A Discussion on Oak Usage - and 'Terroir' as well . . .

Notes from a panel discussion recently held up in the ‘North Coast’ somewhere

Question - would you consider oak usage part of the the ‘winemaker’s terroir’? Just wondering . . .

https://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=news&content=184374

Cheers . . .

Oak usage to me is separate to terroir and I fear the majority of comments will be made ridiculing the concept of winemaker’s terroir (which I couldn’t find in the article).

Oak may be part of a region’s tradition (e.g. US oak in Rioja), and it’s also part of the winemaker’s toolkit to make the wine that will bring the most success.

I’m not quite sure where the debate goes from here though. We’d all love there to be a ‘right’ level of oak, but our palates vary, so I can’t see general agreement.

I’m no winemaker, but I do understand that many wine styles rely on ageing in oak, even if that oak is pretty neutral.

It should be noted that nowhere in this article does it suggest that oak should be considered part of a winemakers terroir. Having said that, I often see oak profiles mistaken for terroir by consumers and critics alike.

Not terroir as I understand the term/concept. If I do have a beef with California white wines, though, it’s because of the all-too-often heavy hand with the oak.

My ‘winemaker’s terroir’ statement had more to do with the statement in the article about oak being part of a defining character of a ‘winemaker’s style’ and just ‘twisting’ that word around

I think it is fair to say that some wineries are defined by a ‘style’ that is somewhat dictated by the oak that they use; some are dictated by a style from how they pick their grapes; some are dictated by a style from where the grapes are picked from; some are dictated by a style from how the grapes are fermented and aged . . .

Just trying to get a discussion going here.

Cheers!

Hi Larry
It might be worth editing it to winemaker’s style then. The T word in this context will be a red rag to a bullzerker and will dominate the discussion.
regards
Ian

“Style” also materially changes the claim. If a winemaker uses oak, then ipso facto, it’s part of his or her style of making wine. True, but trivially true.

In that context, oak treatment (if at all) is one of the key decisions of a winemaker and not at all seems a more popular choice in the natural wine movement.

Sometimes tradition, possibly even appellation rules, dictates what is to be done, requiring a maverick, radical or stroppy child to decide otherwise.

Personally (and this is a personal choice) I tend to prefer subtlety, of oak used for the balance / stability / age-ability of the wine, rather than as a flavouring agent. If the primary reason for using that type of oak / toasting is to add a particular flavour, then I’m not comfortable. I’d rather eat a grape (pips and all) than chew on an oak stave. If a dominant flavour is oak, then again I’m not comfortable.

regards
Ian

I don’t understand the concept of “winemaker’s terroir”. I can see “signature”, or “style”, but “terroir” seems inappropriately used in this context.

Ditto. It’s a perversion of the term.

Is oak usage/treatment/regimen sometimes part of a “house style?” Absolutely.

But not always.

“Bullzerker”!? I love it!!

+1
Terroir happens in the vineyard.

winemakers terroir? that makes zero sense. no such thing. just like no such thing as a winegrower.

Like you, I generally prefer wines that show less oak outside of some notable exceptions where it’s part of the region’s signature (Rioja for example, or white Priorat), but I’m totally fine with a spectrum of oakiness on all wines being “ok”, some producers use tons some use none and everything in-between and people just pick what they like. For example Lauren greatly prefers minerally, enamel vaporizing acid++++++++++ unoaked Chardonnay, I like those and some that use “judicious” oak about equally, and my dad only likes Chardonnay that tastes like creme brulee in a campfire, and I’m glad we’ve all found producers that do those things.

But yeah appending the term terroir to winemaking style just serves to muddy the waters.

Well folks - didn’t mean to create a dust up here.

My intention was to ask the question about oak usage - and to try to get an understanding of what consumers appreciate about oak usage versus what they truly know and understand about oak usage.

Yep, ‘terroir’ really is not the ‘appropriate’ term here - winemaker ‘style’ would be - but I think ‘style’ and ‘terroir’ are being substituted all of the time when it comes to even the vineyard. When a winemaker chooses to pick grapes may maximize or minimize ‘terroir’ attributes that the vineyard brings to the table - and this ‘manipulation’ or whatever word you may want to substitute for it could certainly be considered a winemaker putting his or her ‘stamp’ or ‘style’ on the subsequent wine. And if I think of the term ‘terroir’, I am drawn to a specific site and what it ‘brings to the table’ - if this is ‘altered’ by the winemaker, I may use the term ‘winemaker’s terroir’ to imply this.

Therefore, oak usage to me can either magnify or minimize the ‘terroir’ of the fruit coming from the vineyard, and thus the winemaker is putting their own ‘style’ or ‘terroir’ into the mix.

To each their own, my friends.

Cheers.

I would certainly object to the idea that the winemaker is putting his or her own “terroir” into the mix as you say. Winemaker style is essentially the opposite of terroir, at least to the extent that the more noticeable the winemaking style the more it obscures terroir. Winemaking decisions, including oak use, should result in the purest expression of the grapes, though I know some people hate that word “pure” when used in this context. My take is that oak use should frame the wine, support it, allow it to develop, without obscuring what it has to say. So no, oak isn’t terroir, and winemaking isn’t terroir.

Not a winemaker but as a drinker I have noticed I tend to prefer 25-40% new oak on a lot of ‘bigger’ reds. I was surprised a couple times when I loved a wine w 60% new oak as usually that stands out too much for me.

No opinion on whites, yet.

I have noticed that whole cluster amd lees stirring affects the amount of new oak I ‘need’ in some wines.

+1
Unless you are burying the staves in the vineyard it’s not terroir.(just kidding that wouldn’t be terroir either;)

Larry, if you’re really asking “how much oak” do you like in your wines, my own answer is as little as “necessary”. Personally, I cannot drink 100% (new) oaked California reds, or heavily oaked Bordeaux. Depending on the grape, the absolute max I would go for is 50%, and preferably less, all the way down to zero. If you offer me 100% new oak wines like Guigal, Gangloff, Pierre Gaillard, many California Cabs, I will say “no thanks”. I just don’t want to drink them, because they mask the fruit and terroir too much.

A question at the other extreme.

How many ageworthy red wines can you name that see no oak (or any other wood)? Maybe a few of the newer amphora aged wines?