I think if we applied a Venn Diagram here, you and I would agree on much. I also think all of us have some prejudices and are influenced by some information, none of us are immune. I don’t think you are suggesting a “right” and “wrong” here with you on the “right” side of the issue. It’s purely a matter of personal opinion and taste, and yes, strong opinions indeed.
For example, you loved the La Landonne. Last month I had a tasting that I hosted with 1998 Jamet, 1997 Guigal La Mouline and 1998 Chapoutier Le Pavillon. It should not surprise you which one I preferred: Jamet. Jamet sees 20% new oak for about 20 months, while La Mouline sees 100% new oak for 42 months. Even after 20 years, it’s presence is quite overt. I will admit to having enjoyed the La Mouline, but it’s not in the same ballpark as the Jamet. I will pay $250 for the Jamet, I will not buy the La Mouline. The Chapoutier was a distant third, still enjoyable. I had these side by side over the course of an evening with more than one glass of each, paired with excellent cuisine and enjoyed without. The Jamet carried the evening to me. Just this one country bumpkin’s personal taste.
Ian, Alan and Robert have said it all much better than I.
For me, I can even discount the word “terroir” - I doubt I could discern on a reliable basis the difference between a Gevrey and a Morey, etc.
When there is an “excess” of oak, it gets in the way of all the other elements of the wine. It is like a otherwise great dish that is too salty.
I will say I have been surprised by older wines that have seemed to absorb their heavy oaking well after 15+ years.
I’m fully in the AFWE camp, so take all the above with a few grains of “salt”… and SO2, I’m not a fan of bacterial spoilage.
Getting back to what most consumers would prefer, I think there is still a strong preference for oak. I know my family can’t get enough of the rich and oaky Cali wines.
First, I think we should be distinguishing between oak and new oak barriques. I’m sure Jurgen is right that I couldn’t infallibly identify wines that had seen 20% new oak. But I do find it makes a difference. With 100% new oak, really it’s pretty hard to miss.
There’s no doubt that wines vinified without any oak taste different than wines that use oak–otherwise why go to the expense of buying all those barriques? Whether they wouldn’t taste as good is another issue. There are Rhones that see no wood of any kind and some that see say 20% old foudre and others that use such old and crusted barrels that really they might as well be foudres. They don’t seem the worse for that treatment to me.
everyone is free to think and drink whatever he or she likes. That is clear all the time. I add my experience and knowledge. Maybe it´s valuable for a few people. Maybe not. I don´t know.
Yikes…this is a very complicated issue and writers like to reduce everything to a paragraph.
I would like to explain my opinion about the word terroir, which can be reduced to a paragraph or two.
The definition of terroir keeps changing and if you c an keep changing the meaning of a word, how do you talk about it??
Jurgen points out that there are many aspects to barrel making and having worked for Taransaud and Francois for over over 35 years I know most of them. There are even more aspects of winemaking and oak.
I find, for example, that if you can find a vineyardf where the chardonnay ripens at low sugar levels, and you ferment the wine in well seasoned barrels, folks don t notice the oak much…you use the same barrel on a 15% alc chardonnay…hard to miss it.
I do find the discussion fascinating - and these differing opinions are why I brought the subject up in the first place.
It is important to distinguish between ‘oak’ and ‘new oak’ it appears. To me, oak is, in many ways, a ‘necessary evil’ as part of my winemaking process. I don’t mean to imply this as a negative, even though I’ve used the word ‘necessary’ . . . But to me, older oak barrels provide me with a wonderful vessel that allows the wine to age beautifully without taking on the ‘overt’ characteristics of newer oak barrels. The micro-oxidation that takes place in said barrels is distinctly different that what I would get in concrete or stainless steel - not better or worse, but just different. I prefer this to the other vessels for the majority of the red wines that I produce, and for the most part, my wines see 28-34 months in these older barrels, without racking during elevate until just before bottling. And my white rhone varieties see about 18 months in 6+ year old barrels before bottling.
I do not nor shall I imply this is ‘better’ than any other methods - it works for me and I like the subsequent wines that are produced. If I used new or newer oak barrels, the subsequent wines would be ‘different’ - and to me, they would partially ‘mask’ what I find beautiful and unique about each vineyard and variety that I work with and take the wine in a different direction, one more ‘dominated’ by specific aromas and possibly mouthfeel derived not from the grape but instead from the vessel.
Keep the conversation going - it’s fun to watch and occasionally take part in.
No it doesn’t keep changing. You keep saying that it does, but that doesn’t make it so. You cite an unnamed Burgundian, but even that person was very well-regarded that doesn’t really put the definition of terroir in flux. Moreover, even if it was in flux we could still talk about it. I could still tell you that there’s no such thing as "winemaker’s terroir. Sometimes I feel like people who dislike the idea of terroir or something about what it conveys attempt to undermine it by suggesting that it is too difficult or too variable to truly be understood. I think that was a lot of Larry’s initial point here, to undermine some sort of classical idea of terroir by suggesting something as outlandish as that a winemaker could be a part of the terroir. We may not all agree exactly on the definition but in a way you’re arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We all more or less know what we believe terroir to be, and we know what it isn’t. It isn’t some kind metaphysical mystery.
Robert, as you know, I am not a fan of overoaked wines, but I think too many people use oak as a shorthand for a bunch of practices (picking too late, too high alcohol levels, etc.) rather than just the oak itself. I have seen a number of situations where new oak does not hurt a wine made with otherwise traditional methods. For example, Jacky Truchot bought a few new oak barrels every year. The new barrels were used for his Charmes Chambertin, while the other wines just saw old oak. When young, the Charmes tasted very different from all of his other wines. At 10-15 years old, not really.
