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.

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).

Staying high vinifera content is pointless because the vitis vinifera species is the problem. It has basically no resistance to the fungal problems that are out there in the real world, which are mostly introduced from North America.

But regardless, when I start seeing appellation wines with hybrids in them, I'll be flabergasted.

The perception of 'quality' you're speaking of is a subjective/cultural thing.

I grow about an acre of modern hybrids. And I do my own hybrid crosses. So I know quite a bit about this.

(EDITED for clarity on Hibernal and some grammar)

What area do you grow in?

https://www.chambersstwines.com/

They're also doing their best to kill interesting or odd wines produced domestically, too.

The path to financial success in Ontario's wine industry seems to be to dump a pile of money in and produce an OK product that doesn't rock the boat too much (same 4 or 5 grape varieties that everyone else here uses) with a fancy new name for a few years and then sell out to Vincorp or Andrew Peller and then get out.

But we have a wanna-be AOC system here (the VQA) that stops you from doing anything interesting. You can't even put the words "Ontario" or "Estate" or "Niagara Escarpment" on the bottle's label if you grow anything other than their mandated list of approved grape varietals (no new hybrids! has to be a fancy European grape that will probably just die here or make mediocre wine anyways).

B.C. has a healthier wine industry. Smaller minimum acreage requirements, more experimentation. And there's some interesting new things coming out of Quebec and Nova Scotia.

I'd like to have a winery some day. But not in this Can't Do province.

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.

"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."

My wife is a winemaker, we work on wines together, and we rarely drink wine for the sole purpose of getting drunk. We love wines far more than any other alcoholic beverage, however the quality to price ratio of beer or spirits is orders of magnitude more reasonable than wine when just looking to enjoy an evening. We reserve wine for special occasions, regular get togethers with our industry friends, and when she either come homes with free wine from work or a bottle from another home or professional winemaker looking for opinions. We certainly couldnt afford to regularly drink the wines she makes ($40-$150) but we have a great appreciation for those that can.

Drink a beer with a similar level of alcohol and residual sugar to a wine and in almost every case (even most natural wine) the beer will be almost impossible to enjoy. The vast majority of high alcohol beers rely on sugar to strike a balance that the natural components of wine achieve effortlessly. What separated vitis vinifera wine from all other fermented beverages to me is that wine has an ability to effortlessly strike balance no other alcohol can compare with.

The romanticism of wine for better or worse has built a market willing to spend significantly more on wine than they do on all but the most expensive spirits in the world. This over millennia has allowed winemakers the freedom to explore, understand, and later control the most minute details of viticulture and enology in the pursuit of eeking out ever more flavor and nuance from fermented grapes.

If one is 20 maybe. But then they can just down some Jägermeister shots or something, no need to mess with wine.

>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.

And with wine there are not?

> > 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.

> And with wine there are not?

I can well imagine that there are wines that can be just as rich an experience as tea. I just know next to nothing about fine wines. Tea tends to be cheaper, plus I can drink tea at work without getting into trouble. ;-)

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.

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.

The problem I have is with the implication (not made by you, but made by the wine industry in general) that if your tastes don't align with this hierarchy that there is something wrong with you. There isn't. My wife and I are semi-serious oenophiles. We drink about 100 bottles/year. We have a 200+ bottle cellar, which tops out around $150 (I refuse to pay more than that for a bottle of fermented fruit juice on general principle). We've tried wine from all over the world, and we keep coming back to California reds. We like jammy, fruity deep dark reds, and California does them better than anywhere else.

One of our favorite wines is Barefoot cabernet, which retails for about $6 a bottle. We discovered it in a blind horizontal tasting of California cabs, where the Barefoot was put in as kind of a joke. But among 12 people participating in the tasting, all of them (including us) picked the Barefoot as their #1 or #2 favorite of the lineup. The top-end wine, a Silver Oak, came in dead last. 20 years later, we still like it. (We had a similar experience years later with a delicious white that was served to us and six other people at a B&B that turned out to be Gallo Rhine Wine in a box.)

Despite this, we would still be a little embarrassed to serve Barefoot to guests. To some extent, wine is a Veblen good. It really is more than just fermented fruit juice. It's steeped in history and ceremony. There's value in the sound of a popping cork and in the joy of exploration and discovery. But the most important thing is to never ever let someone else tell you what you're supposed to like.

It's very democratic and individualistic (and fashionable) to say that there isn't, but I like to entertain the idea that many times, there is.

Even in matters of taste, people can be crude and ignorant -- and oftentimes, they have little familiarity with a field to be anything else anyway.

This is not the same as them saying 2+2=5, they are not wrong in the absolute sense, but they're still wrong in a similar way within their country's or global culture -- they same as someone that openly farts during a first date diner is doing something wrong.

That is certainly true. But it does not follow that there is a universal quality metric for everyone. Whatever your tastes are, you can get there from a position of ignorance, or you can get there from a position of knowledge. But just because you got where you are with knowledge doesn't mean you're going to end up in the same place as everyone else.

To me it feels like it's 100% Veblen over $120 and partially Veblen if it's > $25.

IIRC in blind taste tests ordinary people tend to prefer cheaper wines and even the most obsessive oenophiles and sommeliers will not show consistent preferences for bottles that cost more than about $120.

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.

You have to consider provenance at the point of higher priced bottles. You're paying the person who stored the wine in ideal conditions, took deliberate care to ship it during certain weather, and sourced it to make sure it's not a fake.

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.

The most interesting thing about smell is that it is so much an overriding factor in how we perceive taste. Everyone thinks it is the taste buds in the mouth, but no. Smell is so much more of it.

Another interesting thing about having such a strong sense of smell is what you do not like. For example my wife hates beer. It's the smell and the taste is so over whelming vs what I smell and taste in it. I read it is common with people that are "super smellers"

That is called the retronasal smell. [0][1] Basically we "taste" food with the nose. [2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retronasal_smell

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retronasale_Aromawahrnehmung (German)

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Weg_der_orthonasalen_und...