8 ms·

On the Nature of Wine

57 points by Turukawa 9y ago

barrkel 9y ago
I don't expect this article to give rise to insightful commentary; articles on wine invariably have two kinds of commenters, the dismissives and the aesthetes, and they usually talk past one another. The dismissives mention things like blind taste testers not being able to distinguish red from white or blind tasters preferring cheap wine to expensive. Look into this a bit further, and you find that the first study was actually about phrases used to describe wine falling into two categories, one associated with reds and another associated with whites, and the colour of the wine appeared to be the distinguishing factor in which set of phraseology was chosen; while the second has curious echoes of Coke vs Pepsi leading to New Coke. Small samples don't give the full effect of a wine, wine will taste different when you have it with different food, or in a different order compared with other wines, on a cold palate vs a warm palate (i.e. is this your first taste of alcohol of the evening - first is usually harshest), or straight out of the bottle vs aerated, and indeed it'll taste different depending on what you think the relative price is - especially so if you have fewer other criteria to judge it with. I'm on the aesthetes' side. I'm far from an expert, and only drink about 20 bottles a year, but when I do it's either in a taste test situation, or as paired wines in a tasting menu, or vintages selected from appellations and grapes chosen for their typical character. I wish I could find whites that taste like reds, but I dislike almost all unaccompanied whites, with some exceptions around sauternes, some Rieslings, Gewürztraminer, etc.; and I wish I could find cheap reds that taste like intense Cote Rotie syrah or savoury Burgundy pinot noir, but the same grapes grown elsewhere come nowhere close. Most New World syrah / shiraz is too alcoholic, while pinot noir is a completely different beast when it's grown in too sunny a climate. Slovenia has come closest to making some decent Burgundy-style pinot noir to my taste. My point being that the "hierarchy" in wine is, to my mind, at least a local optimum or close to it. Within the appellations that I prefer most, I've observed a reasonably strong correlation between price and my preferences. I think winemakers have been doing a kind of local gradient ascent as technology improves their product - it would be unusual for them to do otherwise - and the argument that preservatives etc. improve ageing ability as well as transport is fairly strong to my mind, as my preferred vintages are usually not younger than 4 years. I'm not big on fresh fruit flavours. I would expect "natural" wines to have higher variance (though unblended wine has a fairly high variance between vintages already). If the winemaker is good, and the product is good in spite of less ability to control the end product, great; whether such wine could survive hanging around Amazon's warehouses and reaching customers in good condition, I'm less convinced - I've had bad tawny port from Amazon, it takes some effort to make such a hardy product go bad. So all in, I think this article is mostly a marketing effort for the few winemakers who think they can create a decent product following the schtick; I don't think it's likely to actually produce a significantly better product; I don't buy that the existing hierarchy is particularly wrong (but it is warped by big money in things like Bordeaux, for sure); and I don't think I'll be inclined to buy more natural wine since I think the probability it turns out mediocre is much higher.
- onion2k 9y ago
  Within the appellations that I prefer most, I've observed a reasonably strong correlation between price and my preferences. That's often true up to a point. There are fixed overheads with any retail product so if you spend $8 on a bottle of wine you're really getting $2 worth of wine and $6 worth of logistics, retail margin, etc. If you spend $12 on a bottle of wine you're getting $6 worth of wine, and the same $6 worth of logistics, margin, etc. A 50% increase in price but a 300% increase in 'product cost'. However, at the top end of retail wine the difference in product cost between a $200 bottle and a $300 bottle is effectively zero, so price is less useful as a guide.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    The difference between $50 (about the least I'd pay for a red I actually want to drink) and $200 (I spend this much on single bottles about twice a year) is enormous. The difference between $200 and $600 (the most I've paid for a bottle) is mostly cachet, a memorable event, an anchoring life experience. But rare wine can be expensive for other reasons than quality. For example, if it's expensive because it's very old, it probably won't be very tasty. Then, it's like going to a museum, but instead of viewing the artifacts, you're ingesting them. I've sipped Madeira from the 19th century for these reasons - was about $70 for a few sips in a glass from an Enomatic at Hedonism Wines here in London. The experience is expensive because it's very rare and only some demand, rather than lots of demand and moderate supply.
    - myrandomcomment 9y ago
      So I take issue with the old not tasty comment. My wife and I have a pretty big collection of wine. We drink wine everyday with dinner mostly. For the older bottles right now looking I have some things - 72,76,78,82,85,93,94 - and more stuff in the 1999-2003 range. For all of those older wines the amount of time it is open before you drink is a huge key of how much taste you get. For the stuff from the 70s-80s I would open it 8 hours before drinking. The issue I find is most people thing 2 hours is enough, which it is not.
cmrdporcupine 9y ago
