Thanks for your reply to my comment. Sorry for not responding earlier, as I had forgotten to check back on this important conversation.

You are correct in suggesting that my view about truthfulness is black and white, as there's no grey area when it comes to being honest. I expect the same of winemakers in terms of practicing full disclosure.

When this disclosure does not exist on the bottle's label, then I seek out the truth by visiting a winemaker's web site or talking to them directly during a winery visit or tasting event. Truth be told, there are many wines that I once liked for how they tasted, but have stopped drinking after learning how they were made. And it if becomes clear that a producer is not willing to disclose the truth, then I will pass on buying that wine again.

I am not so naive to believe the those who aren't practicing transparency will face negative consequences now, which is why I used the term "eventually". It's going to take time for consumers to wise up to the fact that certain wines aren't solely comprised of fermented grapes. The food industry is a constructive analog here, as there are many who have suffered business losses due to consumers turning away from certain products.

I applaud your efforts as a winemaker to disclose what you do in crafting wine. I admire your courage for doing so even when it carries economic risk. We need more of this marketing integrity with wine, just as we see it in other consumable products.

Thank you for not only visiting Vintners Voice but also commenting.

I am unaware of your experience with wine so I am "working without a net" in remarking on your comment so please forgive me if what I say doesn't exactly fit your situation.

You say; "Either a winemaker upholds "in vino veritas" or does not". This is concrete black and white thinking. It is this "either or" thinking that I was taking issue with in Mr Kramers article.

I am unaware of what sort of wine you prefer or more importantly what sort of IDEAL you expect your wine to be made by. I am, however, fairly certain that if you were to know the full truth about how some of the wines you enjoy were really made you would likely enjoy them less.
My point is that you buy wines you like. The wine was fine, with you, until you found out that the winemaker did X ( add any of the current hot topics in enology ) to it. Now the wine isn't up to your standards, though the wine hasn't changed one bit. Your impression of the wine was changed by your knowledge of how it was made. My argument is that the IDEAL by which you judge how a wine was produced isn't based on how wines really are made but on the "selective truth" that consumers have been fed. Again, I am unaware of your wine knowledge specifically and am speaking generally.

If you ( the editorial you ) were to have an open mind about how a wine is made, listen to WHY a winemaker did the things they did, you would develop an IDEAL that is based on reality. Currently the 'system' is gamed so that if I (the producer) tells the truth I am punished because my wine wasn't produced based on a mythological Ideal.

So when you say:"Those that practice selective truth telling or none at all will eventually be viewed with suspicion." I have to believe that you are being a little naive. I can promise you that the best wine publications, best wine shops and best wine lists are loaded with examples of wines that fetch exorbitant prices, sell out quickly and are consumed in large quantities, that practice exactly the selective truth you say will hurt them. My question is: WHEN will the market begin to be suspicious?

I am transparent about what I do to wines. I consider myself a minimalist but at the same time I am committed to makeing a wine that I consider good as defined by me, and will on occaison make an adjustment to get the wine to live up to a certain standard, again defined by me. I have, on numerous occaisons, had impressions of my wine changed based on my transparency while the same consumer hails another producer that does the same thing but fails to acknowledge it.

The truth is that wineries are simply telling people WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. I am also curious as to why you would believe that wine is or should be immune to the same sort of marketing pressures that apply to other goods and services?

It was good to get something posted again. I have no problem with wine critics commenting on a wines balance. If they believe the wines are out of balance then say so. This IS there job.
Second guessing winemaking descions is another matter entirely. A Monkey can be trained to determine if a FINISHED wine was made from "overripe" grapes. Tasting a grape just picked off of a vine and trying to determine how 'ripe' it is ( in a sense that goes well beyond sugar levels ) is another matter entirely.
My point is that the critic is free to point out that a wine is 'overripe' but to go on to comment about a winemakers motivation in making that wine is crossing a line. Until someone does the time in the vineyard and the cellar they cannot begin to fully understand the process that takes place to arrive at a picking or adjustment desicion.
I simply think it is out of thier field of expertise and with a touch of introspection, never mind modesty, they would have to agree.

Either a winemaker upholds "in vino veritas" or does not. Those that do will ultimately be rewarded in the marketplace, for it's clear consumers have a bias toward knowing what's in the products they consume. Those that practice selective truth telling or none at all will eventually be viewed with suspicion.

I recently read an article that romanticized the benefits of the long cool MLF that occurred in yesteryear Europe. That, along with the resurgence of wild yeast fermentation has me thinking.
Putting aside the clear "cons" regarding spontaneous MLF, what, if any, would be the rewards? and what conditions would be most advantageous?
Thanks for your thoughts.

Sorry for the late response, actually making the wine always takes precedent over commenting on it.
Frost during the growing season is fairly rare here. This might seem contradictory given that Oregon is a "cool" climate in terms of viticulture.
Knowing that Oregon is "cool" has always made sight selection a priority in vineyard development. While our friends to the south tend to plant the convenient to farm, flat, valley floors we here in Oregon have known from the begining that doing so would be a disaster. So frost is something that we, ironicaly, avoided.

As as an actual Red Headed Step Child I can say that Oregon is very much treated in that manner by National and International media outlets. We are a small region and though I think it would be great to have reporters actually visit the region during harvest, I don't really expect it to happen.

All we can do, as an Industry, is continue to face the challenges of each vintage, make great wines, and hope that consumers hold us in higher regards that major wine publications do.