Oak, from a different perspective

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.

Actually, I didn't suggest it was going away, but hoped that we were regaining something closer to balance. And I think that is the case.

I frankly don't care if some wineries want to make heavily oaked wines. I simply want other styles of wines to be available for me to drink. And I think we have that situation now. (And I also believe we're going in the right---i.e., more balance and less absolute reliance on oak as a dominating ingredient---direction.)

Numerous wineries which heretofore had only oak-drenched specimens now have alternatives. Numerous other wineries that had oak-drenched versions now have lessened their oak character (as well as the presence, in whatever form, of sugar, and diacetyl). Again, the trend is to go back to balance overall.

Which means the big oakers will be there. And I think should be there, for those who like them. And there are many who do.

Oak is not the problem. The inclination toward overdoing something is the problem.

Two thoughts arising out of a tasting yesterday -

First -

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 can go along with this but, with regard to young wines, it only works for selection process when one knows the track record, e.g. Lagrange, and is sure that the producer has not "internationalised" his methods significantly. Yesterday the Northern Rhône producer, Coursodon, presented the 2009 versions of his two top Saint-Joseph cuvées and for me they were actively unpleasant being dominated by harsh notes of dry caramel towards the finish. In spite of the producer's assurance that the oak would integrate within two to three years, I would never buy a wine which tastes like this without experience to confirm what the producer says. Some of Cuilleron's St.Jo from the late 90s has never lost a marked wood patina and he has since changed his methods in the direction of more sparing use of wood.

Second -

Use of wood in fermentation and élevage encourages the expression of terroir by allowing the wine to breathe and by adding complexity. Tank aged wines only express the varietal fruit.

This statement was made by the Mâconnais producer Olivier Merlin, some of whose wines in past vintages have been close to my new oak tolerance ceiling, though yesterday's selection of 2007 and 2008 was better in that respect. Whist I accept that the breathing brought by the wood does allow the wine to be expressive sooner than with tank ageing, I find it a stretch to claim that complexity (i.e. flavouring) contributed by the wood is an expression of terroir.

Use of wood in fermentation and élevage encourages the expression of terroir by allowing the wine to breath and by adding complexity. Tank aged wines only express the varietal fruit.

This statement was made by the Mâconnais producer Olivier Merlin, some of whose wines in past vintages have been close to my new oak tolerance ceiling, though yesterday's selection of 2007 and 2008 was better in that respect. Whist I accept that the breathing brought by the wood does allow the wine to be expressive sooner than with tank ageing, I find it a stretch to claim that complexity (i.e. flavouring) contributed by the wood is an expression of terroir.

I don't know if Merlin was speaking about the added complexity of oxidative winemaking (as opposed to reductive) or if he was talking about the added complexity of new-oak flavor, but I would agree if he meant the former. I'm with you that oak encouraging the expression of terroir is a bit of a stretch unless one uses a very broad definition for that term.

Cheers,
Bill

use a little oak for added complexity? nonsense. anything it adds it does at the expense of something more subtle. one winemaker here began making a certain wine 'with a little oak for added complexity', then used a little less and less and finally none at all. now it really is complex and much more popular with consumers and geeks alike.

i'm not against oak entirely - wonderful in white burg. but mostly it just creates a sameness that obscures the origen and even the variety.

(David does this Michigan winemaker bulk age his/her wine in oak barrels?)

I guess that would depend upon your definition of “complexity”. IMHO a complex wine would be one with many dimensions, many different features (some subtle, some not so subtle, but hopefully not any one dimension dominant). The general chemical composition of wine is pretty simple 85% water, 12% alcohol, and 3% everything else. It’s that 3% (everything else) that makes a wine different and complex. An oak cask just adds to that dimension. Components in the wine react with chemical compounds extracted from the oak. Decaying yeast cells stirred and allowed to settle at the bottom of a cask reacts with chemical compounds of both the wine and cask to create new chemical compounds (sometimes good ones and at other times not so good ones). I can’t see a stainless steel tank adding anything to the 3% of everything else.

