I drink wine and don’t make it. But, from my limited understanding, isn’t the source of oak less important than the size of the barrel? Botti, being much bigger than barrique, will have less contact with the wine rendering less influence on the flavor, right?
1 Like
It is, but the impact of French oak made into a barrel or cask is larger than that of, say, Slavonian, German, Austrian or Hungarian oak made into a barrel of similar size.
French oak tends to have a more pronounced, spicy and savory quality, which can get emphasized by the level of toast, whereas Slavonian oak has a less pronounced, more mellow, slightly sweeter character that doesn’t stick out as easily as French oak. Hungarian oak is quite similar to Slavonian oak, even slightly less intense aromatically, but it conversely tends to have higher levels of wood tannins, which can add their own structural element to the wine.
It was interesting to taste the oak impact at one winery in Germany. They had made a 450-liter batch of red wine, aged in two new barriques bought from the same tonnelier - one made from French oak (can’t remember which forest - Limousin, maybe?) and one from German oak. Although the wines from both the casks were quite identical, the oak influence was much still more noticeable in the wine drawn from the French oak cask.
1 Like
A traditional balsamic vinegar maker in Modena I’ve gotten to know over the years uses a large Austrian barrel (maybe 650 liters) that was originally used for beer. His grandfather acquired the barrel. So the importation of barrels is not new.
The best example of the importance of the source of the oak is the dramatic difference between the impact of French and American oak in barrique-size barrels.
1 Like
I visited Piedmont in 2003 during the later years of the Barolo Wars and visited only traditional producers (certainly by my definition). Several of them were already using botti made with French oak as they preferred the rate of oxygen transfer. They certainly weren’t looking to add flavor. I no longer have my notes, so can’t name names. What did stand out during that trip was how proud producers were to be making traditional Barolo. I think the ones using French oak botti would have been shocked to be told they “leaned traditional” vs being fully traditional.
2 Likes
Yeah, I think the larger point I was trying to ask about is where do we draw the line on what is modern and what is traditional?
It seems for elevage, a traditional producer would use:
- Large barrels (like around a 1,000 liters or up; but definitely not barrique-sized)
- Used barrels
- Preferably Slavonian, Austrian, German, or Hungarian oak, but French oak is ok as long as its been used enough times to minimize the oak influence
Anyway, I learned a lot reading the posts in this thread. Thanks!
I talked to Francesca today at the San Francisco Vajra tasting. Clare JC is also fermented in stainless steel
1 Like
As soon as French oak is mentioned, I quickly dismiss wine as not tradtional.
1 Like
Even if the vessel in question was an old, neutral botti made of French oak?
Yes. My knowledge of traditional Barolo/Barbaresco points to usage of Slavonian oak for their botti. Who uses old French oak for their botti?
At least Fratelli Brovia and Burlotto come to my mind. Both very traditional in style despite the usage of French oak.
I may be making my own rules here, but for me, once they cross into non-Slavonian, whether it botti or barriques, new or used, they stray from traditional winemaking.
You may be. I’m quite positive many people would be baffled if you described Burlotto’s or Brovia’s wines as non-traditional. Apart from the usage of French oak in their bottis, the winemaking is as traditional as it gets.
1 Like
This is the point I was trying to make (a bit clumsily) about Giacomo Conterno and Oddero using Stockinger. They are both clearly traditionalist – what does it matter if they are using non-Slavonian wood if the wines at the end of the day look, smell and taste like clearly traditionalist wine?
Similarly, if Burlotto and Brovia are using French oak botti, but they’ve been used so often there is no longer any wood influence in the wine, then is the wine still traditional? To me, yes.
During the Vajra tasting yesterday, Francesca Vaira told us that while the vast majority of the wine at Vajra is aged in large Slavonian oak casks (she said around 2500 liters in size and she cited Gamba as a maker of a large number of their casks), the leftover wine that can’t fill a cask goes into aged barrique. She says if you ever visit the estate, you will see barrique-sized barrels lying around, and if they need to top off a cask because it lost too much wine because of evaporation, its useful having wine in smaller barrels to draw from. Does this make Vajra “lean-modernist” because they use neutral-tasting barrique for a small proportion of their wine? I think the answer is clearly no.
