which is based on a Forbes column by RichardBetts:
Having tried as many skin-contact white/gris as I can find, I think both of them make a lot of sense.
DavidLynch comments in Betts' blog:
“My thing with orange wines has always been this: they’re more intellectually/romantically appealing than actually pleasurable. And my issue is mainly one of aromatics: obviously these are “white” grape varieties we’re talking about, and whether it’s the skin contact, the oxidative winemaking, or both (probably both), they tend to get stripped of their verve and aromatic high notes as a result of the “orange” agenda. What you’re left with is an aromatically flat — and often forbiddingly tannic — white wine."
which is pretty much my take on these wines.
Having had two orange wines this weekend (WindGap PinotGris '11 and MarjanSimcic Opaka Chard '10), one of which I liked a lot (WindGap) and one of which I found "interesting"; I think his comment is dead-on.
Bonne expresses his pleasure for the (same) WindGap PinotGris and the Forlorn-Hope GWT; two wines w/ which I heartily agree on his opinion. To this, I would add FloridaJim's Isa LakeCnty SauvBlanc...which I doubt Bonne has tried. And Bonne admits that Gravner's amphorae wines don't much move him anymore. Also agree, especially at the $$'s that are charged for them.
Both Betts and Bonne assert that the orange wines can often be taken to extremes, especially when made in an oxidative style. Agree again. As a genre, I find the skin-contact whites made in a reductive manner (a subset, IMHO, of orange wines) are tremendously fascinating. But they need to find that right balance, presumably predicated on the length & degree of skin-contact, where you get a good compromise of the aromatics of a white wine and the raw phenolic character and varietal obliteration of lengthy skin-contact whites. That's where I think the genre will find more fans.
Anyway, both of these blogs are a very interesting read. Highly recommended.