New Oak ... is it really necessary?

[Linda Baehr]

Brian makes a good point concerning physiological ripeness in a given year.

From the very beginning, I've been set on making wines like Jim described. But I've learned that flexibility is key to staying sane during harvest and sticking to hard and fast rules just isn't feasible when you're dealing with someone as fickle as Mama Nature.

For example, the fruit (syrah) I got in '08 came in at a higher brix than I was expecting, but it tasted just right. It wasn't the wine I had originally envisioned making in my head, but it has turned out exceptionally well and after each barrel sample I get more and more excited to enjoy the end product.

Yeah. The one lot of zin in '08 we had that went dry at 18.55% EtOH wasn't what I had in mind either. Not to mention several other at >17% But then again, Zin is a little bitch. Good thing I work for a Zin house. hehe

[Hank Beckmeyer]

New oak is really just good for hiding defects. Lack of tannin, lack of flavor, etc. It also hides many facets of terroir, blurring regional distinctions. Of course, if your region/vineyard site is not so special, that might be a good thing.

Well grown, balanced grapes do not need new oak. My understanding of DRC is that they use very lightly toasted barrels to provide tannin support and not for any smoky, toasty characters. But maybe they really use them to hide all the green stemmy flavors they have from using 100% whole cluster?

I've been moving toward larger, old vessels, as I find even "neutral" oak barriques impart a woodiness to wine. I wish I could rid myself of barrels altogether, but they're just so damned convenient! (and before anyone thinks "stainless steel" - I do not see that as an alternative. Young wine development requires some sort of O2 exchange, IMO.)

[Brett Johnson]

For example, the fruit (syrah) I got in '08 came in at a higher brix than I was expecting, but it tasted just right.

How 'bout the brix on your '09 Pinot...?

That was another fun learning experience!

Grapes came in at a lower brix than I was expecting and I wasn't sure how things would turn out.
As predicted by those with cooler heads, the wine soaked up perfectly and is now on track to be a stellar SRH pinot.

It's good to have winemaker friends to lean on in times of uncertainty.

[Brian Loring]

New oak is really just good for hiding defects. Lack of tannin, lack of flavor, etc. It also hides many facets of terroir, blurring regional distinctions. Of course, if your region/vineyard site is not so special, that might be a good thing.

Well grown, balanced grapes do not need new oak...

I'm not really into such dogmatic statements. While I agree that new oak, and actually any level of oak, do add flavor to wine, it's not necessarily done to mask flaws. Nor does it necessarily hide terroir or lead to blurring regional distinctions. Can it be used that way? Sure. But just because some people use new oak poorly, or for marketing reasons, doesn't mean that others don't use it for the "right" reasons - i.e. because they think it adds something good and desireable to the overall finished wine.

[Brian Loring]

How 'bout the brix on your '09 Pinot...?

Grapes came in at a lower brix than I was expecting and I wasn't sure how things would turn out.
As predicted by those with cooler heads, the wine soaked up perfectly and is now on track to be a stellar SRH pinot.

Help me out guys... was it about too high or too low brix?

[Brett Johnson]

How 'bout the brix on your '09 Pinot...?

Grapes came in at a lower brix than I was expecting and I wasn't sure how things would turn out.
As predicted by those with cooler heads, the wine soaked up perfectly and is now on track to be a stellar SRH pinot.

Help me out guys... was it about too high or too low brix?

Initially, right after crush/destem, the brix was reading low, but I was just being impatient and forgot to trust my taste buds (grapes tasted great!); by the next day or so it soaked up to my desired sweet spot.

[Brian Loring]

Initially, right after crush/destem, the brix was reading low, but I was just being impatient and forgot to trust my taste buds (grapes tasted great!); by the next day or so it soaked up to my desired sweet spot.

Ahhhh.... I've had that panic before. I learned never to test sugars/acid right out of the crush/destem. In fact, we wait 48 hours before we do our first measurements, and then not until we've mixed the must up the best we can.

[John Cabot]

Initially, right after crush/destem, the brix was reading low, but I was just being impatient and forgot to trust my taste buds (grapes tasted great!); by the next day or so it soaked up to my desired sweet spot.