I have not. And at that size, you’re not talking barrels anymore - you’re talking stand-up foudres like Tablas uses. Mel will have more to say about this, but the largest puncheons I have seen have been in the 600-700L range and they are pretty big.
There is no doubt that my wines would aged differently in older puncheons than they would older barriques. I do not believe that difference would be as great as if I compared them to either newer barriques or cement IMHO.
And the ‘challenge’ with puncheons? Used ones are very very challenging to find these days - they are in very high demand not only from wine producers but from beer producers as well!
And yep, cement can produce lovely whites and reds as well . . .
To be fair, I am interested in your view - do you think oak is part of a wine’s terroir?
If you ever want to visit wineries in Napa with a lot of older grey looking oak barrels (which to me are beautiful), go to Stony Hill and Mayacamas (I confess that I was at Mayacamas before it was sold, so my information may be obsolete).
That may or may not be true. I have had plenty of wines - chardonnays, syrahs, grenaches, mourvedres - that ‘only’ had 20% new oak and the oak truly ‘dominated’ everything else. Yes, I will agree that a lower percentage will, on average, impact the wines less than a larger percentage, but there are bound to be plenty of exceptions to this.
And therein lies one of the biggest challenges about everything wine - exceptions to the rule / ‘subjectively’ defining terms, etc. It makes for ‘lively’ discussions for sure, but makes it difficult to come to ‘agreements’ . . .
I think that oak can be used to ‘mask’ or ‘enhance’ a wine’s terroir for sure. Take a ‘delicate’ pinot for instance - wrap that thing in 100% heavy toasted new oak barrels and the subsequent wine will ‘show different things’ than the same wine put into older oak barrels, no?
Seems like a ‘simple answer’, but obviously interpretation is subjective
I agree, Howard. New oak alone is not necessarily or always a or the problem, depends on many other factors. Some wines like Mouton and Latour handle 100% new oak very well, Pavie does not.
I pulled a random sampling off Leve’s site on Bordeaux I have bought through the 1980s and into the 2010s, plus I have had many older bottles. These wines rarely show obstrusive oak. I’m actually surprised to see Sociando use 95%. It handles oak well, evidently.
Montrose - 60% new
Leoville Barton - 50% new
Grand Puy Lacoste - 70% new
Sociando - 95% new!
D’Armailhac - 30% new
Vieux Chateau Certan - 50% new
Now that said, I do not want to see that much new oak, and won’t complain about no new oak, in my Chinons, Northern Rhones and Beaujolais. There are some wines that I prefer with zero oak. And then some that have fun bottlings aged in oak barrels that are just as nice as their counter-parts aged in large foudres: Clos de la Roilette Cuvée Tardive versus the Griffe du Marquis bottling. Ah, and Metras, so sublime…
Well, they’re still barrels, just bigger. I ask because most of the wine I import from Italy that’s aged in wood is aged in this kind of larger barrel, but I hardly see them here. Tablas Creek would be an exception, obviously.
It may be that some varieties have an affinity for barriques (Cabernet Sauvignon or Pinot Noir, for example) and others for larger wood (Grenache or Nebbiolo).
First of all, I cited Larousse s book, Vin, from 1969, which defines terroir as solely something coming from the soil. Not many would say this any more.
Second, in the past week I have asked for a definition from two Burgundians, who gave me different answers. I will see more of these creatures tomorrow and will ask them.
As far as oak is concerned, let s face it: it s different strokes for different folks. I know what I like, as do the rest of you.
I am not even going to touch the concept of winemaker’s terroir.
Sorry Mel, but IMO your anecdotes and a 1969 French dictionary definition don’t do much to convince me that the definition of terroir is so rapidly changing that it can’t be well-discussed. In the years I’ve paid attention to wine the definition of terroir has been relatively static. Articles or wine board threads that ask “but is the winemaker’s hat terroir?” don’t really raise legitimate debate about the nature of terroir. In fact, I’d say little to none of the chatter about “is x terroir” raise any legitimate discussion points about what is or is not terroir. It’s not that complicated, and those suggesting it is complicated often do so to suit their own agenda. That agenda, bizarrely, seems mostly to be discrediting the entire concept that a particular piece of earth can make an inherently superior wine.
I don’t disagree with your points on oak here, or above. People can drink whatever they like. Different wines take to oak in different ways. Oak treatment is more complicated than just percentage or toast. These things are all true, but none of them address the OP, which asked whether oak use was terroir. It isn’t.
It is clear that you do not want to combine the term ‘winemaker’ and ‘terroir’ - I get that. I may disagree, but I understand why others do not want to combine those two
That said, can we agree that oak usage can work to either mask or accentuate the characteristics that make a wine ‘unique’ from that site?
I certainly did not mean to imply that 20% new oak on all occasions is not evident, only that I could not infallibly identify it. Robert’s statement that Sociando Mallet uses 90% new oak has as its consequence that I can’t identify always that either. He is clearly right that some wines handle it better to the extent that some wines that have it seem like good, traditional Bordeaux to me. If it isn’t clear, already, though, I am not a Bordeaux afficionado–driven out both by price and by too many wines I didn’t like back in the late 90s–and a palate formed by the Rhone and, to a lesser extent the Loire, may have its own idiosyncracies.
On your last post, I think in disagreeing that winemaker’s terroir is a meaningful phrase, you are simply disagreeing with the dictionary. Since you have already said that you mean by that phrase a winemaker’s style, a perfectly clear concept, the question is why you want to muddy that concept up with an evident oxymoron.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
![[soap.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7ea1fffd3ef237e8f19d17a83270ad8452218ca.gif "soap"){kind=small}
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}