Every so often I find myself with a wine that would be really great if not for an over abundance of oak. It’s like a dish where too much of a certain spice stands out…ideally everything should be in harmony with no particular component in your face causing a distraction. Gary Vaynerchuk used to call this the Oak Monster (I miss the Wine Library days!). I realize that the oak will integrate to some degree over time with other components in the wine, but my question is whether a sufficient amount of time can tame the wine to the point where the oak becomes a harmonious element or at least less pronounced (assuming we are talking about a wine that has the structure to age well). Or, is this just a no hope situation regardless of how long you wait?
It really seems to depend on the wine how well the integrates with the fruit. For example I’ve had some 40-50 yo La Rioja Alta wines which have still borne the vanilla-heavy imprint of American oak.
And it seems 20 years is not enough to hide the most extreme examples of liberal oak use in Bordeaux and Barolo/Barbaresco, as I’ve had some wines from the late 1990’s that have still been remarkably oaky. However, I’d say on average +30 years seems to be enough for most wines. Some need more and some need less time, but I’d estimate that at 30 years of age 80-90% of the “oak monster” wines have lost most if not all of their overt oak character.
I’d also guesstimate that oaky whites need less age than reds.
While I do believe that a light touch of oak can integrate in time, I also think a wine that is extremely oak-dominant (aroma/flavor wise, not a particular %) will never become a balanced wine. As someone who doesn’t like noticeable oak aromas & flavors in wines, I don’t buy into the argument that it always integrates in time.
I think it’s a matter of taste much like seasoning in food. That’s both on the winemaking and style side and on the consumption side.
In many ways the issue of oak in wine became some important issue following the sort of turn to more modern styled and “Parkerized” wines using lots of new wood from a decade or two ago. While the overuse of new oak was apparent what got lost in the backlash is that a large portion of traditional wines have some influence of the wood they were raise and/or aged in. The backlash caused people to be oversensitive to wood in wines in many cases. As Otto notes, most traditional Riojas actually have a strong sense of wood on them. I also think many of the secondary notes people came to love in their Burgundy, Bordeaux, Rhone, et al can be ascribed to the oak.
Which is a long way to say I don’t think the influence of oak needs to be looked down upon. It just should be one of many factors in the final product. It can be appreciated without loving the overuse of new oak.
I think it’s wise to be suspect about, and avoid, unbalanced wines of any sort–whether it’s excessive oak influence, excessive acidity, too much alcohol, even massively excessive tannins. To expect an obvious imbalance to disappear over time is a mistake. (the tannin one may be worth a little argument, I suppose).
And then there American vs French …
Like all thing in life and wine , it’s a matter of balance. And the question is will excessive oak ever resolve itself. I just feel safer with wines that are balanced at the outset. Whether in regard to oak, or acid or whatever.
Funny thing is though I’m kinda fussy about Vanilla (mainly it’s a detestation. For artificial flavourings) , yet I really like Rioja. Go figure.
Maybe? But I’ve had Tuscan wines (Brunello) that were very oaked on release and disgustingly undrinkable at fifteen years, and I had no reason to believe they would remarkably turn around. Too much oak? Just bury it in the cellar for 30 years and you’ll love it! I’ll never take that bet. If I don’t like it young (oak monster), I’ll never again never waste the money and cellar space on a multi-decade gamble. And no, I don’t think you are advocating that.
Yeah, I don’t think it integrates either. It is like cooking with too much salt: you can never get rid of it, unless you throw out the dish.
Or add sugar …
But, yes.
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t mind mild or subtle oak flavors like vanilla, toast, caramel, nutmeg that linger in wine over time.
But I’ve had a few wines that early (say 4-5 yrs) had my version of the Oak Monster and never improved to the point I thought the oak monster left. Coming to mind are David Arthur Cabs and late 2000’s Justin Isoceles. They weren’t enjoyable in those early stages, seemed like chewing on toothpicks. Perhaps further time will be more kind, but I stopped buying them because I wasn’t sure they’d ever lose that oak and there’s too many other great wines out there.
I’ve tried to let these wines sit at least until 10-11 yrs old to let the oak integrate with varying success. Sure, the oak has softened or integrated a bit and they no longer taste like toothpicks, but most of us have set the bar a bit higher than that for our wines.
Too many potential ‘variables’ here to make any overall predictions. Can it integrate? Of course. Does it always? No. And as others have pointed out, everyone has a different affinity for liking or not liking overt oaky qualities.
The best bet is to follow the wine over a couple of days after opening - this should give you a decent idea what will happen as the wine ages in bottle for more time.
Cheers.
I would agree with this, that some wines never fully integrate the oak, or the oak becomes such a significant part of the wine character that it does not disappear. The Caprai Sagrantino strike me this one–the oak signature is now part of the long lived (to me, drying) tannins in the wine. Compare the Bea Sagrantino at similar age and you see the difference.
Spanish Rioja are another example, although of course they use American oak, which always strikes me as more obtrusive. I grabbed a fairly random 2009 Rioja from a local retailer recently–retailer said it was the best they had. Oak was so intrusive that the wine was undrinkable, and this was after 11 years…
The finest Bordeaux it can be a different story. Find an aged Haut Brion and likely part of that smoky character is from the oak. But it can work (try the 1975 Haut Brion)…
Similar to some extent even some younger wines. I had the 2016 Pichon Comtesse a few months ago–Day One, the oak was so obtrusive that it was bothersome, but next day the integration was complete (and spectacular)…
I agree about Riojas. I get that a lot of people like Riojas but for me, I just can’t get past the oak. My sample size is from early 2000s so maybe early 90s or prior ones are better but as much as I want to like them, the oak is too pronounced and never found them integrated.
Speaking very broadly, Bordeaux seems like the major category where there are the better odds of a “too much oak when it’s young” wine coming into good balance at maturity. But of course there are ones that don’t, and some wines from other categories that manage.
The many factors that evolve as a wine has extended aging do not all go lockstep and linear. Some will outlast the others, or become more or less prominent as the wine matures. Experience, intuition, track record, reading CT notes on older wines . . . you just take your best shot and hope for some good experiences.