They did it long before Pierre Morey, when the Virot family were making the wines! And you’re right, Coche do two winters in barrel, with a homogenizing racking after malo, followed by bottling by hand direct from the barrel.
This is a very interesting post. There does in seem seem to be some correlation between reductive and expensive / high quality chardonnay.
I guess reductive practices mostly occur among high end producers? Maybe ones who are making wines intended to age, whereas most middle to lower tier producers expect their chards will be drunk in the first year or two?
I love it when people notice things like this.
Uh…no.
The wines age just fine. They are different from Mosel Rieslings, but they do very well over time. As for Rieslaner, it’s not really a “fruit” wine. Rieslaner has all that scritchy wildness that makes it what it is. As for a TBA turning brown…lots do, especially when they have a lot of botrytis. And also, botrytis obscures fruit, especially if it’s a high level.
To me, the whole premise of this thread is confusing (which is not to say the question raised isn’t a good one, just that it needs to be cast differently). First, it’s not clear that the various contributors are even talking about the same thing when they use the word “reductive” (in my mind, one of the most useless, confusing, and poorly defined terms in the wine world). Then, it’s not clear what characteristic about a wine most people even mean when they use the term “reduction”. Is it the smell/sensation of SO2? Is it sulfur compounds? Is it struck match? Is it notes of toast?
But, to answer the OP’s question, I personally don’t think that any of these characteristics, whether or not they are due to “reductive” winemaking, whatever that is, are indicators of quality. The best Chardonnay, young or old, will smell like Chardonnay, not like match, sulfur, toast, or anything else that’s not intrinsic to the wine itself.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
I tried staying out fro the get go, but the above pretty much underscores my own observations, not just in this thread, but in at least one other long one, a couple of months ago. Seems many cannot tell reductive notes from mercaptans, and even after I hinted at that last time it seems that went “wooosh” over people’s heads. Even though reduction can lead to mercaptans, they are really two different animals, especially on the nose and then how they present themselves when a bottle is opened. Reductive notes dissipate, quickly, with air contact. Mercaptans do not.
Just how so many who spend so much time and money on this hobby cannot tell the 2 apart is sometimes disconcerting. And leading to threads like this one discussing 2 very different issues (most likely) using same measuring stick, so to speak.
Reductive wine making is there to keep wine safe, although it also may come from a vineyard itself. I dealt with a number of different vineyards, and yet one, very particular one, ALWAYS led to a reduced nose, no matter what, year in and year out. You knew which barrels and vineyard it was in double blind, always, but always, no need to second guess. As explained to me, when I tried to figure it out, a product of nutrient deficient soil. So, not just wine making practices at times, but something nature gave you. Not sure why this particular point is not even on the table when discussing “reduction”.
Mercaptans are a whole new ball game, of course. And many a time, looking at TNs posted, seems people cannot tell them apart from reduction.
Most of this has been great discussion but, to me GregP, you’re being pretty condescending. Just because people didn’t take your “hint” in another discussion doesn’t mean it, “…went ‘whooosh’ over people’s heads.” Wine (or Chardonnay in my OP), made in a strictly reductive STYLE, throws off mercaptans that show up as sulfur compounds and they do dissipate on the nose rather quickly, and eventually on the palate. This seems to often be a trait of higher-end Chardonnay that many on this board (and me) find appealing. My question was if there was a corrolation to quality and, I’ve learned, there is likely not.
And once again, reduction and mercaptans are two very different things, have no idea why you still mix up the two. Reading your post once again points out that the issue you are describing is mercaptans, and yet you still, somehow, keep thinking “reduction”. Reduction NEVER SHOWS AS MERCAPTANS, have no idea what you are really saying. Mercaptans just do not blow off, as you insist above.
I’m glad you tacitly acknowledge being condescending, GregP. I stand corrected: mercaptans aren’t the “struck match” and similar aromas in Chardonnays produced in an intentionally reductive winemaking process. You’re correct there, and I mis-typed. That being said, you’re missing my point altogether.
Brandon, I think we first need to define what those qualities are. My post wasn’t meant to be condescending, just a broader complaint about the use of “reductive” (not directed at you specifically). I’m not even sure I agree with Greg’s distinction (and to be honest, I’m not completely sure what he is trying to say either). If we take “reductive winemaking” for what I think most people mean when they use the term (i.e., lower oxygen contact during winemaking and barrel aging), that can lead to the build up of some sulfur-containing compounds. Those could be as simple as H2S, or become more complex (and more durably stubborn) mercaptans. But, in my mind, allowing that build up would be a flaw, at least if it ends up in the bottle. Some people believe the struck match character is sulfur related, but I have yet to be convinced of that (at least no one has shown definitive information that they are connected).