Ahhhh.... I've had that panic before. I learned never to test sugars/acid right out of the crush/destem. In fact, we wait 48 hours before we do our first measurements, and then not until we've mixed the must up the best we can.

Right...I've crushed many a Zinfandel lot that measured 22 brix coming out of the crusher, only having it soak up to 26/27 a couple of days after. No sense in riding the emotional rollercoaster.

[Hank Beckmeyer]

New oak is really just good for hiding defects. Lack of tannin, lack of flavor, etc. It also hides many facets of terroir, blurring regional distinctions. Of course, if your region/vineyard site is not so special, that might be a good thing.

Well grown, balanced grapes do not need new oak...

I'm not really into such dogmatic statements. While I agree that new oak, and actually any level of oak, do add flavor to wine, it's not necessarily done to mask flaws. Nor does it necessarily hide terroir or lead to blurring regional distinctions. Can it be used that way? Sure. But just because some people use new oak poorly, or for marketing reasons, doesn't mean that others don't use it for the "right" reasons - i.e. because they think it adds something good and desireable to the overall finished wine.

Brian, I certainly am not saying you (or anyone else) shouldn't use all the new oak they want...but every little addition to the must/wine is a small step away from the "purity" of those harvested grapes, and thus the terroir of that vineyard and vintage. I know that even 10% new oak on my wines would change the character and remove or hide some flavor component unique to my vineyard. My choice is no new oak.

The dilemma, as it were, is how far are you willing to go? Its all about comfort level, then. Or, how much wine "making" is being done.

[Jim Cowan]

What if in a given year, physiological ripeness really doesnt hit until brix that take you over 14%? Will you forsake balance just to achieve a number? What if a place expresses better at 14.2 than 13.6? Will you decline those grapes or simply make the lesser wine? Not trying to be rude, just messin' with you a bit!

John,
'Sorry to be so slow; I was out of the country.
Your points are entirely valid and my initial response was imprecise.
My goal is to never make wines above 14% (the absolute on no new oak does hold, however). I have no fear of watering back, although I would not sacrafice balance for a 13.9% abv.
So I will work only with growers and vineyard managers that will work with me in this regard. And, if the occasion should arise, that I do make a wine over 14%, I will think very seriously of cutting the price. That's me, of course and this is not a business that will be putting food on my table or putting my kids thru school - a luxury very few winemakers have.
But then, I suspect I will learn some lessons harder than others.
Best, Jim

[Randy Sloan]

My name is Randy Sloan and I use new oak.

There are some pretty generalized statements on this thread. Not all oak barrels are created equal. Not all toasts are the same. Not all varieties are the same. And not all vineyards are the same. And the exact same oak regimen will affect different wines differently. You'd think reading this thread that the barrel industry should only make used barrels.

We've found we like to use about 70% new French from 4-5 different copperages, primarly M+ toast. And yet, despite the new oak, the wines are good.

[Jason Hagen]

[truce.gif] My name is Randy Sloan and I use new oak.

There are some pretty generalized statements on this thread. Not all oak barrels are created equal. Not all toasts are the same. Not all varieties are the same. And not all vineyards are the same. And the exact same oak regimen will affect different wines differently. You'd think reading this thread that the barrel industry should only make used barrels.

We've found we like to use about 70% new French from 4-5 different copperages, primarly M+ toast. And yet, despite the new oak, the wines are good.

[john holdredge]

So I will work only with growers and vineyard managers that will work with me in this regard. And, if the occasion should arise, that I do make a wine over 14%, I will think very seriously of cutting the price. Best, Jim

but what if, god forbid, that 14.3% wine is the absolute best damn wine you've ever made and it totally rocks your world and those around you?

I just think that pre-judging wine based on numbers sets one up for "palate comeupance" (where your palate shows your brain that your brain doesnt have a clue!).

I have no use for 16% alc wines...and yet I have had some rockin' wines up there (a Calisle Sonoma County with a stated 16.2 on the label IIRC most recently) that left me speechless. I appreciate the goal you state- but just as nature can screw up the best laid plans, she can also give blessings in disguise.

