I’m honest. What about you?
I’m also clean. Can you say the same?
And modest, of course.
Or should I have said ‘naturally’?.
As for the wines I’m involved with making and most of the wines I’ve ever enjoyed drinking – well, they’re all regrettably unnatural. And inauthentic. Or maybe, to be a little kinder, ‘not quite natural‘ or ‘somewhat less than authentic‘.
Those are rather tough words to use about 99.99% of the world’s wines including the Figeac, Pichon Comtesse and Haut Bailly 2011 I tasted last week in Bordeaux – not to mention the 1934 Beaune and 1953 Chateau Margaux that are, quite possibly the finest wines I have ever drunk.
But, if the Natural Wine brigade are to be believed, that’s what they logically have to be because they were all produced in ways that the Natural Wine producers do not approve of. (Precisely which methods they do approve of are not absolutely clear, of course, given the fact that no rules have been agreed between them.)
When you raise this issue with the Naturalistas, they claim not to understand why I’m offended at my wines (even the ones with organic credentials) being called unnatural. and ask whether I would prefer them to be called ‘manipulated’ (as opposed to the unmanipulated, natural, authentic fare they favour). And I respond that, thank you very much but no I wouldn’t really like that, and that I would like those wines to maintain their previous happy existence – outside any pigeon hole.
But one thing that no one seems to have done is compare the Natural wine saga with the story of Biodynamic wines. Producers of these – usually ‘unnatural’ but, in my opinion, often sublime – efforts have managed a) to draw up a set of rules to which they have to comply and, more importantly in my view, b) to adopt a name that does not set them on a podium above their neighbours.
Which makes me feel naturally far more warmly towards them
(PS apologise to any dishonest, unclean, impolite, immodest readers I may have offended)
If you find these posts interesting, why not subscribe here