Oregon aging rule of thumb

R_M_Kriete · March 3, 2021, 2:14pm

Does this mean we should trust the science?

Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i · March 3, 2021, 2:43pm

I don’t really know why Ponzi hasn’t moved me. I’ve had some very respectable older bottlings, but never great or revelatory. Very little discussion here about Luisa, Ponzi or the winemaking. On the other hand, her husband Eric made delicious 07s, 10s and 11s IMHO. Didn’t buy enough 07 or 10 so stocked up on his 11s.

RT

bruced · March 3, 2021, 3:12pm

Based on the Subject, I expected this thread would be about aging Oregon wine. It seems to be about aging Oregon winemakers. Informative nonetheless.

Jim_Anderson · March 3, 2021, 3:44pm

Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.

-David Bowie

Todd_Hamina · March 3, 2021, 4:23pm

Yes, or no. But probably yes. And for the record I have a literature degree.

I science.

JPWilley · March 3, 2021, 5:25pm

I always thought you had a little Byron to you – mad,bad, and dangerous to know.

Nate_Rulis · March 3, 2021, 7:15pm

I just want to reiterate that this has been a fascinating thread. Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and insights.

Marcus_Goodfellow · March 3, 2021, 10:06pm

Why is John Thomas not mentioned? His wines are somewhat cult-y. Past vintages are very expensive if you can find them. I’ve been working on his 2018 for a few nights, and I’d really appreciate some context.

Brady, I wouldn’t fret over the exclusion of John Thomas on any particular winemaker list. As Tallman and others have mentioned, Thomas is the teeny tiniest of wineries in the WV. Thomas has an annual production of 400-500 cases of Pinot Noir and grows some Nebbiolo on his estate vineyard. Also produced some Chardonnay 20+ years ago, but those vines were replaced a number of years ago. Thomas is a small winery that produces one available wine from the estate. It’s no big deal.

Now, if someone was to ask for a list of 10 (or 20) quintessential Oregon wines, I’m sure that Thomas would get a number of mentions. This list has kinda been mentioned in previous Oregon threads, but never compiled to my knowledge.

I know that Todd H. was having some fun with the list and it’s always nice to generate some thought and discussion with these topics. Like Marcus, I tend to shy away from best and opt for personal favorites. Also, for whatever reason, I generally associate best with current or active versus inactive, but I can see someone enjoying a bottle of 1993 Eyrie South Block Reserve Pinot today and saying that’s the best wine and hence David Lett is the best winemaker. I’m just picking at Todd H.

I’ve been fortunate to enjoy my fair share of great wines from the many invaluable Oregon producers that participate on this forum. You are my favorites and I appreciate your efforts.

I’m with you James. I think John Thomas is an excellent winemaker with a track record for a style of wine I really enjoy.

That said, the cult-y status tends to inflate things a bit. I have had some brilliant bottles of Thomas, and also some challenges. John has an excellent vineyard site, and I deeply respect his business model(and discipline to only make 400-600 cases annually). He’s been focused on just one wine from one sight for a long time now, and I like that he has always leaned old-world in his work so I definitely appreciate Thomas. But from a winemaker picking peers for their skill set, it’s hard to name someone that doesn’t make white wines.

Scott_Tallman · March 3, 2021, 10:09pm

His 1994 Chardonnay was pretty good though. Not on the level of the top OR Chards of today, but fascinating to consider what would could have been.

Marcus_Goodfellow · March 3, 2021, 10:28pm

Chris, I hate to pile on but while I planned on studying kinesiology and still enjoy science very much, as I hit the required Chemistry credits, I discovered that the precision of the labs was not suited to my personality.

There is little doubt in my mind that growing up on a farm is the trunk of my winemaking tree, and that working in restaurants the next most important branch. I put physics above chemistry by a large margin for importance in winemaking, as most chemical reactions are relatively predictable, and easy to manage. The physics of fermentation, extending beyond just the must into the winery space itself is more complex and contains many, many more variables.

