Let's talk about Oak

It doesn't take too much time on this forum to see, that as far as the very knowledgable people here are concerned too much oak is a bad thing. Gary Vaynerchuk would agree - he talks about the "oak monster." Excessively oaked wines are often called "over manipulated." Very often it seems that the more expensive "reserve" wines suffer from too much oak. But I'm not really sure I can always sort out the oak from the other flavors I taste in a wine, so I'd like a little help. The clearest expression of oak I have ever tasted was at a Revolutionary War re-enactment event. The vendors were serving period food and beverages, and I bought a glass of red wine made in Madison IN from an independent wine maker. By today's standards it was pretty awful - young and rough - though probably quite authentic to the time. The first sip said OAK to me. It was obvious (though I can't really say I've ever knawed on an oak limb), and I was grateful for the lesson if not the flavor. I've never had anything as obvious since, though I've certainly picked up hints of vanilla and other flavors commonly attributed to oak barrels. Inspired by a recent thread on Chilean Carmenère, last night I pulled a bottle of 2006 Casa Silva Carmenère Reserva from my cellar to taste. This wine has a lovely deep crimson color, an alcohol content of 13.5%, and sells for an affordable $15. I decanted it, let it sit for a while and poured a glass. The wine says lush, smooth, and opulant to me, it talks of deep red and purple fruit. I did not taste any of the green stems Oswaldo had noted in other Carmenères. There is a faint, but not unpleasant, very slight sweetness to it. It finishes with a bite that I would normally attribute to tannins, but since I'm looking for oak I wonder... is the edge possibly not tannins but oak? Or oak tinged tannins? There's a slightly bitter quality to it, a woody kind of je ne sais quoi, about it that I recognize but hadn't really thought about before now. Oak? According to the web, 40% of this wine spends 6 months in French Oak barrels, though it does not say if it is new or old oak. This does not sound excessive to me. So help me out if you would. What does oak taste like? Better yet perhaps, suggest some wines to me that would illustrate oak flavors - something over-oaked vs something that sees no oak for instance, might be a great educational experience. Thanks in advance.

Oak does a lot of things.

Important to distinguish differentiate among oak flavors (varying according to type of oak and level of toast), oak effects (rounding of the wine), and oak tannins.

Damn, now I'm going to have to get this bugger to compare notes...

For me, oak means vanillin, though it also imparts tannin.

...(though I can't really say I've ever knawed on an oak limb)...

If you have access to oak chips (available from a home winemaking supply store or if you have a friend who makes wine) put a few in your mouth and chew them for a few minutes. Don't try it with a piece of oak from the lumber yard, as more than likely it will be red oak, which tastes very different. Generally, wines aged in new oak barrels need several years to mature and I believe much of the "oak bomb" criticism is from opening them too young. I don't think there have been many TNs posted here about too much oak in a 15-year old wine.

Wikipedia to the rescue.

In my opinion, this is a subject too large for a forum like this. Types of oak, barrel construction, degrees of "toasting," percentage of wine aged in barrel, age of barrel...I'm probably leaving a couple factors out. I get tired just thinking about it. I would argue that the real experts on oak reside in Rioja and in Burgundy, where barrel ageing actually is rocket science.

Bob,
I suspect that I am among the few extremists who simply can't stand any oak smell or flavor in my wine. As to trying to identify what it tastes like, there are a myriad descriptors. But for me, its more insidious than that.
Oak gets into the "core" of a wine and alters the balance and the very nature of its primary flavors. It can be obtrusive to the degree that anyone could pick it out - but worse, it can be so subtle that the purity of the wine is compromised but nothing overt is identifiable.
Of course, these are relative terms; the scale of preference is very large and, there are times when, I envy those with greater range then me. The world is an easier place to buy wine for them.

Now, with all that said, I believe oak barrels are an important step in the vinification of red wine. Often cited, the oxygen permiability of wood barrels and the very slight exchange through the staves, is a way to round-out flavors and textures. So when I make red wine, I use very old barrels that are essentially neutral as far as imparting any smell or taste but will still allow that process to occur.

As with most things in wine, preferences vary.
I just happen to be one of a fairly vocal minority that believes that if you can smell or taste oak, even in minute quantities, then the winemaker used too much.
Best, Jim

For me, too, too much oak means "vanilla" lying on top of and dominating the fruit.

Now, American oak to me often means a distinct sour dill flavor. For example, I was thoroughly enjoying a Barbera from a Sierra Foothills winery when the proprietor urged me to try his Cabernet Sauvignon, which he proudly announced had spent four years in American oak. Dill soup!

Generally, wines aged in new oak barrels need several years to mature and I believe much of the "oak bomb" criticism is from opening them too young.

I hope so! 'Cause I've got a couple of bottles that I wonder now if they were "mistakes" for me to buy! Patience! Will the foothills wine EVER integrate its oak? Interesting question!

[Generally, wines aged in new oak barrels need several years to mature and I believe much of the "oak bomb" criticism is from opening them too young. I don't think there have been many TNs posted here about too much oak in a 15-year old wine.

