opinion / cellar door
Clos-ed minds Nick Ryan
ock a dozen people in a room and give each of them a tin of paint and a brush. Some will look up and imagine Sistine beauty. They’re the creative types. Others declare the room in need of a freshen up and assiduously apply their paint to the walls. They’re the practical people who keep things ticking along. And one starts splashing the paint on the floor with broad brushstrokes, not stopping until they’ve backed themselves hard into a corner. That’s the one who works in wine. It’s hard to think of another business that tries harder to petrify its virtue through rigid regulation. Be it the gospel of appellation or wild-eyed naturalist dogma, never let it be said that this industry, born from the randomness of fermentable good fortune, doesn’t love a firm set of rules. Does any other endeavor requiring at least some level of artistry try so hard to seek beauty through bureaucracy? It’s a question I asked myself recently when stumbling across another example of the heavy hand of good intentions. This one came from the Slow Wine Coalition, an offshoot of the wider Slow Food Movement. It was titled Slow Food Manifesto for Good, Clean and Fair Wine. Despite the gnawing feeling that a
L
“manifesto” is something best scrawled in a university dorm room as a tattered poster of Che Guevara peels away from the walls and drapes over the authorial head, this is actually a document of some reasonable merit. Its ten commandments (my term rather than theirs, though the number is no coincidence, I’m sure) are mostly sensible. To be considered a good, clean, and fair wine in the Slow Wine world view, a producer must forgo chemically synthesized fertilizers and herbicides in the vineyard, and never yield to manipulative methods of must-concentration in the cellar. I’ve no issue with that. There are
several stipulations I vigorously applaud. “Wineries should actively engage and
collaborate with the entire surrounding farming community in order to strengthen and enhance the agricultural system of the area.” Bravo. And this one, proving that didacticism and actual concern for how a wine tastes don’t have to be mutually exclusive: “The wines must be free of any winemaking defects, as they tend to homogenize the wines and stamp out any regional identity.” But there’s one stipulation—in fact,
it’s the very first one, coming before directives about sustainability and working for greater biodiversity in and around vineyards—that I find really problematic. It reads: “Wineries must grow a minimum 70% of the grapes used in the production of their wine themselves.” For a start, the number seems
arbitrary, and the fact that the declaration is followed with “Exceptions are given for regions in which widespread sourcing is common, e.g. Madeira, Napa Valley, the south of Spain, etc,” undermines it immediately. Is a declaration built on a random number and overrun by exceptions worth the stone into which it seeks to set itself? Even putting all that aside, the thinking is still flawed. While the ideal of the “closed loop” vigneron making wines from their own deeply understood vineyards is worth acclaiming, title deeds in the top drawer don’t guarantee winemaking success. The key that opens a vineyard’s front gate doesn’t necessarily unlock its deeper secrets.
Mutually elevating relationships Reading this manifesto through just an Australian lens, I came up with dozens of the most exciting, intuitive, principled, and nimble winemakers I know who nobly meet all the criteria for “good, clean, and fair” wine, but fail this cumbersome question of ownership. Partly it’s a question of capital. While the multi-generational wine families, conceiving under canopies and
continuing proud traditions, will always be vital to the wine world, so, too, are the new blood and new thinking that come with young winemakers sourcing a tonne or two here and there and forging their own path. Welding winemaking virtue to vineyard ownership seems to undervalue the mutually elevating relationship that can exist between winemakers and grape growers. Nowhere is that more evident than the Barossa Valley. More than any other New World region I know, the Barossa is a portal to the old. It is the principles of Slow writ large and lived daily. This is a place where serious arguments can break out over which grape variety’s fermenting must should be used to make the harvest time desert Rote Grütze. (The right answer is Mourvèdre. But here, you better call it Mataro.) Entries of pickles and preserves into
local agricultural fairs number in the hundreds and come from every section of the community, while Australia’s only remaining kegelbahn (a nine-pin bowling alley, harking back to 19th- century Silesian settlers) still hosts keenly contested competitions several nights a week. You can still hear a local dialect, “Barossa Deutsch,” spoken in the streets by some of a certain age, many of whom have never needed a passport. This is a place where octogenarians work the vineyards their grandparents planted. They still call them their “gardens.” There are more than 500 registered grape growers in the Barossa. The majority have never made a wine they haven’t consumed themselves. It is the relationship between these growers and the winemakers who cherish them that is the fine-twined fabric of a community falling well short of what the Slow Wine Coalition has declared necessary to produce Good, Clean and Fair wine. No doubt that news will come as a great surprise to some of these old Barossans. When the carrier pigeon arrives.
THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 87 | 2025 | 95
Illustration by Dan Murrell
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220
