Is wine the journey or the destination for you?

I am interested in hearing where others draw the line on what is considered interventionist and what is considered acceptable. But more than where the line is drawn, I am interested in why one draws the line where they do. Why are some practices more acceptable than others? Why does it seem that the focus is often on what happens in the winery while the practices in vineyard are generally not discussed?

I have thought about this a lot now that I am awaiting the first harvest from my own grapes. I read elsewhere where someone wrote that wine can be either just a tasty beverage or a story in a bottle. I think that statement describes the two extremes of approaching the issue. If one is only concerned about the final product (destination) than any practice is acceptable as long as the outcome is better due to the use of said practice. If on the other hand, wine is intended to speak of the place, the weather, and tell the story of everything that was faced during the year (the journey) than any practice that alters that story even somewhat can be considered an issue.

I don’t think there is any right or wrong answer as it is different for each individual. My own belief has changed over time. Currently, I think that both are equally important but this is why I am having problems drawing a line. What good is the journey if the destination is not enjoyable? If the product is clearly inferior but a proper reflection of the troubles faced in either the vineyard or the cellar is it still the best product for that vintage? Likewise, where does one draw the line into what is acceptable practices to make a better product if every action potentially results in a diminished reflection of the difficulties of the season.

[David M. Bueker]

I guess I make a significant distinction between what I prefer and what I consider acceptable. I said a similar thing in much less elegant ways in other threads on other sites.

My basic point is that in all cases I prefer an accurate representation of the vintage with as few winemaking actions* as possible. Now for my favorite wine (German Riesling) some intervention is virtually required. Filtration is pretty much a must if you don't want little gnarlies chewing through the rs in the wine and making CO2-farting babies that turn your spatlese into sour Sekt. Also given the transparency of Riesling, many winemakers prefer to use selected yeasts instead of indigenous yeasts. I can fully understand and accept that.

In the case of more significant winemaking actions (e.g. adding sugar, adding water, bleeding off, 100 new oak, etc., etc., etc.), I am less about dogmatic adherence to a "natural wine" agenda than I am to a personal need to see the variations from vintage to vintage, and from site to site (grape to grape, etc.). To use an example that has been bandied about elsewhere, I enjoy Brian Loring's Pinot Noirs. I have bought several vintages of them. I don't buy them now because I have no space for them & plenty of stock. I will buy them again in the future. I find great differences between his 2003, 2004 & 2005 wines. I see differences from the vintages (and I hate 2004 by the way), and I can tell that there are differences between the sites he uses for the wines. So for me the winemaking actions he takes are not adverse to my enjoyment of hte end product & I can thus accept them.

If the Loring Pinots were to all be in 100% new oak and completely indistinguishable underneath a patina of toasty vanilla then I would likely pass them by. If the 2005s were sugared to get all the alcohols into the upper 14s and 15s then I would pass them by (they were not & the '05s are my favorite Loring wines ever). I hope that explains what I mean.

*I say winemaking actions versus interventions as the latter term has become judgemental in its use.

*I say winemaking actions versus interventions as the latter term has become judgemental in its use.

I agree with your statement as to the term becoming judgemental in its usage but not sure that winemaking actions cover the spectrum of actions to which I am refering. Winemaking actions to me speak to only those action that take place after the grapes are harvested. I am also refering to actions that take place in the vineyard prior to harvest.

In the case of more significant winemaking actions (e.g. adding sugar, adding water, bleeding off, 100 new oak, etc., etc., etc.), I am less about dogmatic adherence to a "natural wine" agenda than I am to a personal need to see the variations from vintage to vintage, and from site to site (grape to grape, etc.).

I'm with David. Usually, when I first try a wine, I have no idea beforehand of what's going on in the cellar or vineyard. If I like what I taste, I may become interested enough to investigate and learn, and usually I will find that they adhere to certain core principles in their approach to making wine -- but not always. I love both Ridge Geyserville and Marcel Lapierre's Morgon, after all. To me, wine shouldn't be too bogged down in ideology: if you can something interesting from the grapes doing whatever it is you do, fine with me. It just so happens, though, that certain practices in my experience render wines uniformly uninteresting: heavy-handed use of (highly toasted) new oak, picking overripe grapes, etc. I can't say for certain if I dislike wines that have been subjected to microoxygenation, RO or spinning cone because a) those practices are often not widely publicized and b) I don't do enough research to know for sure who does what.

