Some oak okay...or not??

originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by .sasha:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
originally posted by SFJoe: Dujac is my secret shame.
Click to expand...

Joe, I have occasionally wondered if Dujac has experienced any fall out from its wine growing practices with oak.

. . . . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

Less and less every year.
Click to expand...
By coincidence, an offer just arrived in my mail for their 2009s. At ~$250 per for the 1ers, my interest has become purely hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Joe, That is out of sight...and out of mind.

What a contrast with the glowing tout I posted elsewhere here for the Michel Gaunoux Pommard Les Grands Epenots 1er Cru '05 for about $60 per bottle!

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Emilio Castelli:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I'm not a winemaker, but it's consensual among winemakers I've spoken to at winery visits that first use clogs most of the pores, and by the third use there is virtually no more oxygenation taking place through the pores.
Click to expand...

I use almost exclusively 3 yrs old or older barrel and I still have to top them off every month. The rate of topping does not decrease with age but it's often different among different barrel. So if wine evaporates air must get in.
E
Click to expand...

So, as Sebastien David suggested, whatever evaporates must be through the bung hole.
 
Ultimately, a winemaker makes the wine he wants to make. Agelo Gaja wanted to make Nebbiolo with new oak on it. His motivations behind that are his own, but hopefully it has something to do with him making wine that he himself would enjoy more. From everything I've read about the man, he's a smart, hardworking iconoclast. He also has at least one very attractive daughter around my age, but I digress...

Robert Parker and few other people agree with his approach to Barolo and Barbaresco, and so the wines have become very popular, despite any of our like or dislike of them or their position vis-a-vis traditions in the region. I certainly am in a more traditionalist camp, but never having had the luxury of tasting Mr. Gaja's wines, I can't say that I would dislike them out of hand. I can only evaluate them relatively objectively on the grounds that I know he uses new barrique, and therefore I should expect a certain type of wine.

While I can't find a citation for it at the moment, the famous story behind Gaja's "Darmagi" bottling is that he ripped up a Barbaresco vineyard and replanted it with Cabernet Sauvignon, causing his father to exclaim, "Ai, Darmagi!" or "What a shame" in the local Piedmontese dialect. Obviously, the prices that wine commands have lead it to be a good business decision, and it's certainly a singular wine. Again, the only questions for me are a) does he enjoy owning the vineyard and making the wine? b) Would I like the wine? I hope that he does like the wine and the vineyard. I won't be buying any of it, but there are many people who are very happy to.

Oak is a tool. If a winemaker wants to use it, let him. We don't say artists are trash just because they use pallet knives instead of brushes, or because they use splatter painting or welded steel. The wines obviously speak to people who are willing to pay for them. Now, whether they're being hoodwinked by marketers and critics is a whole other conversation.

This reminds me of the whole Damien Hirst debate. Like or hate his art, he appears to enjoy making it and the market is willing to support the prices, so really, how angry can anyone get? No one is forcing anyone to buy the wines of Angelo Gaja (or any other producer who utilizes new oak heavily) or the art of Damien Hirst.
 
Morgan,

It's possible to agree with you on the market and everyone's freedom to do what they prefer without also adopting a completely nihilist theory of aesthetics.
 
I thought Morgan was very sensible - it takes years of therapy to achieve such a non-judgmental position - but ruined everything by mispelling palette.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Emilio Castelli:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I'm not a winemaker, but it's consensual among winemakers I've spoken to at winery visits that first use clogs most of the pores, and by the third use there is virtually no more oxygenation taking place through the pores.
Click to expand...

I use almost exclusively 3 yrs old or older barrel and I still have to top them off every month. The rate of topping does not decrease with age but it's often different among different barrel. So if wine evaporates air must get in.
E
Click to expand...

So, as Sebastien David suggested, whatever evaporates must be through the bung hole.
Click to expand...

If this was the case, a glass vessel closed with the same silicon bung would need to be topped up just like a barrel.
Barrel (old and new) are breathing vessels. Glass and SS are not. The breathing is not subtle; depending on barrel, cellar temperature and humidity you need to add 1/2 L of wine per month to keep the barrel topped.
The barrel, once ML is over, starts pulling a vacuum so the clogging would need to be from the outside in.
I've heard winemakers use the "clogging of pores" argument before but it'BS. Maybe they've been listening to barrel salespeople too much.
E
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Emilio Castelli:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I'm not a winemaker, but it's consensual among winemakers I've spoken to at winery visits that first use clogs most of the pores, and by the third use there is virtually no more oxygenation taking place through the pores.
Click to expand...