But I'll take the price reduction if you do, and thank you very much!

[Jim Cowan]

but what if, god forbid, that 14.3% wine is the absolute best damn wine you've ever made and it totally rocks your world and those around you?

I just think that pre-judging wine based on numbers sets one up for "palate comeupance" (where your palate shows your brain that your brain doesnt have a clue!).

I have no use for 16% alc wines...and yet I have had some rockin' wines up there (a Calisle Sonoma County with a stated 16.2 on the label IIRC most recently) that left me speechless. I appreciate the goal you state- but just as nature can screw up the best laid plans, she can also give blessings in disguise.

But I'll take the price reduction if you do, and thank you very much!

John,
Everything you say is true and I have no quarrel with it. I too have experienced truly great wines above the 14% abv level.

But I promote my wines by saying no new oak and under 14%. That may be a silly 'line in the sand,' but it is the one I hold out to my customers when I ask them to buy and I intend on keeping my promise. If I can't, I don't want my customers thinking its just a bait and switch.
As you say, I might get a 14.3% syrah that is so splendid I can't believe it - that doesn't mean I won't make the wine or won't release it. But making wine and selling wine are two different things (at least for me) and I will not hold myself out as doing one thing and then do another - at least, not at the same price point.

As I say, I may learn the error of my ways and I don't for a minute expect anybody else to do it this way. But I have thought this through and, at least for now, this is the choice I make.

I'll let you know how it works out.
Best, Jim

[Ray Walker]

Very interesting topic guys! I used the following this year
Lot 1 60% (2.5 barrel lot)
Lot 2 33%
Lot 3 20%

I chose to get some new wood into the cycle so I would know exactly where the barrels came from. Going forward, I am looking at dropping my %s down where available to
Lot 1 25%
Lot 2 0%
Lot 3 20%

I can't say that I want to make theories based on my 1 year experience with the initial setup. However, I am interested in following this guideline, still open to adjustments if they offer interest.

[Ken Zinns]

I chose to get some new wood into the cycle so I would know exactly where the barrels came from. Going forward, I am looking at dropping my %s down...

I've heard of other people doing the same thing, Ray. Makes a lot of sense to me if you have any doubts about used barrels.

[Ray Walker]

Hey Ken,
it seems like a decent way to do it. The thing is that I planned to eventually have only barrels that I purchased new, having very low %s actually new in the end. With my desired %s, it is going to take a long time. So, I'm thinking of just buying a bunch used each year from the same source. This source uses the same cooper as I do. So, should be easy.

[Randy Sloan]

I just think that pre-judging wine based on numbers sets one up for "palate comeupance" (where your palate shows your brain that your brain doesnt have a clue!).

Good post (and advice), John. I don't believe vintners should chase lab numbers or new oak percentages any more than they should be chasing score points. They're just numbers. Folks rebuy, or don't rebuy, wines based upon whether they like the taste.

Jim, your project is your own and you should run it exactly the way you want, but you should not worry about folks thinking you're pulling a bait and switch if you become a little more flexible in your understanding on what good wines you can make. Your customers, if they buy again, will be buying because of what is in the bottle, not your stated philosophy.

[Jim Cowan]

Jim, your project is your own and you should run it exactly the way you want, but you should not worry about folks thinking you're pulling a bait and switch if you become a little more flexible in your understanding on what good wines you can make. Your customers, if they buy again, will be buying because of what is in the bottle, not your stated philosophy.

Input appreciated.
I'll think on it.
Best, Jim

[Terence T-Bone Livingston]

[My goal is to never make wines above 14% (the absolute on no new oak does hold, however). I have no fear of watering back, although I would not sacrafice balance for a 13.9% abv.
So I will work only with growers and vineyard managers that will work with me in this regard. But then, I suspect I will learn some lessons harder than others.
Best, Jim

I hear there are some vineyards in France looking for newcombers!

;) Seriously, good luck with this. It's a long, learning ,growing process. Every year is different. Do the best you can for what you're given. Cheers.