Mark Lipton

Question - is adding sugar interventionist?

Acid?

Oak?

Question - is adding sugar interventionist?

Acid?

Oak?

That is exactly what I am wrestling with. Each changes what nature provided to some degree so in that sense they are. They do change the final product if only slightly. That does not necesarily make them bad as in many cases the final product can be better for them.

There are many other practices that are technically interventionist that are rarely discussed in forums like this such as the use of a trellis or herbicides. Rarely if every are these practices questioned.

What I am trying to work out is where I draw the line for myself as that seems to be changing now that I will be making wine from my own fruit. I have found that I am now more sensitive to how what is done is going to impact the final product not just from a quality perspective but also from a representing the vintage and site perspective. When working with the fruit that others had grown I was only concerned with the end product.

Ultimately its what's in the glass that counts. There's a great culinary quote that sortof applies here: "People don't eat methods, they eat results." But, wine is not simply a beverage - it's science, art, history, and culture. I'm a traditionalist, and I think that what nature has put there out to be allowed to shine through - all the potential compexity and uniqueness of a particular wine are imparted by nature. A wine maker should be able to what he can to get the best results out of what nature gives him, but to enhance nature, not obscure it. So I am definitely not for 'interventionist' methods. But, honestly, I like to understand how different methods affect the final product, and if I feel there is a problem with a wine, I might speculate as to what might have been done differently, but if the wine is good and offers an authentic expression, I don't tend to care much about the methods. So, for me, in principle it's the journey. But in practice, it's the destination.

Last year I visited a winery in Israel which is known for the fact that they do not irrigate, an impressive feat given the climate. This was interesting to me so I asked the winemaker a bit about it, and while he was proud of how he'd weaned the vineyard into dry-farming, he added, "There's no religion. If something forces us to irrigate, we will irrigate." That's pretty much the right outlook, I think. Decide on your ideal of non-intervention and deviate from it if you must, but do so in full knowledge of the ideal and intervene because you have to, not just because you can. And if you can't make anything drinkable without intervening all the time, maybe your vineyard is in the wrong place.

look guys, i mean, come on - if you were raising a few cows for your milk, butter, and meat - maybe eating, maybe selling some as necessary; and they got sick. would you treat them - or allow them to stop producing milk and waste away so there was no healthy meat? and if your grapes get sick? or for cows or grapes if you knew how to prevent them from getting sick? and would you allow the cows to wonder away? the trellis works in a similar way to the pen.

as a sidebar it is true that vineyard practices have gotten little attention in the wine press or on the forums. this in fact is where the greatest advances in the quality of our wines has been made. in fact it could be argued that modern winemaking is the story of how winery practices have at the very least obsucured and probably overwhelmed the significant advances in viticultural practices.

what would lafite taste like without new oak? even they don't know. i have to hand it to the producers of chinon, etc. there is a tradition there against the use of new oak and the wines show an honesty as a result. 20 years ago that honesty was not entirely pleasant. with modern viticultural practices, it is.

bottom line is that the wine has to be acceptable. next line is: get there as smoothly and cleanly as possible.

what would lafite taste like without new oak? even they don't know.

Technically speaking, oak is an adulterant, just like adding lemon to your tea. It just has a long history behind it and people seem to accept it. Does that make it right, and other additives 'wrong' or unacceptable, and if so, how do you distinguish between good and bad adulterants?

Does watering back to get the over-ripe flavors count as manipulation ? What about reverse osmosis ? In my book it does. Is the importance on the vineyard, Mother Nature or which winemaker has the biggest toys ?
L

An interesting question. For me I think it is both the contents of the bottle, and (if I know them) the general views and outlook of the producer. I have no strong feelings about methods of production, but I do not like it when producers seem to more concerned about philosophy than making wine. Anyone that spouts too much biodynamics or terroir at me gets marked down! Likewise with anyone too keen to emphasise how modern their winery is. It's not that either of these things are bad per se - I just personally find it a turn-off. Also I like to think that vineyard workers are happy and well-treated,and that the environment is not being wrecked.