This is a pretty good article, though it might be hard for people to grasp who aren't already keen observers of the wine industry., I personally like the so-called "natural" wines mostly because they are _different_ in a world of same-same. I don't buy the 'natural' designator so much, but I've made wines from my own vineyard in this 'orange wine' style; they are difficult wines to consume but rewarding in their own way. But I use sulfites, so they're not "natural". The "international style" of wines that has taken over everything since the success of California and Australia on the world market (and the ossification of European wines behind ridiculous regulations) becomes boring to some after a few years of consumption. I have no interest in drinking yet another Cabernet Sauvignon, And as an amateur wine maker in a difficult climate, I can't grow that anyways. Frankly, if these wine makers in Europe were truly concerned with going eco/natural, they'd eschew the use of the pure Vitis vinifera species and the classic clonal varieties which are sometimes over a 1000 years old (the actual individual plant! cloned millions of times!) and require a continual chemical cocktail of intensive fungicides to merely survive. They're horribly mal-adapted to the actual 'natural' world and die horribly if not constantly coddled. No, instead they'd grow modern hybrids with North American species which have superior fungal resistance and better cold hardiness to boot. In the dry European climate North American hybrids would require almost no spraying. But the EU has made them illegal. For basically awful essentialist quasi-"racist" (to abuse the term) reasons. But as this article points out, the contradiction here is that "natural" is by no means natural -- there is a peculiar European obsession with a 'pure tradition' which manifests in wine in this constant obsession with traditional varieties and techniques -- when in fact wine as we know it is an entirely Modernist invention. Sure, wine was consumed in the middle ages and Roman times -- but we'd hate those wines, even the natural wine lovers would.
- dejv 9y ago
  Hybrids are not illegal at the EU, those hybrids (say Hibernal or hundreds of other) which are created by cross polination of vitis vinifera with another specie within vitis familly are fine. What is banned is growing non-vinifera vines. Fungal resistance of those grapes are much better than old varietals, but you still need couple of sprays most of the years. The problem with those varietals lay in quality of wine, which is usually not on the par of traditional varietal. Anyway: being Bio/Eco/Natural certified has nothing to do with spraying or adding sulfites (which are created during fermentation anyway). It can mean anything, most of the winemakers go with use just little amount of SO2 and bentonite or egg whites for clarification. No selected yeasts or artifical additive. In vineyard there are many different kind of inputs you have to use, you usually go with sulphur and copper, but there are many other allowed preparations (from herbal teas, seaweed based stuff, yeast derivative kind of stuff).
bitwave 9y ago
Thought it is about WINE https://www.winehq.org/ https://www.winehq.org/ :)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
borkt 9y ago
I see natural as good term that can be used to describe the idea of vinifying fruit with the minimal intervention. My issue is that wine that anyone would ever want to drink has to involve an artificial process to some degree. Even in most serious "natural wine" there is care taken to tend the vines before during and after the growing season. There is a picking decision made by the winemaker. I am not too well versed in specific producers but I am pretty sure at least one is fermenting the wines in barrels or some other vessel in the vineyard in which they grew. Every year or so a small segment of natural wine producers seem to create another breakthrough that makes their wines more natural than the last. All of this is to say that the natural wine moving taken to its extreme conclusion would end with an untended vineyard where fruit falls on the ground after raisining and the juice ferments into the dirt. While this is the most natural process, it is not something anyone would ever consider drinking. I can show you a few places in my town where they have been unwittingly on the cutting edge of the natural wine movement without ever giving a single thought to the fact there is a vine on their property in years. What I personally feel is the the spirit of natural winemaking style is to produce a wine of distinction with minimal intervention. This is an interesting style but I still believe it to be a fad no greater (or worse) than the international style mentioned by cmrdporcupine. What I see as the ideal winemaking style is to produce a wine from a specific vineyard that most accurately conveys its sense of place and the vintage in which it was produced. It takes a winemaker with a wide range of experience, one familiar with all of the possible tools they may use to intervene, but extremely hesitant about using them. They can be byodynamic, they can be organic, and they can even use conventional pesticides and fertilizers provided the winemaker has selected them specifically to express what he or she feels is the essence of the vineyard.
krylon 9y ago
I admit that I do not get at all why people make such a fuss about wine. At the end of the day its purpose is to get people drunk and not taste too bad along the way. Turning it into a sorta-science seems silly to me, as the endgame is getting wasted. ;-) OTOH, I used to be like that with tea, especially Green Tea and Oolong. When it comes to tea, I can be a real snob, and with good reason. With tea there really are so many subtle nuances it boggles my mind to this very day. If you are in the position to do some research, spend some money on fine teas, you can experience tasty pleasures that are beyond what words can describe. And I can go on and on and on about that, without noticing that people who do not care about tea that much get bored really fast. So to some other people, wine is what tea is for me. And in fairness, I have not much experience drinking fancy wines. But I have no desire to, either. When I want sophisticated nuanced sensual pleasure, I drink Tea. When I want to get blotto, I drink wine. These days, I am more pragmatic about it, but I still shiver at the sight of teabags.
- jaredhansen 9y ago
  >I admit that I do not get at all why people make such a fuss about wine. At the end of the day its purpose is to get people drunk and not taste too bad along the way. "I admit that I do not get at all why people make such a fuss about sex. At the end of the day its purpose is to make babies and not be too unpleasant along the way."
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    We’re pleasure-seeking animals with an incredibly strong sex drive. I don’t see how that’s remotely comparable to drinking one of a vast array of tasty intoxicants.
  - otempomores 9y ago
    Its a upper caste thing. If you enjoy yoursrlf one has to rationalize it in public. Imagine the same thing wit masturbation or opiates. Thats a south facing poppey field with lots of fallen jihadis in the tail. The field was not watered - there where sheep nearby and a almond orchard.
- 9y ago

