Oak, from a different perspective

Oak has gotten a pretty bad rap over the last thirty years or so, and nowhere more than in American wines.

Seemed for a while that oak was the unavoidable ingredient, especially in chardonnay but in many, many red wines as well.

Admittedly the balance became unbalanced, and wine makers and the public (well, large elements of the public anyway) became so enamored of the ingredient and the process of adding oak to wine that it became 'the thing to do."

Then, of course, came the inevitable backlash, and a tendency toward lighter oaked wines and even the drastic rush to "no oak" and "oak free" wines became the trend.

So is oak the defiler of wine, the boon to wine...or somewhere in between?

(Obviously, the in between is the inevitable choice, because no component in wine should be so over-emphasized as to totally dominate, right? Right?)

But that leads us to another point, and it's really the point I'd like responses to:

We've all heard about, and most of us have railed about, "over-oaked wine". We've all heard criticisms and horror stories of wines that were ruined by heavy handed use of oak; wines that received such a dauntingly heavy oak regimen that it seemed it was more about the taste and aroma of oak than it was about the supposed wine in the bottle---that wine had become an oak delivery system.

So here's the question: have you had wines that you would consider under-oaked? A wine that perhaps would have greatly benefited from the leavening effect of oak, or would have been softened or "sweetened" and had the rough edges beveled off, and made more enjoyable in the process?

And feel free (because you will anyway) to chime in on where you are on the Oak Scale:

> I believe that oak is anathema to wine. Don't care for it, don't like the taste of sweet vanilla, and don't want in in my wine. Anything but oak!

> Like anything else, oak is okay (oaky?) when used judiciously and in moderation. I look at the balance of components, and if oak is justified and in balance, I'm fine with it.

> I love oak! It adds tremendously to the enjoyment of wine for me, and I love it when it is lavished on my wine. It's the stuff I look for. Oak? Bring It On!

We don't mind balanced oak in red wines and have had them both over and under oaked. Much more intolerant about oak in whites.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family Hoke!
The wine industry did go through an “oak mania” phase, but as a result of this a lot has been learned about oak and its relationship with wine. There’s a big difference between using oak alternatives, oak alternatives and micro-ox, and using oak barrels. The presence of oak does a lot more than just add vanilla. (But in some wines this could be the dominant feature). It could help stabilize color pigments in the wine, oak powder additions to a wine at the start of alcoholic fermentation, or even during bulk aging could possible absorb some of the wine’s “green” character.

Salute

What a good question!

I believe that oak as a vessel for fermention and lagering before bottling is for many wines the best option (the only option sometimes. but read on.) I prefer well-used oak to stainless-steel for all but the most aromatic white wines and I like Limousin oak very much for ageing well-structured Pinot Varieties. I am also very open to exploring the nuances of the oak species in different forests throughout the world and I'm not even opposed to mixing and matching as long as it is done with skill. One must take into consideration the forest from which the oak came, the level of toast, the quality of the cooperage, the size of the barrel, the shape of the barrel, and how many vintages it has seen before making an informed decision about which barrel to use with which wine and for how long. All that said, there are very few wines aged in new-oak from places like California, or Rioja, or Argentina, or Germany that I enjoy drinking because of the heavy handed oak treatment. Nothing ruins a good wine so completely as unjudicious use of oak and I am as adverse to it as I am to TCA.

Old-Oak rules!

Cheers,
Bill

Oak has its place and uses, as Victor points out.
But if I can smell it or taste it, its too much.
No exceptions.
Best, Jim

I have never once tasted a wine and said "I think that this needed more oak". However, I have tasted many wines where I have said the opposite. I think that my aversion to oak has increased with age (mine, not the wines that I taste!).

Norm

[color=#800000]So here's the question: have you had wines that you would consider under-oaked?

Great question. Never really looked at it like that before. I'd have to say "no" - never.

Invert the question and I'd say "yes" - but rarely. I like more or less oak occasionally, but I certainly woudln't want it to be noticeable on the majority of wines I drink.

I guess I'll have to be the contrarian here. It's much easier to taste too much oak than it is to taste too little oak. A wine without any oak treatment at all may taste pretty damn good but how would we not know that if that wine had seen a little oak it may have even tasted even a lot better? I've asked that question of winemakers here in the valley and the answer is usually they have an idea with their own wines what they should taste like and what further things should or not be done to their juice.
Some wines like German rieslings seem to be right without any wood, but others who knows? I guess what I'm saying that I'm not sure how to answer Hokes post?

I kind of agree with Lou. Why have I never read a tasting note for a 20+ year old red Bordeaux and have it described as "over-oaked"? Yet many of these wines spend two or more years in new barrels. I think too many wines are drunk too young.

