Oh, my. Someone touched a very big nerve and sent the wine community into a frenzy not seen since a wine from California won the Judgment of Paris in 1976.
In case you’ve been living under a rock (or don’t let weighty wine issues ruin your day), here’s what happened (briefly).
British wine journalist Stuart Pigott, a man of great integrity and someone I admire both as a writer and a human being, wrote a scathing three-part series under the title The Rise of the Hipster Sommelier.
From the opening graph …
“Who do the young hipster somms of NYWC (New York Wine City) think they really are? Call it a collective delusion they’re suffering from if you will, but that doesn’t alter the fact the hipster somms have an all-American hardwired-for-positive conviction they are the New Masters of the Universe!”
… Pigott inserted himself into a debate being waged in wine circles around the planet, and surely in every cool bar and tony restaurant in every trendy city in every country on the face of the Earth.
Natural wine.
Utter it and eyes bug out; write it, and the hate mail floods the comment section of your website or FB feed. Those two words are the most toxic in the wine industry today. And Pigott laid the blame (in no uncertain terms) for its rise in popularity squarely on today’s uber hip (or hipster hip) somelliers of New York City.
To wit:
“The problem with many of the hipster somms’ recommended wines was that they were light years removed from tasting good, often smelt (British for smelled) seriously bizarre, and at worst they tasted disgusting and/or totally oxidized and/or faulty. Then the (cheque) came and I realized I just blew a pile of money on confronting that painful liquid truth: ouch!”
He followed that up in Part III of his series with this nut graph:
“Now it’s time to get down and dirty. No wines are more awesomely authentic for the hipster somms of NYWC than the so-called “natural” wines, meaning wines that in the cellar where they were made were allowed to behave like badly brought-up teenagers who seldom wash or shave and ignore the everyday rules of polite behavior. OK, some of these wines taste interesting, and a few of them even taste good. However, the degree of oxidation and/or microbial spoilage in many not only makes them taste unpleasant, but also obscures the characteristic aromas and flavors of the grape variety.”
There you have it. The bomb that launched a million sad faces. And none more sad than Rachel Signer, a writer who has a blog called Wine + Dine With Me.
In her rebuttal column to Pigott (and a war of words on Twitter), Signer wrote A Brief Response To A Heinously Unprofessional Piece Of Wine Writing.
This is where it gets downright ugly. It’s more of a personal attack on Pigott, who, incidentally, has a remarkable 30 years of wine journalism under his belt and is one of the world’s foremost Riesling critics. But she questions it all while admitting she really knows nothing about the man (not a great position of strength).
From Signer’s blog:
“Pigott, clearly, is not a believer in natural wines. He calls biodynamic farming close to ‘black magic,’ which leads me to think that he has absolutely no understanding of the benefits of using local plants to treat vineyards; has he ever visited a biodynamic producer or an esteemed professor of biodynamics, of which there are many (yes, including in Riesling land, Stu!) and asked them questions about this? I assume not.”
Signer makes a few points in defence of natural wines and the “hipster” somms of NYC, but mostly it’s an attack on the credentials of Pigott who has a long list of accomplishments in the wine world.
It’s all rather interesting, and a bit sad at the same time. Natural wine, and its growing popularity, needs to be discussed. It’s not going away any time soon as more and more traditional wineries are adding to their portfolios with wines that are made with less and less intervention. It’s all fuelling a new generation of wine lovers looking for more than classified Bordeaux, Cru Burgundy and IGT Italian wines. They don’t want Napa, Australia anything or South America — they want niche wines for their small, intellectual circle of wine friends. The weirder, the better.
Why aren’t we cool with that? You may say it tastes and “smelts” like shit, but they love it. So be it. I can’t even take a sip of Fernet, yet every wine person I know claims to love it. I adore old Napa Cabs, but can’t find many people to enjoy it with because Napa isn’t cool any more.
It’s how the wine world works. Everyone’s on to the next big shiny thing.
