You can't handle the oak

Stuart · Post by **Stuart** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:44 pm

Oak is killing our wines. They may as well not be called wine these days because I can't smell or taste fruit anymore. It's just oak.
Don't get me wrong oak is an integral component in red wine, but it should be in balance with the rest of the wine. These days winemakers are just appying lashings of oak to give the impression of quality (and hence squeeze more dollars out of the unsuspecting punter), without a regard for the balance of the wine. Basically they are putting big oak in wines that don't have the fruit depth or right kind of tannins to match, resuting in crap. Shouldn't the wine complement the fruit not dominate it?
So if your wine does not have the balls, don't bother dressing it up in oak - it just makes it worse.

Thus, I have abandoned the majority of red wines on the market and gone back to those 'traditional' wines, for example Tahbilk, DeBortoli, Craiglee and many pinots. What a revelation, this is what wine used to taste like. I can still plainly taste the oak here anyway. Some in the wine media tend to look down on these traditional styles. I don;t know why these are the best wines going around... in my opinion.
Happy Drinking
Stuart

Red Bigot · Post by **Red Bigot** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:04 pm

A bit of a sweeping generalisation here, in the Ben Canaider mould. You should swap notes with TORB about coffee oak in wines these days.

Yes, there are a lot of oaky wines out there, but probably not more than in the 90's. Some of them have the fruit to handle it and emerge as superb mature reds, some of them will turn hard or flabby. Have you ever had a nicely mature 90 E&E Black Pepper Shiraz? It was pretty oaky on release and turned into something sublime after 10-12 years. I can look through my cellar records for many more examples. BTW, I've had some pretty oaky De Bortoli Yarra Valley reds over the years...

Since you seem to be a bit sensitive to oak, here is a list of wines I've bought over the past year that I don't think are over-oaked. I'd be interested to see which of these you think are over-oaked.

Producer DS Vintage
Winter Creek Shiraz 2004
Woody Nook Shiraz 2002
Woody Nook Cabernet (Gallagher's Choice) 2002
Happ's Three Hills Nebbiolo 2001
Happ's Charles Andreas 2002
Schwarz Nitschke Block Shiraz 2004
Cullens Cabernet Merlot 2003
Penny's Hill Shiraz 2004
Wirra Wirra The Angelus 2002
Glaetzer Godolphin Shiraz-Cabernet 2004
Shaw and Smith M3 Shiraz 2003
Redbank Sallys Paddock 2002
Haan Wilhelmus Cab Blend 2002
Noons Reserve Shiraz 2004
Noons Reserve Cabernet 2004
Balthazar of the Barossa Shiraz 2002
Balnaves of Coonawarra Tally Cabernet 2001
Wynn's Johnson's Shiraz- Cabernet 2003
D'arenberg Twenty-Eight Road 2002
Clonakilla Shiraz/Viogner 2004
Seppelt St Peters Shiraz 2003
Winter Creek Old Barossa Blend 2004
Penley Estate Reserve Cabernet 2002
Heartland LC-LC Shiraz 2004
Heartland LC-LC Cabernet 2004
Tim Adams Fergus Grenache Blend 2004
Domaine A / Stoney Vineyard Coal River Cabernet 2000
Marius Single Vineyard Shiraz 2003
Majella Shiraz 2003
Majella Cabernet 2003
Cape Mentelle Cabernet 2001
Dominique Portet Heathcote Shiraz 2003
Chain of Ponds Amadeus Cabernet Sauvignon (KHL) 2002
Winter Creek Shiraz 2003
Wynn's Harold Cabernet 2001
Yering Station Reserve Shiraz-Viognier 2003
Penfolds Magill Estate 2002
Seppelt Chalambar Shiraz 2003
Seppelt St Peters Shiraz 2002
Dalwhinnie Moonambel Shiraz 2003
Dalwhinnie Moonambel Cabernet 2003
Warrabilla Parola's Cabernet 2004
Warrabilla Parola's Shiraz 2004
Warrabilla Parola's Durif 2004
Knappstein Enterprise Cabernet 2002

JamieBahrain · Post by **JamieBahrain** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:27 pm

Nothing worse than aged wine, that's been over oaked, and nver really had the fruit depth to integrate.

I had a bottle of 97 Classic Clare cabernet recently. It was a shocker. Hard drinking from awful oak dominance throughout.

Red Bigot · Post by **Red Bigot** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:10 pm

JamieBahrain wrote:Nothing worse than aged wine, that's been over oaked, and nver really had the fruit depth to integrate.

I had a bottle of 97 Classic Clare cabernet recently. It was a shocker. Hard drinking from awful oak dominance throughout.