[Ray Walker]

[My goal is to never make wines above 14% (the absolute on no new oak does hold, however). I have no fear of watering back, although I would not sacrafice balance for a 13.9% abv.
So I will work only with growers and vineyard managers that will work with me in this regard. But then, I suspect I will learn some lessons harder than others.
Best, Jim

I hear there are some vineyards in France looking for newcombers

This is false...

[Todd Hamina]

Sometimes I like new oak, and sometimes I don't. I always buys me some though. The lines blur between dirty habit and beautiful thing...

[john holdredge]

but what if, god forbid, that 14.3% wine is the absolute best damn wine you've ever made and it totally rocks your world and those around you?

I just think that pre-judging wine based on numbers sets one up for "palate comeupance" (where your palate shows your brain that your brain doesnt have a clue!).

I have no use for 16% alc wines...and yet I have had some rockin' wines up there (a Calisle Sonoma County with a stated 16.2 on the label IIRC most recently) that left me speechless. I appreciate the goal you state- but just as nature can screw up the best laid plans, she can also give blessings in disguise.

But I'll take the price reduction if you do, and thank you very much!

John,
Everything you say is true and I have no quarrel with it. I too have experienced truly great wines above the 14% abv level.

But I promote my wines by saying no new oak and under 14%. That may be a silly 'line in the sand,' but it is the one I hold out to my customers when I ask them to buy and I intend on keeping my promise. If I can't, I don't want my customers thinking its just a bait and switch.
As you say, I might get a 14.3% syrah that is so splendid I can't believe it - that doesn't mean I won't make the wine or won't release it. But making wine and selling wine are two different things (at least for me) and I will not hold myself out as doing one thing and then do another - at least, not at the same price point.

As I say, I may learn the error of my ways and I don't for a minute expect anybody else to do it this way. But I have thought this through and, at least for now, this is the choice I make.

I'll let you know how it works out.
Best, Jim

Fair enough- but don't forget my discount!

[David Dain Smith]

Very interesting topic guys! I used the following this year
Lot 1 60% (2.5 barrel lot)
Lot 2 33%
Lot 3 20%

I chose to get some new wood into the cycle so I would know exactly where the barrels came from. Going forward, I am looking at dropping my %s down where available to
Lot 1 25%
Lot 2 0%
Lot 3 20%

I can't say that I want to make theories based on my 1 year experience with the initial setup. However, I am interested in following this guideline, still open to adjustments if they offer interest.

This seems very wise imho. Especially since you will have some high quality one year old barrels to supplement your reduced percentage of new barrels.
I love, repeat love, one year old barrels. I would do the Florida Jim thing and go with no new oak if I could use one year old barrels all the time as appropriate ;)

Dain

[Ray Walker]

Very interesting topic guys! I used the following this year
Lot 1 60% (2.5 barrel lot)
Lot 2 33%
Lot 3 20%

I chose to get some new wood into the cycle so I would know exactly where the barrels came from. Going forward, I am looking at dropping my %s down where available to
Lot 1 25%
Lot 2 0%
Lot 3 20%

I can't say that I want to make theories based on my 1 year experience with the initial setup. However, I am interested in following this guideline, still open to adjustments if they offer interest.

This seems very wise imho. Especially since you will have some high quality one year old barrels to supplement your reduced percentage of new barrels.
I love, repeat love, one year old barrels. I would do the Florida Jim thing and go with no new oak if I could use one year old barrels all the time as appropriate ;)

Dain

hey David
Thanks. I having been thinking about just that but was considering that I would like the winemaking choices to be somewhat consistent for each lot moving forward (fairly close in the 09s shirt of some whole cluster on the MSD). The rub is Chambertin. I can find examples of the others having 0% new oak and doing fine (Rousseau's C-C for example) but not Chambertin. This is my issue at present. Something will be figured out soon.

Cheers

[M. Smith]

As an armchair wine enthusiast, and having searched for an appropriate thread in which to post the following comment, I hereby turn the mike over to someone surfacing as a rec within the blogosphere

http://www.drvino.com/2010/01/28/mayaca ... #more-5997

http://www.drvino.com/2010/01/27/visiti ... #more-5980

recently:

As Bob Travers ventures to say, “all that talk of physiological ripeness these days with cabernet is simply an excuse to try and get huge crop loads to ripen sufficiently, as cabernet is always going to taste really green at those yields unless you let the grapes hang out there until they are nearly raisins.” But if the yields are kept low, then one can get good phenolic ripeness in the grapes without having to produce a wine at ridiculously high alcohol levels of over fifteen percent.