57 points by Turukawa 9y ago

I don't expect this article to give rise to insightful commentary; articles on wine invariably have two kinds of commenters, the dismissives and the aesthetes, and they usually talk past one another. The dismissives mention things like blind taste testers not being able to distinguish red from white or blind tasters preferring cheap wine to expensive. Look into this a bit further, and you find that the first study was actually about phrases used to describe wine falling into two categories, one associated with reds and another associated with whites, and the colour of the wine appeared to be the distinguishing factor in which set of phraseology was chosen; while the second has curious echoes of Coke vs Pepsi leading to New Coke. Small samples don't give the full effect of a wine, wine will taste different when you have it with different food, or in a different order compared with other wines, on a cold palate vs a warm palate (i.e. is this your first taste of alcohol of the evening - first is usually harshest), or straight out of the bottle vs aerated, and indeed it'll taste different depending on what you think the relative price is - especially so if you have fewer other criteria to judge it with. I'm on the aesthetes' side. I'm far from an expert, and only drink about 20 bottles a year, but when I do it's either in a taste test situation, or as paired wines in a tasting menu, or vintages selected from appellations and grapes chosen for their typical character. I wish I could find whites that taste like reds, but I dislike almost all unaccompanied whites, with some exceptions around sauternes, some Rieslings, Gewürztraminer, etc.; and I wish I could find cheap reds that taste like intense Cote Rotie syrah or savoury Burgundy pinot noir, but the same grapes grown elsewhere come nowhere close. Most New World syrah / shiraz is too alcoholic, while pinot noir is a completely different beast when it's grown in too sunny a climate. Slovenia has come closest to making some decent Burgundy-style pinot noir to my taste. My point being that the "hierarchy" in wine is, to my mind, at least a local optimum or close to it. Within the appellations that I prefer most, I've observed a reasonably strong correlation between price and my preferences. I think winemakers have been doing a kind of local gradient ascent as technology improves their product - it would be unusual for them to do otherwise - and the argument that preservatives etc. improve ageing ability as well as transport is fairly strong to my mind, as my preferred vintages are usually not younger than 4 years. I'm not big on fresh fruit flavours. I would expect "natural" wines to have higher variance (though unblended wine has a fairly high variance between vintages already). If the winemaker is good, and the product is good in spite of less ability to control the end product, great; whether such wine could survive hanging around Amazon's warehouses and reaching customers in good condition, I'm less convinced - I've had bad tawny port from Amazon, it takes some effort to make such a hardy product go bad. So all in, I think this article is mostly a marketing effort for the few winemakers who think they can create a decent product following the schtick; I don't think it's likely to actually produce a significantly better product; I don't buy that the existing hierarchy is particularly wrong (but it is warped by big money in things like Bordeaux, for sure); and I don't think I'll be inclined to buy more natural wine since I think the probability it turns out mediocre is much higher.

