Doug,
Have you read the Lavigne-Dubourdieu report??
It’s floating around here somewhere.
Mel, in your recent trips to Burgundy, have you heard of white producers going back to crushing Chardonnay before pressing? I’ve heard rumors this is happening. For years, I’ve thought this was the biggest change in the mid '90s, going from crushing and pressing to just whole cluster pressing. Whole cluster pressing makes a gentler, softer (and kinder?) Chardonnay that requires almost no aging, as opposed to the older crushed/pressed Chardonnays from Burgundy when aging was almost mandatory.
Well, yes and no. Lots of other places have never made Chardonnay that ages for 10-30 years, including most of California. Exceptions to this exist but not on the scale of age worthy white Burgundy.
That said, the fact that white Burgundy tastes far more ripe, rich, and textured on release these days could be a sign that as Burgundians are/have been influenced by other areas where the winemaking style simply isn’t what is required for long term aging. Most likely because the process for long term aging is counter productive to sales to a new and expanding audience.
Also, climate is probably a part of pre-mox. Chablis used to lose 2-3 vintages per decade to weather, now it never happens. Côte d’Or whites are higher abv than they used to be, and higher pH, which has a direct effect on the efficacy of SO2 additions.
That’s not correct IMO. I’ve had many premoxed whites from the Rhone, Loire and Bordeaux. People probably focus on Burgundy because that type of wine is relatively often stored for a long time compared to other dry white wines.
The most likely cause is variability in air permeability of corks. Using less sulphite or picking more ripe fruit can perhaps make the wines more vulnerable, but that cannot explain the random nature of the occurrence of premox (great variation in the level of oxidation of wines from the same vintage or even the same case of wine). It is well proven that the difference in air permeability between corks in the same batch of corks is huge and so far that is the only thing that I’ve read over the past years that could explain the random variability of premox.
Do you mean this?
http://www.newbordeaux.com/dubourdieu-premox-in-whites
(Whoever designed that web page should have hired a professional. I had to highlight it to read it.)
Yes, I remember that being posted a while back. They have made a lot of assumptions and stated them as fact, saying things like “we have clearly shown the role of sotolon in the aroma of all premoxed white wines,” without citing any research or even clarifying the vagueness of the statement. Is sotolon playing a part in creating premox, or is it simply present when premox occurs? That word “role” seems to imply the former, yet they fail to show evidence of a connection in either way. They say limiting extraction of phenolic compounds during pressing is an important preventive measure, yet there is a very plausible, even likely, theory that says the opposite. If there is a winemaking connection at all, it should be noted that pressing has generally become more gentle, not more vigorous, around the beginning of the premox era. They say premox can occur in barrel, which shows an alarming lack of understanding of what we’re talking about when we discuss premox, considering they are highly educated in the field of wine chemistry and claim to have discovered a solution. They say reductive handling and frequent doses of SO2 are important when Clark Smith has found higher redox potential in wines that are not as reductively handled during elevage. I think there are also other problems that I don’t have time to get into now. What I see there are a lot of technical terms and facts being thrown around without much meaningful analysis, and their claim that they have found a solution, without any mention of long-term testing (which I have never heard of them doing) seems preposterous.
I think that the Lavigne-Dubourdieu report does not add any meaningful insight into the premix issue. They seem to state that higher levels of soloton are present in premoxed wines because soloton is formed as part of the oxidation process. Not really meaningful info.
Perhaps the most meaningful phrases are the following non-scientific words:
Of course, the defective ageing of white wines is most often discovered once the wine has been bottled. The most disconcerting aspect of premox in bottled wine is its very random nature. If a tasting jury is asked to evaluate the oxidative character of twelve bottles of the same dry white wine with a cork closure (same vintage, bottled the same day, with the same lot of corks, etc.), certain bottles may be found to be very aged, whereas others may show no sign of premature ageing whatsoever.
There is a very close correlation between the quantity of oxygen dissolved in the bottle and a wine’s propensity to suffer from premox. Furthermore, the more a wine’s aromas are judged to be oxidised by tasters, the more intense the wine’s orangey-yellow nuances (higher DO 420). Premoxed bottles have lower levels of free SO2. Naturally, the presence of sotolon is also closely correlated with the intensity of the oxidative character detected during tasting.
These results raise the very tricky issue of the best closure to use, which is too involved a subject to go into here. Significant variations in the dissolved oxygen level in wine have been observed only six months after bottling according to the type of closure used (natural cork, synthetic cork, technical corks, or screwcaps). The level of free SO2 is also very different depending on the type of closure. These results illustrate the extreme heterogeneity of permeability to gas of various closures.
They do not go any further into the subject of the closures which they do mention as a cause for variations in dissolved oxygen level in wine. Others have studied this and (also) found huge differences in air (and oxygen) entering the wine bottle depending on the type of closure used and discovered that the air permeability of corks varies tremendously.
That is a very easy explanation for random premox occurring, but it is also a very unwanted explanation for a big part of the wine world. Producers still have significant inventory of wine bottled with corks, wine producers and consumers are extremely conservative (on average) and do not like change, wine collectors do not want to hear that their huge collection of wine is sealed with a highly variable closure, and a significant part of the wine researchers are sponsored by big cork companies such as Amorim or other cork institutes.
All the talk about global warming, later harvesting, different presses, using less SO2 etcetera as possible causes is IMO distraction attention away from what is the likely cause for random premox. I really do not see how any of those factors is likely to cause one bottle of wine from the same batch/box to age much faster than another bottle.