I come down on the side of natural wines. I like them, not all of them, but a lot of them. I like the variety natural wines bring to the table. I like the funkiness and can relate to the story Pigott tells of a group of “hip” wine lovers who perk up when the winemaker mentions “wild ferment.” I do, too! Wild ferment, no sulphur, zero dosage, organic vineyard, no fining, no filtration. Bring it on, I love it. Cloudy wines turn me on (figuratively).
It doesn’t mean I don’t love traditional, conventional winemaking, as long as it isn’t over-manipulated. I like oak (in moderation … and in rare cases, way over the top) and I understand that farming sometimes requires intervention to save the crop. I get that wine looks better when it’s perfectly clear in the glass and totally understand that sparkling wine is more appealing to the majority of people when it gets a shot of residual sugar (I happen to like zero dosage).
Wine is beautiful and its beauty comes from myriad soils, climates, grapes, styles, oak, concrete, amphora, stainless steel and, maybe most of all, the human touch (the winemaker, the grape grower, and picking decisions).
Stuart Pigott has a problem with natural wines, I get it, lots of people do. Rachel Signer has a problem with Pigott, I get that, too, but attacking him on a perceived notion of shoddy journalistic credentials really takes away from the debate, not to mention that it’s just plain wrong. He’s earned the right to speak his mind, as hard as that is for some people to understand.
… Which brings me to the point of this post:
The growing family of Canadian natural (or near natural) wines.
Just three years ago, you couldn’t find a natural Canadian wine. Oh, lots of organic/biodynamic farming, lots of low intervention wines, lots of wine where the winemaker took a back seat in the process, but natural? No, not by any definition.
You certainly can now. It’s not a proliferation, but there is a lot of experimentation out there and wineries in both B.C. and Ontario that are finding success both with the quality of the wines and with consumers who are buying the wines.
Niagara’s Tawse Winery, built on a concept of biodynamic/organic farming for estate wines and a clean, low-intervention approach to winemaking, released its first “natural” wine, a single-vineyard Chardonnay, last year. It was a small batch made with no sulphur added, wild fermentation and bottled from neutral oak barrels to bottle without fining or filtration. It sold out immediately. Not because it was cool, but because it tasted wonderful.
Now the Vineland winery has added two more natural wines to the family — a Gamay and a Pinot Noir that are presented unsulphured.
Winemaker Paul Pender says the natural approach is an extension of what Tawse already does with its organic/biodynamic farming.
“I do not want to make unsulphured wines just because it is trendy,” he says. “I wanted to make wines that are healthier for you, that taste real and clean, even though the wines are not protected by a blanket of CO2. This is not easy to achieve, but it can be done.”
For Pender, it’s about texture, uniqueness and complexity of those wines.
On a similar path is the progressive-thinking Haywire winery in Summerland, B.C., owned by Christine Coletta and Steve Lornie (above). Also farming organically in its estate vineyards and working with growers who have the same philosophy, Haywire now has several bottlings of natural wines and many more damn close to it. There is no oak used at Haywire, everything is wild fermented and aged in concrete vats or amphora with a growing list of wines with no sulphur added, no fining, and no filtration.
These wines DO NOT fall into the category of natural “hipster” wines that Pigott rails against in his series. Not even close. They are well-made wines crafted with skill by the very capable winemaker Matt Dumayne who would not risk making wines with extreme faults such as the “oxidation and/or microbial spoilage” that so disgusts Pigott (and most of us!).
I tried a range of both Haywire and Tawse wines recently, both the natural wines and the more traditional wines. Here’s what I liked (note to Stuart Pigott, come on down and taste .. these wines won’t bite).
Tawse Winery
The Natural Collection (all wild yeast, no sulphur added, organic/biodynamic farming)
Tawse Quarry Road Vineyard Unfiltered Chardonnay 2015 ($36, winery, 90 points) — A clean, fresh nose of apple skin, citrus, wet-stone minerality, lime and underlying oak spice. The minerals shine on the palate with flavours of baked apple, peach cobbler and bolstered by citrus zing on the finish. Oak is kept in check through the mid-palate and never plays a dominant role.
