Ridge

So, Mark's explanation would be mine. But I always hope to be informed. So I have some interest in Jim's response. Given his own skepticism and pointed lack of commitment to some rather vague pointing only gives me things to wonder about. Larry's answer deserves its own kind of respect: premier ne puis, second ne daigne, Ridge je suis. There are winemakers who make what they like, regardless. Christian Delorme also liked new oak and surmaturité. I admire those people for making the wine they believe in, even when it suits the Parker palate (and I mean that unironically). But I don't buy the stuff, because it doesn't suit mine.
 
Ed pretty much said what mark e. did about Parker and points. He did add the following: "Even though I don't use much new oak at all anymore, I do find the aromas of a good barrel very enticing. I don't like the way it covers up the fruit and the vineyard, but the barrel itself can be attractive."

I know that Rob Bergstrom at Sandar & Hem uses around 10% new oak with a very light toast on his Chardonnays. He doesn't want to impart new oak flavors on his wines. He said what that regimen does is add texture.
 
Don't a lot of old-school Burgundy producers use a lot of new oak (Rousseau, Dujac)?

Presumably they didn't do so because of spoof and points?
 
originally posted by Yule Kim:
Don't a lot of old-school Burgundy producers use a lot of new oak (Rousseau, Dujac)?

Presumably they didn't do so because of spoof and points?
Click to expand...

Fwiw, Bizot (not old-school, of course) says he uses 100% new oak because he doesn't trust used barrels to be clean enough, but I doubt this is why most of them use it.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Fwiw, Bizot (not old-school, of course) says he uses 100% new oak because he doesn't trust used barrels to be clean enough, but I doubt this is why most of them use it.
Click to expand...

He could always do a Krug. And raise prices, of course.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Why a problem, Mark?
Certainly not to my taste but they seem to keep the lights on.
Click to expand...

Well, a problem for me and I believe for you. They sell. End of issue for Ridge. Our taste has evolved while theirs has not. Ergo , we are out of sync.
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

But whenever I hear a winemaker say that new oak flavor goes away, or even integrates, my question always is, then why use it in the first place? It costs money and distorts the wine, all so you can wait for it to go away?
Click to expand...

It is an interesting question, and though there is not an absolutely provable answer, I think I have a pretty good idea of why this is the case (though quite possibly I am wrong; it happens).

In the 80s and going forward, many winemakers were paid cash bonuses based on "points" (whether that be Parker or more often The Wine Spectator). This was because the wines sold like crazy after a high score. Well, new oak was certainly part of the reason, along with deep color and thick texture. And many winemakers tasted their colleagues' wines which were similar.

This led inevitably to developing a "New World" palate, or better a California one. Winemakers - in my experience (and often consumers) - preferred this style over a more subtle, less extracted, higher acid old-world version, which they often considered thin and ungenerous. The previous generation trained the younger one, though there are many people who have completely broken out of this mold in recent years.

Also, Ridge is owned by a Japanese corporation that probably would prefer not to fiddle with a tried and true style that sells.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
I agree with all this, but the use of new oak certainly predates RMP and other like-minded critics. From its use in Burgundy, I would presume that winemakers found that it added something to their top wines. Perhaps it was the additional structure or maybe just being cleaner and free of possible spoilage agents. Also, I’ve read that old oak isn’t as able to oxygenate wine as the pores get clogged, so that would motivate rotating older barrels out of production.

Jonathan: I understand where you’re coming from, but I cannot be so doctrinaire about the use of NFO. One of my all-time favorite wine experiences was a 1988 Dujac Clos de la Roche consumed in 2005. Thhe new oak used in that wine was manifested only as a note of baking spices in the nose of what was a majestically ethereal wine. YMMV of course.

Mark Lipton
 
This thread has at least shown me where I got the misguided notion of a general dislike of Ridge here.

I had a wine this evening that many (most?) of you guys would surely loathe. It was the Petrolo Galatrona '18. Really good Merlot fruit, but with lots of oak treatment. Actually worked pretty well, in my mind at least, with barbecue pork ribs/pulled pork, potato salad, and green salad.

. . . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by MLipton:

I agree with all this, but the use of new oak certainly predates RMP and other like-minded critics.
Click to expand...
Of course, that is right. But not everywhere. In the 70s the use of all new oak in Bordeaux was mostly first growths. Even seconds got barrels from the first growths after use.

In Piemonte, I think only Gaja used NFO in the 70s, though that accelerated with the dual push of RP and Marc De Grazia in the 80s. That trend has reversed itself.

In California, it certainly predated RP, but not by decades. When I worked at Heitz in the 70s, only a couple of the cabernets got new wood. A lot of the wines went in older oak, but there were a LOT of small new oak barrels in use at the time in Napa Valley.