[David M. Bueker]

For me I think it is both the contents of the bottle, and (if I know them) the general views and outlook of the producer. I have no strong feelings about methods of production, but I do not like it when producers seem to more concerned about philosophy than making wine. Anyone that spouts too much biodynamics or terroir at me gets marked down! Likewise with anyone too keen to emphasise how modern their winery is. It's not that either of these things are bad per se - I just personally find it a turn-off. Also I like to think that vineyard workers are happy and well-treated,and that the environment is not being wrecked.

What a novel concept: balance! Well stated Steve.

I have to hand it to the producers of chinon, etc. there is a tradition there against the use of new oak and the wines show an honesty as a result.

Wine cannot show honesty. It can show varietal flavors. It can give what we believe to be an accurate representation of what a given site is capable of, but it cannot show honesty.

This last bit is directed at nobody in particular, but I cannot help feeling that people are starting to treat wine like a bad romance novel. They want to be swept away in the warm embrace of the vigneron who has magically transformed grapes from a humble vine into the most noble of beverages without anyone ever laying a finger on the vine, the grapes or the wine. It cannot happen that way.

And finally a big WLDG welcome to Keith L.!

Wine cannot show honesty. It can show varietal flavors. It can give what we believe to be an accurate representation of what a given site is capable of, but it cannot show honesty.

This last bit is directed at nobody in particular, but I cannot help feeling that people are starting to treat wine like a bad romance novel. They want to be swept away in the warm embrace of the vigneron who has magically transformed grapes from a humble vine into the most noble of beverages without anyone ever laying a finger on the vine, the grapes or the wine. It cannot happen that way.

I understand your point but think you might be a bit harsh. I find 'honest' a very useful word for describing straight forward and direct tastes, whether food or wine. Sure it is a bit vague and we cannot give a precise definition that can be measured, but, to me it conveys something about the well-executed simplicity of a wine or a dish that is useful information.

[David M. Bueker]

Wine cannot show honesty. It can show varietal flavors. It can give what we believe to be an accurate representation of what a given site is capable of, but it cannot show honesty.

This last bit is directed at nobody in particular, but I cannot help feeling that people are starting to treat wine like a bad romance novel. They want to be swept away in the warm embrace of the vigneron who has magically transformed grapes from a humble vine into the most noble of beverages without anyone ever laying a finger on the vine, the grapes or the wine. It cannot happen that way.

I understand your point but think you might be a bit harsh. I find 'honest' a very useful word for describing straight forward and direct tastes, whether food or wine. Sure it is a bit vague and we cannot give a precise definition that can be measured, but, to me it conveys something about the well-executed simplicity of a wine or a dish that is useful information.

Maybe I am being harsh, but I cannot endorse the use of the word "honest" for wine. Clarity is ok. I can even handle transparency. The way David C used "honest" implies that if a producer uses oak their wine is dishonest. I have the same issue when people (even me in retrospect) use the terminology "varietally true." What is truth? Is the taste of Cabernet Franc in the Loire the only way Cabernet Franc is supposed to taste? Why?

Loire Cabernet Franc is a paradigm. California Cabernet Franc is a different paradigm. Right-bank Bordeaux Cabernet Franc is another, totally different paradigm.

I'm going to risk dipping a toe in the waters of analogy again (thankfully Thor isn't here to rebut my thoughts with a well written, 4 page legal brief ). There are some people who think the only way to eat beef (not you Rahsaan) is a steak that has been grilled rare. Others like beef stew. That's taking the same basic ingredient (beef) and using it different ways to achieve different resutls. They will not taste the same, not should they. Is adding potatoes, carrots, onions, salt and pepper (among other things) an unacceptable manipulation of the beef? Is using a crock pot a manipulation but using a stovetop pot acceptable? Is heat acceptable? Is tartar the only acceptable form of beef? (I could go on and on and on and on...)

To me, it boils down to this: If wild grapes could survive a growing season without any help, if they then were allowed to fall to the ground they would soon ferment; they would also quite quickly become vinegar, or worse.

