It is impossible to talk to organic winemakers without breaching the subject of sulfur dioxide. Each winemaker has their own opinion, theory and practice. How sulfur dioxide can be limited depends on the wine type, the company set-up and many other factors. In turn, making low-sulfite wines will influence production and sales, meaning the whole company has to adapt to its chosen policy. Producing low-sulfite wines is not a case of doing less, but of doing much, much more. Here are three winemakers, with three different stories, I spoke with while doing my research in Italy.
Valli Unite, Piemonte
Ottavio Rube of Valli Unite
Ottavio is one of the founders of the organic cooperative Valli Unite in the North-Western region of Piemonte. While the cooperative produces various organic foodstuffs, wine sales have always been the backbone of its economy; a natural choice considering the long winemaking traditions of the region. Having consolidated family vineyards of the founding members, the cooperative begun wine production in the early eighties. In contrast to the post-war generation of their parents, the founding members rejected ‘chemical’ agriculture, and went back to pre-industrial traditions of vine cultivation and winemaking, producing organic wines before this category became recognised either by consumers or by regulators. Concerned about their own health and that of the environment, they sought to limit to the use of chemicals, including sulfur dioxide. Those early days were not easy, however, and Ottavio recalls a decision he had to make regarding his vinification methods:
Ottavio: You need some compromise with the idea of completely “natural.” I can say that I made wines without sulfites until ’91, without added yeast until ’98; and then I had a whole series of problems, and I understood that I was putting the economy of the cooperative at risk. I was not able to sell, so all this was on my shoulders.
At a certain point I asked myself if I was not risking too much, so I took some steps back which was something “ugly” for me. Something that made me disenchanted a bit with the work of the cantiniere. I was not able to make wines without sulfites, but at the same time they became calibrated, exactly like they should be. So I started to say, what I guarantee is a wine that is within organic norms and we do not add anything that is not allowed by organic rules. But things, yeast, and so on, we put in.
The problems Ottavio alludes to could be secondary fermentations in the bottle, unpleasant odors in the wine and high quantities of sediment. All of these are officially recognised as faults in wine certification and control, and are also potentially off-putting to consumers. Uncontrolled microbial activity impact what is generally recognised as ‘quality’ in wines. Many of these unwanted developments can be avoided by the simple addition of sulfur dioxide – thus ‘giving in’ and compromising the idea of completely natural; a move which made Ottavio disenchanted with his work. However, the presence of sulfur dioxide assures the economic survival of the company, and the market place has the upper hand in the end. Sulphur dioxide gives Valli Unite the possibility to take part in the international wine market.
Terra D’Arcoiris, Tuscany
Walter Loesch of Terra D'Arcoiris
There are consequences of not ‘giving in’ to sulfur dioxide. You must organize your sales network in a different way. In the early 80s, Paola Leonardi and her partner Walter Loesch set up a biodynamic wine and fruit producing company Terra D’Arcoiris in Tuscany. Today their company is used as a shining example of biodynamic agriculture by its international certifying body Demeter. “It’s me who should be certifying them, not they who should be certifying me”, laughs Paola, and there certainly is a truth in this. Paola and Walter are on what many consider to be the extreme end of organic production. They not only avoid pesticides, herbicides or fertilisers, but they also use no manufactured yeast, and limit the use of sulfur dioxide. This approach is not without its burdens.
Paola: The only thing that we put into the wine, and this is in extremely small doses, is sulfur dioxide. As far as the rest is concerned, we don’t do anything. Every month we take samples of our wines and send them to France to be analyzed. We only add sulfur dioxide if it is necessary, while keeping the wine all the time under control. Nonetheless, some wines have a problem of brettanomyces, exactly for this reason. By keeping the wine for so long in wood, the risk of brettanomyces is very high, especially if you don’t protect them with sulfur dioxide. And we work this way, always within the limits of risk.
In 2001 our red label had brettanomyces. We did not sell it to the distributors, we sold it all in direct sales. The strange thing about brettanomyces is that it occurs in some bottles and not in others not. So, not being able to guarantee the absolute cleanness of this wine , we work in this way, having the direct sales mechanism. Our clients do not risk anything: they always try our wines, and there are those who do not note the taste of brettanomyces. Direct sales allows us to figure out the taste of the consumer and understand that you can educate people about a different taste; which is a natural taste.