I use almost exclusively 3 yrs old or older barrel and I still have to top them off every month. The rate of topping does not decrease with age but it's often different among different barrel. So if wine evaporates air must get in.
E
Click to expand...

So, as Sebastien David suggested, whatever evaporates must be through the bung hole.
Click to expand...

Even then, the rate would change.
 
This also raises the questions about stylistic shifts in Piedmont. I wonder how many shifts this radical have been tried on more than an experimental basis, say, since phylloxera? Having never had the wines, I have no opinion, but the discussion raises the issue that modernist wines can be made from all sorts of terroir but good, old fashioned, authentic Barolo and Barbaresco cannot. There's lots of terroir out there in the world, but a finite amount of B & B.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I'm not a winemaker, but it's consensual among winemakers I've spoken to at winery visits that first use clogs most of the pores, and by the third use there is virtually no more oxygenation taking place through the pores.
Click to expand...
I steam my barrels after each use. This process cleans away tartrates and other pore cloggers.
IMO, it also "refreshes" the barrel to the extent that there is some oak uptake which influences smell and flavor. I believe that this goes on through the life of the barrel, regardless of the length of that life.
But even if I did not steam my barrels, I notice that those that are not steamed requie topping- up on a regular basis when in use - hence, I believe there is some oxygenation taking place even though many of my barrels are older than three years.

So, I disagree that barrels older than three do not allow oxygenation.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I thought Morgan was very sensible - it takes years of therapy to achieve such a non-judgmental position - but ruined everything by mispelling palette.
Click to expand...
I'm still stuck on Prof. Mark saying "begging" instead of "beggaring".
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
So, I disagree that barrels older than three do not allow oxygenation.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

The claim under dispute is not that barrels older than three do not allow oxygenation but that they no longer oxygenate through the pores. Scraping may reintroduce wood flavors, but would do nothing to the external layers of clogged pores.

Before this thread, I believed this "wisdom" to be well established. If it's not, I'm hardly in a position to argue in its favor, so must leave its defense in the hands of those who have data.

Eric, what say you? Mike? Steve?
 
originally posted by Morgan Harris:
Ultimately, a winemaker makes the wine he wants to make. Agelo

Oak is a tool. If a winemaker wants to use it, let him. We don't say artists are trash just because they use pallet knives instead of brushes, or because they use splatter painting or welded steel. The wines obviously speak to people who are willing to pay for them. Now, whether they're being hoodwinked by marketers and critics is a whole other conversation.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to let artists and winemakers use what they want and make what they want. I also feel free not to like it and to think it makes a kind of wine I don't like. Although with regard to wine, I don't think there is a basis for universalizing those judgments, I'm open, but skeptical, on the issue as to whether there is such a basis with art. Even without that basis, I can tell the difference between Middlemarch and Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? It's fine with me if Agatha Christie writes such stuff and makes a skazillion dollars as long as its fine with her if I don't care who killed Roger Ackroyd.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Even without that basis, I can tell the difference between Middlemarch and Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? It's fine with me if Agatha Christie writes such stuff and makes a skazillion dollars as long as its fine with her if I don't care who killed Roger Ackroyd.
Click to expand...
And here I'd suspected you of aesthetic nihilism.
 
Don't make fun of a lady who said things like, "An archaeologist is the best husband a woman can have. The older she gets the more interested he is in her."
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Even without that basis, I can tell the difference between Middlemarch and Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? It's fine with me if Agatha Christie writes such stuff and makes a skazillion dollars as long as its fine with her if I don't care who killed Roger Ackroyd.
Click to expand...
And here I'd suspected you of aesthetic nihilism.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what aesthetic nihilism is. It never came up in my reading. How does it connect with preferring Middlemarch to Christie?
 
originally posted by Morgan Harris:
While I can't find a citation for it at the moment, the famous story behind Gaja's "Darmagi" bottling is that he ripped up a Barbaresco vineyard and replanted it with Cabernet Sauvignon, causing his father to exclaim, "Ai, Darmagi!" or "What a shame" in the local Piedmontese dialect. Obviously, the prices that wine commands have lead it to be a good business decision, and it's certainly a singular wine. Again, the only questions for me are a) does he enjoy owning the vineyard and making the wine? b) Would I like the wine? I hope that he does like the wine and the vineyard. I won't be buying any of it, but there are many people who are very happy to.
Click to expand...
Here is a report of Gaia Gaja telling that story in some detail.

