Why does something I just read say that DRC uses 100% new oak that they replace annually?
This is a serious question. I have never had it, but we must all admit that it is considered “the bomb” and not “a bomb.” Any know what kind of toast they use?
I represent the company that provides 95% + of the barrels DRC buys. The wood is air dried three years. The manifestation of toast is a function of the air drying. The longer the seasoning, the more subtle the toast will appear.
There are other considerations:
1/ excellent vineyards, to put it mildly
2/assumption that the buyer will age the wines 10 years +…this gives the wood and the wine plenty of time to integrate.
Many chateaux in Bordeaux use 100% new oak. Again, the assumption is that the wine will be aged a while.
New oak is as good or bad as the resulting wine. I think like many on here, I’m not a fan of oak playing a prominent role in the aroma and flavor of a most wines, but I don’t think there is any hard and fast rule about what % of new oak for how long is too much. It just depends on how the wine turns out.
Jay,
Thanks for pointing this out - and I can’t wait to hear what others have to say. There is such a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to new oak these days it’s kinda funny. Both consumers and producers talk about ‘not liking new oak’ and yet many many wines still use a good percentage of it. Many wineries say that are using ‘a smaller percentage’ of new oak - yep, 80% instead of 90 % is ‘less’ but the implication is that they are making ‘radical changes’ when they are not.
The notion of new oak being ‘bad’ is akin to the general consumer thinking that ‘higher alcohol wines’ are bad just because they read it somewhere.
I have many winemaker friends who continue to have the rallying cry that ‘no wood is no good’ and that wines are not over-oaked, but ‘under-fruited’. . . .
To each their own, I say - I prefer not to use any and have not since I started making wines nearly a decade ago. I worked with a lot of new oak, including some that Mel sells, when I worked for another winery - and I understand why it is used. I just prefer not to . . .
Cheers.
The richer the wine, the more it can absorb new oak. Plus as Mel eludes to, oak flavors resolve with bottle age. Specifically the vanilla flavors are absorbed to some extent. Im not convinced that char ever goes away.
Personally I don’t have a problem with oak per se. I expect a big dose on young classified growth Bordeaux and California cab and zinfandel, and I’m happy to have a judicious amount on red and white Burgundy, white Bordeaux and barbera. (I’m a sucker for good French oak on white Burgundy and white Bordeaux.)
I don’t particularly like conspicuous oak on Northern Rhones or nebbiolo, as I think with those grapes it tends to mask and mute the natural aromatics.
For me, oak becomes problematic if it dominates the wine (because of the amount, the curing, the toast, the weight of the wine or whatever). Sometimes that’s just a mistake of judgment. Other times it’s a cynical bid to win over reviewers and consumers with sweet vanilla and caramel. Put another way, it can be just a trick that makes a wine generic – you can’t tell what the grape or the region is. It’s like foods that are too sweet or too garlicky, or chardonnay with some residual sugar. It lends a superficial appeal but doesn’t give any deep satisfaction. That’s when too much oak pisses me off.
I have had a couple conversations with owners who bought those barrels that Mel represents, wherein they mentioned rather prominently that they used the same barrels as DRC, ergo… Of course the comparison is laughable.
For me it isn’t about absolute vineyard quality, but wine flavors. I feel like California wines in general, even when picked pretty early and/or from very cool coastal climates, have a prominent fruit component from out intense sunshine. I feel that french wines in general and excluding much of the mediterranean region have much less fruit and sometimes a sourness or leanness early on. Makes sense that in the first situation, vanillan and toast (especially with higher volatility from higher alcohols) stick out. In the second, the sweetness and broader palate (in many situations) improves the wine experience. I think its telling that historically the mediterranean region has used very little new oak and aged in larger vats, as had much of Italy before the advent of Supertuscans. Our sunshine and fruit profile is much more analogous to those areas than bordeaux or burgundy, and that’s part of why concrete vats and aging will improve our game.
In our wines, and from what we see in the Central Coast, even a little new oak show pretty prominently and has to be used judiciously. Part of this is we’re poor and had to learn to work sans oak before it became de hipsteur.
I suspect the absence of new oak in the South of France and Italy had less to do with a natural affinity for oak (or lack of it) and more to do with the fact that, historically, the wines didn’t command the high prices that would cover the cost of new barrels. But I agree with you about the wisdom of using new oak in those areas.
Any amount of new oak is fine with me as long as the aroma and flavor disappear with time; that’s not always the case, and I almost always regret wines with residual oak.
There is a winemaker from around these parts who I heard puts 100% new oak on the wine, then changes out the barrel after a year and puts the wine into all new barrels. That’s 200% new oak from our perspective. If 200% is a possible number.
Mies van der Rohe had it right: “less is more”.
Merrill, why would someone do that? What would they hope to achieve? Serious question.
15 4:33 pm
There is a winemaker from around these parts who I heard puts 100% new oak on the wine, then changes out the barrel after a year and puts the wine into all new barrels. That’s 200% new oak from our perspective. If 200% is a possible number.
Merrill Lindquist
Get me his name…quick!
Burt Williams did this from time to time. Of course, we all know how poorly his wines aged. He had to make friends with Blake Brown just to find somebody to drink them.
Anyone who doesn’t want to drink their DRC because of all the oak can ship them to me. Same for their Guigal La La wines.
Clendenen and I used to make chardonnay from a vineyard in the Anderson Valley. 100% new oak…we sold most of it to Raj P. It was fantastic. Indeed I opened a bottle of the 2002 at a party in Burgundy and it blew everybody’s socks off. The vineyard was dying so we switched to another vineyard down the street.
100% new oak on that vineyard…it will come around in three or four years…We switched to 50% new oak, everything hunky dory.
Of course, Laurent took a bunch of crap for promoting 200% new oak in the mid-90’s in Burgundy. Those wines have aged and integrated beautifully. I had an 04 Clio last night that was quite oaky on release and beautiful last night. Give the wines time, and if there is enough stuffing, the oak integrates. Drink it young, and it will be there. Whether that is bad or good depends on the taster.
This was famously done by Dominique Laurent in the 90’s in Burgundy, but when I had some of those wines (from 95/96) a few years ago they didn’t seem very oaky at all.
Too much new wood is a bad thing if it’s bad for the way the wine tastes. A few famous French wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy can use 100% new wood because their wines can stand it; I don’t think most wines would be improved by that elevage, wherever they’re from.
I don’t like it in Italy because I have never tasted a classic Italian wine that was not diminished by new barriques, but that has nothing to do with DRC’s practices.
Serious question: why the view that French wines can withstand the oak but not Italian? For example, with Barolo/Barbaresco, people say new oak crushes the aromas. Why wouldn’t the same be true of Burgundy? Not trying to stir the pot, but just wondering why people are accepting of new oak in Burgundy and not Barolo, for example.
Some profile they are after, I presume. I could not afford it (French oak barrels are in the neighborhood of $1000-1500 on a regular basis - I’m sure Mel could get us a better figure - this is what I pay). My fruit could not withstand it, I do not think. And the wine I produce does not seem to “need” it. But maybe I could make a $200 bottle of Cab if I did this.
I just rethought this statement. The last bottles I sold of my 2009 Special Selection saw around 30% new oak, and they garnered $195. First offer to the mailing list was maybe $80? My prices reflect supply and demand. But that is not a reflection of percentage of oak. Or cost per ton of fruit (I know a grower). It is a perception of value, which is based on taste, scarcity, respect. Mods - please remove if too commercial.