Using low levels of sulfur dioxide runs a considerable risk for Paola. Brettanomyces is a wine spoilage yeast, and its presence in wine is considered a fault. It is known to produce an unpleasant ‘stable’ smell and is generally an unwelcome microorganism. It is impossible to sell this kind of wine to a distributor. Wines with low amounts of sulfur dioxide are more vulnerable, and have trouble surviving long journeys on the back of a truck, where they are exposed to changing temperatures.
International export is even more problematic, and even locally no one wants to find themselves with a stock of undrinkable bottles. Terra D’Arcoiris, however, has found another path. The direct sales network they have been building up for years allows them to sell the risky, problematic wines face to face. Paola takes it upon herself to educate her clients about the wines she’s selling, and she accommodates the risk of low sulfur wines by opting out of the impersonal marketplace where stability is much more of an issue.
Perlage, Veneto
Ivo Nardi of Perlage
The Animae Prosecco is considered by Ivo Nardi, owner of Perlage, the culmination of the scientific and product development of his company. It is a unique product: the first sparkling white wine in the world to be produced without any addition of sulfur dioxide. This additive-free wine could be considered the epitome of organic production. Indeed, this is how Ivo, the originator of the idea, sees this unusual product.
Ivo: Perlage did the first organic Prosecco, then we did the first biodynamic Prosecco. The natural evolution was that this biodynamic Prosecco should also be a Prosecco without sulfites. A product that would be as complete as possible, without chemical interventions. This has been a great personal satisfaction. On a scientific level it was a real victory, a sparkling wine which is as natural as possible.
While being “as natural as possible,” this wine has little to do with tradition and breaks a number of conventions. It came into being through a series of complex cooperation involving laboratories, machines and microorganisms.
The first challenge was with the yeast strain used for fermenting this wine. Yeast is one of the key agents responsible for the aromas and tastes of Prosecco, and not just any will do. In Prosecco, yeast carries out two fermentations – the first converts sugars into alcohol, and the second produces carbon dioxide and makes the wine sparkling. The double fermentation produces double the sulfur dioxide levels of regular wines; bringing the levels above 10 mg/l, and preventing it from being labelled “without added sulfites” under current regulations.
The company enologist had to invent a yeast strain that would allow them to avoid this problem. They collaborated with a biotechnology company, performed experimental fermentations, and a yeast strain which produced low levels of SO2 was identified. This particular strain was normally used for fermenting red wines; certainly not white wines or Prosecco.
The second break with tradition was with the taste. Prosecco, the most typical wine of the Veneto region, owes its characteristic sweetness to the high levels of residual sugars, which in the absence of SO2 can attract bacteria or cause the wine to undergo uncontrolled yeast fermentations in the bottle. Once again a non-traditional course was taken, keeping the fermentation going in heated vats until an extremely dry wine was obtained.
Finally, avoiding sulfur dioxide and still obtaining a microbially-stable Prosecco required the use of highly advanced vinifying and bottling machinery. In the absence of sulfur dioxide, the light white wine was especially prone to oxidation. The entire process had to be performed in absence of oxygen, and they substituted it with nitrogen in the vats. Lastly, a new bottling machine was bought, which added protection with a set of micro-filters to prevent a microbial infection, should any air come into contact with the wine. Even in sales, the wine continues to be protected; it is the only Perlage wine to be sold in a cardboard box, with storage instructions spelled out on the side.
New Organic Wine Legislation for the European Union
The need for new, pan-European organic wine legislation has been recognised for some time now. ORWINE, a three-year research program which consulted and co-operated with organic winemakers in most European wine-producing countries, has just recently presented the European Commission with its final recommendations. Currently, no certification exists in Europe which would valorise the unique vinification methods used in organic winemaking; only the organic provenance of the grapes is recognised on the label. This is seen as a serious problem by most producers in Europe, as it makes them more vulnerable to competition from countries such as United States, where wines can be labelled ‘organic’, not just ‘from organically grown grapes’. One of the key areas of interest for the regulators looking at the new pan-European organic winemaking legislation is the limiting of SO2 use in the organic wine production.