But many of the wines in the 60s were not that oaky (e.g., Louis Martini wines were aged in large redwook casks).
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

But whenever I hear a winemaker say that new oak flavor goes away, or even integrates, my question always is, then why use it in the first place? It costs money and distorts the wine, all so you can wait for it to go away?
Click to expand...

It is an interesting question, and though there is not an absolutely provable answer, I think I have a pretty good idea of why this is the case (though quite possibly I am wrong; it happens).

In the 80s and going forward, many winemakers were paid cash bonuses based on "points" (whether that be Parker or more often The Wine Spectator). This was because the wines sold like crazy after a high score. Well, new oak was certainly part of the reason, along with deep color and thick texture. And many winemakers tasted their colleagues' wines which were similar.

This led inevitably to developing a "New World" palate, or better a California one. Winemakers - in my experience (and often consumers) - preferred this style over a more subtle, less extracted, higher acid old-world version, which they often considered thin and ungenerous. The previous generation trained the younger one, though there are many people who have completely broken out of this mold in recent years.

Also, Ridge is owned by a Japanese corporation that probably would prefer not to fiddle with a tried and true style that sells.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Jonathan: I understand where you’re coming from, but I cannot be so doctrinaire about the use of NFO. One of my all-time favorite wine experiences was a 1988 Dujac Clos de la Roche consumed in 2005. Thhe new oak used in that wine was manifested only as a note of baking spices in the nose of what was a majestically ethereal wine. YMMV of course.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

There are wines like Sociando Mallet or the Baudry Croix Boissée, that are highly oaked and in which, for whatever reason, I cannot sense the oak, and I do like, for instance, the above mentioned wines. But I don't like it when I can taste it, either old or young. If you do, in whatever cases you do, that's fine with me. Whether I would is another question. My palate may also be affected by the amount of Southern Rhone I drink since oak on Grenache is, for me, like finger's scratching a blackboard. It's merely extremely distasteful in Bordeaux. In a CdP, Gigondas, Vacqueyras, etc., it's almost repulsive.
 
originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:
originally posted by mark e:
In Piemonte, I think only Gaja used NFO in the 70s
Click to expand...

do you mean 100%, or any at all?
Click to expand...
Not 100% to the best of my recollection. And perhaps only the cru wines at the time. I do remember that his non vinyard-designated bottlings were much less oaky.
 
For some reason, what NFO often does to texture, making it plush and velvety, makes me think of mink-wearing arm candy; and those who like that make me think of cigar-chomping sugar daddies. Kind of a package deal. Otoh, I have a weakness for cedary cigar box notes, so if those come from NFO, I stand inconsistent.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Otoh, I have a weakness for cedary cigar box notes, so if those come from NFO, I stand inconsistent.
Click to expand...

while these are not wood flavor agents, the responsible parties appear to produce them by reacting with wood - at least based on my favorite expressions of such in chinon, bourgueil, rioja, graves, and other pockets in bordeaux. I don't believe new wood is required though.
 
It's an exception for me being ok w new oak. It rarely seems to integrate, and if it does demands exceptional storage. I'm pretty aligned with Jonathan's thoughts above.
 
originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Otoh, I have a weakness for cedary cigar box notes, so if those come from NFO, I stand inconsistent.
Click to expand...

while these are not wood flavor agents, the responsible parties appear to produce them by reacting with wood - at least based on my favorite expressions of such in chinon, bourgueil, rioja, graves, and other pockets in bordeaux. I don't believe new wood is required though.
Click to expand...

Gtk! Any source on cedar not being a wood flavor? A quick google search only produced opinions that squarely pin it on oak (though not necessarily new):

If you’re smelling cedar, there’s a fairly good chance the wine you’re drinking was aged in specifically French oak, as American oak tends to impart sweeter notes like coconut and vanilla, rather than the more resinous, woodsy cedar aromas of French oaked wines. (Wine Collective)

and

As it’s related to the use of oak in post-fermentation winemaking, cedar is classified as a secondary aroma. Within this category, it signifies a fresher and more savoury aroma than notes like vanilla or butterscotch, and expresses a resinous and slightly spicy character aligned with sandalwood and cloves. (Decanter)

and

How can a liquid that has been aged in oak taste of cedarwood, for example? Yet cedarwood is a perfectly legitimate description for oaky young reds, especially wines made predominately or entirely from Cabernet Sauvignon. There’s no getting round the fact that new or one-year-old French barrels seem to impart a cedary aroma (nicer than it sounds) to certain wines. (Tim Atkins)
 
But on the issue of whether it is "natural," old oak may be OK. Wine has to be held in something, and, while large, old, wood barrels may not predate cement, it certainly does predate INOX. So you may be OK on liking cedar, unless there is some sui generis reason for preferring INOX of which I am unaware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top