recently, I was drinking a 2022 Weingut Franz Keller Oberbergener Baßgeige Chardonnay Erste Lage. I noticed that there was not a lot of primary fruit and no tertiary aromas yet. Rather, I noticed secondary aromas. This got me wondering: Do I actually know how to distinguish between lees, malo, and (new/used) oak in white wine? I’d be interested in what kind of smells and tastes you associate with each and how you distinguish between them, especially with regard to white wine (not necessarily German Chards).
For me:
A wine aged on the lees: compared to wines not aged on lees, usually these have a richer texture that comes from the proteins in the yeast cells that have autolyzed. Can also have aromas and tastes of that certain kind of leesy creaminess (distinct from creaminess that comes from oak aging; this difference can be quite evident in wines that have been aged for a long time on the lees in stainless steel or concrete tanks).
Malo: well, the wines don’t have that sharp, lemony acidity typical of malic acid! This is quite obvious if you taste side-by-side wines made more or less the same way, but one has gone through malolactic fermentation (MLF) and other has had MLF blocked. You can sometimes also get some lactic notes (yogurt, sourmilk, butter), but those tend to come only from certain strains of ML Bacteria, or just stressed MLFs, and these qualities tend to disappear quite soon after the MLF. Most wines go through MLF without any obvious lactic notes, or the wines are bottled/released only after those lactic notes have disappeared.
Used oak: If old enough, you really can’t taste it. You just get that certain sense of creaminess you can detect in oak-aged wines without any associated oaky flavors. In wines aged in not that old oak barrels, you might also detect some woody and spicy notes, but they don’t appear that obviously “oaky”, just generally “woody”.
New oak: From untoasted or very lightly toasted oak barrels you tend to get more savory and sawdusty notes. Woody, qutie similar to old oak barrels, only more obvious and in-your face. With more toasted new oak, you tend to get more vanilla, nuttiness and sweeter oak spice, turning towards even sweeter caramel, toffee and butterscotch character and roasted nuts with heavier toast.
There is quite a bit of overlap with these flavors. Especially those creamy tones can be very deceptive - I’ve seen people think an aged Riesling is heavily oaky, even if the wine has never seen anything but stainless steel tanks! That’s because many wines - like Riesling - can develop some heavily creamy and custardy notes with enough age. Or nutty, toasty and buttery flavors, like Hunter Valley Sémillon.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. What a knowledge bomb! This is so helpful. Questions/comments below. Sorry for being a pest - no need to answer every single question.
Blockquote A wine aged on the lees: compared to wines not aged on lees, usually these have a richer texture that comes from the proteins in the yeast cells that have autolyzed. Can also have aromas and tastes of that certain kind of leesy creaminess (distinct from creaminess that comes from oak aging; this difference can be quite evident in wines that have been aged for a long time on the lees in stainless steel or concrete tanks).
You speak of a richer texture. Texture is the mouthfeel of a wine, right? I have often wondered if a richer texture implies a full-bodied wine (versus a light-weight, medium-bodied wine) or if it refers to the feel of the wine (a creamy feel) regardless of the wine’s body. Is this texture more noticeable on the attack, mid-palate or finish or is such a distinction moot? When you speak of creamy aromas, would this include dough/baked goods, typically? Is this something one primarily smells or predominantly taste or both? Also, is sur lie aging common among quality producers of German Riesling?
Malo: well, the wines don’t have that sharp, lemony acidity typical of malic acid! This is quite obvious if you taste side-by-side wines made more or less the same way, but one has gone through malolactic fermentation (MLF) and other has had MLF blocked. You can sometimes also get some lactic notes (yogurt, sourmilk, butter), but those tend to come only from certain strains of ML Bacteria, or just stressed MLFs, and these qualities tend to disappear quite soon after the MLF. Most wines go through MLF without any obvious lactic notes, or the wines are bottled/released only after those lactic notes have disappeared.
Can lactic acidity also taste unripe? So, structurally are the indicators roundness for malo and sharpness for no-malo? Also, does citrus fruit/unripe fruit/green fruit indicate no malo, while yellow fruit/tropical fruit is associated with malo?
Used oak: If old enough, you really can’t taste it. You just get that certain sense of creaminess you can detect in oak-aged wines without any associated oaky flavors. In wines aged in not that old oak barrels, you might also detect some woody and spicy notes, but they don’t appear that obviously “oaky”, just generally “woody”.
