Pay Corey no mind, he’s gets grouchy and argumentative during the international breaks for soccer. I should know, that’s me in his avatar…
On topic though, he does bring up discussions I’ve had with some friends about where the romance ends and science begins w/r/t barrels, and even terroir. I do believe that there is something much more beneficial and qualitatively superior to aging in barrels vs chips or staves. Even older barrels that aren’t imparting new oak flavors provide a different environment than tanks, it’s a texture thing, though I will say wineries that can employ gravity flow transportation from tank to tank can approach that as well. Chips and staves are just adding the oak flavor without actually doing anything to the fermentation or aging process, usually on the cheap. My analogy is when you compare a beer using real fruit, cocoa, or vanilla bean versus extracts and artificial flavors.
To be clear:
(1) I am grouchy; and
(2) I don’t suggest chips are better. However, I think the attitude “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” stifles innovation. And even if chips are not “as good” how much better are barrels and is the extra expense of barrels worth the expense to winemakers/consumers? Bud Light and Budweiser are aged using beechwood chips. While it’s not a beer I drink, they are the #1 and #2 best selling beers in America. Of course mass acceptance doesn’t mean “better”, but perhaps chips have more merit than wine snobs (and yes, I include myself in this group) are willing to admit.
FWIW, I’ve tasted the identical wine made with chips and barrels double blind and I liked the barrel version better. Of course, this is merely one data point and it says nothing about the quality of the barrel or the chip.
Chipping in beer is different than chipping in wine, and I was thinking about answering this in the last post. I don’t think there is any pretense in beer to try and get texture from the chips. In wine they are trying to mimic the flavor of barrel aging as cheaply as possible, which is why they leave Chardonnay sweeter on the cheap ones to mimic weight and aggressively malo them; it’s a smooth character found in great Chardonnay trying to be found with as little effort as possible.
In response to question 1. Are mass produced wines inferior in quality or is it just not made with all the attention and care the so called boutique wines receives?
We’d like to say yes, as it’s the answer we want it to be. However like so many other questions, the answer is: it depends / it varies.
Wines such as Wynns Black label Cabernet Sauvignon from Coonawarra Australia is a great example of a big company wine that has delivered a great star for the cellar year in, year out. The price remains a bargain IMO There are also some boutique wineries where there are serious issues, or intransigent attitudes that can make the wines difficult to love. Big wineries can pay big bucks - I know of one winemaker who went from running a winery in Hungary to directing the trucks of grapes for Montana (or whatever they are called now). Extending this on, the big wineries can pay top dollar for the winemakers they think are at the top of their game. The smaller wineries can’t do this but many take advice from famous consultants. Either way, that highly skilled winemaker may get stretched very thin and have less oversight of the wines than you’d imagine
However on balance, I have to say that I am slightly happier with a boutique wine than a big company one. Partly this is my soul having it’s say, but partly because a boutique can often follow it’s dream without the bean-counters (or much worse - ‘brand managers’) constraining the ambition/bravery. They’re nicer to visit, and often just plain friendlier. One or two big wineries believe their own hype and sit fat, dumb and happy on a reputation earned years ago, that no longer justifies it.
I do think there are wines produced on a large scale (let’s say 30,000+ case per bottling) that are done the right way, so size of production isn’t of itself a definition of quality. “Mass produced” to me is defined by cutting corners for a desired appeal (I’m thinking of this mostly from the Chardonnay standpoint, as I think this is where most of the chipping occurs) to the least common denominator; oak chips in wine, dry ribs smothered in BBQ sauce, One Direction I feel like a lot of wineries are dishonest when they describe their wines as ‘oaky’ and don’t come out and say they are using oak chips or staves; they are saying “Look at our wine, we can use the same descriptors for our $9 wine that so-and-so does for their $20 wine, so you get the same experience for less!” Most people don’t care, of course, but it does make it harder for those new to wine to understand what there is to loose or gain from trying nicer bottles of the same varieties.
A serious question: were you advised if all three barrels were made with wood from the same tree or at least from trees grown close to each other? I’d think soil conditions, etc., would affect things. Sortof like oak tree terroir. ;o)
Sorry - I rarely look at this section of the Board. No, I have no idea about the origin of those 3 barrels. I don’t slice it and dice it that small. And, actually, I never buy 3 new barrels from any one cooper in any vintage - just that time when I had a huge bump in production. But that experience with those 3 barrels is unquestionable.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
I feel like a lot of wineries are dishonest when they describe their wines as ‘oaky’ and don’t come out and say they are using oak chips or staves; they are saying “Look at our wine, we can use the same descriptors for our $9 wine that so-and-so does for their $20 wine, so you get the same experience for less!” Most people don’t care, of course, but it does make it harder for those new to wine to understand what there is to loose or gain from trying nicer bottles of the same varieties.