Had any Silver Oak, Bonny's Vnyd. lately?
But I think your statement is right more times then its not.
Best, Jim

Will the (insert the wine you are worried about here) wine EVER integrate its oak? Interesting question!

And another can of worms.
I'm not sure there are many wines that 'integrate' their oak. Some may age in a way that the oak is less pronounced and some may actually integrate the oak - but not very many in my experience.
Best, Jim

Had any Silver Oak, Bonny's Vnyd. lately? But I think your statement is right more times then its not.
Best, Jim

I did have a 16 year old Silver Oak 2 years ago and liked it a lot, but don't recall the tasting details or the vineyard. I posted about it HERE (second to last paragraph).

To recap what others have already said: Oak can impart smells, tastes, texture and structure to wine. The source of the oak, the type of oak and the toast of the barrel all contribute to what the oak imparts.

My views on the use of oak have evolved over the years. After initially finding overt vanilla and spice flavors beguiling in wine, I then entered into a "quercophobic" phase where I found any overt sense of oak offputting. I'm still pretty much there, but my latest revelation is that I can enjoy some oaky wines once the oak has been allowed to integrate with bottle aging. (This is probably a very standard view, but one that took me a decade or two to arrive at) So, I still can enjoy older Bordeaux and red Burgundies. I also now make the distinction between the textural elements that oak aging imparts (roundness, oak tannins) from the olfactory elements (vanilla, dill, spice). The former I accept even for my non-oaky wines (Syrah, Grenache, Nebbiolo, Gamay, Muscadet, Riesling) where the latter is taboo.

Mark Lipton

The oak issue is an interesting one.

Clearly, oak is an adulterant in wine. It is not an integral part of the wine making process, and wine can be (and many are) made in the complete absence of oak.

But because of the long association with wine, it has become the most accepted adulterant, and to complicate matters, it has become a selling feature of some manufacturers. I say manufacturers as I find it hard to give the sort of activity I refer to the label 'winemaking', though that is what it is. I refer to wineries like Mondavi that have latched onto oak as an easily discernable element in wine (I think you'd have to be dead for 2 years to be unable to detect the levels they use in some of their whites) and have spent a lot of money on advertising convincing the simple-minded that anything, even cheap plonk, with oak in it is a GOOD THING and that they should buy it.

It seems to be this sort of attitude that has insidiously permeated the thinking of far too many other winemakers so that instead of using oak as a seasoning it becomes a major ingredient in their product. I'd draw a parallel between lightly salting a fish preparation and using salt to preserve the danged stuff. Some oak levels seem to replicate the latter.

But let's assume that we are talking about winemakers that are too savvy to spoil their wine by doing that sort of thing. Is the addition of a little oak, done with sensitivity necessarily a bad thing? I think that is an impossible question to answer as a generalisation.

Does oak add a certain je ne sais quoi to an aged mature red wine? Indubitably, in the case of a Bordeaux or a sensitively produced California cab (arguably not in cases where American oak and different toasts are used in many simpler, but not necessarily cheaper Australian wines.

Definitely not in the case of many whites. I consider the use of oak in Chablis to be anathema yet many producers seem to do this today, or are at least experimenting with it.

Personally I prefer grape to oak tastes and aromas, but having said that, there are many wines that I can enjoy that have been given a dose of Quercus, and this even includes old style Spanish white Riojas, but that latter is a case of oenological 'slumming', akin to enjoying the occasional glass of Retsina despite the resin content.

I'm less quercophobic than most posting in this thread, though I'd say I'm definitely on the less oak end of the spectrum of all wine drinkers. I don't like wines where the oak flavors stick out, but a little hint doesn't bother me- especially in younger wines. I mean, Haut-Brion uses 80% new oak, and I'll happily drink young or old.
Drinking only wines with no new oak would eliminate most of the great Cote d'Or Burgundies (red or white) and virtually all of the classified Bordeaux. Even in Chablis, where people think of no-oak Chardonnay, R&V Dauvissat and Raveneau use some new oak, and one can sometimes get a little vanilla.
For me there is no set answer, other than I don't like wines where oak is the first thing one notices.

a couple of points

vanilla is one of the less common aspects of oak - usually only from very expensive barrels with medium plus toast.

most oak flavoring is from oak chips not from barrels

the single most important factor for the flavor imparted by oak is the tightness of the grain. a looser grain will allow the wine to penetrate the wood past the toasted part and allow it to pick up raw wood flavors

the second most important factor is whether the oak was air or kiln dried - basically the sappy/oaky flavor either blows off or gets carmelized into the wood

It's simple:

Red wine - yes.

White wine - no.

vanilla is one of the less common aspects of oak - usually only from very expensive barrels with medium plus toast.

And I think you are more likely to get vanilla from American oak than French aren't you?

vanilla is one of the less common aspects of oak - usually only from very expensive barrels with medium plus toast.

And I think you are more likely to get vanilla from American oak than French aren't you?

Not my experience.
French, vanilla.
American, dill.
Best, Jim

vanilla is one of the less common aspects of oak - usually only from very expensive barrels with medium plus toast.