Tawse Quarry Road Unfiltered Pinot Noir 2015 ($35, winery, 91 points) — An interesting nose of boysenberry, earthy red fruits, minerals, violets and light spice. Lovey texture and gentle tannins on the palate with an array of ripe red fruits, bramble and a kiss of oak.
Tawse Redfoot Vineyard Unfiltered Gamay 2015 ($29, winery, 92 points) — If ever a was made for natural winemaking, Gamay is that grape. An exciting nose of plums, forest floor, charred cherry and bright raspberry. It’s crazy-good on the palate with vivid, jacked up cherry and plum flavours that are full and rich through the finish.
Haywire
Haywire Switchback Wild Ferment 2014 ($30, 92 points) — The Pinot Gris grapes are from the estate organic Switchback Vineyard. The grapes are pressed into 800-litre clay amphorae to ferment with native yeast and skins on for 8 months with zero winemaking intervention (no sulphur, no additives, no filtering). Such a creamy, fragrant wonder on the nose. Rich, deep and earthy notes of bruised apple, cantaloupe, brown sugar and almond paste. It has weight and viscosity on the palate, some tannins and shows pie crust, apple filling and citrus in a muscular style. Feels like a red wine on the palate with highly stylistic white wine flavours. It messes with your mind (in a good way).
Haywire Free Form White 2014 ($35, 91 points) — Free Form White is made from sourced Sauvignon Blanc and is made naturally with zero additives, filtration and wild fermentation after five months of skin contact. The wine shows bright orange in the glass with a nose of peach, flinty minerality, mango, apricot, dried herbs and apple skin. On the palate look for an explosion of tropical and orchard fruit, subtle, plush tannins, lovely texture and lively acidity. A pure ball of energy and flavour. Bravo!
Haywire Free Form Red 2014 ($55, 93 points) — 100% Pinot Noir, wild yeast, aged on skins for 8 months in 800-litre amphorae, no filtration, no sulphur and no additives. It has a rich and layered nose of black cherry, cassis, cocoa and minerality. It’s intense with amazing depth of flavours that include black cherry, chocolate, crushed dark berries, spice and incredible texture and brightness through the finish.
Note: More reviews of the conventional wines from both Haywire and Tawse to follow
For the record, I don’t like the taste of Fernet. I like Unicum, but Fernet is almost a bit repulsive. I have a bottle (from Brazil no less) that a friend gave me that might just last the rest of my life! But hey, if you are looking for someone to open Napa cabs with, just call!
Great piece of writing. Like you, I like some natural wines. I don’t like others. Pretty much how it applies to any wine category. I get the point Pigott was making and like you say, he’s entitled to his opinion without being personally attacked.
What’s up with all the Fernet love? I just don’t get it. The only times I’ve had it is when it’s on a dare. Never willingly. Kind of like bad tequila. Shot glass, lemon, pass the bottle and cringe every time it comes back to you. At some point you earn the right to just say no, right?
Look after them like your babies. Grow them like your children and they may turn out to be excellent people. On the other hand Russian Roulette was also a dare somewhere in some circles ! Some points make sense scientifically, some don’t. Specifically the SO2 that is proven that some yeasts can produce up to 30 mg/l during fermentation. How much can you add at crush to finish up with the same or even less ? The Wildferment is more mysterious as some kind of yeast must come from somewhere to facilitate the conversion mainly of the sugar to alcohol, but is not only that that is happening to turn a juice into wine. So why is it wild ? Even the thousands of liters of wine my father was making in his burned clay containers ( Amphorae ? ) by crushing the grapes in them and nature took care of the rest, I am not sure if they could be called wild as the same containers were used year after year and from generation to generation with all the pomace going back into the vineyards full of yeast !!! Nothing was fined or filtered, only time did the job. Do we have two years to wait for that ? As long as the quality is desirable at least to some customers it can justify their making or something has to change to make them so. Humanity must have gone thru wines for at least 10,000 years and styles and tastes have changed to them or from them. Some like them this way, some that way and some not at all. So far more and more like a nice drink, some a challenging one and some want it perfect to their palate which may not be at all universal. Wine is a drink to socialize with or have it to enhance the enjoyment of the food and the company ! That’s all !
