Hey Duck Juicers:let's talk about Wood

WINE TALK
1

There seems to be a great amount of variance in terms of oak treatment in Oregon with varying results. My question to those in the know-who uses too much oak? Who uses the least amount of oak and does the use of Oak change from vintage to vintage?

2

I would nominate Eyrie as the winery that uses the least amount of new oak. They’re still using barrels from the 90s (maybe earlier), and the reserve wine goes in the older barrels.

3

See that’s the kind of info I was looking for thanks!

I’m thinking BF and Domaine Serene would be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

4

What? This thread isn’t about ME? [berserker.gif]

I can’t be definitive because I’ve been narrowing my focus and avoiding the places that have been heavy on the new wood in the past, but my experience tells me that Domaine Serene, Archery Summit, Beaux Freres and Bergstrom are generally using more new wood than my palate prefers. Penner-Ash sometimes goes over the edge, and a new place called Trisateum used 100% new oak for their first vintage. One can hope they tone it down, but I’m not optimistic. Everything they do is overdone, from the building to the extract to the prices.

5

Hey Bob- Thanks for chiming in. Who in your mind uses the least amount of wood. or let me put it this way,as I’m not trying to convey that using wood is always a bad thing, who in your mind uses it appropriately? In the past, I haven’t really made buying decisions based on oak treatment but as I drink more and more pinot, I’m finding that I’m becoming more and more sensitive to it.

Amity is a producer that doesn’t get mentioned much but they are very light with the wood if I recall.

6

I’d have to say that all my favorite producers are appropriate and deft users of wood, or they wouldn’t be my favorites. Ayres, Brick House, Belle Pente, J. Albin, LaBete, Biggio-Hamina, Westrey, Witness Tree, Seven of Hearts, Lindsay, Cameron, Thomas, Bethel Heights and Cristom - though Cristom’s wines can tend to be oaky when they’re young. Steve uses a lot of whole cluster though, and the wines seem to soak up the oak over time.

It may be wishful thinking, but I suspect we’ll see a reduction in new oak, especially among the smaller wineries. There’s already reduced demand for premium wine, so cost-cutting is at the forefront, and with new barrels running well over $1,000 plus delivery to Oregon it doesn’t take too many barrels not purchased to have a real positive effect on margins. A bit of rough math says that a producer making 4,000 cases of pinot will use about 160 barrels. Going from 33% new to 20% new results in an immediate improvement of close to $15,000 on the bottom line.

7

Who else uses a lot of whole cluster? I’ve read John Thomas but haven’t verified that.

8

Todd Hamina for one.

9

I tasted at Deponte in July and the wines have a ton of potential including an interesting Melon de Bourgogne, but sadly, University of Dijon trained Isabel Dutarte seems to be pushed to keep the oak levels higher than she might prefer. YMMV.

Agree that Bethel Heights, Cristom, and Witness Tree can integrate their oak very nicely.

Archery Summit has eased a bit…based on their 06s. Their 07 Arcus showed oakier than my preference but expect it to integrate…based on a gorgeous 99 Arcus.

Penner-Ash was higher than my preference. Kudos to Patty Green as they did a nice job of control for 06, 07, and 08 (barrel samples) with a touch higher amount in the Notorious which I’d expect to integrate.

RT

10

I’d like to hear from some of our in house wine makers on this topic. Anyone… Bueller…

11

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/food-beverage-stores-beer-wine-liquor/347591-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A little off topic but stems are kind of like wood yes? Interesting read.

12

Come to think of it, I’d expect a more Burgundian product from Jacques Tardy at Torii Mor, wonder if he produces the Pinot style he personally prefers?

RT

13

FWIW I thought so too.

That’s why I didn’t open it until now. [tease.gif]

14

I believe that Lemelson should be included in the group that uses little ( and is still reducing) the amount of new oak in their wines.

Several people have touched on an important issue here. The intregration of the oak over time. I am not a fan of heavy oaked wines, especially in whites. Domaine Serene was mentioned earlier as a heavy user of new oak, which true. But they make three chards. Etoile, my favorite, is typically only 33% new oak, the rest is typically neutral. The other two chards have an increasing amount of oak.

But back to the point, one that I make far too often for many. If your drinking habit is to drink primarily drink young reds, then oak becomes a very big issue. Oak, like tannins, in a well made wine will typically intregrate into the wine over time, with proper storage. But it takes time in the bottle. This is not an areation thing. If your drinking habit is to not allow wine to develop, and you don’t like oak, then one should search out those wines, that have lesser oak treatments.

The industry now has developed to serve a large drinking population with multiple drinkers in mind. There are a host of wineries that make “drink now” wines. They accomplish this by several methods including (but not limited to) ripeness levels of the grapes picked, choice of yeast used in fermentations, and the use of oak.

Other wines are built and meant to be aged. The sales brouchures for these wines often clearly state that the wines are meant to be cellared for long periods of time. this makes the wines no better or worse than the drink now wines, it just often makes them different.

Archery Summitt and Domaine Serene, both mentioned above, make different wines for their buyers. Both make a cuvee, like the D.S. Yamhill Cuvee, that has a much lighter oak treatment, normally about 50%, which is made to drink young. They both have reserves and svds with 100% new oak for long term drinking. The A.S. Arcus is a perfect example that was illustrate above. The Arcus is not a “drink now” wine. A.S. did not make the Arcus with immediate drinking in mind. My 07 Arcus will probably not be opened until at least 2015, it may be that for my 05 as well. Similiar to the writer above, my 99 Arcus is drinking beautifully right now. For my tastes, it probably would not have in 2001, upon release.

