Sleight of Hand
Friday, October 13, 2006 at 2:31PM 
Today there are key words that wine writers love; gravity-flow, indigenous yeast, low-yields and on-and-on. Key words are great for writers, but have little to do with the realities of making wine. Good winemakers are quick to spot problems and deal with them in the best way possible. Often these solutions do not meet the idealistic simplicity of right and wrong that most wine journalists push. However, they can make better wine. Using the advances in winemaking knowledge in a judicious way is not always some evil sleight of hand. Like most things it’s not only what you do, but how you do it that matters. Good winemakers have to think on their feet and react quickly to what nature has dealt them otherwise they’ll have a lot of wine that has to be poured down the drain. Consumers need to taste with their own palate, if the wine is good it’s good. Like most things, modern winemaking techniques are not simple black and white issues, but provide a full menu of solutions that can be both used and misused. For example, Luca Currado, the fine winemaker at Vietti in Barolo, abandoned his experiment with roto-fermenters for obvious reasons, but he kept just one “for emergencies”. While roto-fermenters destroy the character of good vintages, in a bad vintage he can use it to help improve his wines. No, they won’t be great wines, but they’ll still be very good if Luca decides to put his label on then. Yes, even the evil roto-fermenter can have its place when used by thoughtful hands in the face of disaster. Good winemaking is never a simple recipe to be followed, but must be adapted to new situations with each vintage. Today’s best winemakers use what could be called a minimalist philosophy, in other words they do as little as possible to their wines, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do something when it needs to be done. It’s unfortunate that the wine press, whose simplicity shows their ignorance of what it takes to make great wine, has made winemakers afraid to talk about anything that is not seen as politically correct winemaking. This makes them seem like they are using some kind of ethical sleight of hand, when, in fact, what they are doing is giving us better wines to drink.
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (4)
I also do not find the buzz words like natural yeasts, indigenous vines, et. al. to be marketing plays. They exist because the wine industry still has a certain number of producers who are passionate about what they do at the expense of making the highest profit. These few keep the big boys somewhat in line because the general public can easily taste the difference between an industrialized wine and one made by a passionate farmer.
Unfortunately we no longer have the same possibility with fruits and vegetables. Think if you could go to your local supermarket and actually compare a vine-ripened backyard tomato with the others sold in the store. Buzz words like, hand harvested, vine-ripened, grown locally, etc. would appear there also.
I agree there are many producers who use these terms with passion and make better wine for it. However, its clear that most wine writers really don't understand the application of these techniques and that faced with the realities of making wine even the most dedicated producer will make slight changes in their technique if it will make a better wine.
Look what is happening to biodynamics, which was once reserved for the most obsessed winemakers, but is now being co-opted by big wineries.
The religious types think it's wrong to use method X or method Y because doing so would violate some sort of moral imperative. The science types view method X and method Y as tools in their tool box that may or may not be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.