It was at the old Billaud-Simon estate that I almost croaked after a full tasting (4 estates, including Dauvissat and Raveneau) and finishing with the B-S pretty much all inox/stainless. Really really hard to taste young Chablis that hasn’t seen any wood…for aeration/softening of the acids. Bad memories…
Like Kevin, whether it’s “traditional” or not…i think wood (oak) is a sine qua non to good Chablis…not the toast, but the wood. Chablis needs taming to not take 30 years to be drinkable, IMO.
Malolactic is usually part of the elevage/aging process, John. (After the alcoholic fermentation, the wines are often placed in wood to go through the malo.) Malolactic in wood produces a softer, more approachable Chablis than in stainless or fiberglass in my experience.
But you seem to be confusing primary fermentation in steel (I would guess that’s the rule these days) with the treatment afterward. You seemed to be saying that a wine made as Clause described would be hard to drink.
I take it from Claude’s post that these wines undergo malo in casks, so they get some wood then. If casks are used at that stage, it’s very unlikely the wine goes back into steel later.
I read it as saying that 80 % of a given wine sees no wood for alcoholic or malolactice fermentations. To me, that’s very very little wood as a percentage of the whole. More than “none” , but that’s about it.
But where does the wine go after malo? Claus’s post doesn’t speak to that. Lots of winemakers in various regions do primary and secondary fermentations in steel and then age their wines in wood of one size or another.
I used to have a chart showing surface to volume ratios of different size barrels. Going from 225 liter to 132 liter quadruples the oak exposure, as I recall, or something close to that. Therefore the feuillettes would have to be
1/old
2/made of oak seasoned over 3 years
3/used sparingly
In Pouilly s Loire Didier Dagueneau used 600 liter demi muids with great success and I imagine his son has maintained the tradition.
It typically goes back to steel tanks before bottling, and I know of several producers who leave it there for a few months so that it settles down and blends.
I love Billaud Simons MdT, Preuses and Clos. My favorite producer in Chablis and I own more Dauvissat than BS. Maybe they’re all stainless, Im not sure but, the wines have tremedous depth if no oak? I like them much more than Louis Michels wines.
According to Coates and Morris, Fevre uses no (0) new oak now. Same for Dauvissat, per their books. (of course that doesn’t necessarily mean no oak influence). I still feel we’re not really making an appropriate distinction here between new oak, toasted oak, and neutral oak. They are all different, although perhaps on more of a graded slope than absolute distinctions. And all different from stainless. I suspect the OP was mostly thinking about new/perhaps toasted oak.
An extended period back in steel, or just to blend for bottling? It’s standard for people who age their wines in small barrels to blend them in steel tanks for bottling because those are large. Again, that’s not the same as aging in steel.
[Edited to correct reference in first quote in Guilaume’s post, where Claus somehow became Claude.]
Stuart - This thread has been plagued throughout by confusion about basic aspects of winemaking (oak aging does not necessarily mean new oak or even small barrels; fermentation in inox tanks isn’t the same as aging in steel; etc.) and I’m just trying to clarify what people are saying.
Guillaume said “it typically goes back to steel tanks before bottling.” On first reading, I wasn’t sure if he meant just for blending at the end. Rereading his post, I guess he’s saying that there’s no oak contact beyond the 20% that goes through malo in wood tank.
Btw, I don’t like new oak on chablis, actually don’t care for it on new world chard either. However, if they use neutral or older wood as a vessel for elevage and such, I have no prob with that.
Joseph Henriot of the Champagne House bought Bouchard in 1995 and then acquired Domaine William Fevre in 1998 and the oak regime was quickly reduced under a new winemaker [now a director of Fevre] Didier Seguier who arrived from Bouchard.
For example Fvere state that e.g. their Grand Cru Les Clos is vinified as follows:
Brief (1½-2 hours) pneumatic pressing to obtain a gentle separation of the solid and liquid of the grape.
Very light static settling of the juice to preserve enough fine lees so that the alcoholic and malolactic fermentations can occur naturally.
The must is run into French oak barrels (aged of 6 years in average) for 60 to 70% of the harvest. The remainder is vinified in small stainless steel vats.
The wine is then matured for 12 to 15 months, of which 4 to 6 months on fine lees in French oak barrels for 60 to 70% of the harvest.
The end of maturation occurs in small stainless steel vats.
For their 1er Cru Montee de Tonnerre:
The must is run into French oak barrels (aged of 6 years in average) for 30 to 50% of the harvest.
The remainder is vinified in small stainless steel vats.
The wine is then matured for 10 to 15 months, of which 4 to 6 months on fine lees in French oak barrels for 40 to 50% of the harvest.
The end of maturation occurs in small stainless steel vats.
For their basic Chablis:
The must is run in small stainless steel vats. 5 to 10% of the harvest is vinified in French oak barrels (aged of 6 years in average).
Then 10 to 12 months in stainless steel vats to preserve freshness; maturing of 5 to 10% of the harvest in French oak barrels (aged of 2 to 3 years) during 4 to 6 months.
Fevre [along with Bouchard] has been steadily converting its closures from natural cork to DIAM and in the last few years all their wine including Grand Crus have been closed with DIAM. They have also installed a state-of-the-art bottling line.