Indeed, plenty of examples like this, as there are for the opposite. I didn't buy the 97, but the 96 was oaky too when young and is drinking reasonably well now. Similarly for the Shiraz from those 2 vintages, the fruit is bursting out of the 96 CC shiraz despite the amount of oak it saw, the winemakers don't always judge well how much oak the fruit can soak up.

Stuart · Post by **Stuart** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:15 pm

Red Bigot wrote: I'd be interested to see which of these you think are over-oaked.

Cullens Cabernet Merlot 2003
Penny's Hill Shiraz 2004
Domaine A / Stoney Vineyard Coal River Cabernet 2000

I agree with Cullen, Domaine A and others on the list, but Penny's Hill? I haven't had the 2004, but the other shiraz's I have had from Penny's Hill have been oak bombs. So unless the 2004 is radically different, I cant agree on that one. Maybe I'm over sensitive to oak, but I don't think so. I bet the pendulum will swing back to lower-oak styles in coming years...I hope.
Cheers,
Stu

Red Bigot · Post by **Red Bigot** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:31 pm

Stuart wrote:
Red Bigot wrote: I'd be interested to see which of these you think are over-oaked.

Cullens Cabernet Merlot 2003
Penny's Hill Shiraz 2004
Domaine A / Stoney Vineyard Coal River Cabernet 2000

I agree with Cullen, Domaine A and others on the list, but Penny's Hill? I haven't had the 2004, but the other shiraz's I have had from Penny's Hill have been oak bombs. So unless the 2004 is radically different, I cant agree on that one. Maybe I'm over sensitive to oak, but I don't think so. I bet the pendulum will swing back to lower-oak styles in coming years...I hope.
Cheers,
Stu

I left a few in there to check out your limits. The Pennys Hill 2004 has good fruit and restrained oak levels for my palate, certainly not oak dominant on the nose or palate. It's the first PH I've bought since about the 98 vintage though.

In the end it doesn't matter, I'm sure you can find wines that suit your oak-intolerant palate, you may just have to look a bit harder. With my more oak tolerant palate I have less of an issue and I'm happy to back my judgement if I think the fruit is up to the oak and the wine is in balance, I make a few mistakes, but not that many that it causes me a problem.

Your palate preferences can't be argued against, that's personal. I was only suggesting your leading statement was an over-generalisation, even allowing for my own more oak-tolerant palate.

platinum · Post by **platinum** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:02 pm

Just drinking a Wolf Blass Grey Label Cab 2001 and all I can say is lucky I only had the 1 in the cellar. 14.5% and 5 Years in new Oak

If you want an example of what too much oak can do to a wine try this :cry:

.

Stuart · Post by **Stuart** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:06 pm

Point taken, indeed it is a personal choice.

Red Bigot · Post by **Red Bigot** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:14 pm

platinum wrote:Just drinking a Wolf Blass Grey Label Cab 2001 and all I can say is lucky I only had the 1 in the cellar. 14.5% and 5 Years in new Oak If you want an example of what too much oak can do to a wine try this .

Looks like everyone is on the oak bandwagon these days. Lucky you didn't try some of these from the 90's, they had more oak then, but probably better fruit, they can be very good at 10 yo.

I guess you don't buy John's Blend then? :-)

Watta bunch of wimps, take up smoking and join the John Glaetzer "No wood, No good" brigade. ;-)

platinum · Post by **platinum** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:19 pm

The funny part is Brian, I am not usually over sensitive to oak or Wolf Blass wines. Grey and Yellow label 1996's are lovely wines on my palate. Maybe its the extra fruit or more complex due to the blending back then?

tex0403 · Post by **tex0403** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:11 am

Stuart if you have a low tolerance to oak why dont you try a few un-oaked red wines.
Torbreck Juvenilles, Teusner Joshua and Teusner Riebke.

Stuart · Post by **Stuart** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:29 pm

tex0403 wrote:Stuart if you have a low tolerance to oak why dont you try a few un-oaked red wines.
Torbreck Juvenilles, Teusner Joshua and Teusner Riebke.

Thanks for the tips, but I do actually enjoy the addition of oak and believe that overall it enhances wine - as long as it is in balance. I was just making the point that too many of todays wines are over-oaked - especially 'premium' wines trying to fluff themselves up. I don't think I am any more sensitive to oak than anyone else, it's just that I prefer fruit to domainate the nose and palate, with oak merely playing a supportive role which should enhance the friut. Isn't that what wine is about, the fruit..the grapes? I just don't like wine where oak is the major player, but obviously some posters do.
Cheers,
Stuart

michel · Post by **michel** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:16 am

JamieBahrain wrote:Nothing worse than aged wine, that's been over oaked, and nver really had the fruit depth to integrate.

I had a bottle of 97 Classic Clare cabernet recently. It was a shocker. Hard drinking from awful oak dominance throughout.

know the wine well- halliday rated it in his top 100- god auwful oak .......