Premox and American Chardonnay

[JDavisRoby]

To be honest, with the exception of Mount Eden I don’t tend to hold Chardonnays long enough for premox to set in. I am sure there are people who do; is it as prevalent as in Burgundy?

I think the difference is that most folks don’t have expectations that domestic chardonnays should age as well as Burgundy. I don’t think it means that they cannot . . .

Curious to hear what others have to say . . .

In a brown-bag group of mine, I used to figure that most – maybe 90% – of California chardonnays were noticeably oxidized and past it after five to seven years, certainly by ten years. And these were typically higher-end wines.

We’ve had fewer old chardonnays in recent years, so I don’t know if that rule of thumb still holds true.

There were exceptions like Chalone and Ridge. (I have virtually no experience with mature Mount Eden or Stony Hill, sadly.) But the great majority of California chardonnay were constructed differently from white Burgundy.

A friend opened a 2014 Mount Eden estate Chardonnay two weeks ago. Was fantastic. Not oxidized one bit.

[RichardFlack]

To Otto’s earlier point, and I could be completely wrong, but isn’t it so that a majority of the “fancier” Burgundy white producers do aging in barrels, whether new or neutral?

Yes, virtually 100%.

A wine that’s made in a very reductive way (which is almost impossible to do in a barrel), would obviously have much further to go before contact with oxygen spoils it.

Uh, well, no. It might sound counterintuitive, but actually the more reductively a wine is made, the more susceptible it is to oxidation. If a wine is protected from oxygen from the crush all the way to the bottling, it is in all likelihood going to be a fruity wine suited for early drinking. That’s why many early-drinking Pinot Grigios and Sauvignon Blancs get flat only in a couple of years.

If oxygen is introduced during the aging process in a slow, controlled manner, the more oxygen a wine gets at this point, the more protected it is going to be against oxidation after it is bottled. For example, in must hyperoxidation (a process traditionally in use at least in Burgundy with Chardonnay and in Germany with Riesling), the freshly obtained must is left to oxidize before fermentation so that the must turns yellow to dark brown as all the compounds that are very prone to oxidation, oxidize. Then they drop out of the solution and the end result is clear must from which the easily oxidized compounds are oxidized and removed. Wines made with this method are much better protected against oxidation than wines made in stainless steel tanks in the absence of oxygen, as they don’t contain those rapidly oxidizing compounds. They might lose some obvious primary fruit qualities in the process, but if the wine is supposed to last 10 years and longer, that really doesn’t matter, now does it?

Furthermore, lees bind oxygen, so it is far from impossible to make wines reductively in a barrel. All you have to do is to have more lees in the barrel than what the oxygen ingress through the oak is. The newer the barrel, the larger the oxygen ingress and the more lees are required to keep the environment reductive. However, some oxygen always gets through, but this is only good for the wine - slow, controlled oxidation during élevage is not going to oxidize the wine, just protect it against further oxidation further down the line.

This is also the reason how old school Nebbiolos are so damn ageworthy. Aging the wines in large botti casks for 3-5 years doesn’t really oxidize the wines, it only helps them to not oxidize. However, you really can’t do the same trick with new barriques - there the oxygen ingress is going to be too fast and there’s going to be too much for it: a good wine that can handle the oxygen can be aged for like 18-24 months, but three years is pushing it and 5 years in a new barrique will most likely result in rather obvious oxidative qualities.

But you’re a winemaker, you know all this, right?

Fascinating. To a non chemist it makes sense.

[RichardFlack]

To be honest, with the exception of Mount Eden I don’t tend to hold Chardonnays long enough for premox to set in. I am sure there are people who do; is it as prevalent as in Burgundy?

I think the difference is that most folks don’t have expectations that domestic chardonnays should age as well as Burgundy. I don’t think it means that they cannot . . .

Curious to hear what others have to say . . .

In a brown-bag group of mine, I used to figure that most – maybe 90% – of California chardonnays were noticeably oxidized and past it after five to seven years, certainly by ten years. And these were typically higher-end wines.

We’ve had fewer old chardonnays in recent years, so I don’t know if that rule of thumb still holds true.

There were exceptions like Chalone and Ridge. (I have virtually no experience with mature Mount Eden or Stony Hill, sadly.) But the great majority of California chardonnay were constructed differently from white Burgundy.

A friend opened a 2014 Mount Eden estate Chardonnay two weeks ago. Was fantastic. Not oxidized one bit.

Still young though …

[John_Morris]

Another way of putting it is that a lot of California chardonnay oxidizes fairly consistently even with good closures.

Something I don’t know: Do they age longer under screwcap or Diam? It wouldn’t surprise me if Dave Ramey knows the answer.

He did an interview somewhere recently where he spoke to that. Maybe the Winemakers Podcast. It may have been on an IG live interview.

I looked for it yesterday but couldn’t find it. Then I checked prior threads here and found the link:

Vinous | Explore All Things Wine

[A_Mishaan]

I had a late-90s Marcassin in 2013 or 2014 that was phenomenal and showed zero hints of oxidation, premature or otherwise. In fact, if I had been forced to guess its age I’d have probably said '07/'08.