As far as the SO2 use is concerned, ORWINE concluded in its report that while “it is not possible to produce ‘good’ organic wine without any addition of sulphites in a significant range of areas, wine types and years” (ORWINE 2009 p. 62), most producers support a reduction of sulphur dioxide use in organic wines. It will be interesting to see if the SO2 levels indeed get slashed in the new legislation. On the whole, I don’t think that we’re in for a major change, and I suspect the new regulation will have a very small impact on how the majority of organic producers make their wines. In Europe producers already strive to minimise sulfite levels, and most use SO2 in quantities well below the legal thresholds.
Organic wine in the EU: the current state of affairs
Currently, there is a width of substances, processes and additives allowed under the European organic winemaking certifications – in fact, many winemakers in Italy told me that as far as the work in the cantina is concerned, for all practical purposes there is no difference between an organic winery and a conventional one (in fact it is easy for a conventional wine company to have an organic production line along a conventional one, in the same building and largely using the same equipment). While a clear distinction on the level of rules and prohibitions can be made between organic and conventional practices in the vineyards, the distinction between the two production methods becomes more blurred once we cross the threshold of the winery.
There is a great diversity of production methods in organic vinification, from the least to the most technology dependent. Organic winemaking is not necessarily neither traditional nor low-tech, as producers are not obliged to stick to a strict production protocol, and can make use of modern developments. A hand-picked, hand-musted, oak barrel-aged Montepulciano D’Abruzzo can bear the same ‘organic’ stamp as a machine-harvested, cold-macerated, multi-filtered Prosecco – and yet the production regimes of those wines, and personal ideologies of their producers, could not be more different. Add to this self-certifying producers, or those who do not acknowledge certification all together, and the organic wine landscape becomes even more complex. In a nutshell, it is up to the individual organic winemaker how they work with their wine – and it is up to the consumer to find out about the production method.
The expense of eliminating SO2
In an article in Harpers in 2005 Jamie Goode suggests there are four different approaches when it comes to using additives in wine: ‘anything goes’ (within the bounds of health), ‘add nothing’, ‘add as little as possible’, and ‘the in-between’ (additives are just tools that can be used well or badly). His categories describe well the attitudes I have come across when interviewing Italian organic winemakers about sulphur dioxide use. Most producers would agree with the ‘in-between position’ – sulphur dioxide is not bad per se, it is a helpful oenological tool and, used in moderation, can only bring positive results. Many producers I have spoken with, however, strive to limit or even eliminate sulphites from their wines, regardless of the risks.
While, especially in the North, it is very difficult to make wine without any SO2 at all, for many organic winemakers sulphur dioxide is linked with the industrial, homogenising, additive-heavy winemaking they want to distance themselves from. For some, limiting SO2 use is another way of being more ‘natural’ and ‘authentic’, a logical extension of their already existing production ethics. For those producers who already seek to differentiate themselves from the main-stream, homogenising wine market by producing ‘particular’, ‘natural’ wines, avoiding SO2 fits with the existing production ethics of the company. However, this kind of production strategy is not for everyone – it is much more difficult for an industrial-scale organic producer to make low sulfite wines than it is for a small family winery, mainly due to the risk involved if spoilage should occur.
Why use SO2 at all?
Sulphur dioxide is a substance much talked about, but rarely seen. Used either in the form of gas, liquid or powder, it is the most common preservative used in winemaking, and in food production more generally (known to us from food labels as E220). Its popularity is due its unique characteristics: even in minimal doses, it prevents both microbial activity and oxidation, and it is toxic to only a small percentage of the human population. The characteristics of sulphur have been known since antiquity, however the use of SO2 at all stages of vinification and wine keeping has become popular only in the 20th century.
SO2 and consumers.
In their focus group study with European consumers of organic and quality wines, ORWINE researchers found that in general consumers have very little knowledge of either the production methods or the additives used in organic winemaking – even if they are coneisseurs of organic food or wine. There was a general consensus that SO2 is ‘bad for you’, and should be limited, if not eliminated, from organic wines. In an interview with the Organic Wine Journal in 2008, Adam Morganstern sheds some light on the unfortunate series of events which led to the consumer perception of sulphites as ‘baddies’, without any knowledge of their positive qualities. This has led to the emergence of sulphite-free wines, which have created a market niche for themselves. It has to be said though that this kind of production strategy is not for everyone – and not for all the wines. Making ‘no sulphies added’ wines on an industrial scale is a complex and expensive process, which bears on the final price of the bottle. In short, if all wines were to be made sulphite-free, we would have to get used to spending much more on them.