This is a great piece of writing, Rick!
Excellent work here! I have remained only vaguely aware that there has been an uproar of some sort…I keep my head in the sand for “scandals” in my fiction writing sphere as well. Currently have a bottle of natural petite sirah that I just loved recently. Highwire looks amazing! Bring a bottle to WBC, if you’re going. ;)
I can’t stand Frenet and I love old Napa wines. Great article! I’m with Pigott on the Hipster Somms…which are not limited to NYC…we’re crawling with them in Canada too. The term Natural Wine just annoys me actually. Just go about making the best bloody wine you can, and clean wines taste the best in the end. It’s like making a ‘vegan’ wine: pandering to the hipsters.
Hello, speaking for “they,” I just want to point out that this sentence is incorrect:
“They don’t want Napa, Australia anything or South America — they want niche wines for their small, intellectual circle of wine friends. The weirder, the better.”
There are some winemakers in each of those places who “hipster somms” like very much. Steve Matthiasson in Napa, for example. Louis Antoine-Luyt in Chile. Several natural wines are coming to the U.S. from Australia now. “The weirder, the better” is a simplified, unsophisticated notion that brushes off something rather than attempts to understand it.
For the hardworking professionals within the natural wine world, it’s not about “weird” or “cool.” Indigenous grape varieties (which, perhaps, you think are “weird” compared to international varieties like Cabernet Sauvignon?) are interesting because they have historical relationships to the terroir they come from. Winemaking techniques like sur voile vinification (which, perhaps, you find repulsive because it is intentionally oxidative?) and amphora aging are fascinating to somms not because they are “weird” but, to the contrary, because of their traditionalism in regions like the Jura and Georgia. I’m really tired of people like you and Pigott making these sweeping, facile generalizations while not even bothering to actually investigate the reality of today’s wine culture.
And, people don’t drink Napa Cab anymore not because it isn’t “cool,” but because it’s extremely boring. The so-called “hipster somms,” in fact, aren’t 17-year-olds worried about gaining popularity points; they are people with palates attuned to acidity and minerality, rather than big flavors. The high alcohol and use of oak that one finds in most Napa Cab fatigue the palate and obfuscate nuances of soil or climate. Whereas, grapes like Gamay are not only terroir-expressive but also light, fresh, and full of personality. Hence their appeal to today’s somms and drinkers.
What you, and people who are rallying behind Pigott, hate the most, I think, is the fact that many “hipster somms” and “natural winemakers” are actually really serious, studious, hardworking, and passionate about wine. Just not the wines that the Parker generation got all fired up about.
I say go ahead and make any style of wine you want, wineries. Just be sure you’ve carefully identified your market and understand how you’re going to move whatever it is you’ve created out of your cellar and in to the customer’s glass. If you can tap into a large crowd of natural wine lovers, make the leap.
Nice piece, Rick.
Lord, the internet makes people so cranky!
Signer’s reaction seems based on inane suppositions, lackadaisical writing, high dander and a low boiling point.
If Pigott has committed any crime, it is the lazy use of ‘hipster,’ a universally dismissive pejorative which, when coupled with ‘somm’ creates a cartoon effect of some vaguely fay mustachioed beverage manager dressed like a character from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Pigott’s error was slagging the delivery system instead of the point of production. Granted, there are a lot of ‘somms’ who have lionized orange or ‘natural’ wines without true analytic deliberation but my personal theory is that they are so entirely fucking bored with UCDavis-slash-New World-slash-squeaky-clean fruit bombs that anything radically different gets a knee-jerk unthinking thumbs up. Still, the ‘natural’ wine category is so confused, misapplied and often deliberately packaged up with New Age flibbertigibbet bullshit that any rational mind can turn away in disbelief.