That said, most good winemakers (IMO) have a “captain” gene. While a million options can work to make good wines, harvests are like putting out to sea. You know what you hope for, but what happens can be incredibly diverse. And a good “captain” takes charge with a plan to execute and a resilience to unexpected adversity. The same is true in many industries, I think, but in the compacted energy and on the fly aspect of harvest personality types that pick a path quickly and assuredly will succeed more often than a slower decision making process. Even if there’s a mis-step, there is margin to work out a solution/correction, and good fruit solves many issues(similarly to have a very good ship will do the same for sea captains). Methodical thinking rarely leaves time for much beyond the basic execution, and so smaller reactions to what is happening during the process are lost.

J.Durham · March 3, 2021, 10:44pm

Marcus, can you comment on what you mean by physics vs chemistry here? Coming from someone with chemistry and biophysics degrees (long forgotten) I find this comment very interesting. I don’t think I’ve heard this before

Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i · March 3, 2021, 10:49pm

+1 I’ve been lucky enough to sample it twice. You’ve got to admire John’s singular focus, but seems like he could’ve done impressive work with Chardonnay.

RT

ChrisJames · March 3, 2021, 11:45pm

For all the talk of winemakers being artisans, I have noticed that many of my favorite Oregon winemakers (who weren’t raised in winemaking as a family business) have science backgrounds. This may mean something or nothing at all.

Marcus Goodfellow – Kinesiology
Kelley Fox – Biochemistry and Biophysics
John Paul – Marine Biochemistry
Jim Anderson – Anthropology/Economics
David Lett had a Philosophy degree and was studying to be a Dentist when he got sidetracked in Napa….
Todd Hamina – described as a Mad Scientist

I’m sure there are others.

Chris, I hate to pile on but while I planned on studying kinesiology and still enjoy science very much, as I hit the required Chemistry credits, I discovered that the precision of the labs was not suited to my personality.

There is little doubt in my mind that growing up on a farm is the trunk of my winemaking tree, and that working in restaurants the next most important branch. I put physics above chemistry by a large margin for importance in winemaking, as most chemical reactions are relatively predictable, and easy to manage. The physics of fermentation, extending beyond just the must into the winery space itself is more complex and contains many, many more variables.

That said, most good winemakers (IMO) have a “captain” gene. While a million options can work to make good wines, harvests are like putting out to sea. You know what you hope for, but what happens can be incredibly diverse. And a good “captain” takes charge with a plan to execute and a resilience to unexpected adversity.
And like the old saying, “a smooth sea never made a good sailor” the same is true of winemakers.

Hey, it’s not my fault if there is bad bio information about you out there! I can very much understand the shaping influence of growing up on a farm. Now Kinesiology - what was going to be your focus? I dabbled just a bit in this in regards to horses. Being the study of anatomy and motion, I would have thought it would be grounded far more in physics than chemistry.

Marcus_Goodfellow · March 4, 2021, 3:57am

For all the talk of winemakers being artisans, I have noticed that many of my favorite Oregon winemakers (who weren’t raised in winemaking as a family business) have science backgrounds. This may mean something or nothing at all.

Marcus Goodfellow – Kinesiology
Kelley Fox – Biochemistry and Biophysics
John Paul – Marine Biochemistry
Jim Anderson – Anthropology/Economics
David Lett had a Philosophy degree and was studying to be a Dentist when he got sidetracked in Napa….
Todd Hamina – described as a Mad Scientist

I’m sure there are others.

Chris, I hate to pile on but while I planned on studying kinesiology and still enjoy science very much, as I hit the required Chemistry credits, I discovered that the precision of the labs was not suited to my personality.

There is little doubt in my mind that growing up on a farm is the trunk of my winemaking tree, and that working in restaurants the next most important branch. I put physics above chemistry by a large margin for importance in winemaking, as most chemical reactions are relatively predictable, and easy to manage. The physics of fermentation, extending beyond just the must into the winery space itself is more complex and contains many, many more variables.

That said, most good winemakers (IMO) have a “captain” gene. While a million options can work to make good wines, harvests are like putting out to sea. You know what you hope for, but what happens can be incredibly diverse. And a good “captain” takes charge with a plan to execute and a resilience to unexpected adversity.
And like the old saying, “a smooth sea never made a good sailor” the same is true of winemakers.