It’s not about sales, it’s about the ethics.
Low sulphite wines are more prone to bacterial spoilage and oxidation, and it is more difficult for those wines to ‘sell themselves’ on the face-less international wine market. As a result companies that sell low-sulphite wines develop particular, information-heavy sales networks which require a lot of personal involvement from the producers. The whole company, both in production and in sales, has to adapt to the absence of SO2 and its consequences. The irony of this move is the fact that very few consumers realise what SO2 is at all, and what the consequences of limiting it are. In monetary terms, the expense of making low-sulphite wines far outstretches the advantages.
However altruistic it sounds, the fact is that organic wine producers who do strive to minimize SO2 in their wines do so not because of market pressures, or consumer demand, or regulations – but because they believe it is the right thing to do. They are, after all, in an ethical business.
The past few days have been filled with bothersome “tweets” on twitter and postings on Facebook from winemakers and vineyard consultants who are questioning the benefits of organic and biodynamic winegrowing. Some are calling this mode of farming a fad and others are going so far as to post video of the two clowns Penn and Teller calling organic farming “bullshit.” The video is filled with testimonials from the Hudson Institute debunking the qualities of organic farming. Hudson Institute is a think tank funded by the huge chemical companies Monsanto, DuPont and others. These items are posted because the authors know that we, at Shinn Estate Vineyards, will probably see them.
Unfortunately, we run into a lot of this. It didn’t take more than a minute for my husband David to post back: I get messages from winemakers damning organic and biodynamic viticulture. They should spend time hawking the benefits of Monsanto pesticides.
This back and forth online is a telling moment for me. 2010 will be the first year of a three year commitment to farm our wine organically under the Stellar organic certifying agency and the Demeter biodynamic certifying agency. Here, on the east coast, it is generally agreed amongst viticulturists and researchers that organic winegrowing is impossible so there is a good amount of skepticism surrounding the way we farm our wine at Shinn. Nevertheless, we continue to experiment every growing season with organic control of insects, fungus and weeds. It has been a long road to travel having no local certified organic example to follow.
We began planting our vines in 2000 and by the 2004 harvest we had converted our vineyard floor to a blooming meadow where no herbicides were used. The meadow grows between the rows and under the trellis where we mow the weeds under the vines, gaining a thick mulch of green manure with every pass. In 2003 we began weaning the 3 year old vineyard off chemical fertilizers and feeding the vines with fish, seaweed and compost teas. Today, the soil is fed a diet of only organic inputs including several different kinds of composts and we continue with the seaweed and fish and other organic materials. In 2004 we began an integrated pest management program to address troublesome insects and now they are controlled by the beneficial insects harbored in our meadow along with organically approved controls like pheromone ties. By the 2009 growing season we successfully controlled powdery mildew, black rot, sour rot, phomopsis, and botrytis organically. The key to the 2010 season is to discard phosphite as a component in controlling downy mildew.
It may seem like a decade is a very long time to transition a vineyard from conventional to organic but as I began to change the way I had been taught to farm wine, it became apparent that I could not make changes by simply substituting organic materials for conventional ones. I had to somehow transform the entire farm into a more natural state. It wasn’t a matter of finding the one enormous golden key to unlock the secret of natural winegrowing, instead it was starting a collection of tiny keys each unlocking small doors and drawers that all worked in tandem with each other. Maintaining the harmony amongst the vines means that I have to be incredibly tuned in to the flow of what the vineyard needs throughout the 4 seasons and keeping a balance between the soil, the sun, the weather and the fruit. It means learning not only to see Mother Nature’s signals but also to use my other senses like listening to the noise being made by the insects which gives me an indication of their population, smelling the scents made by the soil which tells me how active it is and feeling the skin of the grapes for density letting me know the degree of disease resistance the fruit may have this year. This is the kind of farming that inspires me and makes a decade of transition seem like a mere moment in time.
