The Coulee De Serrant I drank needed a day to even open up...but might have still been good after a week open! I know what you mean on "most" organic wines though.

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
Personally, I don't care if the put unicorn shit in wine if it makes it better. As long as it isn't a health hazard who gives a fukc.

Try some truly organic wine sometime. Better drink it the first week it's bottled without sulfite treatment.

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
Personally, I don't care if the put unicorn shit in wine if it makes it better. As long as it isn't a health hazard who gives a fukc.

Try some truly organic wine sometime. Better drink it the first week it's bottled without sulfite treatment.

I never knew Unicorn's defecated, but I get your point!

quote:

Originally posted by vinosnob:
The Coulee De Serrant I drank needed a day to even open up...but might have still been good after a week open! I know what you mean on "most" organic wines though.

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
Personally, I don't care if the put unicorn shit in wine if it makes it better. As long as it isn't a health hazard who gives a fukc.

Try some truly organic wine sometime. Better drink it the first week it's bottled without sulfite treatment.

You aren't suggesting that the wine doesn't receive sulfite treatment are you?

Chaptalization just scratches the surface of wine manipulations

No. Organic and Bio, but added sulfites. Didn't read the part without sulfite treatment...too distracted thinking about unicorn poop in wine!

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:

quote:

Originally posted by vinosnob:
The Coulee De Serrant I drank needed a day to even open up...but might have still been good after a week open! I know what you mean on "most" organic wines though.

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
Personally, I don't care if the put unicorn shit in wine if it makes it better. As long as it isn't a health hazard who gives a fukc.

Try some truly organic wine sometime. Better drink it the first week it's bottled without sulfite treatment.

You aren't suggesting that the wine doesn't receive sulfite treatment are you?

quote:

Originally posted by Sandy Fitzgerald:
Torb;

We're not talking about water here. Why are you against disclosure of additives. If you add mega-Purple or superTannin,etc. Why not be proud and disclose it on the bottle?

What's your beef with that?

I strongly agree with Sandy’s point. Regardless of the fact that “wine is an interventionist and manipulative process”, there is a consumer desire (some might argue a right) to know just what interventions have been done. Why don’t producers satisfy that desire? Probably because they are afraid of the consumer reaction. If the naturalness of wine is a myth, it is one that consumers deeply cherish, and also one that the industry does nothing to dispel. The beer equivalent to this, is the Bavarian purity law of 1516, which many beer makers proudly display on their labels as a badge of honour.

Many factors beyond mere taste influence a purchase decision. Some people will choose wines they deem less “adulterated” or more “pure” even if it is a less tasty product.

quote:

Originally posted by TORB:

Also, as I have already stated, many 'so called' additives occur naturally in wine, so why should something that occurs naturally in the product be disclosed on the label? If it doesn't occur naturally, then by all means disclose it on the label.

This is too open-ended Ric. 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde occurs naturally in grapes, so a winemaker should be able to add more? How about methanol? Like you said, where do you draw the line?

I'm for disclosure. If it gets added somewhere during the winemaking process...put it on the label.

I am all for full disclosure, and I would applaud any winery that did list what was used in the making of their wines. However, I think realistically this would only be suitable for smaller wineries. We have to remember that those of us on this forum represent a very small segment of wine drinkers. We may view alterations as good or bad, but we generally have knowledge of common additives and why they are used. Provided a list of additives used in the manufacture of a particular wine, we would be able to make an informed decision on whether to purchase or not.

Less knowledgeable consumers may feel that the addition of anything is a negative. Wineries are at least partly to blame, as I think many try to project the non-interventionalist, 'romantic' nature of wine. This is a big part of how wineries market themselves. A list of additives goes against this image, and would just go to confuse the majority of consumers.

Sure, it would be great if all wineries were completely honest and took the time to educate their customers. They might also use additives more sparingly if they knew they had to be listed on the bottle. So, all good things I guess, but realistically I don't think many wineries would go along with it.

Le Chambertin;

I'm old enough to remember how food processors fought tooth and nail to prevent listing what was in the foods they prepared and sold. the various manufactures of msg had their own lobbying group trying to have that additive listed as seasonings and not listed individually.

Today, the listing of ingredients is an expected part of the industry.

There is no law banning the addition of msg to any food. Nor should there be. But I like knowing if its there.

Just like the food industry the wine industry will probably only be brought kicking and screaming to the practice.

Don't send this article link to my papa. He already thinks store bought wine is caca.

Let's face it: there are different types of winery owners. Some are in it for money, some for the love of the product and the craft.

The other thing to face: a great many additives are crutches that enable wines to achieve a certain style.

Therefore, it's far more likely that a profit-motivated winemaker will employ those additives, and go to greater measures to craft their wine into a more marketable style.

Others assume huge risk and cost to avoid adjustments in the cellar, by studying alternative cultivation methods, employing labor intensive practices (e.g. hand-sorting) and by accepting that their wine may not fit the style of the most popular wines in the marketplace.

I don't knock the guys and gals who are in it to make a buck; there's a place in the market for all kinds of wines, but I do idolize those winemakers who struggle to minimize evidence of the "hand of Man" in the wine. I also tend to prefer their wines!

Here's a link to an academic paper, published by the Stanford School of Business, that explores some of these issues in the California winery context. It's a very interesting read.

Love or Money? The Effects of Owner Motivation in the California Wine Industry

From the abstract:

Models that assume only consumer tastes determine the characteristics of supply are restrictive; producers can gain utility from aspects of production and pay for deviating from demand by accepting lower financial returns. We model and measure motivations of California winery owners, and analyze their effects on quality and price. We find utility-maximizers are more likely to produce high quality and set higher quality-adjusted prices. Profit-oriented owners are less likely to produce high quality wines. These results suggest that the presence of hobbyists who enjoy producing high quality may lower financial returns in the segment and discourage profit-maximizers from locating there.