Salute

I can’t see a stainless steel tank adding anything to the 3% of everything else.

Salute

Victor, adding something is exactly what the quercophobic fundamentalist wants to avoid and it is certainly hard to argue that the addition is a contribution of the terroir. I would accept that oak vessels, by allowing the wine to breathe, may release, or accelerate the release of, certain compounds that are inherent in the wine; so far, so good for terroir expression. However, new oak vessels to varying degrees, depending on the toast, etc. (and also second and third use oak vessels to a small extent) do contribute flavouring additions which the fundamentalist would reject.

One has to admit, however, that these elements can be very pleasing, particularly if contributing an almost imperceptible seasoning to the wine in the way that a fine chef (from the European tradition) uses salt, pepper and other spices in his/her cooking. Having tasted some Chards yesterday from Frankland estate, those seeing 15-20% new oak definitely had a positive extra dimension compared to the refreshing unoaked version, though it is hard to say how much better fruit and greater maturity as well as élevage played a part in that superiority.

And do the fundamentalists refuse wines from DRC ? They are all raised in 100% new oak, but in my very limited experience show no overt new wood traces at all on the nose and palate.

Tim is it true that DRC, not only are they using new barrels to raise their wines, but the barrels are also “untreated” or “unseasoned” barrels? By this I mean a barrel not cleaned using harsh cleaning and sanitizing agents such as soda ash, lye or barolkleen or initially treated with sulfur. This cleaning process itself will extract the “heavy” and “harsh” compounds from the barrel. Sometimes prior to placing wine in a barrel for bulk aging, a wine will be fermented in it first, this could be thought of as “breaking in” a barrel. Very likely they buy barrels made from the “best” of the oak and the wood is “seasoned and dried” naturally for years prior to making the barrels. One would think with the wind, rain, snow, and sun, the “heavy” and “harsh” compounds would be extracted from the wood. Hopefully leaving only the “good stuff”.
Let me ask you this Tim, is it possible that the influence of oak could “bring out” or compliment (enhance) some aspect of the wine that one thinks in “terrior” driven?

Salute

Victor, coincidentally the RVF magazine is running an article on barrels this month, in the course of which they mention the wood used by DRC. Apparently DRC's coopers, François Frères, dry the stave-wood for barrels ordered by the domaine for 6 years rather than the usual 3. The article says - "thanks to this, although the wine is raised 100% in new barrels, the wood transfers very little aroma to the wines, which thus keep all their elegance".

Another point made in the article is that, until the 70s, barrels were thought of in France only as containers and hardly any châteaux and domaines rotated them faster than 6 years. Only from the vintages of the 80s did woody flavours start appearing overtly. This was due in part to a slump in demand for barrels from cognac producers which led to the coopers to join forces with the oenological faculty in Bordeaux in (all too successfully) persuading wine-growers of the virtues of new oak.

This bit of history corresponds to my own observation as a wine drinker; I cannot remember overt oak flavours in any of the wines which I drank in the 50s, 60s and 70s, other than in some Rioja. When we were discussing wood with Merlin, another Burgundian vigneron from neighbouring table joined in, saying that his "ignorant" father used to "break-in" new barrels by using them in the first year to bleed their aromas into inferior wine sold to the négoce; I remember being told the same by a Loire grower a few years ago.

Did California precede or follow Bordeaux in aggressive use of new wood?

Let me ask you this Tim, is it possible that the influence of oak could “bring out” or compliment (enhance) some aspect of the wine that one thinks in “terrior” driven?

Salute

I'm not enough of a scientist to know which aromas from wood may react favourably with terroir characteristics in a wine but I wouldn't exclude the idea. Top estates know what they are doing and like DRC have their barrels made to specification which may take account of empirical, if not scientific, observation of such reactions.