I have had wines where I have said "This could use a bit of judicious oak treatment."

I've been in the situation where I've tried exactly the same wine treated by the winemaker in different manners, and been able to judge the differences...and sometimes a wine can definitely benefit from some oak. Of course that same wine could be bludgeoned to death with oak as well.

But that points out, to me, the blessing that might be a curse: what is 'judicious use'?

When I first became aware of the trend in California to go oak-crazy the first couple of Chardonnays I tried were significantly different than most I'd had from there. Turned out one difference was the use, as California shifted from Wente clone to Dijon clone. Made a big difference. The other difference was, of course, oak. And yes, it most definitely went overboard, to the point of monstrosities that said less about wine than about sheer oak regimen.

But the best winemakers, in my mind, were those who considered oak as nothing more than one of the ingredients they had on hand to influence their wine---much the same way as a cook has the spice cabinet.

Oak, for those winemakers, was part of it, along with lees development, stirring the lees, extended barrel time, etc. And yes, even the use of sugar. But for them it was not about the expression of oak, it was about the balance and totality of the wine.

[Keep in mind here that when I think of oak, I don't only think of smell and taste----I think very much of the textural components that oak can add. Oak can be very good at filling in the hollow 'middle' of a wine.]

Some of you might recall the beginning of the shift away from criminal misuse of oak (and other manipulations) in CA; do you also remember how misguided, thin, sharp, shrill, sometimes downright bitter and totally out of balance some of those wines were? I do.

I also remember how some of those wines could have likely benefited from a light touch of oak. Or yeast autolysis.

I also recall some of the downright stunning Montrachets I've had over the years, ones where you could never say they were shy of oak.

So I guess I'll have to revert back to what I often come back to: Florida Jim always says it in fewer words, but just as eloquently. (Scroll up for that.)

in 1972 i made my first trip to the 'boutique' wineries of CA. my friend and i both had a distinct taste of wood in our mouths by very early afternoon. in 1992 at a tasting of CA wines closer by i passes a family as they commented that they each had a woody taste in their mouths. some of the posts above as well as articles in leading wine magazines have made it seem like the overuse of oak is now virtually a thing of the past in CA. yet at a recent tasting of high end CA reds and whites, there was still that woody taste. every back label will tell you that the winemakers use of oak is judicious or some such thing. and 'judicious' is whatever the winemaker or owner decides Parker will like and their customers will pay for.

i suggest that the way that oak interacts with the grape flavors is an aspect of 'terroir' that cannot be raised or lowered by the mere amount of time spent in contact. my suggestion is that white burgundy for instance will nearly always integrate the oak and fruit flavors almost immediatly so that the two are not recognizable as separate components. on the other hand, fruit from CA and its richer soils will almost never marry with the oak and the oak will nearly always appear as a veneer on top of the fruit and as a separate component. this is so uniformly my observation of the wines of these two regions, that i am forced to think of this particular interaction as a result of the terroir of the two regions - among which may be acidity, but not limited to that.

so, it isn't a problem of overoaking at all but a problem inherent in the growing region. but then of course there is the question as to whether it really is a problem. some people apparently love the veneer aspect of oak flavoring.

have i ever had a wine that i thought needed more oak 'flavoring'? no; but i have had red wines that i thought could have used more time neutral oak for the other positive things oak can do.

As far as I am concerned oak ageing is only problematic where new oak is concerned.

Unless there are issues of hygiene or unless the barrel ageing has been so long that the wine has dried out, I can think of no circumstances where second+ use oak is obnoxious; it often improves the tactile sensations from the wine with only the smallest trace of flavouring elements. Many wines, including I believe some German Rieslings, with which we do not associate oak, routinely see second+ use oak during their maturing process. In answer Hoke's query whether wines are ever under-oaked, I would cite unoaked Chard, most of which seem boring to me with the exception of some tank aged Chablis; but even here I mostly prefer Chablis raised in second+ use barrels.

When it comes to new oak, my attitude lies somewhere between these two options given by Hoak -

> I believe that oak is anathema to wine. Don't care for it, don't like the taste of sweet vanilla, and don't want in in my wine. Anything but oak!

> Like anything else, oak is okay (oaky?) when used judiciously and in moderation. I look at the balance of components, and if oak is justified and in balance, I'm fine with it.

I am deeply suspicious of deliberate use of new oak as a flavouring additive. However, I have to admit that I have hugely enjoyed many wines which see 100% new wood when they have enough substance and maturity for that wood to be scarcely perceptible. The difficulty comes in judging whether an oaky youngster is going absorb all those unwanted (by me) vanilla and caramel notes with time.