New oak: From untoasted or very lightly toasted oak barrels you tend to get more savory and sawdusty notes. Woody, qutie similar to old oak barrels, only more obvious and in-your face. With more toasted new oak, you tend to get more vanilla, nuttiness and sweeter oak spice, turning towards even sweeter caramel, toffee and butterscotch character and roasted nuts with heavier toast.
My takeaway for used oak is that if it’s properly old, then I won’t be able to detect it through specific smells or tastes but rather a certain mouthfeel. I wonder how this creaminess differs from contact with lees, though. I’d be interested in your take here, although you mentioned that there’s significant overlap.
Re new oak, do you primarily smell or taste these things (for example, untoasted/lightly-toasted: woody [sawdust], medium-toasted: vanilla, nuts, spice, heavily toasted: caramel, toffee) or both? With regard to the palate, I’d be interested if it shows somewhere specifically, like, a spicy finish or something like that.
Yes, the mouthfeel. Texture and body often walk hand-in-hand, but at least in my books are not completely synonymous. A wine can have a rich texture no matter if it is a full-bodied wine or a lighter-bodied wine. I feel higher alcohol and higher dry extract contribute more to the sense of body of a wine, whereas things like mannoproteins that come from longer sur lie aging don’t contribute that much to the dry extract, yet can have a surprisingly big impact on the texture.
I myself never use “creamy feel” in my wine lingo, because I just don’t drink cream. It is a term used very often in American wine reviews, but to me, it sounds quite off-putting. When I talk about creaminess, it is the aroma and taste of cream.
Furthermore, to me, finish does not have a texture - it is only the aftertaste that remains on the palate. The only tactile elements one can get in the finish is the sticky feeling you get from higher levels of residual sugar, and the mouth-drying astringency of tannins. So basically the attack and the feeling you have on the midpalate are where you can assess the texture of a wine.
I think creamy aromas and tastes would not include dough or baked goods, but they both are included under leesy or autolytic aromas or flavors. Longer aging on the lees can give you creamy aromas and flavors, but also notes of yeast (dough), or with enough aging sur lie, also baked goods. To me, they can be both smelled and tasted, although the intensity is very dependent on the wine. And yes, I think many German Rieslings are aged on the lees.
Well, no. Lactic, malic, tartaric, citric and acetic acidities have their own chemical formulas that don’t change depending on the ripeness of the grapes. The acids taste always the same. The sense of greenness or unripeness come from the aromatic compounds that can exhibit green aromas or flavors, which make you think unripe things. This can be further exacerbated by very high levels of acidity.
As for the difference between the different acids, let’s think of a situation where we have two white wines:
A wine with 6,0 g/l total acidity composed of malic and tartaric acid
A wine with 6,0 g/l total acidity composed of lactic and tartaric acid
The first wine would taste much sharper and more acid-driven compared to the second wine, even if they have the same amount of total (titratable) acidity, because malic acid is a stronger acid and you will taste it as more sour.
The citrus/unripe fruit/green fruit vs. yellow fruit/tropical fruit is dependent on the level of ripeness. You can have a sharp, green-fruited Burgundy Chardonnay that has gone through MLF, and you can have a rich, tropical, yellow-fruited GG Riesling from a warmer vintage that has not gone through MLF.
Occasionally it is simply impossible to tell. I’ve had wines that have had such creamy richness I’ve been sure that the wines have been fermented and/or aged in oak, yet nope; completely in stainless steel, or concrete tanks. If you want a good takeaway from here, it is “never be sure of anything”!
Regarding new oak, it really depends on the wine. Sometimes you can have a wine with a clean, fruit-driven nose with no oak whatsoever, yet the wine turns out to be quite oaky on the palate. Or vice versa. Sometimes I’ve had wines that have felt quite oaky, even if they don’t see much (occasionally even not at all) new oak; sometimes I’ve had wines fermented and aged in 100% new oak, yet you don’t really detect any oaky qualities - those wines I describe as wines that can carry their oak really well! But, yeah, there is no single element that would immediately be a telltale that “this wine has seen new oak” - sometimes it is the nose, sometimes a taste, sometimes the aftertaste, sometimes all the above, sometimes you don’t pick up anything.