I agree with Lou Kessler's original posting that it is hard to say if a particular wine is "underoaked." Sometimes I like a butterscotch component in a nice white Burgundy--nice interplay with French oak barrels. I recall in particular a Chassagne-Montrachet that had an appealing butterscotch note. I also recall having a Frei Brothers Pinot Noir that seemed to be enhanced by a subtle background of oak spices. I don't mind a cedar flavor in red wines if it does not dominate, but it is harder to assess whether a wine would be better if it had more oak flavor.

François Frères, dry the stave-wood for barrels ordered by the domaine for 6 years rather than the usual 3

Most barrel makers I know hardly use three years as the "usual" regimen, Tim.

You usually get three years if you specify---and pay for---three years. I'd say twelve months is closer to the usual.

François Frères, dry the stave-wood for barrels ordered by the domaine for 6 years rather than the usual 3

Most barrel makers I know hardly use three years as the "usual" regimen, Tim.

You usually get three years if you specify---and pay for---three years. I'd say twelve months is closer to the usual.

Hoke, this only reinforces the point that 6 years is a bit special. In any case, I'm only paraphrasing what's in the article and they are referring here to top château/domaine specifications.

François Frères, dry the stave-wood for barrels ordered by the domaine for 6 years rather than the usual 3

Most barrel makers I know hardly use three years as the "usual" regimen, Tim.

You usually get three years if you specify---and pay for---three years. I'd say twelve months is closer to the usual.

Hoke, this only reinforces the point that 6 years is a bit special. In any case, I'm only paraphrasing what's in the article and they are referring here to top château/domaine specifications.

You're right, Tim. It does reinforce (once again) why DRC is special (though not as special as their prices say they are; which is my disgruntled way of saying I wish to hell I could afford just a single bottle ).

But despite what marrondiers and large barrel producers might say for public consumption, I will tell you from an insider's perspective that the "usual" maturation time for staves is much shorter than most people would expect, and that customers who want more will pay more. This may indeed be the case with certain domaines; but it is not the usual.

Although I'm in agreement with most of what's been said in this thread, I'll answer one of Hoke's questions:

Have you ever had a wine that could have used more oak? I can think of several unoaked Chardonnays (including some Chablis) that I thought would have benefited from some time spent in neutral oak. It has nothing to do with the flavor of oak, which like many here I find objectionable in most wines (like Dale, I'll except Dujac), but the texture of the wine obtained from microoxygenation in oak. There are some whites that I prefer from stainless (most notably would be Sauvignon Blanc) but the majority I like from neutral oak.

Mark Lipton

Well, there you go. And that''s from a Doctor! I rest my case.

Ok, I'll try to make my case one more time. The largest single purchase of wine in my many years of imbibing was a large amount of 82 Bordeauxs. Up until that time I had not purchased any Bordeauxs, French had consisted of some wines from the Rhone area. I did not buy first growths but what I did buy were all classified, Leoville, Pichon La L, Cos, Ducru, Gruaud, Leoville Barton, L'Evangile, Canon, etc etc. Now every one of these wines when they were young it didn't take a genius to taste the oak in every one of them. I will not bother to argue anymore but every one of those wines have turned out to be all the way from very good, to great, to fantastic, assimilated oak & all. My contention is that the oak one could taste when the wines were young is one of the ingredients that made the wine taste great later.
All I can say to some of you oakaphobic wine drinkers, is my only regret about buying all those 82s is I wish I had bought a helluva lot more!!!!!! I've yet to open a bottle of 82 Leoville L, Pichon L etc for any wine lover that wasn't greeted with love as they slurped it down.

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.

Ok, I'll try to make my case one more time. The largest single purchase of wine in my many years of imbibing was a large amount of 82 Bordeauxs. Up until that time I had not purchased any Bordeauxs, French had consisted of some wines from the Rhone area. I did not buy first growths but what I did buy were all classified, Leoville, Pichon La L, Cos, Ducru, Gruaud, Leoville Barton, L'Evangile, Canon, etc etc. Now every one of these wines when they were young it didn't take a genius to taste the oak in every one of them. I will not bother to argue anymore but every one of those wines have turned out to be all the way from very good, to great, to fantastic, assimilated oak & all. My contention is that the oak one could taste when the wines were young is one of the ingredients that made the wine taste great later.
All I can say to some of you oakaphobic wine drinkers, is my only regret about buying all those 82s is I wish I had bought a helluva lot more!!!!!! I've yet to open a bottle of 82 Leoville L, Pichon L etc for any wine lover that wasn't greeted with love as they slurped it down.