I have some Auberts that are nearly 20 years old. I’ll need to try them and see how they’ve held up.

I just bought a lot of nine 2008-09 Auberts. Very curious how they are holding up.

[John_Danza]

Someone above mentioned Aubert. I was at an IWFS Chicago dinner where we opened 2013 and 2014 Aubert “Larry Hyde & sons Vineyard” as a side-by-side. The 2014 bottle at my table was definitely oxidized but still drinkable. It was definitely in the early stages of degrading by pre-mox. On the other hand, the 2013 was fresh and outstanding.

[Al_Osterheld]

The Aubert style is not in everyone’s wheelhouse, but if you like them young they should be fine. I have a friend who loves them, so I bought them regularly for a while including 2008 and 2009. Don’t recall one that was oxidized, including from these vintages in last couple of years.

As far as Mount Eden Chardonnays, they age beautifully. I’ve had 15 to 20 year old bottles on a number of occasions and they were lovely except one bottle that had a suspect cork.

-Al

[Al_Osterheld]

I opened a 2014 Aubert Hyde Chardonnay in 2020 and it was still fresh (different bottles, different corks).

-Al

[Anton_D]

Fascinating array of experiences.

My wife and I are still drinking through some 90’s Peter Michael chardonnays and haven’t had any oxidized.

With other chards, no one winery stands out for us as having issues, and we tend to be slow drinkers. Our average open bottle is likely 10 years on.

Oh, I can think of one: Chasseur seems to run off that oxidized cliff at about age 4.

This is thread drift" we think we have noticed this phenomenon most with Spottswoode cabernets. Another Berserker and I were discussing this wine and agreed that it is at great peril when placed into a comparative tasting line up after as little as 5 years. I still love it, we were buyers until the most recent releases, but some bottled just go who knows where…my wife likes to say, “It takes a great wine to fail greatly.”

[Arv_R]

Any thoughts on how long a 2014 Phelps ‘Freestone’ Chardonnay might last?

[Scott_Jameson]

A friend opened a 2014 Mount Eden estate Chardonnay two weeks ago. Was fantastic. Not oxidized one bit.

The winemaker notes for this wine suggest it is a 20 year wine …

https://www.mounteden.com/vintage-chart/?vint=1946

[DougS]

I had a late-90s Marcassin in 2013 or 2014 that was phenomenal and showed zero hints of oxidation, premature or otherwise. In fact, if I had been forced to guess its age I’d have probably said '07/'08.

I have some Auberts that are nearly 20 years old. I’ll need to try them and see how they’ve held up.

I just bought a lot of nine 2008-09 Auberts. Very curious how they are holding up.

I’ve opened quite a few from that era, some in the past couple of years, and I haven’t found any oxidized bottles. I think it’s fair to say these are all grown in warmer places than Burgundy!

[larry_schaffer]

To Otto’s earlier point, and I could be completely wrong, but isn’t it so that a majority of the “fancier” Burgundy white producers do aging in barrels, whether new or neutral?

Yes, virtually 100%.

A wine that’s made in a very reductive way (which is almost impossible to do in a barrel), would obviously have much further to go before contact with oxygen spoils it.

Uh, well, no. It might sound counterintuitive, but actually the more reductively a wine is made, the more susceptible it is to oxidation. If a wine is protected from oxygen from the crush all the way to the bottling, it is in all likelihood going to be a fruity wine suited for early drinking. That’s why many early-drinking Pinot Grigios and Sauvignon Blancs get flat only in a couple of years.

If oxygen is introduced during the aging process in a slow, controlled manner, the more oxygen a wine gets at this point, the more protected it is going to be against oxidation after it is bottled. For example, in must hyperoxidation (a process traditionally in use at least in Burgundy with Chardonnay and in Germany with Riesling), the freshly obtained must is left to oxidize before fermentation so that the must turns yellow to dark brown as all the compounds that are very prone to oxidation, oxidize. Then they drop out of the solution and the end result is clear must from which the easily oxidized compounds are oxidized and removed. Wines made with this method are much better protected against oxidation than wines made in stainless steel tanks in the absence of oxygen, as they don’t contain those rapidly oxidizing compounds. They might lose some obvious primary fruit qualities in the process, but if the wine is supposed to last 10 years and longer, that really doesn’t matter, now does it?

Furthermore, lees bind oxygen, so it is far from impossible to make wines reductively in a barrel. All you have to do is to have more lees in the barrel than what the oxygen ingress through the oak is. The newer the barrel, the larger the oxygen ingress and the more lees are required to keep the environment reductive. However, some oxygen always gets through, but this is only good for the wine - slow, controlled oxidation during élevage is not going to oxidize the wine, just protect it against further oxidation further down the line.