I grew up as a child in the 70′s. A confusing culinary juncture for North America. We ate Wonder Bread but hearty whole grain breads were starting to slip in there as well. I was raised in Texas and we were shopping at the early incarnation of Wholefoods when I was a pre-teen. Back then, it was mostly bins of grains, nuts, honey and organic produce. It planted a seed for me.
I don’t remember the first time I had a crusty baquette from a bakery. But I do remember back-packing through Europe at 19 and devouring buttery croissants and cafe au laits for breakfast, as well as simple but delicious ham sandwiches on fresh baquette. I was ruined and rarely, if ever, ate store bought pastries or bread again.
Wine has taken me on a similar journey. I started out with the readily available, conventional wines. I went through the pre-requisite early days of loving big, bruising reds and then later retreating to more subtle and refreshing whites or roses.
The past few years I have been delving ever deeper into wines made with native yeasts, neutral oak, and increasingly organically farmed grapes. Some are made with minimal added sulfites and some are sans soufre or have no added sulfites.
These wines are often lumped into the natural wine category. And indeed we do need a term to help identify these wines. These wines are free of processing from cultured yeasts, toasty new oak flavorings, added acids, purple dyes, and grapes sprayed with toxic chemicals.
Honestly, at the beginning of this journey, I could barely get my head around these wines. It was the equivalent of eating sugary, processed packaged bread for my whole life and then tasting fresh, crusty sourdough bread for the very first time. (like Woah! bread doesn’t taste like this? Does it?)
There were flavors, smells and textures that I had never encountered before in wine, so foreign at first, so endlessly exciting now. So freaking fresh! Honest wine indeed.
Of course, my problem now is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to truly enjoy conventional wines. Oh, I can taste them for professional purposes and discuss their merits or flaws. But I just can’t drink them for pleasure or with dinner anymore. In comparison, they taste manufactured. The amount of time spent in new oak barrels is especially overbearing in many cases.
This was highlighted last night, when I popped my last bottle Andrea Calek Blonde 2008, a vin naturel petillant (lightly, naturally sparkling wine made from organic chardonnay and viognier grapes). This wine is so much delicious fun, so exuberantly appley and refreshing.
Earlier I had been tasting a relatively high end pinot noir for review, it tasted dead in comparison. All oak and rich, thick cherry juice.
Four years have passed since my last lengthy Chateau Musar encounter in 2006: Musarathon – a 10 year vertical 1988-1998. Another seemed long overdue. Chateau Musar remains Lebanon’s most well known and venerated winery; the wines are unique, every vintage is different and each matures on its own path. Many are long lived – owner Serge Hochar made his first vintage in 1959 and this vintage is apparently still going strong a half century later. Furthermore, the wines are idiosyncratic – to paraphrase a saying of Serge Hochar, they possess all the charms of imperfection.
Some liken the reds to Bordeaux (given the influence of Cabernet Sauvignon in the blend and Serge’s oenology studies there), while others are reminded of the Rhône. The whites bear a passing resemblance to traditional white Rioja. Frankly, they are completely themselves, memorably Musar.
All this makes any Musarathon a fascinating and always rewarding pastime – no wonder that such events are so popular.
Sixteen wines were presented in four flights of four wines. Four whites led off the tasting before a dozen reds were shown, predominantly from the 1980’s, but stretching back to 1966. All were double-decanted as some had thrown considerable sediment. Afterwards they were matched to Lebanese cuisine. Here they are, from left to right.
Chateau Musar White is made from the indigenous Obidah and Merweh grapes. The vines are ungrafted and the youngest vines were planted back in 1947. Obaideh is said to be an ancestor of Chardonnay, the Merwah of Sémillon. The grapes are certified organic, fermented separately in oak and then matured in French (Nevers) oak for between 6 and 9 months without fining or filtering. They are then blended and bottled and kept for another six years before release.
Flight 1: ’03, ’01, ’95, ’90
2003 – 12%
The latest release, the lightest colour of the four whites on show, being pale brass. Only lightly aromatic at this youthful stage – vanilla notes underpin the fruit – citrus, dried apple and almond. Just enough acidity, a slippery almost waxy texture. The smallest of the four in stature, reflecting relative youth, expect more complexity with bottle age. Good but not ready yet.