The job of both grape grower and winemaker is to intervene, first to make sure the grapes stay healthy and then to make sure the wine stays in a middle state between fermentation and vinegar. You can't do either by looking out the window and praying as things progress, keeping your hands off.

Still, you can give each process minimal assistance so that the end product shows signs of having been successfully guided to living up to its full potential without feeling as if it had to be hammered into submission.

Growing grapes and making wine is no different from any other farmed and or food processing method: you have to keep your eye and your hand in the process or something larger than you--nature--will certainly run its course, and anyone who doesn't know the true power of nature's course should not even get into a discussion on wine intervention.

Having said all that, I abhor most uses of oak, concentration from over-ripe grapes, high alcohol just for the sake of it, and wine that seems like someone charted it from a computer. But I don't consider these faults--to me, they are faults--the result of intervention. I consider them to be the result of manipulation--a different issue altogether.

Maybe I am being harsh, but I cannot endorse the use of the word "honest" for wine. Clarity is ok. I can even handle transparency... I have the same issue when people (even me in retrospect) use the terminology "varietally true." What is truth? Is the taste of Cabernet Franc in the Loire the only way Cabernet Franc is supposed to taste? Why?

Well now I think you're being too hard on yourself

Perhaps 'varietally true' is a loaded term that is difficult to apply across regions, but I think most relatively-experienced tasters can identify 'textbook' examples of most grapes. Once they receive 'special' treatment, whether late harvest, early harvest and then induced to sparkle, oak, fermentation on skins, etc, then the wine starts to take on a variety of other characteristics that mean it is no longer a textbook example of that variety. This 'special' treatment can lead to wines that are both better and worse than the 'textbook' example, that is not my concern, but I do think we can talk about textbook or standard wines that are readily identified as specific grapes. When these wines are good quality I would tend to call them 'honest' because they are readily identifiable and straightforward wines. Of course on the flip side, we can have lots of 'textbook' crap that is readily identifiable as poor quality drek from various regions, usually because the winemaker doesn't care about quality which is why I don't call them 'honest', but that may be my own semantic tic.

To give some example, I find the Baudry Granges to be an 'honest' 'textbook' example of Loire cabernet franc, while Baudry La Croix Boissee is something more special. Which is better? I don't care. Depends on the occasion. Drive through the Loire and find lots of 'textbook' crap, but I also don't care about that

Sorry to say, you guys are doomed to argue this point until, well, you know until when

The issue of intervention likely began when ancient farmers discovered that most wild grapevines sucked at producing consistent crops and so they found a few vines that could self pollinate (in the wild, these are the anomalies). The farmers intervened to create cultivars. Farming is among the most unnatural things that we do. It's an attempt to produce food not only without blemish but with calculated consistency, something that a naturally wild plant doesn't do well without our intervention.

The issue of wine manipulation likely began as soon as wine became an economic force--nothing spurs manipulation more than a cash market. In that regard, dishonesty in wine may have historical precedent!

Today's wines are produced from cultivars, grapevines that were purposely placed there either because the natural wild ones wouldn't cooperate or there were no natural wild ones there at all. What about that makes them honest wines?

The issue of taste isn't even one that can be debated, although endless volumes of ink, sound, and fury are forever applied to it.

Seems to me that we often place more importance on our perception of the process than on the process itself. I remember recently reading a wine writer's list of what she expects from a wine producer in order for her to consider the wine honest and true. A great list, most of which I probably would agree to, had I not the experience of dealing with nature in the vineyard and nurture in the winery.

I understand your point but think you might be a bit harsh. I find 'honest' a very useful word for describing straight forward and direct tastes, whether food or wine. Sure it is a bit vague and we cannot give a precise definition that can be measured, but, to me it conveys something about the well-executed simplicity of a wine or a dish that is useful information.

and it beats the pants off of "hedonistic."

Mark Lipton

and it beats the pants off of "hedonistic."

Mark Lipton

I find both 'honest' and 'hedonistic' just a tad too anthropomorphic for my taste.

And every time a note says a wine 'oozed' fruit, I find it almost distasteful - yeuch. Although in the case of some Oz (ooze?) wines I've tasted, it wouldn't be inappropriate.