Lou,
I hear you.
I just don't have the 25 plus years to wait.
(We who don't buy green bananas, heh?)
Best, Jim

My contention is that the oak one could taste when the wines were young is one of the ingredients that made the wine taste great later.

Perhaps?? 1982 came near the beginning of the Bordeaux conversion to big oak (and oak has become even bigger since then). There were plenty of great clarets made in prior vintages when the usual Bordeaux new oak content was no greater than that from a 6-10 year rotation of barrels, i.e. 10-15%. I particularly remember wonderful 53s, etc. drinking beautifully at around ages 8-10 without a trace of oak flavour.

At least we know that clarets of the substance of 1982 can integrate with time the amount of big oak then in vogue. I hope that the same is true of the vintages of 00s.

What bothers me are reports of Chinese millionaires with magnums of Château Lafite 2005 already on their dinner tables. They must enjoy burgeoning tannins and oak .

Ok, I'll try to make my case one more time. The largest single purchase of wine in my many years of imbibing was a large amount of 82 Bordeauxs. Up until that time I had not purchased any Bordeauxs, French had consisted of some wines from the Rhone area. I did not buy first growths but what I did buy were all classified, Leoville, Pichon La L, Cos, Ducru, Gruaud, Leoville Barton, L'Evangile, Canon, etc etc. Now every one of these wines when they were young it didn't take a genius to taste the oak in every one of them. I will not bother to argue anymore but every one of those wines have turned out to be all the way from very good, to great, to fantastic, assimilated oak & all. My contention is that the oak one could taste when the wines were young is one of the ingredients that made the wine taste great later.
All I can say to some of you oakaphobic wine drinkers, is my only regret about buying all those 82s is I wish I had bought a helluva lot more!!!!!! I've yet to open a bottle of 82 Leoville L, Pichon L etc for any wine lover that wasn't greeted with love as they slurped it down.

Lou,
I hear you.
I just don't have the 25 plus years to wait.
(We who don't buy green bananas, heh?)
Best, Jim

Thanks, Jim for admitting that oak in some wines can assimilate in time, maybe. I'd be the first person to admit that many wines in the last few years are so overoaked that the chance of ever being balanced are slim & none. All I'm claiming is that oak can be an integral part of wine making if used properly whether new or used.

according to victorwine: "An oak cask just adds to that dimension." if you don't mean newer oak, then we have no arguement; but i take it from the context that you mean newer oak. my point is exactly the opposite. whatever oak adds, there is a corresponding subtraction. this may not be bad - sweet oak may cover harsher tannins from the skins. but every added flavor will subtract from the original - can't be helped! does riesling or albarinho really gain ADDED complexity from oak? if there is something you want to get rid of, newer oak will probably help. and depending on the oak, what it adds may itself be good. but everything comes with a price - good, bad or indifferent.

Jumping in WAAAAAYYYY late into this conversation. It has been interesting to see all sides of this but I've not seen the side of where the accepted style of wine is in fact oaky (or at least I think it is...)

Rioja's are aged in barrels (depending on their classification of course leads to their time in the barrel). I've never had a rioja where I did not taste some oak, no matter how old (maybe I'm just not lucky enough?).

So if the wood were to be taken out of the equation in this wine, would it still be Rioja??? by definition, it would no longer be Rioja technically but would it still be a good wine from the Rioja region. I'm not sure. I kinda look forward to those american wood notes in the wine, even though I'm not a big wood buff. Rioja is different for me.

Jumping in WAAAAAYYYY late into this conversation. It has been interesting to see all sides of this but I've not seen the side of where the accepted style of wine is in fact oaky (or at least I think it is...)

