Ceteris Paribus, if you aged 50% of a red wine in new (insert your preferred variety here) oak and the other 50% in Stainless steel (or some more inert container) then blended before bottling, how would the resulting wine differ from that aged 100% in 1YO used oak?
Would the wine seem fresher?
Would it suit some grape varieties over others?
Would it suit French oak over American?
Would there be the same difference over time as there is with no bottle age?
How much difference would the level of toast on the barrels make?
I know this is performed in some lower-end commercial wines, but I don't recall hearing anything about this method in premium reds.
A general question, I know. But I am only expecting general answers. Awaiting opinions...
Oak or no oak?
Having been playing around with my own wine in the last three years I can tell you that oak treatment is as much art as science.
I don't play with stainless although I'm given to understand that a large amount of cheap wine is made that way with oak powder/chips/planks/logs submerged in the tank and immersed in the wine. This is not the way to make good wine, better off using old barrels. Remember that the angels take a share through evaporation and that wouldn't happen in stainless.
Some of my wine gets aged in new oak and some in used oak then blended prior to bottling. The new barrel might be too oaky on its own but blended with older oak matured wine comes out about right. Sometimes new ends are put on used barrels to get a bit of both in the one barrel. Then there's shaving the staves before reusing the barrel. Toasting level is another factor. I know of one new barrel I was shown in the Barossa that was supposed to be lightly toasted but the wine after a few months looked like it was in a heavy toast barrel. The cooper probably went for a leak whilst it was toasting and it got overdone.
Time in oak is important too. Again as much art here as science but the most oak flavour is imparted early in the maturation then progressively less.
Managing wines in barrels, blending and making the right decisions is part of great winemaking.
Not sure that answers your question but not sure your questions are answerable in an exact way. Over to the winemakers to comment.
I don't play with stainless although I'm given to understand that a large amount of cheap wine is made that way with oak powder/chips/planks/logs submerged in the tank and immersed in the wine. This is not the way to make good wine, better off using old barrels. Remember that the angels take a share through evaporation and that wouldn't happen in stainless.
Some of my wine gets aged in new oak and some in used oak then blended prior to bottling. The new barrel might be too oaky on its own but blended with older oak matured wine comes out about right. Sometimes new ends are put on used barrels to get a bit of both in the one barrel. Then there's shaving the staves before reusing the barrel. Toasting level is another factor. I know of one new barrel I was shown in the Barossa that was supposed to be lightly toasted but the wine after a few months looked like it was in a heavy toast barrel. The cooper probably went for a leak whilst it was toasting and it got overdone.
Time in oak is important too. Again as much art here as science but the most oak flavour is imparted early in the maturation then progressively less.
Managing wines in barrels, blending and making the right decisions is part of great winemaking.
Not sure that answers your question but not sure your questions are answerable in an exact way. Over to the winemakers to comment.
Cheers - Steve
If you can see through it, it's not worth drinking!
If you can see through it, it's not worth drinking!
To add to what Steve has said, the quality and grain of the oak also has an impact on the wine. The tighter the grain the finer the tannins imparted from the oak.
In terms of varieties, matching the oak to the wine is critical if you want good wine. So yes, the variety should not onlt be matched to French or American, but the right sort of barrel for that wine.
One example is d'Arry's; of their low end wines they use huge vats for 50% of the blend as these vats apparently help produce a terrific mouthfeel.
You could probaly write a book to answer your question.
In terms of varieties, matching the oak to the wine is critical if you want good wine. So yes, the variety should not onlt be matched to French or American, but the right sort of barrel for that wine.
One example is d'Arry's; of their low end wines they use huge vats for 50% of the blend as these vats apparently help produce a terrific mouthfeel.
You could probaly write a book to answer your question.
Steve and Ric,
Thanks for the replies. My question more directly is: what impact does blending a non-oaked wine with an oaked wine have on the resultant blend.
I am well aware of the 'art' involved in matching the type/size/toast/quality of oak to a particular grape variety and how this changes from vintage to vintage. But what if we held all of the variables constant, other than the percentage non-oaked?
Torb, you went part of the way in answering my question with the D’Arenberg example – terrific mouthfeel. What is the basis for this? Is it freshness? What about longevity?
I'm just trying to assess what benefit (if any) there would be for a wine made with high quality fruit (think RWT) in adopting this oak + no oak approach, given that the oaked portion is left in barrel longer to make up for the lack of oak characteristics in the non-oaked portion. Possibly an open-ended question.
Thanks for the replies. My question more directly is: what impact does blending a non-oaked wine with an oaked wine have on the resultant blend.
I am well aware of the 'art' involved in matching the type/size/toast/quality of oak to a particular grape variety and how this changes from vintage to vintage. But what if we held all of the variables constant, other than the percentage non-oaked?