It’s just seems a little strange to me that this thread identifies producers as “lean modern” because they use certain tools like stainless steel, rotofermentors, or aged, neutral oak barrels to produce classic tasting Barolo or Barbaresco, when we really mean by “modernist wine” is that the wine is over-extracted and oaky. If a producer is using tools to make wines that taste like classic nebbiolo, shouldn’t we just call them traditionalists, regardless of the tools they are using?
I simply go with the historical context, when tagging modern vs traditional. As far as I know, in addition to other wine-making methods that are different from the status quo then, the so-called Barolo Boys introduced the use of French wood to produce the modern, accessible wines.
I’m not here to say what’s good or bad for me, as I mostly liked Nebbiolo that were produced in the the traditional ways, but I have also not shied away from drinking a few that I know used the modern methodologies or some aspect of it.
Most definitely not. Because “tastes like classic nebbiolo” is a far more nebulous and less useful distinction then “uses barrigue and rotofermenters.” This thread isn’t about legal descriptions or classifications, it’s about giving people shorthand they can use to make decisions. At least, that’s how I use it, and I find it very useful in that regard. If you use a rotofermenter you are modern, IMO. I have no interest in buying nebbiolo aged in barrique, made in rotofermenters, or with such similar techniques.
1 Like
I think the challenge is drawing the line between traditionalist and modernist producers if we focus solely on the tools they use.
By a really strict definition of “traditionalist”, almost no producer in Barolo or Barbaresco would qualify because, it seems to me, all of them deviate in some small way. Some ferment in stainless steel, some use smaller barrels to age leftover wine that can’t fill a large, traditional cask, some use aged/neutral French or Austrian/German oak instead of Slavonian oak.
It just seems really strange to me to say a producer like Brovia is not a pure, traditionalist producer just because they use French oak botti. So how do we draw the line? I’m not really sure.
1 Like
Yes, it is difficult to draw a line between the two; that’s why there are multiple categories here including “lean” categories, and vary by wines categories. Also, you may agree with it or not, but the OP set the parameters and over the course of 500+ posts the consensus seems to be that they work quite well. Nothing is perfect, and people have discussed the nuance in greater detail in the body of the thread.
FWIW, this thread defines Brovia as traditional. The use of neutral French oak botti does not disqualify, though some here are now saying that for them it does. Again, a discussion that I find interesting and would be happy to hear more about in terms of whether some think it influences the wines, but for categorical purposes, it is not disqualifying. I don’t think the use of smaller barrels for overfill or topping up is disqualifying either, as long as they are neutral. That’s both my opinion and the thread’s rules.
On the other hand, Sottimano uses approx. 15% new French oak. I was recently considering purchasing some 2019s and I went to CT, and sure enough posts were mentioning oak effects on the wines. Not having had any for awhile (except for the Langhe Nebbiolo) I came here and confirmed via this thread and others the use of oak and did not purchase. I’ve learned it’s not something I want to taste in the wine. I’d be happy to taste the wines for free and see if I liked them, but don’t want to spend money and cellar space on them to find out. So to me this is all very useful.
2 Likes
I was just looking through the OP and there just seems to be some strange categorizations.
I agree that Cavallotto is a traditionalist producer because the wines taste like classic nebbiolo to me. But, they use rotofermenters. (I personally don’t care that they use rotofermenters because the wines taste classic, so I think the categorization is correct, though it seems to contradict the parameters of the thread)
However, Vajra and Barale are both listed as “Lean Traditionalist” – that really confuses me. Vajra tastes really classic to my palate, they use primarily Slavonian casks made by a local cooperage, etc., etc., yet they are less traditionalist than a producer that uses rotofermenters? And why is Barale classified as only “lean traditionalist”?
Not trying to be argumentative, but I’m just a little confused about the above. (and no hate against Cavallotto – I love the wines and if they feel they need to use rotofermenters, more power to them).
2 Likes
Certainly Gaja and Ceretto were using barrique before the Barolo Boys as were several others. Ratti? The old brain is foggy on these long forgotten details. Likewise, several “traditionalists” experimented with French barrique back in the '70s before rejecting them. Again, I knew this years ago, but one for sure was Beppe Colla when he was the winemaker at Prunotto up to 1989… I can’t imagine classifying him as anything but a traditional producer.
2 Likes