So, imo, the issue is not so much of the producer’s use of oak ,in reds, but it’s the choice of individual wines and the drinking windows they are built for. Critizing an 07 Arcus or any young SVD wine for too much oak misses the point. Perhaps the problem isn’t the wine, but when one chooses to drink it. This is blasphemy for many wine drinkers, I read it often, but, imo, If you want a ‘drink now’ pinot, then buy a drink now pinot, there are lots of them out there. But don’t knock young wines that were not intended to be drank young, because of oak or tannins levels. You choose to drink them now, not the winemaker! headbang

15

Great thoughts Gordo- when it comes to Oregon Pinot i would echo what others have said that the shit often needs some sideways time. BF is a producer that would fit the scenario of which you speak. I’ve had some of their 98’s and 99’s and the Oak is much more intergrated and I found the wines quite nice. In contrast, I had a 02 about 18 months ago and it was unapproacable in terms of the oak integration and it was tighter that a nuns nuts. Good times.

16

Certainly oak has a tendency to integrate with time, and many of the wine mentioned here are meant for longer term drinking, but oak is a spice that adds flavors to the wine even when it integrates. The oak is still there and it still flavors the wine. If it just went away, why would winemakers use new oak? Barrels are expensive! Some people just like the flavors that oak adds (remember, Domaine Serene made an oaked rose, for gods sake), and some people don’t.

Other winemakers are making wines that age just as long, if not longer than the names mentioned here without using nearly as much new oak. I don’t think I’d get any argument that some of the longest living wines in Oregon are made by Eyrie. They basically use no new oak (the new oak goes to Black Cap), and have no oak signature in their wine. Certainly I’d put Cameron, Brick House (the Gamay sees no new oak and ages incredibly well), and a number of others in the same camp.

17

I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider 47-57% as “little” new oak.

Gordon, if 50% new oak (or, from Domain Serene’s own website on the Yamhill Cuvee, 43% in 2007) translates (for you) into a “drink now” pinot, then it’s more clear than ever that we’re on different paths. I don’t consider that much new oak to be desirable in ANY Oregon pinot noir, much less the 100% that the DS Mark Bradford and the 96% that the DS Winery Hill get.

“But it will integrate over time” is a specious argument when we’re talking about that much oak and marks you, Gordon, as the AS/DS/BF apologist you’ve appeared to be all along. Brian O’Donnell, who makes one of the valley’s finest and most ageable pinot noirs in his Estate Reserve, has never - not to my knowledge - exceeded 35% new oak in that wine and, while that oak is slightly noticeable early on and it does integrate, it never stands out like a pimple on the end of my nose when the wine is young. The same can’t be said for the new realeases of AS/DS and BF. Wine should be balanced from the day it goes into the bottle and, if it’s out of balance now it will be out of balance later.

What I think is especially telling is that the wineries I favor rarely, if ever, mention on their websites (or in their literature to the extent they have any) how much new oak they use. Conversely, AS/DS/BF and others make prominent mention of what percentage of new wood their wines see. From where I sit this is not some sort of disclosure for the sake of disclosure, but a marketing tool aimed at the masses who have come to the conclusion (fostered by the critics who swoon over heavily-oaked wines) that oak is a good thing and that more oak is better. It’s also a tool they use to justify the prices they’re charging. After all, all those new barrels must be expensive. Well, they are, but a new barrel adds only about $3.33 to the cost of producing a bottle of wine.

Back-handedly telling people with experienced palates and extensive cellars (Hagen, Trimpi, Franks, Allen . . . even me to some extent) that they don’t know what they’re tasting - that they’re missing out on some major salient point because they can’t see past the ends of their noses and are drinking their wines exclusively young - is insulting and condescending. I’ll stick with my contention that you’ve allowed your palate to be influenced by surroundings, scores awarded by critics who eat Kim Chi for breakfast before tasting, or both.

18

Bob- I would agree with much of what you said, cept about wines needing to be balanced when they hit the bottle . You yourself said in a earlier post that Cristom wines have a lot of oak early and then it gets soaked up over time do to his use of whole cluster ferm.
I’ve had my share of Oregon Pinot that were simply too young and Red Burgundy as well. Call it too tight,shut down,or just out of balance the shit needs time to hit it’s stride.

While I surely respect your opinion and have learned some things about Oregon juice from you I do have to question how many aged BF,AS,DS’ s that you’ve actually had. IMHO, and with all do respect,( very generally speaking) the wines have matured pretty well. I’m I stocking up on new allocations of those wines? Hell no, the stuff is way too expensive and my palate has drifted away from that bigger style for sure. But to call someone a BF,AS,DS, apologist is a bit silly if you ask me. Hell, we’re not talking about Cali juice for pete’s sake [basic-smile.gif] Although some would argue that point.

The analogy I make with the dudes I brew beer with is that too much hops in beer is like too much oak in wine and at some point your palate just wants to taste something other than hops or oak. I loves me my IPA’s but everyday? Give me a english bitter any day. I surely understand the aversion to oak but to take such a dogmatic stand about something that is so much about personal preference doesn’t seem to make sense. We all have different learning curves and different experiences no? Cheers~

19

I stand by my statement. I think Gordon has been seduced by the opulence of the tasting rooms at DS and AS, by the opinions of the critics, and by the ownership of BF.

20

Bob, so what? It’s not your job to protect Gordon from apparent seduction. Let a guy have his opinion, no matter how much it seems to irk you. [stirthepothal.gif]