2001 – 12.5%
Mid-brass colour, amber flecked. Much bigger and fuller pastry and marzipan nose. Palate is open, giving and rich, with a savoury tannin undercurrent. All kinds of fruit and nut complexity – quince, apricot, dried apple and lemon. More acidity means zippy freshness, a mere touch of oxidation. Barley sugar, butterscotch and (fleetingly) bacon fat appear before a long marzipan fade. Just hints of the honey expected to develop with time. Wine Alchemy’s Wine of the Month December 2009. Superb.
1995 – 12.5%
Pale yellow. Very restrained nose, some volatile acidity (VA) apparent on the palate plus oxidative notes, but overall it was closed up and austere. An amylic, pear-drop and sour-milk flavour dominated, giving way after a couple of hours. Suspected faulty if still drinkable, possibly poor storage – easily the least impressive of the four whites. Disappointing, but is this one bottle really indicative of the vintage? Would like to try another.
1990 -12%
Green bottle. Dark gold with an amber rim. Big opulent nose that has developed farmyard and animal fur notes alongside marzipan and quince. Well worth lingering over before tasting, pine nuts and smoke appear in 10 minutes. Real development and interest here. Rich palate, slightly waxy, lemon groves peep from out of the mix after 30 minutes to go with quince, caramel/butterscotch and that bacon fat note. Strikingly honeyed lengthy finish. Feels like this still has decades ahead. Excellent – has it peaked yet?
Chateau Musar Red
The organic Cabernet Sauvignon, Cinsault and Carignan grapes are harvested at low yields (30-35 hl/ha), then fermented separately in cement vats before aging for 12 months (sometimes longer) in French (Nevers) oak barriques. No fining or filtering, the wine is blended and bottled at the end of the third year with Cabernet Sauvignon being dominant at 50-80%. Chateau Musar then age the wine in bottle and finally release it in the seventh year. The exact blend differs with the bounty of each harvest and the wine is made and blended on instinct, with a non-interventionist approach, so every year is unique and each wine will make its own journey over many decades.
Flight 2: 2002/1999/1994/1988
2002 – 14%
Deep crimson, slight brickiness to the rim. Immediate thwack of volatile acidity on the nose, then herbs and bold red fruits. The palate is intense, powerful and with a touch of horse (Brett) – enough to add character without spoiling the show. Fresh acidity, cake spices. Fig, damson and redcurrant stew. An initial petillance too – still some gas, though this swirls off. Youthful, still a firm tannic grip. Enjoyable now but with much more to come and clearly has the potential for greatness over the next couple of decades. Impressive.
1999 – 14%
A classic year. Crimson colour a shade lighter showing a little more development with a wider bricky rim. Really harmonious nose, red fruit being VA influenced and with a clear tobacco note while a touch of gaminess knits it all together. With more extract and a polished high sheen texture, is there more Cabernet here? Red and black fruit, spices, herbs – and very long. Morphs in the glass into an ever more expressive wine with an ashtray heart, eventually showing mandarin and clove. Joyous. Drink or keep (preferably do both).
1994 – 14%
Bricky colour, brown tinged rim. VA in extremis on the nose, then spices and redcurrant. Palate is sweet and raisiny – suggests over-ripe grapes (was this a heat-wave year?), the dark gamey undertones help out. More viscosity and spirity warmth than other vintages and it doesn’t have the classic Musar depth or complexity either. Returned to this wine several times, always drawing this same conclusion. On its own this is still a good and enjoyable wine to drink now. In this company it’s a bit of an ugly duckling without the hallmarks of great Musar. Much less successful and can’t visualise much improvement to come, so drink up.
1988 – 14%
A broad bricky rim surrounding a small crimson core. Initially there was a huge amount of sulphur on the nose (unattractive rotten eggs) and on the palate (dumb show) which did not augur well. However, once the sulphur had swirled off there was revealed a masterful and harmonious wine with a medicinal and tobacco edge. Multi-dimensional; balsam, game and leather in the mix with plum fruit. Cinnamon and nutmeg spices. Went on improving all evening. On the cusp where primary fruit seems perfectly balanced with secondary evolution – is this the peak? Marvellous – and wine of the night.
Flight 3: 1987/1986/1985/1983.