I’ve probably tasted about 100-plus ‘natural’ wines over the past few years and have found the genre confused. Not confusing. Of those 100, fully half were pretty ineptly made, provoking cynicism that these wineries had some gall to make us pay for their failed science experiments. The other half often fell into that unusual category of wine that is interesting and sometimes quite complex – but not particularly likeable. Or saleable.
I can count on the fingers of two hands the ‘natural’ wines I have found compelling, delicious and complex, standards which I demand of any wine. Different is not enough. It suggests ennui. I think Pigott may feel somewhat the same way but blamed the messengers as much as the message. I think a good writer with a rational mind should take on the natural wine genre, attempt to explain it, categorize the variations and critically assess the wines being released, as well as back-vintage or library wines. It won’t be me. I’m way too sarcastic.
BTW, I love Fernet but it’s not for everyone. Not like, say… Sutter Home White Zinfandel which IS for everyone. Get a grip, folks! If everything tasted the same, you’d be looking for a beam to throw a noose over.
Rachel, I have trouble with some of your comments here. First of all, I did not side with Pigott in this debate you are having, in fact, had you stuck to the substance of what you believe instead of an attack on his integrity, I think you could have put forward a better argument. I, in fact, love some natural wines, I seek them out and I applaud winemakers domestically (Canada) who are making more and more of it. I write about them more than most wine writers in this country and derive great pleasure from them (just read the post that is attached to these comments). This passage that I wrote (“They don’t want Napa, Australia anything or South America — they want niche wines for their small, intellectual circle of wine friends. The weirder, the better.”), which you call incorrect, can’t be incorrect as it is my opinion. It’s no more incorrect than anything you wrote other than your lack of knowledge on Pigott’s resume and your intent to insult him rather than debate him (not helpful). You might not agree with it, but it most certainly isn’t incorrect. That is my experience with the wine culture where I live (Niagara/Toronto), not NYC where there is a far greater selection of wines to experience. It was a broad statement, a generalization, I give you that, but certainly far closer to reality than the examples you give above.
Peter, Your comments are spot on.
This is what I was taught:
How to tell a good wine; if you like it, the wine is good, if you really like it the wine is really good and if you do not like it, the wine is no good just be polite.
Wild ferment, I have heard that a recent French study found that if the winery has used at any time in the past a specific yeast or if the winery is nearby other wineries using specific yeast that the “indigenous” yeast has been out populated and there is no longer any indigenous yeasts in the area. Therefor any fermentation that takes places is caused by the last yeast to be used.
As for natural wine I have a question: is it natural wine if the farming practices are not Organic? Say if any fungicide other than sulfur is used?
Well, that is the question of the day. There is no pure definition of “natural” wine. There are no rules.
For anyone who doesn’t like Fernet but wants to give it another try, add one part of good quality black currant syrup to two parts Fernet, over ice. Still the joy of the extreme Fernet bitterness and unique spicing but with a soothing fruity richness and subtle sweetness that makes it all the more palatable and generous….if you don’t like Fernet as it is. I’ll leave the rest of this discussion to others…
Thanks, Peter. I guess. haha.
It is clear that Mr. Pigott is a flaming narcissist. As a recent transplant to the USA via Germany via England, I guess Mr. Pigott needed an article to announce his arrival. I would put him in the same category as the winemaker who names their wine after themselves. Mr. Pigott has bigger issues than his distain for natural wines and those that enjoy them.
Hi Rick, I appreciate your balanced approach to this topic. Vive le difference! Especially when it comes to wine. In pursuit of the delicious, I am an equal opportunity wine lover, and will taste natural wine and ‘commercial’ wine too. Although I didn’t agree with all his comments, I can see where Stuart was going on the importance of keeping an open mind towards the spectrum of wine production styles, and the pitfalls of becoming dogmatic in praise for just one school of thought. There are some great wines that live somewhere between wholly natural and commercial.