Hey, it’s not my fault if there is bad bio information about you out there! I can very much understand the shaping influence of growing up on a farm. Now Kinesiology - what was going to be your focus? I dabbled just a bit in this in regards to horses. Being the study of anatomy and motion, I would have thought it would be grounded far more in physics than chemistry.

Let’s not forget that I have been around a while. Kinesiology was in it’s infancy. When I was looking at kinesiology, I was really excited by the idea of studying athletic efficiency. Both “what is good technique” and also what body indexes grant efficiencies in different sports and endeavors.

And yes, I also thought it would focus less on Chemistry as well.

Marcus_Goodfellow · March 4, 2021, 4:07am

I agree with you. And his Pinot Noirs show his command of “less is more” winemaking, but without any disrespect to John…doing impressive work with Chardonnay here requires a good vineyard more than it does a reclusive genius.

Marcus_Goodfellow · March 4, 2021, 7:04am

To me Chemistry is primarily tidy. Potassium binds with tartaric acid to form an insoluble salt and precipitates out. The conversion of sugar to alcohol is a complicated but mostly inflexible route. Chemistry has impact but it’s very knowable and predictable. You can make it into a big deal, but mostly it is just good house keeping. Chemical changes progress through predictable paths and, IMO, and they represent a focus for documentation rather than art.

But ferments are a living process. Like the creation, evolution and growth, and then dissolution of a city. Think of London, an un-inoculated fermentation that is spawned originally from a few sheperd’s huts, slowly evolves up through a massive population, depleting resources and generating energy(heat and CO2), slowly at first, then more rapidly, then at a ferocious pace, and then reaching depletion and the decline associated with it. Each ferment is somewhat like this. As fruit hits the pad, it’s processed and then basically begins a set of curves along a wide number of paths; temperature, Brix/alc, CO2 saturation, turbulence, oxidative/reductive, etc.

If we look at CO2 saturation, there is very little CO2 in the beginning of a ferment. Most winemakers use SO2 at destemming to do a bit of oxygen scavenging. And a few may use dry ice to blanket the fruit at this stage as well. As ferment begins, yeast produce CO2 as a by-product of the conversion of sugar to alcohol. By peak ferment CO2 production will lift 680 pounds of skins and stems per ton of fruit above the level of the liquid. Sinking that 680lbs of solids back down into the liquid with a punchdown is reversed within minutes. It’s a fountain of CO2 so strong that it floats the solids on top for 3-6 days of peak fermentation, and provides one of the more serious dangers in the winery.

So let’s look at the CO2 within the fermenter itself. As CO2 moves from suspension into an unsuspended(bubble) form, there is a tiny vector of force created in every direction. But as ferment is at peak, there are a truly mind blowingly large number of bubbles occurring. Enough to lift 1/3 of the mass of a ferment above the liquid. The vectors of force lifting the solids are equalled by vectors pushing down against the bottom of the fermenter(and supported by the rebound of those vectors against an unyielding fermenter bottom).

Yeast don’t swim. They are lifted by the currents and forces of turbulence created during fermentation.

And at some point during active ferment, there comes a point of saturation where a horizon is created. Yeast getting pushed up, are circulated about the ferment and gain access to resources throughout the upper horizon. Yeast pushed down by the CO2 are pushed into a confined space and consume the resources of the space. As yeast divide and increase in population, those populations below the horizon are pinned i to a smaller space. The horizon does not start at a mid point, rather at a lower point where the downward force of bubbles in the larger volume becomes overwhelming to the upward force of bubbles being created in the bottom portion. As the yeast pinned on the bottom consume nutrients and resource supply dwindles they produce less CO2, while CO2 production above is still robust. The lower levels of CO2 on the bottom have less force to push against the upper portion of the ferment and the horizon moves lower compacting the yeast below the horizon and packing a larger population into a nutrient depleted space, which becomesq more depleted and compacted if the horizon is left undisturbed. As yeast are trapped below the horizon and nutrients are depleted, the environment is increasingly hostile(rising abv also contributes here) and the yeast are more likely to produce off aromas and reductive compounds.
Disturbing the horizon and allowing/encouraging turbulence that brings yeast past the horizon is a means to alleviate the production of reductive compounds, but the yeast in suspension continue to divide and reproduce. If a significant number of yeast are moved from below the horizon to above it, larger yeast populations will occur and the yeast bodies can absorb enough color to “bleach” the wine and leave it more pale than it otherwise would (IMO, we used this to our advatage in 2014).

