impossible. However, to 'those of us,'  these are elements and do not overwhelm the wine, well, terrific.  

 Later that after noon I met Jancis Robinson for a drink at the Wine Wharf. She apologized for the lackluster list, "There are so many beautiful wines over on the other side of the road," she said. What strikes me consistently about Jancis is that her curiosity about wine, and her love for wine, is palpable, after a lovely and long career. 

Compounding the scene was that while a swell of natural appreciation has been happening a slow yet consistent stateside, the UK had a different experience. Jancis said, "We really didn't know about these wines until a year ago." This wasn't entirely true of course, but perhaps a year ago, these wines weren't 'natural' they were just wines. Now that they have a name,  there was a horror, a fascination as a perceived Trojan Horse named vin naturel  was pulled over the London Bridge and stood up in Borough Market both threatening the etablishment and charming the public, and some of the writers.

More posts on London coming up.

(warning, written on train to Boston, this post will be improved and amended in coming days) 

Comments

[Louisehurren]

Alice, really nice to talk to you at the Natural Wine Fair, I was encouraged to see so many smiling faces when we met on the first trade day. Hope it becomes an annual fixture and encourages more (informed, reasoned) debate. Best, Louise

[Arnold Waldstein]

Hi Alice.

We don't know each other but I'm a passionate Natural Wine lover living in NYC and a fan of yours for a long while.

Thanks for this post.

I've spent much of the last week on various London newspaper comment strings trying to put a reasonable point of view on the rather astutely stupid attitudes of many of the British press, especially the wine press.

BTW..this is who I am:

http://arnoldwaldstein.com/wine

These represent what I believe about this endless polemic and why I think a big change is coming:

Natural wines... a perfect storm of social change for the wine world http://t.co/4pERC2P

Natural winemaking…a taste revolution whose time has come http://t.co/9LR53nu

Thanks for riding herd on this important and annoyingly aggravating debate.

Arnold

[Pauldgordon]

Really interested to taste more Natural wines but my beef is if it is a natural wine would it not naturally smell and taste of grapes instead of apples and orange rind? You have to now the chemistry first if you want to muck around at the edges http://winechakra.blogspot.com/

[Vinos Ambiz]

I've always found it 'interesting' (shall we say) that almost all reviews and commentries in the mainstream press of 'conventional' wines are positive, if not gushing, while the focus when writing about 'natural wines' is on the alleged faults. I wonder why that is:
- lazy unprofessional journalist hasn't bothered to actually sample a range of natural wines, and has just regurgitated the words of another lazy unprofessional journalist?
- need to produce sensational headlines to sell more newspapers?
- need to be clever and have a laugh at the expense of a fringe group which is not understood and/or feared?
- all of the above? other reasons?

[Alicefeiring]

Arnold, thanks for introducing yourself. I agree, a metaphor for social change.

[Alicefeiring]

Paul, apples and orange rind? Ever have lovely Chenin? There's a world of flavors out there to discover.

[Lionel Nierop]

Alice.

You say that:

'the thusly trained MS or MW, is taught to reject the smell and taste of oxidation (nuts, orange peels) in even small amounts as part of the general wine picture. They reject perceived volatile acidity (nail polish, cider)as well as any trace of brett (sheepiness).'

and seem to cite Margaret Rand as the evidence for this. My experience is that characteristics which technically count as flaws are viewed in an overall context. I.e. does the presence of brett, VA or oxidation add to the wine or detract from it.

One swallow does not a summer make and by taking one person's view as evidence of broader attitudes within the trade, I would suggest you seriously risk alienating those who might otherwise approach 'natural wines' with an open mind and thus the movement's long-term prospects within the wider wine world.

[Alicefeiring]

Lionel,

First off, I am not sure at all what Ms. Rand's training is or was, but I am fairly sure she is not an MW, otherwise she'd use those initials after her name. However, the strength of her reaction did help me to draw my theory. I am not basing this post on one person's reaction but from a great number of conversations I've had with WSET and MW's wherever they may live. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, the program teaches wine flaws and trains people to identify them, many that exist happily in the natural wine world.

So, this observation, right or wrong, was distilled after reading and discussing over the years but crystallized by the level of her affront. I can also include winemaking training. Here's a quote from Andrew Waterhouse, Professor and Chair of the Department of Viticulture and Enology at UC Davis, during a USDA hearing requesting that the American Organic wine law, that presently does not allow sulfur, be rescinded.

"Without sulfites, wine is extremely perishable and should be refrigerated for its entire 1 year life cycle between harvests, and from winery to consumer. Unfortunately this is impossible in today's national wine distribution system. 

So, wines made without sulfites, especially the white wines, continue to show serious flaws. I am convinced that these persistent flaws are the reason the organic wine market is minuscule and will continue to be so."

(you can read the whole story here. http://blog.wblakegray.com/2011/05/sulfites-in-organic-wine-update.html)

Thanks for you comment. I am not sure what there was to be gained in holding my observation and my thoughts, is it not something interesting to think about?

[Lionel Nierop]

Alice,

My mistake - I'd understood you to say that Ms Rand falls in to the MW/MS camp you say are 'bashing' natural wines.

As regards the quote from Andrew Waterhouse, his point is simply that wines made without sulphites will oxidise. Presumably, if a wine maker is seeking to express a place or grape in their wines, then oxidation will mask this and is undesirable?

For what it's worth, my impression is that most of the (UK) trade accept 'flaws' in many cases - undoubtedly brett and VA can add to a wine. Ultimately, just as with oak, alcohol and acidity, balance is the watch-word. Musar is a good example (showing VA and brett), along with many Rhone wines and some notable Aussie examples e.g. Henschke's reds which tend to show some earthy/savoury brett characters. I certainly struggle to recognise the black/white divide you describe.

Not withstanding our differences of opinion, thank you for an interesting post.