[David Dain Smith]

Very interesting topic guys! I used the following this year
Lot 1 60% (2.5 barrel lot)
Lot 2 33%
Lot 3 20%

I chose to get some new wood into the cycle so I would know exactly where the barrels came from. Going forward, I am looking at dropping my %s down where available to
Lot 1 25%
Lot 2 0%
Lot 3 20%

I can't say that I want to make theories based on my 1 year experience with the initial setup. However, I am interested in following this guideline, still open to adjustments if they offer interest.

This seems very wise imho. Especially since you will have some high quality one year old barrels to supplement your reduced percentage of new barrels.
I love, repeat love, one year old barrels. I would do the Florida Jim thing and go with no new oak if I could use one year old barrels all the time as appropriate ;)

Dain

hey David
Thanks. I having been thinking about just that but was considering that I would like the winemaking choices to be somewhat consistent for each lot moving forward (fairly close in the 09s shirt of some whole cluster on the MSD). The rub is Chambertin. I can find examples of the others having 0% new oak and doing fine (Rousseau's C-C for example) but not Chambertin. This is my issue at present. Something will be figured out soon.

Cheers

The Maison Ilan situation is complicated by the small number of barrels as well.
FWIW, I bet Chambertin fruit will happily meld with new oak.
Lest I confuse anyone, a 1 year old barrel is by no means the same as no oak influence. Just makes it easier to have some oak in a small batch.

DDS

[Brian Loring]

As Bob Travers ventures to say, “all that talk of physiological ripeness these days with cabernet is simply an excuse to try and get huge crop loads to ripen sufficiently, as cabernet is always going to taste really green at those yields unless you let the grapes hang out there until they are nearly raisins.” But if the yields are kept low, then one can get good phenolic ripeness in the grapes without having to produce a wine at ridiculously high alcohol levels of over fifteen percent.

Not true. If anything, yields these days are lower than in the past. In warmer years, you may allow yields to be a bit higher to help give you longer hang time, but the picking decisions are still the same for the riper style wines - and it's based on physiological characteristics as well as taste. It's sad when people can't defend what they do without attacking and making up stories about "the competition".

[M. Smith]

Crop load, which limited leaf area to fruit ratio, appeared to be the dominant
factor in determining timing of grape physiological ripeness as expressed by °Brix over other factors such as fruit exposure.

The effect of shading and crop load on flavour and aroma
compounds in Sauvignon blanc grapes and wine
by R.J. Ford

Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Degree of M.Appl.Sc.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:P18 ... clnk&gl=us

[Wes Barton]

As Bob Travers ventures to say, “all that talk of physiological ripeness these days with cabernet is simply an excuse to try and get huge crop loads to ripen sufficiently, as cabernet is always going to taste really green at those yields unless you let the grapes hang out there until they are nearly raisins.” But if the yields are kept low, then one can get good phenolic ripeness in the grapes without having to produce a wine at ridiculously high alcohol levels of over fifteen percent.

Not true. If anything, yields these days are lower than in the past. In warmer years, you may allow yields to be a bit higher to help give you longer hang time, but the picking decisions are still the same for the riper style wines - and it's based on physiological characteristics as well as taste. It's sad when people can't defend what they do without attacking and making up stories about "the competition".

Maybe he's a little out of touch with how any people are doing an excellent job making riper style Cabs. But maybe he's not inclined to explore because of negative reinforcement...

I've definitely had plenty of (expensive) dense, super-ripe, fancily oaked Napa Cabs that hadn't shed their green - instead they were covering it up. (They'd also lost a lot of their phenolics.) I may be more sensitive to bitterness than most people, but I see other people with the same reactions. And as bottle age mellows the fruit, I see a lot more people notice the nasty green bitterness. I consider these producers pretenders, because their wines are a parody of what the masters of riper styled wines produce. (But I also think they are the majority.)

