Feb 4Liked by Aaron Ayscough

I stand 100% with JP Robinot: only 100% raisin!! All the rest is a “commercial, economical” decision, often understandable too, but stop calling yourself a natural winemaker and your wines natural wines. And don’t surf on the (undeniable) success of “natural” without being natural. Besides, what is and where stops “low intervention” and there is a lot that “doesn’t kill anyone”. In the end, the drinker decides (besides, there is and should be room for everyone). As for Augereau: it’s time to stop calling La Dive “natural” and for the clueless La Dive buyers, sommeliers and “tourists”, sell and present other than true natural wines or be honest and tell your customers. Always the same: where success comes, the original goal and ideology goes as it becomes less convenient for a lot of people..

Expand full comment
Feb 5Liked by Aaron Ayscough

Sad to see what happens in the « natural » wine world.

Today, we, winemakers who make wine from 100% grapes and that’s all, feel that we are attacked, marginalized by people who think that they are the ones who should represent « natural » wine.

We don’t care about representation. Our wines are not about ideology ! We are not radicals, we are not « ayatollah », we are not crazy people who don’t know a thing about wines and the subtleties of vinification !

We do not represent mousiness or volatile acidity! But we know that these aspects of a totally additiveless vinification exist and that they are part of the risk we assume when we work properly, without any chemicals.

We also know that real living wines need time to settle, beautiful patience and care. And that’s part of a wine’s life. It’s not juste ready to consume quickly and without thinking!

Tasting a living wine is an experience. It’s about nose and mouth but also about souvenirs, sensations, emotions. It can be as provocative as a work of art. It’s not always « straight » and easy going. It can have some « aspérités », some strange poetry and that’s good as long as it also stays « digest ».

It’s not about harming people ´s bodies. It’s about nourishing body and soul.

Anyway, making wine as « funambules », risking to loose some cuvées, is a philosophical matter. Not an ideological one!

Moreover, it’s about aesthetics also. It’s about The vision we have about vibrant and questioning saveurs and arômes.

So please, stop attacking us ! We didn’t attack you ! We participated and will continue to participate to events that unite also some winemaker friends who add a little bit of sulphur in their wines, even though that’s not our vision. Each one of us does the job as he/she can, in this difficult economic context. We don’t judge, so do not judge us!

In the light of this ridiculous « war » we ask ourselves if it’s still a good idea to call our 100% fermented grape wines, « natural ». Maybe we could leave this fashion to those who try to make it their own. ( Questions sur la ré appropriation culturelle etc)

So, Long Life to …. WINE!


Expand full comment

Beautiful comment 🙏 thank you for sharing these thoughts

Expand full comment

Thank you for reading them :)

Have a beautiful day!

Expand full comment

It amazes me that, as a community that mostly agrees that all the hard work is done in the vineyard, we end up arguing about details in the winery. What’s in the wine only affects the drinker. What’s used in the vineyard affects the whole ecosystem.

Expand full comment

I kind of agree with Sylvie Augereau. A little dose of sulfur can be more than enough to up your chances of producing drinkable wine. What is the use of working a year in the vineyard, just so that the wine gets mousy or has a lot of volatile acids and becomes undrinkable. Since nearly all of the natural winemakers say they want to work sustainable in their vineyards, I can't understand how these winemakers justify loosing possibly several barrels a year and wasting the resources taken from the vineyards. I think we owe it to the nature that we work with to not waste the grapes by being stubborn and not wanting to intervene if necessary, just to follow a dogma. If a wine is stable enough to be bottled without sulfites, that's great and I would mostly advocate to do so in that case, as long as they are honest about it to the consumer.

Expand full comment

These are often specious arguments . More fundamental should be much more informed observation based on knowledge of natural chemistry and plain winemaking experience .. both which on a little delving, is usually minimal in the most vociferous !

Expand full comment

Good reflexion about having a real vision when you are making natural wines in a delicate time ...

Not a world about Syndicat "Méthode Vin Naturel" witch was created in reaction of the way Natural Wines were caricature by the institutions ... and still is !!!

Have a look and let me know if you feel any "inertia" in our actions !!!!


Expand full comment

Great article, as always.

I don't like excesses, not in a way nor in the other.

Chemical and industrial wine is the worst, but then we tend to forget that a wine, at the end, must be drinkable! It's not at all a work of art: you can have art that is not aesthetically enjoyable (es. Duchamp) that is still art but you cannot have a wine that is not drinkable because of its faults, because of its aesthetic. It's a form of respect towards consumers, buyers, and even the land.

I am happy to see that more people at very high level right now demand for accurate wines. I think we should not be religious or fanatic; we should be laic and curious!

Expand full comment