Some oak okay...or not??

P

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Serious question from a discerning consumer, please!

What should be one's position with respect to the use of oak in the process of making wine?

Should oak never be used? Only used judiciously? Other? Etc.?

Thanks!

. . . . . Pete
 
I love oak in some wines.

No, VLM, that particular wine is not one of them. Alas.
 
The use of oak barrels is traditional in many parts of the world. Some grape flavors are harmonious with the wood flavors (e.g., vanilla, various torrefaction flavors). As was said above, slow oxygenation of the wine is also often desirable.

As all those hedge-words might indicate, there isn't a one-size-fits-all rule. The loud complaints about oak pertain to makers who have emphasized it above what was natural, usual, or desirable (remembering 'a chacun...').

Perhaps the most all-encompassing thing that is in any way defensible is to say that oak flavors should be used as a seasoning in the wine, not as a replacement for the natural taste of the wine.
 
I like oak flavors in certain situations, but I also like the purist idea that all wine flavors should come exclusively from the grape (and therefore all vessels should be flavor neutral).
 
"There is an enormous wisdom in the shape of a barrel. Ask your dog. Put a barrel beside the kennel and in 12 hours the dog will have chosen to sleep in the barrel. The barrel is in the shape of an egg, and has the shape of life forces."

- N. Joly
 
All you people are way too reasonable. Foudres and old barrels are OK. There are even wines with new oak on them I like. But not because of the oak. No wine with new oak flavors on them wouldn't be better without those flavors. I understand arguments about oxygenation and I like a lot of wines from old foudres quite a bit. But I've never tasted a wine from a cuve that I would have preferred to have seen oak.
 
I am certainly on the quercophobic side of the spectrum, but my midlife realization is that certain wines can benefit from the use of new oak, if done with a nuanced touch, and they are intended for long-term aging. I expect that most of my favorite Bordeauxs saw a fair percentage of new oak in their youth, but 25-50 years on there's no trace of that in their flavor profile. As I've mentioned earlier here, my all-time most transcendent Burgundy experience was an '88 Dujac Clos de la Roche consumed back in '05 which I'm sure saw a lot of new oak in its youth and most of my favorite producers use at least 20% new oak on their 1er and GC wines.

Old oak has its uses in many wines, from Riesling to Chenin to Gamay to Nebbiolo to Syrah. In fact, there are only a few wines I like that don't see oak: certain Chablis and Sauvignons mostly.

Equally important to the age of the oak is the toast level used, the source of the oak and the tightness of the grain (not unconnected). American oak I can only tolerate in traditional Rioja and a few Ridge wines. High toast barrels I can't tolerate at all, as I'm very sensitive to torrefactive odors.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
As I've mentioned earlier here, my all-time most transcendent Burgundy experience was an '88 Dujac Clos de la Roche consumed back in '05
Click to expand...

I have an 88 Dujac Echezeaux if you pass by on your away to New Zealand.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by MLipton:
As I've mentioned earlier here, my all-time most transcendent Burgundy experience was an '88 Dujac Clos de la Roche consumed back in '05
Click to expand...

I have an 88 Dujac Echezeaux if you pass by on your away to New Zealand.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, O. Do you want to meet us halfway in Honolulu? We'll be there 1/1-1/3. I'd be happy to bring along a few bottles to open with you.

Mark Lipton
 
Not all wines are made for geeks. Wine can be abused with oak, and therefore will be abused with oak by some wine makers.

The fact remains that some folks like oaky wines, and even some smaller producers would be much poorer if they could not serve those who like a more than a little furniture in their Chardonnay.
 
You can overdo it with almost anything, but I mind it less with some cepages. Some NFO doesn't bug me in red Burgundy, though 200% doesn't work. It's nothing but vulgarity on riesling or melon or nebbiolo or most chenin.

I've had Latour that I liked.

It depends, but less is usually more.
 
Oak is like cumin. You don't put it in every dish, and when you do, you don't put a lot of it.

That said, a pinch is good in an omelet.
 
No ageworthy Bordeaux or Rioja has ever been made without oak. This can't be just a coincidence. That said, any wine, whether young or old, whether aged in old oak or new oak or no oak, is always at it best IMHO when it carries no direct perception of clearly oaky aromas and flavors. For old riesling or young albariño, no problem because there has (usually) been no oak involved, of course. For red Rioja or Bordeaux or Burgundy or Manchuela, if the wine is neither overoaked nor underwined, the day will come when it all comes together and thye oak will have disappeared in a complex, harmonious aromatic and flavor prifile. At least, that's what one hopes for...
 
Sharon comes close to explaining what oak usage is about. Though I'd liken it to salt in cooking. Every cook knows salt is essential but if the predominant flavor in dish is that of salt than too much has been used. Fermenting and aging wine in barrel is about so much more than merely extracting oaky and toasty flavors.

Being categorically against the use of barrels is like tasting a few overly salted dishes and being against the use of salt in cooking.
 
originally posted by Scott Frank:
Fermenting and aging wine in barrel is about so much more than merely extracting oaky and toasty flavors.
Click to expand...

True, which is why the salt analogy doesn't quite hit the mark either. Because oak's base function is in large part (or can / should be) about ultra-slow oxygen exchange rather than about imparting flavor. Tannins also make their mark.

Of course, oak itself bears the imprimatur of terroir, with some forests delivering trees that are more tightly grained and suitable for wine barrels than others. Beyond that, I'm not sure of the terroir implications, other than noting that dill is associated with American oak. Adding to my confusion is how really old oak barrels help a wine age. After a few years / fills the pores get clogged and oxygen exchange ceases. What does the wine do other than sit there? That is, if it's in an anaerobic environment, why is it different than in, say, old stainless?

One reason that European wines often seem so different to me than American wines is the old world's use of concrete and fiberglass-resin tanks during fermentation, both of which (as I understand it) allow more oxygen transfer than do stainless steel tanks. Concrete-raised wines can strike me as more tannic than alternately-raised wines. Fiberglass-resin tank wines seem to allow young wines (or at least young Loire wines) to express themselves in short order without excess tannin or alien flavors.

I don't make wine so what do I know... Except that I'd want to experiment first and foremost with fiberglass-resin tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top