I think that every time you 'interfere' with nature by trellising the vines, or pruning, you are imposing your will on the so-called 'natural ' process. So allowing for such interference is a given, and the question is just how far do you go before it is too far. Pesticides? Irrigation? Or only when you come to the winemaking process and start adding things - chemicals?

[David M. Bueker]

I understand your point but think you might be a bit harsh. I find 'honest' a very useful word for describing straight forward and direct tastes, whether food or wine. Sure it is a bit vague and we cannot give a precise definition that can be measured, but, to me it conveys something about the well-executed simplicity of a wine or a dish that is useful information.

and it beats the pants off of "hedonistic."

Speaking of words I can't stand...

Getting back to one of Rahsaan's points, the idea of "honest" Loire Cab Franc doesn't bother me so much because of the insertion of Loire. What I don't care for is the absolutism of "this grape, this place" when a grape can make good wine elsewhere that just might not be to certain peoples' tastes. Staying with the Cab Franc concept, Pride makes very good Cab Franc. I know many people who like it, and many people who don't. It's an expression of California Cabernet Franc (albeit with some blending grapes as well). The same can be said (in varying percentages) for Cheval Blanc expressing St. Emilion Cab Franc (yes I know people who don't like CB).

Sorry to say, you guys are doomed to argue this point until, well, you know until when
[...]
The issue of wine manipulation likely began as soon as wine became an economic force--nothing spurs manipulation more than a cash market. In that regard, dishonesty in wine may have historical precedent!

Today's wines are produced from cultivars, grapevines that were purposely placed there either because the natural wild ones wouldn't cooperate or there were no natural wild ones there at all. What about that makes them honest wines?

Thomas, with all due respect I think that you're tilting at windmills here. Reading through this thread, I don't see anyone who is against intervention as a concept, though some have expressed a preference for wines with less intervention. It seems to me that your points are really directed more at folks who don't AFAIK visit this forum (including the wine writer you obliquely reference at the end). And I think that you're being a tad disingenuous with your last rhetorical question. "Honesty," as Rahsaan is using the term is merely a shorthand for a wine that has varietal and regional character. It's a term based on prior experience and expectation. The fact that those grapes are the result of millenia-long genetic manipulation and cultivation is neither here nor there to that question.

Nonidoeologically yours,
Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

And in answer to the original question: wine is the destination for me. I can't drink the journey.

Sorry to say, you guys are doomed to argue this point until, well, you know until when
[...]
The issue of wine manipulation likely began as soon as wine became an economic force--nothing spurs manipulation more than a cash market. In that regard, dishonesty in wine may have historical precedent!

Today's wines are produced from cultivars, grapevines that were purposely placed there either because the natural wild ones wouldn't cooperate or there were no natural wild ones there at all. What about that makes them honest wines?

Thomas, with all due respect I think that you're tilting at windmills here. Reading through this thread, I don't see anyone who is against intervention as a concept, though some have expressed a preference for wines with less intervention. It seems to me that your points are really directed more at folks who don't AFAIK visit this forum (including the wine writer you obliquely reference at the end). And I think that you're being a tad disingenuous with your last rhetorical question. "Honesty," as Rahsaan is using the term is merely a shorthand for a wine that has varietal and regional character. It's a term based on prior experience and expectation. The fact that those grapes are the result of millenia-long genetic manipulation and cultivation is neither here nor there to that question.

Nonidoeologically yours,
Mark Lipton

Mark,

Windmills are at least an energy alternative, so I can achieve something with them!

I am addressing the questions posed by Brian about intervention, which may not be the right word to express what I think is behind his questions--manipulation fits it, to me. I don't think the discussion veered in that direction, but more in the direction of personal likes and dislikes, which I am aware is the hallmark of geekism, but it doesn't address his questions.

I suppose I should not have tried to address Brian's questions while also trying to stay with the confines of the veered discussion, but how do you get people to stay on track???

Anyway, I am in fact a lover of regional character but, your opinion notwithstanding, rather than an idealist I am a realist; as such, I wonder at what point introductions of new grape varieties into a region create dishonesty--or untrue to regional character? Is it within one's generation or is it within the overall scope of wine's place on earth? Believing in the honesty strictly from a personal outlook seems more to me like idealism.

Secret motives? I thought my motives were right out there--to tweak for debate.