onion2k 9y ago
Within the appellations that I prefer most, I've observed a reasonably strong correlation between price and my preferences. That's often true up to a point. There are fixed overheads with any retail product so if you spend $8 on a bottle of wine you're really getting $2 worth of wine and $6 worth of logistics, retail margin, etc. If you spend $12 on a bottle of wine you're getting $6 worth of wine, and the same $6 worth of logistics, margin, etc. A 50% increase in price but a 300% increase in 'product cost'. However, at the top end of retail wine the difference in product cost between a $200 bottle and a $300 bottle is effectively zero, so price is less useful as a guide.
- barrkel 9y ago
  The difference between $50 (about the least I'd pay for a red I actually want to drink) and $200 (I spend this much on single bottles about twice a year) is enormous. The difference between $200 and $600 (the most I've paid for a bottle) is mostly cachet, a memorable event, an anchoring life experience. But rare wine can be expensive for other reasons than quality. For example, if it's expensive because it's very old, it probably won't be very tasty. Then, it's like going to a museum, but instead of viewing the artifacts, you're ingesting them. I've sipped Madeira from the 19th century for these reasons - was about $70 for a few sips in a glass from an Enomatic at Hedonism Wines here in London. The experience is expensive because it's very rare and only some demand, rather than lots of demand and moderate supply.
  - myrandomcomment 9y ago
    So I take issue with the old not tasty comment. My wife and I have a pretty big collection of wine. We drink wine everyday with dinner mostly. For the older bottles right now looking I have some things - 72,76,78,82,85,93,94 - and more stuff in the 1999-2003 range. For all of those older wines the amount of time it is open before you drink is a huge key of how much taste you get. For the stuff from the 70s-80s I would open it 8 hours before drinking. The issue I find is most people thing 2 hours is enough, which it is not.

cmrdporcupine 9y ago

This is a pretty good article, though it might be hard for people to grasp who aren't already keen observers of the wine industry., I personally like the so-called "natural" wines mostly because they are _different_ in a world of same-same. I don't buy the 'natural' designator so much, but I've made wines from my own vineyard in this 'orange wine' style; they are difficult wines to consume but rewarding in their own way. But I use sulfites, so they're not "natural". The "international style" of wines that has taken over everything since the success of California and Australia on the world market (and the ossification of European wines behind ridiculous regulations) becomes boring to some after a few years of consumption. I have no interest in drinking yet another Cabernet Sauvignon, And as an amateur wine maker in a difficult climate, I can't grow that anyways. Frankly, if these wine makers in Europe were truly concerned with going eco/natural, they'd eschew the use of the pure Vitis vinifera species and the classic clonal varieties which are sometimes over a 1000 years old (the actual individual plant! cloned millions of times!) and require a continual chemical cocktail of intensive fungicides to merely survive. They're horribly mal-adapted to the actual 'natural' world and die horribly if not constantly coddled. No, instead they'd grow modern hybrids with North American species which have superior fungal resistance and better cold hardiness to boot. In the dry European climate North American hybrids would require almost no spraying. But the EU has made them illegal. For basically awful essentialist quasi-"racist" (to abuse the term) reasons. But as this article points out, the contradiction here is that "natural" is by no means natural -- there is a peculiar European obsession with a 'pure tradition' which manifests in wine in this constant obsession with traditional varieties and techniques -- when in fact wine as we know it is an entirely Modernist invention. Sure, wine was consumed in the middle ages and Roman times -- but we'd hate those wines, even the natural wine lovers would.

