How much oak is too much oak?

S

SteveTimko

Steve Timko
Can oak more than frame the wine and not detract from the wine? In this ripe vintage, this works for me. The oak is significant but doesn't overwhelm the wine like I see in Kistler or crap like Rombauer.
Then again, I have a soft spot in my heart for Stoller. I don't understand why more people don't like this winery. I"d like to see them succeed. Would I like it ss much in a blind tasting? I think so.

2006 Stoller Chardonnay SV Estate - USA, Oregon, Willamette Valley, Dundee Hills (12/16/2008)
Initially, out of the gate, I thought, "Ugh! Too much oak." As it got air, the oak is still significant, but other flavors come to the forefront. Honey, white fruit and spiciness on the nose. On the palate, apples and other white fruits. Again some spice on the palate. Not a lingering finish but a nice finish. The oak is more than a frame here. Not to the level of say Kistler. It's right at the threshold of being too much oak for me. But the wine holds together. The bottle says 14 percent alcohol but Glenn noted if it said 14.1 percent they'd have to pay a higher tax. I like it and I would buy it again. Others who are sensitive to oak wouldn't like it.
 
If a tasting note has "...too much oak" three times I'm thinking maybe it has too much oak!

Thanks for this tip on the Stoller Steve. How much for the wine?
 
After so many years tasting oak-heavy Spanish and Bordeaux wines, I've come to a conclusion: you have to wait at least five-six years to decide whether there indeed is too much oak in them. If, by then, oak remains the dominant aromatic component, or even a clearly-noticeable aromatic component, then - yes, the stuff was overoaked. Otherwise the oak was just part of the mix in an ageworthy wine. Of course, any wine with insufficient structure and concentration will still be overwhelmed by the oak five years later, and should never have seen new oak, or even semi-new oak. Many producers delude themselves into thinking their grapes are so great that they're going to make Haut-Brion lookalikes, or that customers will be gullible enough to think so... And, of course, many California chardonnays are over the hill at age five or six, so the question there is moot.
 
Your final phrase was screaming at me through your post, Victor. "You must wait 4 months to see if the tomatoes were ripe, 3 weeks to see if the milk was fresh..." When you're assessing mayflies, you have to be quick about it.
 
If I find a wine too oaky on release then there's not much chance I'll like it later on. There are a few examples - Roty, most white Burgundy and Bordeaux (including some Sauternes), some Rioja/Ribera, Turley Petite Sirah (just had a not-too-bad '94 Aida), Guigal LaLas, Gaja, Clos Rougeard etc.

There are a few reasons why:

A. If a producer is confident enough to release a wine like that, it often follows that his/her winemaking philosophy and my preferences are orthogonal

B. I've found that oak often destroys a wine's texture - either imparting a soupiness (sometimes tannin-driven, more often than not a fucking up of the acid structure) that never quite goes away (only instance is Burgundy and some claret, but they never taste that soupy to begin with), or a patina (sheen?) of oxygenated tannins. This is especially the case with Syrah

C. I usually dislike the aromatic component and find that they don't integrate or disappear. For certain wines I've come to accept it, but others...
 
My palate was trained in the presence of those who disliked oaky wines (thank goodness,) so I've found myself sensitive to oak flavors. Through time, however, I've become far less intolerant. Sometimes a hint of wood even helps the wine's texture and structure. Usually, wine made in neutral or used barrels seem to fit my taste the best. There is something about the oxygen exchange that wood provides that is difficult to replicate (and don't get me started on different micro-oxygenation schemes.)

All that said, if we are looking for a rule of thumb, I like this:

If the wine tastes like fruits, earth, stones, yet has hints of oak playing a "framing" role, that's okay. If the wine tastes like barrel, there's too much oak.

And not to digress, but I've often found I prefer a given producer's middle wine. The cheap, entry level wines might be good, but they don't usually get me too excited. The high end luxury cuvees often come off (to me) as overly oaked, if not overly worked in general. The middle cuvee, however, seems to get judicious amounts of attention, mostly used barrels and pretty good fruit.
 
After initially being beguiled by oakiness in young wines, I did a full 180 and began to find oakiness objectionable, an attitude I still hold to, by and large. In recent years, though, I have begun to appreciate the role that oak can play in the production of complexity in aged wine. My particular exemplar was a bottle of '88 Dujac Clos de la Roche that was unquestionably oaky in its youth, yet had -- by the time I found it -- developed into a fabulously perfumed, harmonious endpoint. I also never lost my fondness for Ridge wines, traditional Rioja or Bordeaux. To me, though, it depends so much on the wine in question: I can't tolerate new oak in Syrah, for instance, even in those Guigal LaLas.

Mark Lipton
 
The LaLas illustrate the importance of keeping the wine in barrel long enough, curiously, as does Clos Rougeard.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
The LaLas illustrate the importance of keeping the wine in barrel long enough, curiously, as does Clos Rougeard.
Click to expand...

I've read about this somewhere before. What is the operating theory? That after a certain amount of time maturing in oak, the oakiness recedes? What's the ideal length of time for this to occur?
 
Julien Barrot has told me that after 6 months in the barrels, the oak flavor starts to subside so that keeping it in oak for longer than 6 months is preferable to keeping it for just that. Since I can taste the oak in the cuvee in which he uses barriques quite clearly, though, I wouldn't vouch for that. I used to think I only objected to new oak. I find that even exposure to 2-3 year old barriques can mark the wine unfavorably for me. I don't, however, seem to have problems with foudres and demi-muids. And my objections to new oak are stronger for white wines (virtually a deal killer) than with red (I'd rather not see it, but a little bit may not do irremediable damage to the wine).
 
If I can smell or taste oak, the wine has too much.
That doesn't mean I won't drink it, it does mean my experience will be less for the intrusion.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
The LaLas illustrate the importance of keeping the wine in barrel long enough, curiously, as does Clos Rougeard.
Click to expand...

I heard that if you keep the wine long enough, it becomes old oak.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
The LaLas illustrate the importance of keeping the wine in barrel long enough
Click to expand...

True; if they kept them in long enough, we'd never see them.
 
if you have to ask, it's too much. if you put ketchup on everything then everything tastes like ketchup.

new oak, especially in new world wines, is done to make the wine yummy. (yes, i've heard that there are exceptions to that generalisation.) if i want yummy i'll eat gummy bears. yummy is the ultimate boring.

olivia newton john is the toasted new barrel of the music world.

yanni is the 200% new oak of the music world.

the cramps are the 50-year-old-foudre ecocert-certified pineau d'aunis of the music world.

'yummy' pales in the company of 'fascinating yet challenging'.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
The LaLas illustrate the importance of keeping the wine in barrel long enough, curiously, as does Clos Rougeard.
Click to expand...

Not vast experience here but I've never had one of the LaLas or a Rougeard that made me think more was better.
Maybe at 50 . . .
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Zachary Ross:
originally posted by SFJoe:
The LaLas illustrate the importance of keeping the wine in barrel long enough, curiously, as does Clos Rougeard.
Click to expand...

I've read about this somewhere before. What is the operating theory? That after a certain amount of time maturing in oak, the oakiness recedes? What's the ideal length of time for this to occur?
Click to expand...

Extraction of flavor/aroma elements from new oak is a relatively fast process (think of how long it takes to make coffee or steep tea for a reference point). By keeping the wines in barrel for extended periods of time, the extraction ends quickly and the slow oxidation of those flavor elements begins, affording a more developed bouquet. Various proponents also claim that this will ultimately lead to greater integration down the road, but that claim I can't back up with a rational explanation.

Mark Lipton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top