Unfiltered Wine?

[Drew]

Sometimes I see a bottle of wine marked "unfiltered", can some of our more experienced forumites explain what this means re. to quality and taste...also are there any risks in consuming unfiltered wine?

[Bucko]

Many believe that unfined/unfiltered wines retain more flavor than those that have been sterile filtered. Some believe that filter pads impart off-flavors to the wine as well. There is no harm in consuming said wines. There is a small risk of spoilage and secondary fermentations in the bottles, but this is usually obvious upon opening the bottle.

Bucko

[Thomas]

In quite a lot of cases, it is simply a marketing device; for thsoe consumers who think it the "natural" way to make wine.

Having said that, there are instances when filter pads get in the way of a wine, but it takes a trained palate to determine that.

[Thomas]

In quite a lot of cases, it is simply a marketing device; for thsoe consumers who think it the "natural" way to make wine.

Having said that, there are instances when filter pads get in the way of a wine, but it takes a trained palate to determine that.

[Randy Caparoso]

Hi, folks. I'm back, and can't resist a personal comment. As a longtime wine professional, I've come up with this conclusion: most wines that come unfiltered are better for being that way. It is less of a marketing than a quality decision. Why else would vintners risk such a regime? The thinking is basically that it is worth it to take a chance of instability or even inconsistency of product if the product ends up with more unemasculated flavor for having not gone through the process. I guess you can say it is like circumcision vs. noncircumcision. Personally, I much prefer my wine uncircumcised -- even if every bottle needs to be treated more gently, and every bottle opened is an adventure! What is wine for anyhow, folks? Sameness? Predictability? Not for me!

For the strongest printed word against circumcision -- whoops, I mean against filtering! -- I suggest that you pick up a Kermit Lynch's book, Adventures on the Wine Route. Some think Lynch is a little "out there," but when you consider the fact that perfectly respectable, well established wineries such as Robert Mondavi, Chalk Hill, and Saintsbury (among many, many others) have long ago concluded that unfiltered wines are best, Lynch doesn't seem so radical after all.

[Thomas]

From my standpoint, I have tasted bad and good wines, filtered or unfiltered. It all goes to the winemaking talent behind the product.

How many producers offer unfiltered white wines? Much easier to shield from view all that stuff floating in the bottle when it is a red wine inside dark glass. Is this a winemaking or marketing decision?

[Randy Caparoso]

Foodie, the only people who think unfiltered wine -- white or red -- are purely marketing ploys are probably those who like to brag about their boring, stripped-down stuff. Sure, they're predictable. To each his own.

Unfiltered wines, however, are definitely for consumers -- and winemakers, for that matter -- who prefer the taste of wine in its full, unfettered state. People who push the envelope, live dangerously, skirt the edge, etc., etc. You know that I prefer unfiltered wines. The fact is, virtually all the winemakers I've met who dispense with filtering are those who've done the research: they've compared the wines they've made that have been filtered with with their wines that are unfiltered, and found that the unfiltered taste best... pure and simple! As another matter of fact, most producers who do not filter do NOT state that fact on their labels -- they let the name, and quality of the wine inside, speak for themselves.

By the way: the wineries that I mentioned previously -- Chalk Hill, Saintsbury, and others such as Frog's Leap -- apply their unfiltered regimes to white varietals such as Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc. They see no problem in producing fairly clear looking, clean tasting white wine, given good, clean, careful winemaking.

[This message has been edited by Randy Caparoso (edited 03-21-2000).]

[Thomas]

Here we go again.

I originally posted, and I quote, "In quite a lot of cases, it is simply a marketing device." And having had some of those wines in my portfolio when I sold for a distributor, I stand behind the statement.

No implication other than some producers have a "fad" mentality, just like many consumers.

I like to evaluate each wine, individually, no matter who or how it is produced. And in fact, I happen to prefer less human intervention in food and wine production. But this board speaks to general consumers, and general consumers need to know that they should do their own homework and not just to follow what a magazine, a crowd or even a producer wine label tells them to follow.

And I certainly do not think one person's wine desires speaks for all people who consume wine or who would like to consume it, no matter how much experience that person has.

I womder if these kinds of wine questions are relevant in many wine-producing nations overseas?

[Randy Caparoso]

Yes, we are in disagreement. The question is, at what point does a statement of fact on a label go from quality consideration to "marketing device?" Certainly, words like "Reserve" or "Select" are very often marketing devices. In many cases, they really do mean "Reserve" and "Select" -- a vintner's best cuvees. The same for appellation names -- "Napa Valley" and "Sonoma Mountain" are meant to inform as well as to entice. But when included on the label, are they "simply" shrewd attempts to sell wine, or are they statements of fact meant to denote a certain level of quality?