And I think you are more likely to get vanilla from American oak than French aren't you?

Not my experience.
French, vanilla.
American, dill.
Best, Jim

I often find dill in e.g. modern styled Bx that sees only French oak. I get vanilla in all oaks. I can't say I find specific aromas with each wood, but I generally find American to be more sickly sweet.

I've been lucky enough to do tastings of the same wine doen in different oak treatments.

Ironically, the best was done by Mondavi, the very offender that stuffed so much oak into his Chards that all you'd get is wood long after 99% of the wine had been drunk up.

The degree of toast, the source of the oak and the method of treating and toasting, shaving, etc. has a profound effect on wine. And I really mean that - you could taste the SAME wine done 3 different ways as far as oak treatment, but otherwise vinified identically, and swear that they were completely different wines! In fact the same wine from barrels made by two different makers using the same materials and toasted the same way would produce differences, don't ask me how.

So with oak, you really are taking a basic product, the unoaked wine, and adding flavouring just as if you were mixing a cocktail. I have attended seminars given by the most dedicated of 'natural' winemakers that try not to interfere with nature in any way (sadly, even when Nature seems intent on stopping a ferment or doing other strange but avoidable things to a wine) and asked them just exactly how they saw adding oak flavoruing to a wine was in any sense being non-interventionist or 'natural'. I think they wrote me off as a troublemaker.....

Dale thinks.....For me there is no set answer, other than I don't like wines where oak is the first thing one notices.

Have to agree with you there, Dale but will make exception for white Rioja from you-know-where!
I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the use of excessive oak which might cover up initially for winemaking faults??

'Dill' is more common from lightly toasted barrels where the barrel is 'greener' whether it be French or American.
(Frankly, if you taste dill the fruit was probably picked too green.)

American oak generally has heavier vanillin, but that is becoming less obvious as more coopers are expanding their air drying time.

Oak flavors include cedar, cigar/tobacco, hemp, vanilla, tea, and even Asian spice.

People frequently compare French vs. American but all of the French cooperages and forests have unique flavors and are differentiated from each other. A barrel of Taransaud will taste different than a barrel of Dargaud & Jaegle.

Oak aging will sometimes add a certain "sweetness" and glycerin-like texture to wine.

Imported and affordable wines are often processed with oak additives--chips or tannin powder--giving the wine an overt woody character and sharp flavor. Additions of Megapurple grape concentrate give inexpensive, mass market wines a deeper color and a silkiness from the sugar, but the Megapurple concentrate has really harsh tannins, too, which can give the wine a false 'grip'. So you're not going to get an authentic oak-aging flavor from those wines ...

When oak is well done, people sometimes confuse the barrel spice with the characteristic of the fruit itself, but that's okay because it means the wine has reached that ethereal point where it's harder to deconstruct. Except in the case of zinfandel, when it bugs me that people say that a cabalicious, non-varietal zin is 'spicy' when it's clearly been cabbed to death in oak.

That will be 9 cents, please.

Generally, wines aged in new oak barrels need several years to mature and I believe much of the "oak bomb" criticism is from opening them too young. I don't think there have been many TNs posted here about too much oak in a 15-year old wine.

Howie, I tend to agree with you about the oak in a wine with some age, the oak can and does assimilate. I can even tolerate some toast, but do not like a wine where the char is overly strong. Plus, I am not fond of dilly American oak. I do not though, find dill 0n all wines that see time in American oak. Not sure which do and which don't though. There is a cooperage located in Louisville that I really should visit.

a couple of points

vanilla is one of the less common aspects of oak - usually only from very expensive barrels with medium plus toast.

most oak flavoring is from oak chips not from barrels

the single most important factor for the flavor imparted by oak is the tightness of the grain. a looser grain will allow the wine to penetrate the wood past the toasted part and allow it to pick up raw wood flavors

the second most important factor is whether the oak was air or kiln dried - basically the sappy/oaky flavor either blows off or gets carmelized into the wood

This is an important post. First, because it delineates some of the misunderstood aspects of oak in wine, but more importantly, because it brings to mind a subject dear to my heart.

Oak barrels gained acceptance in France--then called Gaul--after the fall of Rome. Before that, wines were stored and shipped in amphora. But even the French didn't use oak for winemaking--they used it for transport. Somewhere along the way, someone decided that the flavor of the oak might be a good thing and so, it became also a storage device in winemaking.

With the advent of wine chips and oak staves lining stainless tanks, oak has become not a shipping vessel and not a storage device but a wine flavoring. I hate it as a wine flavoring, but that's what it has become, and so winemakers look for various types of flavorings for their various wines, and that makes the subject too big for a general discussion about oak in wine.

Oak barrels, depending on their age, oak type and toast level, contribute certain flavors to wine. Besides the obvious oak flavors, oak can impart clove, nutmeg, cinnamon, caramel, chocolate, coffee, and vanilla. So winemakers will do what they call barrel trials to determine which type of oak barrel can best produce the flavors they want in their finished wine.

Salute