I've been drinking wine on a serious level since the late 60s and I'm trying to recall my thoughts on oak in a 40 year time span. The over use of oak has been prevalent throughout the world in the last few years. I think from comments by geeks, writers, etc, I believe that wood usage is being cut back everywhere. I think winemakers everywhere are happy if for no other reason than new oak barrels are damn expensive.
Oak being part of Ca terrior as somebody else mentioned is in my mind pure nonsense. I have tasted many CA wines that over a period of time have assimilated the oak flavors. I have heard the word terroir used in so many ways that personally it has no meaning at all to me anymore. By the way that's the opinion of many people who have spent most of their lives involved with wine. Again this is something I will not debate anymore,it;s a waste of time.
Hoke, I don't agree totally with Jim's definition of tasting oak because Iv'e tasted some young wines that were "sooooo" oaky as to be almost undrinkable in my opinion that a few years later were just fine with balance.

i suggest that the way that oak interacts with the grape flavors is an aspect of 'terroir' that cannot be raised or lowered by the mere amount of time spent in contact. my suggestion is that white burgundy for instance will nearly always integrate the oak and fruit flavors almost immediatly so that the two are not recognizable as separate components. on the other hand, fruit from CA and its richer soils will almost never marry with the oak and the oak will nearly always appear as a veneer on top of the fruit and as a separate component. this is so uniformly my observation of the wines of these two regions, that i am forced to think of this particular interaction as a result of the terroir of the two regions - among which may be acidity, but not limited to that.

David,
A provocative theory.
I don't necessarily buy it, but I will not discount that some element of truth may lie in the idea.
I will keep it in mind as I taste in the future.
Best, Jim

7Hoke, I don't agree totally with Jim's definition of tasting oak because Iv'e tasted some young wines that were "sooooo" oaky as to be almost undrinkable in my opinion that a few years later were just fine with balance.

Yes, I'd agree. Never smelling/tasting oak would mean that most Cote d'Or whites, many reds (Dujac!), many Bdx (Lagrange always has obvious oak when young, always integrates to me), etc would be off limits. Not for me please.

i suggest that the way that oak interacts with the grape flavors is an aspect of 'terroir' that cannot be raised or lowered by the mere amount of time spent in contact. my suggestion is that white burgundy for instance will nearly always integrate the oak and fruit flavors almost immediatly so that the two are not recognizable as separate components. on the other hand, fruit from CA and its richer soils will almost never marry with the oak and the oak will nearly always appear as a veneer on top of the fruit and as a separate component. this is so uniformly my observation of the wines of these two regions, that i am forced to think of this particular interaction as a result of the terroir of the two regions - among which may be acidity, but not limited to that.

David,
A provocative theory.
I don't necessarily buy it, but I will not discount that some element of truth may lie in the idea.
I will keep it in mind as I taste in the future.
Best, Jim

The ultimate diplomat, never insult a potential customer, or is it described as charming fence sitter?

I'm not sure I have a good or definite answer myself in regards to where my oak preferences begin to cross a line.

It's interesting to note that two of the most loved houses who make my favorite wine, champagne, are somewhat unique because they use oak - Krug and Bollinger. Of course, that's not to say that any use of oak in storage of any of the cuvees is a dominant reason for why the wines themselves are so good. But the use of oak (storage) is something both houses promote with pride rather than from a negative viewpoint.

Myself, I DO love both houses but am not always confident that any oak use in those wines is a main reason as to why I love them. But possibly? Champagne is all about subtleties and harmony of layers anyways, so it's often hard for me to directly pinpoint which factors are effecting that perception of harmony, age or fullness etc. Is that touch of "smokiness" I detect because of the brush with oak in the Krug NV? Or are the blend of cuvees just coming from older, richer stocks in their cellars?

Then there is also times when I feel a champagne's "best" embodiment is on the minerally blanc de blancs end - when it as pure and transparently easy to drink as possible. In which case, I would generally view even the smallest use of oak to be counter-productive to that style. So with champagne I often like both sides of the same coin and one would require me to say that, yes, a touch of at least some oak is helpful and enhancing, while the other style would dictate that "purity of the cuvees" should be the goal and only age/blending should result in any "smoky/deep" characteristics. So it is a fascinating but difficult answer, for me.

Yet, I do believe the above wines (houses) would be two quality examples where at least some oak influence is viewed as necessary and characteristic of what makes the wines what they are.

Jeff

I like Jim's definition: if you can smell or taste it there's too much.
Most important, though, there could surely never be htoo hmuch Hoke!

I'm not sure I have a good or definite answer myself in regards to where my oak preferences begin to cross a line.

It's interesting to note that two of the most loved houses who make my favorite wine, champagne, are somewhat unique because they use oak - Krug and Bollinger. Of course, that's not to say that any use of oak in storage of any of the cuvees is a dominant reason for why the wines themselves are so good. But the use of oak (storage) is something both houses promote with pride rather than from a negative viewpoint.