In my own experience, wineries who bother to put "unfiltered" on their labels do so because they truly believe it to be a quality factor that the consumer needs to consider. To say "simply a marketing device" somehow demeans a lot of good, conscientious intentions; particularly since the word is far less common and prone to abuse than designations like "Reserve" and "Napa Valley."

[Thomas]

Okay, Randy, obviously, to you "quite a lot of" is an overall indictment against all producers, which is not what I intended. And, I did not mean to imply that the word "unfiltered" on the label means the winery lies, just that some unfiltered wines that I have come across should have been filtered, or at least made better. I am afraid, like "reserve" the word "unfiltered" is becoming a fad word, and that is what the particular products I refer to prey upon.

So, what I mean to say is: buyer beware, and the defense rests.

[Bucko]

My take on the issue is that one certain person in the wine writing industry has touted the unfiltered, unfined wines, and denigrated filtered/fined wines. Now when people see unfiltered, they think that this MUST be a better wine. This is not necessarily true. The French have been fining wines for 200 years, and all of their wines are certainly garbage <sarcasm>. Yes, unfiltered wines may be less stripped of all of those microcomponents that end up making a wonderful wine, but lightly filtered or fined wines are just fine as well. I have to agree that "Unfiltered/Unfined" has of late become a marketing tool, not that that is a bad thing.

Bucko

[Randy Caparoso]

The point I was making last, Bucko, is that EVERYTHING is indeed a marketing tool when it suggests quality. "Napa Valley" is a marketing tool; so is "B.V. Private Reserve," "Robert Mondavi," "Lytton Springs," "Cardinale," etc., etc. But to a much larger extent, such designations are basically statements of fact (I mean, what are they supposed to say?). And in virtually all cases, the quality implied has been hard-earned by the years of work and craftsmanship put into the product contained within.

"Unfiltered," of course, is a statement denoting methodology; and a large extent, philosophy. The consumer is not meant to hoodwinked, but to make a purchasing decision based upon whether or not he agrees with this methodolgoy and philosophy. It's similar to "barrel fermented." Lots of people believe barrel fermented wines are best, and lots of people really don't care. If a winery states on a label that the wine is barrel fermented they are obviously making a statement of fact while banking on the possibility that many consumers will respond favorably. But decision to barrel ferment, 99% of the time, starts with a winery's belief that barrel fermentation is indeed better and, in fact, something to brag about -- whether or not other wineries and consumers agree with this. So what's wrong with selling a wine as "barrel fermented" if you really believe in it?

Ask any winemaker who puts "unfiltered" on their labels (not really a lot of them, anyhow). Chances are they'll tell you that it is indeed quality designation that is also meant to sell. What quality designation doesn't? Since when should a consumer be "beware" of the truth? Fact is, in the final analysis factors such as graphic design, bottle shape/packaging, price positioning, retail discount programs, etc. are far more obvious, and potentially lethal, means of enticing or even deceiving the consumer.

[This message has been edited by Randy Caparoso (edited 03-22-2000).]

[Thomas]

Randy, you truly are reaching, but I said I would rest my defense and I shall stick to it.

[Randy Caparoso]

Well, when it comes to wine and other such passions, you can never reach too far, can't you?

[fixx]

I'm 48 and have been making wine since I was 3, I started by cranking the press for my dad and as I got older learned what my dad and grandfather knew about making wine. We made it from the real grapes and not from concentrates.
As far as unfiltered and filtered wines go the unfiltered is the real way to make it, it has a more rich flavour and the only way I can discribe it is it has a smooth creamy taste, we tried all sorts of filters one year and I remember my grandfather calling me down stairs and asking me to taste the new batch and it has a little taste of the filter in it and we both agreed this is not good, we tried other filters and found that if we let the wine filter threw a 3 stage filtering system made up of 3 strainers with each one contaning a coffee filter it filtered out any setement and not changing the taste of the wine.
This takes a while but the end results was great, your jet filters or jet filters do it in 15 minutes but then you end up with a taste that isin't suppost to be in wine.
Someone posted a reply saying only a trained palet can taste the difference, it's like tasting Pepsi and Coke, if you like one you know when someone has given you the other, if your going to make wine take the extra hour and make it the best you can and you will be happy you did when you sit and drink your own.

[Thomas]

Fixx, we are talking about commercial wines; I don't think coffee filtering would work too well in that situation....

I think in home winemaking filtering is both unnecssary and likely unwanted. But when you have a few thousand cases to sell, most of your market isn't going to take kindly to things floating in the wine.

Something you said brings up a thought: you claim unfiltered wine is the "real way" of making wine. In Roman and Greek times wine received generous additions of sea water, pine resin, honey and a host of other additives. One could also make the claim that that is the "real way" to make wine. And before the medieval French made oak storage the norm, wines were shipped and stored mainly in amphora--that would have to be the "real way" to do that.

My point: the world is in constant change.