Torb, you went part of the way in answering my question with the D’Arenberg example – terrific mouthfeel. What is the basis for this? Is it freshness? What about longevity?
I'm just trying to assess what benefit (if any) there would be for a wine made with high quality fruit (think RWT) in adopting this oak + no oak approach, given that the oaked portion is left in barrel longer to make up for the lack of oak characteristics in the non-oaked portion. Possibly an open-ended question.
mphatic wrote:
Torb, you went part of the way in answering my question with the D’Arenberg example – terrific mouthfeel. What is the basis for this? Is it freshness? What about longevity?
In this case, the impact on the mouth feel is coming from the old oak vats, not from the stainless component. The stainless component could be a reason for freshness but (and I am not a winemaker) if you wanted to have masses of fresh fruit, if you bottled young and under stelvin that would be one way to achive it.
In answer to your question "what impact does blending a non-oaked wine with an oaked wine have on the resultant blend" I would have thought that it would depend on the componets you are blending.
TORB wrote:
In answer to your question "what impact does blending a non-oaked wine with an oaked wine have on the resultant blend" I would have thought that it would depend on the componets you are blending.
The same wine. Assume the entire crush for a single red varietal was fermented together (no barrel fermentation), stirred well, then split up into oak and an inert material. Age them for the same duration. Then mix.
TORB wrote:In this case, the impact on the mouth feel is coming from the old oak vats, not from the stainless component. The stainless component could be a reason for freshness but (and I am not a winemaker) if you wanted to have masses of fresh fruit, if you bottled young and under stelvin that would be one way to achive it.
re: d'Arenberg, sorry. I thought you were talking about SS vats, not old oak.
According to the Amberley Chimney Brush Shiraz tasting note, "following fermentation, the skins were pressed and a portion of the wine transferred to French and American oak barrels. The balance of the wine was stored in Stainless Steel storage, and combined with the oaked portion just before bottling."
oak
50% new oak
50% stainless.
Lets start by saying this is not low end cost.
Giaconda used to do 1/3 new , 1/3 1 YO, and 1/3 2 Year old.
My Parolas shiraz and Cab both get 100% new oak, but my wines are pretty big and will take a fair bit of new oak. Also I use Puncheons 500L as opposed to most makers these days who prefer hogsheads 280L or barriques 225L.
Having said that....Great question!
It would be style dependant, so we are talking varieties, styles. oak sources, barrell size etc.
100% new oak is pretty rare these days, its not just cost, style is heading towards less oaked wines and the days of the big oaky monsters is getting numbered with writers and judges thumbing their noses at out of balance wines.
50% new is still pretty high, but please don't think of stainless as an inert vessell. We see wines that look tanky and flat (reduced) in stainless, which can sometimes pick up with a racking.
Wines age differently in oak, again size, age, oak type etc all influence whats happening.
1 year old barrells are pretty handy, but lets face it, are a long way short of a new barrell. Barrell maker even makes a difference, AP Johns a very well fired and tend to look very smart 1 YO.
To get back to your question, It depends on what the winemaker wants, I try to use 100 % new for Parolas, but if its not up to scratch as a Parola's these wines end up as Reserves. However I'm very happy with 1 YO wood in my Reserves.
Long winded and useless answer I'm afraid.
Cheers
Smithy
home of the mega-red
Re: oak
smithy wrote: but please don't think of stainless as an inert vessell. We see wines that look tanky and flat (reduced) in stainless, which can sometimes pick up with a racking.
Smithy,
Thanks for weighing in. Looking back, I guess my question was akin to "how long is a piece of string?" I just couldn't understand what Amberley was trying to do with the wine mentioned above, unless it was an accident (eg. not realising how much impact their new oak was going to have on the wine).
And no, I definitely don't think of stainless steel as inert - hence my "or some more inert container" comment. Glass would be the best common engineering material at the moment when it comes to inert containers, however it is almost impossible to form in the thickness, shape, and size required for cylindrical fermentation tanks. Furthermore, the price would be horrendous. Square or rectangular glass holding tanks however are a different matter...
Cheers
Furthermore, the price would be horrendous. Square or rectangular glass holding tanks however are a different matter...
Not in terms of price. A rectangular 2 meter by .66 x .66 glass tank, which requires 10mm glass and holds 870 litres would have a raw glass cost of over $200. Once it gets bigger than that, you have to go to thicker glass which is even more expensive. And an increase in glass thickness of 20% does not equate to an increase in cost of 20%; its exponential not linear.
That sized tank would hold the juice from about about 1.5 tones of grapes; not much is it.
So storing wine in glass tanks in a winery would be a huge cost and then you have the problem of sealing them with airtight fittings and lids, and that would not be cheap.