Moreover, I do not believe that random premox is restricted to white wine. I believe that the cork variability is also a likely cause for the variation that one experiences in red wine after extended ageing (‘there are no great old wines … just great old (individual) bottles of wine’).
It still makes no sense when premox is an issue in White Burgundy bottles of age 3 or 4 or 5. See comment upstream
I thought the point the authors made about glutathione to be highly relevant. Glutathione is a key anti-oxidant that is often eliminated because of the misuse of the new presses. It is more important than SO2.
Ed, I am afraid to visit white wine producers in Burgundy. Maybe it’s because I greeted one Meursault winemaker at a party with the greeting, Ah le Meursault Nouveau est arrive!! Or the time a Franco-American winemaker and I poured older chardonnays/white Burgundies and asked the others why they brought such young wines…So on my last trip we visited five makers of Nebbiolo and two of Pinot Noir. It’s an interesting question you pose.
Marcus, if California can produce chardonnays that age 10 to 20 years, then
1/why not Oregon??
2/are the age worthy California Chardonnays the results of luck, well-planned winemaking, or unique microclimates??
What I see here is that the chardonnays that age well here usually involve cooler climes, lengthy barrel fermentation and ageing, lots of lees contact, and healthy doses of SO2. Usually the winemaking can be described as a bit reductive.
I have not seen premox in 3 yo wines. Yikes!
http://www.practicalwinery.com/mayjun10/aroma1.htm
Here is another article on glutathione.
Dubourdieu was the dean of white wine studies, so usually when he said something he was spot on.
Summarization articles such as this one sometimes lack a bit in the way of thorough explanations.
I agree, Chris, that variability of corks must be the explanation for the randomness. But the question most people focus on is what changed to make these wines so vulnerable to very low levels of oxygen intrusion. With rare exceptions, the closures are the same as they were 25 years ago: natural cork. And I’ve never heard anyone suggest that pre-mox is due to a change in the quality of cork. We’re all looking for the variables that are tied to the onset of the problem.
I’m not Marcus, but I’d like to respond to a couple of things you said here.
1/ Oregon can certainly produce Chardonnays that will age that long, and have, as shown by Eyrie.
2/ all of the above, I would think.
It’s interesting that you point out those winemaking/elevage practices. I think you’re right about what’s usually done with long-aging Chardonnays, but I’m not sure to what extent, if at all, that makes them long-aging. Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s likely that those practices help, but at this point there’s no way to say for sure. What about Chardonnays from the Jura that are oxidatively handled and can age for a long time? Of course, they could just be an anomaly, but it has to be very difficult to say why certain wines age the way they do. We don’t have, for example, oxidatively handled, low-SO2 Meursault 1ers from the 80s to compare to wines from the same plots and vintages that were made the way you describe.
Doug,
How could I forget Eyrie?? Dave and I traded insults for 40 years. He used the Draper clone, not the Wente clone, and turned my Oregon Chardonnay project onto the same.
Probably the causes of premox are numerous…warmer temps, less SO2, less lees contact, and an attempt to make restaurant ready wines.
Mel,
Of course even if everything is done in the manner you laud out, there is still no guarantee that a wine will age gracefully for decades. I’m sure that there are plenty of wines made by those who make them in this style that have not stood the test of time well.
That to me is one of the most interesting, intriguing, frustrating and wonderful parts of what we do as winemakers - we cannot will never have all of the answers or have it ‘figured out’ without doubt.
Larry,
As Anna Banana used to say, Well, there’s always sumpthin’…
I thought that oxidative style in some way protected them from further oxidation, or at least delayed further oxidation. Those wine typically have a lot of acid, too.
I have asked this before on other threads, but does anyone who has some history of visiting Leflaive have any idea of what changes occurred between the Pierre Morey regime and the Remy (if that is the new winemaker) regime of winemaking? Am I mistaken that this would be somewhat illuminating? Or are even those who visit the domaine with some regularity not privy to this info?
The linkage between glutathione and pressing remains pretty murky for me after reading both these articles. They mention the need to minimize phenolic extraction during pressing as a key to preserving glutathione in the must in the conclusion of the first article, but I don’t see the basis for that assertion in anything that precedes it. Here, you’re probably right that the fault is in the summarization, but this conclusion seems fundamentally at odds with premox history. To the extent that we are blaming newer presses and a whole cluster protocol for the increased fragility of whites, this seems to run counter to the Lavigne/Dubourdieu thesis. Their prescriptions seem to reflect recent practice and are pretty hard to square with the success of more traditional pressing techniques involving more maceration and oxygen contact during pressing. They may be on the right track with glutathione, but I’m skeptical about the pressing part.
That’s my guess too. If that’s the case, it raises questions about the idea that reductive handling makes for ageworthy wines, and seems like contrary evidence to the idea that reductive handling is essential.
There is the hypothesis that the change in cork permeability is due to corks made from younger trees as older trees become more scarce for the manufacture of cork. Not sure how accurate that is but if it is true then DIAM should be the answer.
I have noticed some of the corks on my current vintage Hudelot Noellat being much softer and more pliable vs some older corks a few decades back which can be pretty hard and compact.
If Leflaive continues to premox under DIAM then we can at least rule out the cork permeability theory.
The inference would be that Diam is not better than standard cork to prevent Pre-mox. Then they can move on to screw cap.