[Ray Walker]

Very interesting topic guys! I used the following this year
Lot 1 60% (2.5 barrel lot)
Lot 2 33%
Lot 3 20%

I chose to get some new wood into the cycle so I would know exactly where the barrels came from. Going forward, I am looking at dropping my %s down where available to
Lot 1 25%
Lot 2 0%
Lot 3 20%

I can't say that I want to make theories based on my 1 year experience with the initial setup. However, I am interested in following this guideline, still open to adjustments if they offer interest.

This seems very wise imho. Especially since you will have some high quality one year old barrels to supplement your reduced percentage of new barrels.
I love, repeat love, one year old barrels. I would do the Florida Jim thing and go with no new oak if I could use one year old barrels all the time as appropriate ;)

Dain

hey David
Thanks. I having been thinking about just that but was considering that I would like the winemaking choices to be somewhat consistent for each lot moving forward (fairly close in the 09s shirt of some whole cluster on the MSD). The rub is Chambertin. I can find examples of the others having 0% new oak and doing fine (Rousseau's C-C for example) but not Chambertin. This is my issue at present. Something will be figured out soon.

Cheers

The Maison Ilan situation is complicated by the small number of barrels as well.
FWIW, I bet Chambertin fruit will happily meld with new oak.
Lest I confuse anyone, a 1 year old barrel is by no means the same as no oak influence. Just makes it easier to have some oak in a small batch.

DDS

Great point David! No (perceptible) oak influence would be more in line with using say 3 year and older barrels. My 'oakiest' barrels I used this year were actually 2 year old Rousseau btw. One of the main reasons I am trying to get more info on this very complicated subject. My small lots are a big issue when trying to capture a set % throughout the line.

[Todd Hamina]

New oak can do delightful things to a wine. I think it's important to be judicious about the usage. And therein lies the problem, I would recommend to all to taste through different cellars in order get a handle on coopers, forest and treatment. The blanket statement that new wood is bad, simply is unfounded.

[Bob Wood]

The blanket statement that new wood is bad, simply is unfounded.

That's why I've gotten better in my older years. I was REALLY obnoxious when I was new.

Plus, on a serious note, this is an illuminating statement from someone who used to disagree with his winery owner about the amount of NFO used for the wines, and I'm in agreement. I like SOME new oak, especially French, in my reds and chardonnay. I'm not so thrilled about American oak most of the time and I sure as hell don't like new oak in pinot gris, sauvignon blanc and most other whites.

[Eric Keating]

The blanket statement that new wood is bad, simply is unfounded.

That's why I've gotten better in my older years. I was REALLY obnoxious when I was new.

Plus, on a serious note, this is an illuminating statement from someone who used to disagree with his winery owner about the amount of NFO used for the wines, and I'm in agreement. I like SOME new oak, especially French, in my reds and chardonnay. I'm not so thrilled about American oak most of the time and I sure as hell don't like new oak in pinot gris, sauvignon blanc and most other whites.

The only variety I like to use a touch of new American Oak is Zinfandel (generally for Zinfandel, I go about 15% new American, 15% new French, 35% seasoned French, 35% Neutral French).
In the early trials, the 2 new American (out of 13 total) barrels of my 2009 Dry Creek Zinfandel added a nice structure and finish to an extremely fruit driven wine. Furthermore, I am glad I am only using 4 new total barrels because the fruit is so outstanding in the neutral barrels that using any more might mask it too much. Once racked, I see it having the balance that I am looking for.

I am not sure why I explained that in detail. Maybe it's because I just tasted through all my barrels a couple of days ago to see the immediate impact of, and to compare and contrast, the new and used oak that I use.

I guess I just don't agree with a specific oak formula for all wines. It not only varies from variety to variety, but vintage to vintage. I know this is not breaking news as most would agree with this. But this is a very important topic in my mind, and I just wanted to state my opinion.

[Randy Sloan]

I guess I just don't agree with a specific oak formula for all wines. It not only varies from variety to variety, but vintage to vintage.

Exactly. This is one of the primary areas where the talent, knowledge, tastes, and sometimes just plain intuition of the winemaker come in to play.