Rioja's are aged in barrels (depending on their classification of course leads to their time in the barrel). I've never had a rioja where I did not taste some oak, no matter how old (maybe I'm just not lucky enough?).

So if the wood were to be taken out of the equation in this wine, would it still be Rioja??? by definition, it would no longer be Rioja technically but would it still be a good wine from the Rioja region. I'm not sure. I kinda look forward to those american wood notes in the wine, even though I'm not a big wood buff. Rioja is different for me.

That's an interesting can of worms you've brought ino this conversation. I love the old style Riojas that see years of oak although I think that it's used American oak & not new.
Maybe Victor will see this thread and chime in with his fount of info on Spanish wines?

So if the wood were to be taken out of the equation in this wine

You answered your own question immediately, but in the larger sense, isn't there more than enough information available to give us an idea of what Tempranillo is like---without oak and without American oak? There's plenty of versions from all around the world, and from all sorts of elevage systems, to give us a pretty good clue.

This also reminds me of some time ago when there was a raging debate over whether Rioja/Tempranillo was an aromatic wine (despite being technically classed as a non-aromatic variety).

Joe Perry, in his own inimitable style, argued vociferously that Rioja was highly aromatic. Victor de la Serna argued in his own inimitable style that tempranillo was decidedly NOT an aromatic variety. (VS pretty much demolished JP in the exhange, I'd have to say.)

Maybe what JP was getting at was the standard regimen of adding rather aggressive American oak to the tempranillo was what made Rioja an aromatic wine, when the variety was not expressly aromatic in and of itself???

And maybe Rioja has become in its way similar to Retsina in Greece---we have come to the point of recognizing Rioja as being American-oak driven that we can't conceive of it not being so?

Of course, if you follow that line of reasoning, if you find an unoaked Rioja, then you would arguably have a wine that is under-oaked.

I thought I was doing a pretty good job, not distinguish between “new” or “old” oak. I only started discussing “new” oak when Tim brought up the fact that DRC uses 100% “new” oak in raising their wines. All I was trying to point out was that when discussing oak’s influence on wines (besides discussing whether or not it is “new” or ‘used”) its very important to remember that we are not really dealing with a living tree anymore but “dead” wood that has been altered and changed. Oak wood is used for tight cooperage because of its chemical and physical properties. Among the many different tree species found on our planet, oak wood chemically could be considered “pure wood”. Unlike many other types of wood prepared from other tree species such as pine (which basically contain the same chemical compounds found in oak wood (not in the same percentages according to dry weight) but they come with extras) that could contain resin canals, which will result in strong flavor extraction. (But then again you got that stuff that the Greeks make).
In considering how an oak barrel or oak alternatives influence a wine there is a lot to look at. One most consider how the lumber was treated and processed before it became wood. The cutting and splitting of the logs, grain orientation, (and as others have already stated) the seasoning and drying process used. Second (as others have stated), you most consider how the cooper treats and processes the wood in making the barrels (or oak alternatives). Surely the cooper doesn’t want the lumber companies who process and “season” the wood to totally eliminate vital groups of chemical compounds responsible for the structure, strength and binding characteristics of the wood, maybe reduce some of them (so that they make up a smaller percentage of the dry weight) but don’t totally eliminate them, otherwise the wood might not be suitable for holding wine. Finally how the barrel is “seasoned”, “broken-in”, conditioned, or treated or prepared prior to placing wine in it at the winery must also be considered.
As far as oak barrels “subtracting from the wine” I would say no; “altering” and “chemically changing a wine” I would say yes (this is not necessarily “subtraction”); “masking” I would say maybe; (if Hoke don’t mind (sorry Hoke I’m going to use it anyway) I’ll borrow something he said earlier) “obstructive” most definitely if the oak influence is over-done. If done correctly and “judiciously” it could produce a fine and complex (multi-dimensional) wine indeed. Now back to Hoke’s original question- I’m an amateur winemaker I say it quite often!

Salute