So the art becomes how to assess the energy of a ferment, enhance turbulence(stems provide irregular breaks in the solids impeding the formation of a horizon line), and encourage the circulation of yeast below horizon to above the horizon at a rate that retains color, moderates complex reductive compounds, and leaves the wine in a state where it has not been overworked and still needs 18 months in barrel(or 11 for those that bottle on a year). Add in that the rate of fermentation will increase or decrease the rate of CO2 production, and that the number of factors that influence rate of ferments is also huge. Ambient temperature, yeast strain, nutrient levels, pH, etc…

btw-none of this is relavant in barrels where the rounded bottom recirculates yeast, CO2, and lees during ferment unless you have a very, very active fermentation.

Jared_Wagner · March 4, 2021, 10:29pm

[/quote]
I always thought you had a little Byron to you – mad,bad, and dangerous to know.
[/quote]

The title of an awesome Dead or Alive album from the 80’s!

Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i · March 4, 2021, 10:50pm

Thanks for sharing Marcus! Some of the myriad assessments and interventions that make up the artistry of winemaking from vineyard to final product. And the whole time (and years afterwards), holding on to the hope that the wine gods will be charitable. Not to mention looking back 10+ years after creating something exceptional and wondering “how’d I do that?” and “how do I do that again?”.

RT

JDavisRoby · March 5, 2021, 3:08am

There is little doubt in my mind that growing up on a farm is the trunk of my winemaking tree, and that working in restaurants the next most important branch. I put physics above chemistry by a large margin for importance in winemaking, as most chemical reactions are relatively predictable, and easy to manage. The physics of fermentation, extending beyond just the must into the winery space itself is more complex and contains many, many more variables.

Marcus, can you comment on what you mean by physics vs chemistry here? Coming from someone with chemistry and biophysics degrees (long forgotten) I find this comment very interesting. I don’t think I’ve heard this before

To me Chemistry is primarily tidy. Potassium binds with tartaric acid to form an insoluble salt and precipitates out. The conversion of sugar to alcohol is a complicated but mostly inflexible route. Chemistry has impact but it’s very knowable and predictable. You can make it into a big deal, but mostly it is just good house keeping. Chemical changes progress through predictable paths and, IMO, and they represent a focus for documentation rather than art.

But ferments are a living process. Like the creation, evolution and growth, and then dissolution of a city. Think of London, an un-inoculated fermentation that is spawned originally from a few sheperd’s huts, slowly evolves up through a massive population, depleting resources and generating energy(heat and CO2), slowly at first, then more rapidly, then at a ferocious pace, and then reaching depletion and the decline associated with it. Each ferment is somewhat like this. As fruit hits the pad, it’s processed and then basically begins a set of curves along a wide number of paths; temperature, Brix/alc, CO2 saturation, turbulence, oxidative/reductive, etc.

If we look at CO2 saturation, there is very little CO2 in the beginning of a ferment. Most winemakers use SO2 at destemming to do a bit of oxygen scavenging. And a few may use dry ice to blanket the fruit at this stage as well. As ferment begins, yeast produce CO2 as a by-product of the conversion of sugar to alcohol. By peak ferment CO2 production will lift 680 pounds of skins and stems per ton of fruit above the level of the liquid. Sinking that 680lbs of solids back down into the liquid with a punchdown is reversed within minutes. It’s a fountain of CO2 so strong that it floats the solids on top for 3-6 days of peak fermentation, and provides one of the more serious dangers in the winery.