Exactly what characteristics do you note in the “better” wines that you want to try and correlate with “quality”? There is at least one thread on “struck match” in the past year or so. I, for one, can’t claim to understand exactly what causes that character in a wine.
Another character I think people admire in Chardonnay (though not me) is the pain-grille/toasty notes. I know one California winemaker who strives for that, and uses a particular yeast that he/she claims produces that result.
Here’s a related thread from last year:
Like I said, even after more pointed suggestions, its going “woosh…” by you. Thanks for another confirmation.
And no, I did not agree with anything you said, to make it clear, doesn’t matter what you think or your take on it. I do think that you need to carefully read what you post, and hopefully, before you post it.
Alan, how is that different than my take? Reduction CAN lead to mercaptans, didn’t I say that?
Thanks, Alan. I didn’t take any offense to your earlier post and found it informative.
Yes, you did. My response was that I don’t really know what “reduction” means in wine. Meadows uses it relentlessly in his tasting notes. But a “reduced” wine, or a wine that suffers from “reduction” has no real meaning, not without some outward character we can perceive. So when someone uses the term “reduction”, we need more descriptive information to understand what they mean. Maybe Meadows has a footnote somewhere that says he means SO2 when he uses the term. Or he means sulfur in some other form. I really don’t know what he means, and I wish he would just say what he means, instead of trying to seem more knowledgeable and using a term that actually means very little in a tasting note.
I’m merely trying to persuade people to avoid the term, and use something more definitive and descriptive. In my own notes, I never use the words “reduced” or “reduction” or anything related. I’ll point out SO2, or I’ll use descriptors like skunky, coffee, rubber, etc.
Thanks William. I don’t know much about the Virot family…any info out there on them, other than the couple of brief mentions in Remington Norman’s book?
Thanks for the link…I was just going to search for that. From that thread:
Are you still a non-believer wrt struck match being a sulfur/thiol related compound Alan? The above seems pretty conclusive to me.
It’s my impression that ‘reductive’ winemaking (i.e. sulfur related compounds) has more to do with the lees than anything else. I.e. the wine doesn’t necessarily have to be super low in dissolved oxygen if the lees are prone to sulfur related compounds…and even if the wine has a very low dissolve oxygen, you’re unlikely to get sulfur related compounds if the lees aren’t up for it.
Also, I don’t believe that H2S persists very long in wine (I forget what it turns into tho). But this is a good thing, since H2S is highly toxic!
I’d claim that everyone means ‘sulfur related compound’ (aka thiol/disulfide/mercaptan) when they say reduction or reductive winemaking
I’d say that was as good as anything I’ve seen to explain “struck match”, but I need a bit more convincing to be sure. The most likely components of a real struck match aroma probably contain phosphorus and not sulfur, but obviously our sense of smell can associate different things with different aromas (e.g., I often think I smell coffee just before I conclude the obvious skunk smell).
As Nick mentioned in that earlier thread, there can be elemental sulfur on grapes left from spraying. And it seems that certain varieties (notably Syrah) have more sulfur-containing amino acids that can be another source of sulfur, as well as SO2.
So you don’t think Meadows ever means SO2? If so, I’d love for him to be more descriptive. Because the nature of that aroma tells me something about what it might become in a bottled wine. And that’s a whole lot of barrels that suffer from some kind of thiolic character, a much higher percentage than I’ve encountered in my (admittedly more meager) barrel tastings.
Right, there are plenty of sources of sulfur in wine…heck, yeast produce it on their own (from amino acids, and other sources?). The key seems to be the (complex) conditions required to have the thiol form. The main effect of having elemental sulfur (on grapes) getting into the fermenter is to cause the yeast to barf in the wine, or it smells like that’s what it’s doing.
I’m absolutely certain that Meadows knows/tastes the difference between free SO2 in wine, verses sulfur related compounds (thiols/disulfides/whathaveyou). And I do think that Burgundy, esp red Burgundy, and pinots made in that style, are esp prone to reductive compounds. Often times forming after bottling (or getting concentrated enough to detect/taste), and resolving themselves after a year+ (sometimes ++) in bottle (or sometimes never resolving themselves). A dull/tired character in a wine is a common example of this that I see…and with air that goes away and the wine becomes fresh/lively.
Never? As in ‘ever after’? Not even one little teensy-weensy little bit? Never ever? 