This is also the reason how old school Nebbiolos are so damn ageworthy. Aging the wines in large botti casks for 3-5 years doesn’t really oxidize the wines, it only helps them to not oxidize. However, you really can’t do the same trick with new barriques - there the oxygen ingress is going to be too fast and there’s going to be too much for it: a good wine that can handle the oxygen can be aged for like 18-24 months, but three years is pushing it and 5 years in a new barrique will most likely result in rather obvious oxidative qualities.

But you’re a winemaker, you know all this, right?

Fascinating. To a non chemist it makes sense.

In all honesty, there is still so much that we truly do not understand about the ‘cause and effect’ of winemaking styles. If hyperoxidation pre-fermentation really was a fail proof way of preventing oxidation later, wouldn’t it be the default way of making it?

I know with all of my winemaking, I keep gross lees with my whites fir about 16 months prior to bottling, in older oak and not racked. I do not hyperox pre fermentation - and these wines hold up well.

With my reds I keep the fine lees with wlthe wine in older oak barrels for up to 48 months, unracked until just before bottling. And they stay fresh for a long time.

Again, there are ‘assumptions’ stated here that are just that- until folks do A/B comparisons over and over to test.

Cheers.

[Mel_Knox]

I keep reading articles attributing either cork issues and/or the failure to let the juice brown as culprits in this issue.
If the problem were the corks, then the issue would not be confined to one country. I see no case to be made that American whites changed…at least in terms of their aging ability. Nor do I think Americans are geniuses at selecting corks and the French stupid. However, better corks may address shortcomings elsewhere.
The browning technique is well known in Burgundy. That’s where Clendenen learned about it. Back in the 80s I took a Burgundian to visit with Dave Ramey, Dave discussed the technique and its scientific background. The guy said, Now i know why our whites turn tea colored and then clear up.

Several things I noticed back in the mid to late 90s:
new presses
less SO2
warmer climate

The new presses deliver fewer solids so there are less lees. The lees container glutathione, a well known preservative.
Must with higher pH needs more SO2, not less.

[larry_schaffer]

Mel,

Great info but more lees apparently is NOT a good think w browning process. At least thats how I’m reading this unless you use no SO2.

Cheers

[Gabe_Berk]

Another way of putting it is that a lot of California chardonnay oxidizes fairly consistently even with good closures.

Something I don’t know: Do they age longer under screwcap or Diam? It wouldn’t surprise me if Dave Ramey knows the answer.

He did an interview somewhere recently where he spoke to that. Maybe the Winemakers Podcast. It may have been on an IG live interview.

I looked for it yesterday but couldn’t find it. Then I checked prior threads here and found the link:
Vinous | Explore All Things Wine

David Ramey doesn’t know everything, but he’s in rarefied company in regards to Chardonnay winemaking. As far as California Chardonnay, especially considering the vineyard sources and price, Ramey is at the top of my list year in and year out. $70 Hyde, Martinelli, Ritchie and Rochioli is an outstanding value all things considered.

[David_Bu3ker]

He did an interview somewhere recently where he spoke to that. Maybe the Winemakers Podcast. It may have been on an IG live interview.

I looked for it yesterday but couldn’t find it. Then I checked prior threads here and found the link:
Vinous | Explore All Things Wine

David Ramey doesn’t know everything, but he’s in rarefied company in regards to Chardonnay winemaking. As far as California Chardonnay, especially considering the vineyard sources and price, Ramey is at the top of my list year in and year out. $70 Hyde, Martinelli, Ritchie and Rochioli is an outstanding value all things considered.

Martinelli? Don’t think he has a vineyard designate under that name. I know he does get grapes from Martinelli vineyards.

[Gabe_Berk]

You are correct. Fruit source though… Ramey Woosley Road Chardonnay (vineyard owned by Martinelli Family). His Fort Ross-Seaview Chardonnay is also from a single vineyard the Martinelli Family owns. Only $42. Another outstanding value considering.

[Jim_Hanlon]

In a brown-bag group of mine, I used to figure that most – maybe 90% – of California chardonnays were noticeably oxidized and past it after five to seven years, certainly by ten years. And these were typically higher-end wines.

We’ve had fewer old chardonnays in recent years, so I don’t know if that rule of thumb still holds true.

There were exceptions like Chalone and Ridge. (I have virtually no experience with mature Mount Eden or Stony Hill, sadly.) But the great majority of California chardonnay were constructed differently from white Burgundy.

A friend opened a 2014 Mount Eden estate Chardonnay two weeks ago. Was fantastic. Not oxidized one bit.

Still young though …

Mount Eden is one of the very few American Chardonnays that has a proven record of aging well. In good vintages, this is a 25+ year wine.

[Oliver_McCrum]

Premox is quite different than normal oxidation or aging of white wine. The expression is different (dried straw on the finish is the biggest tell) and the differing expression of the bottles from the same case are two of the best ways to ID the problem. I have not seen these two issues in CA Chardonnay or whites from regions other than France.

I don’t know how you’d distinguish this from the normal variation you get under cork; I would guess that most whites under bark cork would show variation after a year or two, sometimes dramatic variation. We certainly see it in a few wines we’ve imported from Italy.