Myself, I DO love both houses but am not always confident that any oak use in those wines is a main reason as to why I love them. But possibly? Champagne is all about subtleties and harmony of layers anyways, so it's often hard for me to directly pinpoint which factors are effecting that perception of harmony, age or fullness etc. Is that touch of "smokiness" I detect because of the brush with oak in the Krug NV? Or are the blend of cuvees just coming from older, richer stocks in their cellars?

Then there is also times when I feel a champagne's "best" embodiment is on the minerally blanc de blancs end - when it as pure and transparently easy to drink as possible. In which case, I would generally view even the smallest use of oak to be counter-productive to that style. So with champagne I often like both sides of the same coin and one would require me to say that, yes, a touch of at least some oak is helpful and enhancing, while the other style would dictate that "purity of the cuvees" should be the goal and only age/blending should result in any "smoky/deep" characteristics. So it is a fascinating but difficult answer, for me.

Yet, I do believe the above wines (houses) would be two quality examples where at least some oak influence is viewed as necessary and characteristic of what makes the wines what they are.

Jeff

And then there's Jacques Selosse who takes the oak to an extreme. Some people love it, I think that it tastes like Champagne raised in a saw-mill.

Cheers,
Bill

I like Jim's definition: if you can smell or taste it there's too much.
Most important, though, there could surely never be htoo hmuch Hoke!

Aw c'mon Steve take that lock off your wallet and buy some new French oak. I know you love those barrels that you bought from Andre Tchelistcheff when he left BV, but it's time. Your buddy Lou K. They said only a friend could tell you.

I'm not sure I have a good or definite answer myself in regards to where my oak preferences begin to cross a line.

It's interesting to note that two of the most loved houses who make my favorite wine, champagne, are somewhat unique because they use oak - Krug and Bollinger. Of course, that's not to say that any use of oak in storage of any of the cuvees is a dominant reason for why the wines themselves are so good. But the use of oak (storage) is something both houses promote with pride rather than from a negative viewpoint.

Myself, I DO love both houses but am not always confident that any oak use in those wines is a main reason as to why I love them. But possibly? Champagne is all about subtleties and harmony of layers anyways, so it's often hard for me to directly pinpoint which factors are effecting that perception of harmony, age or fullness etc. Is that touch of "smokiness" I detect because of the brush with oak in the Krug NV? Or are the blend of cuvees just coming from older, richer stocks in their cellars?

Then there is also times when I feel a champagne's "best" embodiment is on the minerally blanc de blancs end - when it as
pure and transparently easy to drink as possible. In which case, I would generally view even the smallest use of oak to be
counter-productive to that style. So with champagne I often like both sides of the same coin and one would require me
to say that, yes, a touch of at least some oak is helpful and enhancing, while the other style would dictate that "purity o
f the cuvees" should be the goal and only age/blending should result in any "smoky/deep" characteristics. So it is a
fascinating but difficult answer, for me.
Yet, I do believe the above wines (houses) would be two quality examples where at least some oak influence is viewed as
necessary and characteristic of what makes the wines what they are.
Jeff

And then there's Jacques Selosse who takes the oak to an extreme. Some people love it, I think that it tastes like
Champagne raised in a saw-mill.
Cheers,
Bill

I don't believe I've tried a Selosse before. I suspect that much oak wouldnt be my taste either.

Jeff

Oak has its place and uses, as Victor points out.
But if I can smell it or taste it, its too much.
No exceptions.
Best, Jim

Same here.

Interesting discussion. Unfortunately, Hoke suggests the (New) World trend of over-oaking wines is going away, but I taste the same mistakes still being made at any current wine tasting I go to. Some people are becoming more enlightened as to it's use, but there are some who think the tried-and-true route of high toast-expensive new French barrels are the way to go. I tend to like wines that feature balance and, like some of the others here, if I can taste oak it is too much. Oak can integrate, but usually with age you simply get oak and drying fruit. Some grape varieties should never, ever see new barrels, since it can completely ruin the essential character of the grape (something like nebbiolo). Probably the only wine I've liked where oak is an essential part of the character of the wine is Rioja. I really don't know why winemakers think every variety should be subjected to a high percentage of new oak. Used barrels ought to be used more, especially in pinot noir and syrah and chardonnay.

I'm not an oak flavor fan, but the effect of oak can make an important difference sometimes. (So many wines are ruined by the taste of new wood these days that one can almost forget that it has another purpose, a benefit.) I have some regular Nebbiolos that have been aged in large wood, and some that have seen only stainless steel, and I think most of the latter could use a bit of time in large oak. No added flavor, just the mellowing and rounding that large oak adds.