1987 – 14%
Light, almost pinot-like colour. Red berries and smoke on the nose, hint of tea-caddy. Plenty of bright acidity, harmonious red fruits, soft and supple, earthy undertow. Excellent length.
1986 – 14%
Similar colour to the ’87. More cedar-ish nose. Fresh and lifted red berry fruit, hint of milk chocolate. Pine and plum. Strongly resembles the ’87. Long fade-out.
1985 – 14%
Again a similar colour. Violets as a floral note, more garrigue-like. A little more vanilla, of polished dark fruit. Family similarity to the ‘87 and ’86 – the differences between this trio are down to subtle nuances that tend only to become obvious in a vertical tasting.
1983 -14%
Nothing like the previous three- earthy sous-bois nose, big body and more alcoholic power, sweeter fruit. Spicier – the return of nutmeg. Bold and inviting, though feels more rustic and less complex.
Flight 4: 1982/1981/1980/1966
1982 – 14%
Crimson colour with a broader amber-ish rim. Some milk chocolate on the nose which is reprised on the finish. Noticeably dry, with drying tannins that remain unresolved. Leather and tea with the damsons. A different expression that is less distinguished and less fine.
1981 – 14%
Fading. Hint of astringency, makes it a little chewy. Some volatility, fading strawberry flavours. Doesn’t suggest this will have much more time ahead. Hole in the middle where the fruit was, still enjoyable but past its prime, surely.
1980 -14%
Bags of colour and a good deal finer. At nearly 30 years old it could be mistaken for a pinot in colour, but there the resemblance ends. Very full nose, warm garrigue herbs and plum fruit. Overwhelming impression of elegance in the mouth; weightless balance, plums and cinnamon spices, silken texture gives way to a long and slightly drying finish with milk chocolate. With all the edges chamfered off, this is one of the best wines here and seems timeless.
1966 – 14%
Only 43 years old and with a crumbling cork! But no worries; a light colour, really a dark rosé with crimson flecks in the core. A huge sediment left in the bottle. Lifted ethereal aromas are the best feature displayed – brown spices, smoke and leather. No real primary fruit left, still that bright acidity and a silken texture. Fleeting complexities and increasing fragility as it evolved in the glass, eventually revealing a citrus (mandarin?) spine. Still plenty of life and a very rare treat.
Conclusions
Red stand-outs were the ‘66, ‘80, ‘88, ‘99 and ‘02. Least successful: ’94. If I had to pick just one then the 1988 shades it for being not too young, not too old, but just right. In white, the 2001 and the 1990 share the honours – both are terrific yet illustrate either end of the development scale.
The current releases are not expensive for the quality on offer plus it’s relatively easy to get older vintages – so why not hold your very own Musarathon – just don’t forget to ask me along if you do!
Food footnote
Lebanese and North African cuisine were a perfect foil for these wines after the tasting – the perfect way to finish any Musarathon.
Mezze: various hummus, anchovies, olives, chickpeas and buckwheat, pita bread
Fish: sea bream dressed in charmoula (a North African pesto of lemon juice, parsley, coriander, cumin and fennel)
Meat: Slow-roasted lamb with rosemary
Meat: Barbequed chicken in a spicy marinade
Salad: tabbouleh and fattoush
Randall Graham takes on winemaking, critics and designer yeast in his own Dylan-style video. Visit the Been Doon So Long site for full lyrics and copious footnotes.
The past few days have been filled with bothersome “tweets” on twitter and postings on Facebook from winemakers and vineyard consultants who are questioning the benefits of organic and biodynamic winegrowing. Some are calling this mode of farming a fad and others are going so far as to post video of the two clowns Penn and Teller calling organic farming “bullshit.” The video is filled with testimonials from the Hudson Institute debunking the qualities of organic farming. Hudson Institute is a think tank funded by the huge chemical companies Monsanto, DuPont and others. These items are posted because the authors know that we, at Shinn Estate Vineyards, will probably see them. 
I grew up as a child in the 70′s. A confusing culinary juncture for North America. We ate Wonder Bread but hearty whole grain breads were starting to slip in there as well. I was raised in Texas and we were shopping at the early incarnation of Wholefoods when I was a pre-teen. Back then, it was mostly bins of grains, nuts, honey and organic produce. It planted a seed for me.