So let’s look at the CO2 within the fermenter itself. As CO2 moves from suspension into an unsuspended(bubble) form, there is a tiny vector of force created in every direction. But as ferment is at peak, there are a truly mind blowingly large number of bubbles occurring. Enough to lift 1/3 of the mass of a ferment above the liquid. The vectors of force lifting the solids are equalled by vectors pushing down against the bottom of the fermenter(and supported by the rebound of those vectors against an unyielding fermenter bottom).

Yeast don’t swim. They are lifted by the currents and forces of turbulence created during fermentation.

And at some point during active ferment, there comes a point of saturation where a horizon is created. Yeast getting pushed up, are circulated about the ferment and gain access to resources throughout the upper horizon. Yeast pushed down by the CO2 are pushed into a confined space and consume the resources of the space. As yeast divide and increase in population, those populations below the horizon are pinned i to a smaller space. The horizon does not start at a mid point, rather at a lower point where the downward force of bubbles in the larger volume becomes overwhelming to the upward force of bubbles being created in the bottom portion. As the yeast pinned on the bottom consume nutrients and resource supply dwindles they produce less CO2, while CO2 production above is still robust. The lower levels of CO2 on the bottom have less force to push against the upper portion of the ferment and the horizon moves lower compacting the yeast below the horizon and packing a larger population into a nutrient depleted space, which becomesq more depleted and compacted if the horizon is left undisturbed. As yeast are trapped below the horizon and nutrients are depleted, the environment is increasingly hostile(rising abv also contributes here) and the yeast are more likely to produce off aromas and reductive compounds.
Disturbing the horizon and allowing/encouraging turbulence that brings yeast past the horizon is a means to alleviate the production of reductive compounds, but the yeast in suspension continue to divide and reproduce. If a significant number of yeast are moved from below the horizon to above it, larger yeast populations will occur and the yeast bodies can absorb enough color to “bleach” the wine and leave it more pale than it otherwise would (IMO, we used this to our advatage in 2014).

So the art becomes how to assess the energy of a ferment, enhance turbulence(stems provide irregular breaks in the solids impeding the formation of a horizon line), and encourage the circulation of yeast below horizon to above the horizon at a rate that retains color, moderates complex reductive compounds, and leaves the wine in a state where it has not been overworked and still needs 18 months in barrel(or 11 for those that bottle on a year). Add in that the rate of fermentation will increase or decrease the rate of CO2 production, and that the number of factors that influence rate of ferments is also huge. Ambient temperature, yeast strain, nutrient levels, pH, etc…

btw-none of this is relavant in barrels where the rounded bottom recirculates yeast, CO2, and lees during ferment unless you have a very, very active fermentation.

Pretty sure that CO2 thing was happening when we visited you and Megan in 2019. Your fermenting room was strong. Ha!

I blame that for my early bedtime that night not the amount of wine we drank.

J.Durham · March 5, 2021, 1:58pm

There is little doubt in my mind that growing up on a farm is the trunk of my winemaking tree, and that working in restaurants the next most important branch. I put physics above chemistry by a large margin for importance in winemaking, as most chemical reactions are relatively predictable, and easy to manage. The physics of fermentation, extending beyond just the must into the winery space itself is more complex and contains many, many more variables.

Marcus, can you comment on what you mean by physics vs chemistry here? Coming from someone with chemistry and biophysics degrees (long forgotten) I find this comment very interesting. I don’t think I’ve heard this before

So the art becomes how to assess the energy of a ferment, enhance turbulence(stems provide irregular breaks in the solids impeding the formation of a horizon line), and encourage the circulation of yeast below horizon to above the horizon at a rate that retains color, moderates complex reductive compounds, and leaves the wine in a state where it has not been overworked and still needs 18 months in barrel(or 11 for those that bottle on a year). Add in that the rate of fermentation will increase or decrease the rate of CO2 production, and that the number of factors that influence rate of ferments is also huge. Ambient temperature, yeast strain, nutrient levels, pH, etc…

Thanks so much Marcus.

As others have noted, this has been a great thread. The passion from all the wine makers really comes through. I want to thank everyone for participating.

I’ll continue to post some “aged” OR pinot notes as I open them. I was lucky enough to come across some bottles at auction this year.