Its a good point. I probably shoudnt even assume maple/cola is oak.
One thing I see people do alot is be a bit too quick pronounce reduction as brett. Ive certainly been guilty of that.
Perhaps. But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
But that may not be what you are noticing. That is Keiths point.
I think Keith’s point is that deducing winemaking technique by tasting is foolish. I’m not sure Keith is positing that it is foolish to point out individual known elements of winemaking in tasting. I’m sure Keith will respond.
A
Well, I am not making any point whatsoever about the 1982 Ponsot, which I’ve never had. But I would still say it is wise to tread carefully in doing the second thing you mention. People can and do detect “oak” in wines that never touched anything besides stainless steel and glass, so just knowing that a wine has been in oak is not confirmation that what you think is oak is actually oak. You can never be wrong when you say that a wine tastes like x, y, or z, but when you say that x, y, and z is there because of a, b, and c you’re making assumptions - some of which can be safer than others, to be sure, but those assumptions get refuted so often that it is not a bad policy to shy away from them and stick to what we can know for sure. Not saying I always follow that rule myself. But it’s a good rule.
That all strikes me as fair. I tend not to have too many rules (don’t comment on a wine you haven’t tried is probably my only true rule). One of the things I think is particularly interesting about burgundy is trying to understand how different winemaking techniques affect terroir. So for me, knowing that a particular producer uses stems, or new oak, or employs any other winemaking technique, makes me want to try to get a sense of how that technique affects what is in the glass. That requires an assumption (“I know the producer is using stems; I taste something that I believe is the affect of those stems rather than something else”) and therefore I can be incorrect. But being wrong about a wine is, in my opinion, pretty low cost.
A
Alex – I’m assuming that by oak you mean new oak. Laurent has been telling me for years that he uses no new oak. I never asked him what the regime was in 1982 (when his father was still making the wines), so I don’t know what it was then. Can you enlighten me and point me to your sources for how (1) how much oak was used in 1982 and (2) why you think he has been lying to me and others about how much he currently uses?
I don’t mean new oak. And I take (mild) offense to the way you’ve worded your second point. You should modify what you wrote.
Thanks
A
If you didn’t mean new oak, clearly you have not accused Ponsot of lying. But then what is the point of making the comment that he uses oak? Virtually everyone in the Côte d’Or does (and I use the word “virtually” to hedge for the possibility that there may be a few people who produces in minute quantities who don’t, but I can’t think of a one).
A few interesting points of reference (this is based only on a quick google search). Coates on the '06 Ponsot CdlR: “There is an illusion of oak here which is very curious.” Tanzer on the '06 Ponsot Chambertin: “Sweet cherry, mocha and nutty oak on the nose”. Two experienced, professional tasters both of whom are familiar with the oak (or non-oak) regime at Ponsot reporting what they’ve tasted.
A
Originally, I posted my impressions on the wine. My impression was that the wine was oakey. You noted that no new oak is used at Ponsot. My only point is that a wine can be oakey despite the fact that it sees no new oak.
A
Steve has his issues with Ponsot; I don’t believe he has been allowed to visit (or perhaps has not sought to do so) for many years. Clive phrases it as “illusion.”
“Tastes like oak” is different from “oaky” the way that I read it, and based on the discussion above, others, too.
I’m not going to address the first part of your comments other than to say that I think Tanzer can give his honest opinion of what is in the bottle regardless of whether he has “issues” with the winemaker (I have no idea what “issues” means in this context, by the way). As for Clive’s comment, I take it to be instructive here as he is using “illusion” precisely because it is curious to have noticable oak at a Domaine that uses no new oak.
Wine spectator on the '07 chappelle: “Seems marked by oak, yet with substance underneath.”
Just to be clear,Claude: are you taking the position that if a wine sees no new oak, it is impossible for that wine to come off as oakey?
A
You’ve lost me. Where are the words “Tastes like oak” that you are quoting?
A
Alex – All I am doing is making the same point as Keith above:
But I would still say it is wise to tread carefully in doing the second thing you mention. People can and do detect “oak” in wines that never touched anything besides stainless steel and glass, so just knowing that a wine has been in oak is not confirmation that what you think is oak is actually oak. You can never be wrong when you say that a wine tastes like x, y, or z, but when you say that x, y, and z is there because of a, b, and c you’re making assumptions - some of which can be safer than others, to be sure, but those assumptions get refuted so often that it is not a bad policy to shy away from them and stick to what we can know for sure.
There is a difference (at least to me and to others) between calling a wine “oaky” – which implies the use of new oak – and saying that it tastes of elements that are ordinarily associated with new oak, which does not conclusively imply that new oak was used. As for oak that is not new,I don’t believe anyone ever comments on a wine tasting of used oak, except in a negative way to indicate that the casks (presumably) were not properly cleaned.
The words “tastes like oak” are put in quotation marks not to indicate that I am quoting them from somewhere but rather to indicate that they collectively play the role of the subject in the sentence. The reason I refer to “tastes like oak” and contrast it with “oaky” goes back to Keith’s comment.
I visited Ponsot in summer 1988 and experienced the '86s. They were, I thought, horrible, though I actually liked the vintage at many places, preferring it almost always to 1987. I never went back to Ponsot.
When I think of 1982, in general, I think of dilution and light bodied wines. I know I tasted some Ponsot '82 which fit that mold, too.
Frankly, I don’t remember anyone who made really terrific wines in '82, though particularly then the trophier wines were likely to be the best. The methods were still those of the pre-boomer generation of winemakers, like Laurent’s father. Supposedly he was the “mayor” of MSD. I used to wonder how he “campaigned” as his charm wasn’t evident.
Rex…I agree with re DRC 82.
RC 82 is still one of my all time fav red Burgundy. Everyone went back just to smell the empty bottle the whole evening.
I often find that 3-5 year-old Fourrier gives an aromatic impression of plenty of new oak - oak on the palate is something different for me (obvious vanilla or cocunt apart) and largely a textural thing - I’ve gradually come to think of it as a type of reduction as it eventually lifts in the glass.
Back to '82: Recent experience (okay 2 years ago!) was a simply amazing Engel Brûlées - really a wine to remember…