For The Love Of Port

http://www.anicholsworthofwine.com/pdfs ... n_2010.pdf

We don't get to talk about oak all that much due to the fact that the oak used for Port is neutral and rarely imparts any flavor, albeit it does add some color when Port has extended time in pipa, tonel, balseirso, etc. I enjoyed this article and wonder what you all think?

Clearly the ramifications for Douro wine are far greater than with Port.

I am something of an oakaholic, but I certainly want to be able to taste the underlying beverage and understand Bruce's points. Some of the best wines and beers have a subtle oak flavor that enhances the overall experience, without dominating it.

In the beer world there has been a similar but not identical obsession with oak as well. Barrel aged beers are all the rage, and I believe wood and barrel aged was the biggest growth category at last year's Great American Beer Festival. I'm caught in the wave too, as I currently have three beers on draft all of which featured some time in a barrel (one a fresh barrel dedicated to beer, one a former brandy barrel, one a former whiskey barrel); and I have two more currently aging in barrels (both former merlot).

While I'm open to new styles and interpretations, I also like to be a traditionalist in some sense. I believe that aging in a barrel is the best way to make an oaked wine or beer. But really, "Lets hope these alternatives only go into the vast sea of blended plonk ..." Why should this matter? If a beverage maker can use an oak spiral to impart an appropriate oak flavor and otherwise produce a balanced wine or beer, should it matter?

While I don't mind some oak in a wine, too much is never a good thing. I don't think one can come up with a set amount that is too much, as everyone has different tolerance levels. As the article points out, and to which I agree, is that oak should play a supporting role not a primary role. Of course this is much harder to determine as some wines that seem a bit too oaky early on, integrate nicely as they age. So a wine with a good track record of integration later on, may initially anyways, be shunned by those not versed in them.

I am glad to hear that many wineries are stepping away from "parkerization" and using a ton of oak just because a reviewer or two likes that style and thinks we all should too.

Generally, I enjoy the nuance oak can provide in a red wine, particularly some of the creamy, roasted coffee notes, and secondary characteristics it seems to develop with aging. And I'm actually happy to taste a big wallop of oak when I'm confronted with a glass of cheap red wine in a bar or restaurant, as it really does help cover a multitude of flaws and smooth a wine out, as the article mentions. Along those lines, I've always thought the over-oaking phenomenon and the high alcohol phenomenon went hand in hand to some extent, as excessive heat is one of the things wood can help cover up -- at least for a while.

Now, in my whites, I'm a little less tolerant, as I tend to prefer a zippier style over a buttery style, and I like to able to taste the grapes. But I'm always amazed how a great white Burgundy, even after a big dose of oak and full malo, can integrate its oak with aging, to really add interest and complexity without crushing the varietal character.

I'm not an oakaphobe and I do enjoy premiere cru Bordeaux and Burgundy, Chateau d'Yquem and the like; as long as I'm not paying. I also like non-oaked wines as well; Germans, Alsace, old school Italy. Oak vs. non-oaked is a simplistic concept IMHO. You have to judge each wine on it's own merits.

I visited the Stony Hill winery last year. This is a small winery in the northern Napa Valley (on the west side of the valley on a -- you guessed it -- stony hill). They have long made unoaked chardonnay. They prefer to not use oak and to not encourage malolactic fermentation in making their chardonnay or in their other white wines. They want the unique characteristics of their soil/microclimate and the fruit of their grapes to dominate their wines. That's a pretty clear philosophy. Interestingly, the wine maker pointed out to me why many others embraced oak and malolactice fermentation: this makes the wine ready to drink much earlier. Restaurants want this, as they do not want to sit on inventory for a long time before the wines are palatable. I brought back some Stony Hill 2006 chardonnay from this trip. I tried a bottle in 2009 and it was pretty harsh and unfriendly. I came to the conclusion, from my tasting and from reading some stuff on-line about these Stony Hill chardonnays, that I would be well advised to tuck this away in my cellar for 10 years. How many people are willing to age their chardonnays 10 years before drinking? How many wineries are willing to age their wines 10 years before releasing? To me the economics of this help very much in understanding what is going on. On the other hand, as others have already remarked, judicious use of Oak and malolactic fermentation are not necessarily offensive, rather excesses in the use of these techniques of softening wines is what is the problem.

By the way, the 2006 Stony Hill chardonnay I tasted at their winery tasted excellent. The tasting host told me that you can judge the likely future of the wine after aging by opening for a period of time: for example, 1 day open in the refrigerator may correspond roughly to 1 year of aging; 10 days open in the refrigerator may correspond roughly to 10 years of aging. I assume they are pre-opening these bottles to help show them at their best, to which I have no objection. I think it is interesting that this seems similar to the technique of Port drinkers of long decant times to help along the enjoyment of not completely mature vintage Ports. I also liked their riesling and their "semillon du soleil." The later is a light, fruity dessert wine that is made by leaving picked grapes out on drying panels for several days. The riesling and the chardonnay, tasted one right after the other, were remarkably similar. I was surprised at this, but my tasting host told me this is because the influence of the soils/microclimate in the wines was very strong. I had never had that experience before.

It does not matter to me. If I like the wine, I don't care what method they used.

Michael,
I've generally enjoyed Stony Hill's Chard's and I think overall they make some of the best Cali Chard's you can buy (along with Mt. Eden in the Santa Cruz Mtns.). The oldest SH I've had was either 1967 or 1968, showing some age, but still enjoyable. But I've also had some disappointments from them as well, but like any wines it's all about what vintage it is.