dejv 9y ago
Hybrids are not illegal at the EU, those hybrids (say Hibernal or hundreds of other) which are created by cross polination of vitis vinifera with another specie within vitis familly are fine. What is banned is growing non-vinifera vines. Fungal resistance of those grapes are much better than old varietals, but you still need couple of sprays most of the years. The problem with those varietals lay in quality of wine, which is usually not on the par of traditional varietal. Anyway: being Bio/Eco/Natural certified has nothing to do with spraying or adding sulfites (which are created during fermentation anyway). It can mean anything, most of the winemakers go with use just little amount of SO2 and bentonite or egg whites for clarification. No selected yeasts or artifical additive. In vineyard there are many different kind of inputs you have to use, you usually go with sulphur and copper, but there are many other allowed preparations (from herbal teas, seaweed based stuff, yeast derivative kind of stuff).

bitwave 9y ago

Thought it is about WINE https://www.winehq.org/ https://www.winehq.org/ :)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

borkt 9y ago

I see natural as good term that can be used to describe the idea of vinifying fruit with the minimal intervention. My issue is that wine that anyone would ever want to drink has to involve an artificial process to some degree. Even in most serious "natural wine" there is care taken to tend the vines before during and after the growing season. There is a picking decision made by the winemaker. I am not too well versed in specific producers but I am pretty sure at least one is fermenting the wines in barrels or some other vessel in the vineyard in which they grew. Every year or so a small segment of natural wine producers seem to create another breakthrough that makes their wines more natural than the last. All of this is to say that the natural wine moving taken to its extreme conclusion would end with an untended vineyard where fruit falls on the ground after raisining and the juice ferments into the dirt. While this is the most natural process, it is not something anyone would ever consider drinking. I can show you a few places in my town where they have been unwittingly on the cutting edge of the natural wine movement without ever giving a single thought to the fact there is a vine on their property in years. What I personally feel is the the spirit of natural winemaking style is to produce a wine of distinction with minimal intervention. This is an interesting style but I still believe it to be a fad no greater (or worse) than the international style mentioned by cmrdporcupine. What I see as the ideal winemaking style is to produce a wine from a specific vineyard that most accurately conveys its sense of place and the vintage in which it was produced. It takes a winemaker with a wide range of experience, one familiar with all of the possible tools they may use to intervene, but extremely hesitant about using them. They can be byodynamic, they can be organic, and they can even use conventional pesticides and fertilizers provided the winemaker has selected them specifically to express what he or she feels is the essence of the vineyard.

krylon 9y ago

I admit that I do not get at all why people make such a fuss about wine. At the end of the day its purpose is to get people drunk and not taste too bad along the way. Turning it into a sorta-science seems silly to me, as the endgame is getting wasted. ;-) OTOH, I used to be like that with tea, especially Green Tea and Oolong. When it comes to tea, I can be a real snob, and with good reason. With tea there really are so many subtle nuances it boggles my mind to this very day. If you are in the position to do some research, spend some money on fine teas, you can experience tasty pleasures that are beyond what words can describe. And I can go on and on and on about that, without noticing that people who do not care about tea that much get bored really fast. So to some other people, wine is what tea is for me. And in fairness, I have not much experience drinking fancy wines. But I have no desire to, either. When I want sophisticated nuanced sensual pleasure, I drink Tea. When I want to get blotto, I drink wine. These days, I am more pragmatic about it, but I still shiver at the sight of teabags.

jaredhansen 9y ago
>I admit that I do not get at all why people make such a fuss about wine. At the end of the day its purpose is to get people drunk and not taste too bad along the way. "I admit that I do not get at all why people make such a fuss about sex. At the end of the day its purpose is to make babies and not be too unpleasant along the way."
- IntronExon 9y ago
  We’re pleasure-seeking animals with an incredibly strong sex drive. I don’t see how that’s remotely comparable to drinking one of a vast array of tasty intoxicants.
- otempomores 9y ago
  Its a upper caste thing. If you enjoy yoursrlf one has to rationalize it in public. Imagine the same thing wit masturbation or opiates. Thats a south facing poppey field with lots of fallen jihadis in the tail. The field was not watered - there where sheep nearby and a almond orchard.
9y ago