In re Angelo's enjoyment, he is on record as having said that the vineyard was planted not because he loves cabernet so much but because he needed a barrique-aged cab-based wine in order to attract worldwide attention.
 
Joe,

I guess if there's any philosophy in this for me it's that I really like it when people are happy. Moreover, people should do what makes them happy as long as it's not screwing my day (or anyone else's) up.

I have to admit that nihilist theories of aesthetics are something I'm woefully under-prepared to discuss from an academic standpoint, although your comment does provide me with impetus for another line of discussion.

In my time here in Walla Walla, I've been doing some writing and reading on wine, and I'm having a difficult time trying to reckon the fact that I think there's truth in wine (i.e. wines that are more true and less true, relative to some personal standards established abstractly in my head) with the fact that it's very exclusionary to judge people on what they drink. Wine snobbery does not help anyone drink better (or does it?).

How do we, as people who love wine, engage those who drink Yellow Tail Shiraz or Montana (the company, not the state) Sauvignon Blanc in a non-judgmental, welcoming way? There are many people who obviously enjoy these products, but I think it's mostly because they haven't had the sort of closer-to-god experiences that I've had with really amazing wines. They don't know how deep the water gets, and so they're content to wade in the shallows since they haven't seen the ocean yet.

I don't think it's productive to say to them, "Oh, wow, you're drinking absolute crap wine. What terrible taste you have." I guess I'm trying to figure out how I can simultaneously defend their right to choose what they drink, while agitating for the sorts of wines that all of us know and love. I'd rather show them what they should be drinking rather than stuffing my taste down their throat, because then I'm no better than any of the points score gurus.

Theise writes something in "Between the Wines" that I've been thinking about a lot recently. I paraphrase here, but the idea is intact, "Wine is just fermented grape juice. Sure. Just like mount Everest is a big pile of rocks and the Statue of Liberty is just a bunch of copper."

This is definitely the quandary of someone involved in the business, and not necessarily of the wine drinker, but I'd love to hear all your thoughts on this, since you're all some of the smartest people I know and you drink a lot of wine, so that seems like a good group of people to be polling. I say all of this with utmost respect and I'm not trying to be a firebrand. I would love hear your thoughts on it.

Basically, all of this is to answer the question of whether my role as a sommelier is as a taste-maker or should I just be getting people exactly what I want. Not that those two things are always mutually exclusive, but I think you can see how sometimes there's a conflict of interest.

Oswaldo,

I could have sworn I spelled it correctly. I blame an errant reading of a Google search for my indiscretion. Mea Culpa.

Also, in abstraction, Firefox wants to spell-check "sommelier" to "isomer".
 
Look, we need to distinguish between having aesthetic standards and thinking it matters much whether we can persuade others of their rightness, much less constrain them. From the perspective of a just state, people who like Yellow Tail should buy Yellow Tail and be happy and people who like mystery novels should read them and be happy. I might have views about the value of the second (I'm afraid that part of my being able to have views about art, in my view, depends on why I can't have views of the same sort about wine), but my views about the importance of people being able to choose their own values, subject to some obvious constraints contingent on living in a community, mean that my views about art are just my values. For that reason, I don't feel much hesitation expressing them and my only value claim is the insidious professorial one: I think if you try mine out they'll work better for you and if they don't, then you can just move on. That doesn't mean I don't have views, don't act on them, don't express them and don't think I have the right to do so. So, if winemakers want to use lots of new oak, they should surely be free to do so. If people like their wine, then the winemakers will be richer and the people who buy the wine will be happy and that's a general good. And my not liking the wine and being able to say that is just one general good the more.
 
originally posted by Morgan Harris:

I don't think it's productive to say to them, "Oh, wow, you're drinking absolute crap wine. What terrible taste you have."
Click to expand...
No, but it was a pretty good idea to say to Serge Batard a few years back, "Dude, the new oak thing on the Muscadet, pack it in. Give it up. A for effort, D for execution. Swing and a miss. Give it up."

Having opinions is not the same thing as being a snob.

And you could have had the same conversation with Ostertag about riesling. And it would have been fully righteous.

Or, you could be David Schildknecht telling Mosel winemakers that kabinett is not a dirty word, that there is an audience for those wines. No "snobbery" involved. But real, informed opinions from consumers who know something about the wines.

And if people really like Yellow Tail with their Cheeze Whiz on SunChips, let them have at it, but informed opinions are different from urges or preferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top