OLD Oak

Uncool.>

I’ve been busier than a one-legged man at an ass kicking contest myself, so thanks for the reply. In all honesty, I asked this question without any knowledge that this subject - as I now surmise from your note - may be a turf you have long worked with zeal. What you feared may have been redundant, was news to me. I personally am not anti-oak, but quite often I am in favor of less (or better integrated) oak, which it seems to me old oak might be able to provide in some cases. As a matter of curiosity, why do you say that clean old oak, as opposed to, say, stainless steel, provides as close to a neutral receptacle as one can wish for?

Wine Therapy, huh? Also new to me. I’m sure it is a great place where there shines the light of reason in the darkness of a troubled wine web, but I fear I’m not likely to have time to check it out in this lifetime or the next. In any event, the wine I tasted, Las Rocas de San Alejandro Garnacha Vinas Viejas, was almost certainly different than the one you had, although it is only about $2 - 3 more. First of all, you had 2002 while I had 2001. The old vines version I tried garnered a 93 from Parker and was aged 10% in new French oak and 90% in old barrels and demi-muids. Yours was awarded 91 points and was 60% aged in tank and 40% in ";neutral wood foudres."; I note that in your TN you complained of ";raspy wood tannins."; (Was the wood was not so neutral or has our one-man oak gestapo has lapsed into paranoia?)

Solanera: I tried one bottle of this that I thought was OK. On two other occasions, however, the wine was inexcusably undrinkable, with (as you note) burnt rubber and other nasty stuff featuring prominently. Perhaps the explanation is the situation described in my ";Mystery Wine"; post set forth above.

And to answer you question about Universal Eneas: Yes, aged in 2-year old French barrels. Universal Venus aged, more specifically, in used Burgundy barrels. Perhaps the same is true with Eneas as well.

Hardly do I think I could ever amount to a ";Gestapo,"; my dear man. I lack their bruete power and determination. Raspy wood tannins there were, if I said so. And perhaps I found waiiting for a potential ";integration"; of those wood tannins utterly pointless.

Wine Therapy. A truly fine place. If only you spared twenty minures per day of the ones you give to your fat friends in Maryland, perhaps you could find that out for yourself. Many lovers of real wine there, of wine without pretensions, that knows its place and cherishes it, showing it to the world in th way of poetry. Come hang.

And about you and oak, well, I distinctly recall a note of yours that spoke of ";sexy"; oak. As in a wooden thong, no doubt...

The trouble with doing a cuvée ";100 Inox,"; as you should have figured out by now, is that the ";breathability"; of the material and the potential for a slow, salutary interaction with O2,is much less than with a used oak barrel that happens to be clean.

Sorry about this flip little postm but in case you didn’t notice, your ";Gestapo"; quip can be very offensive to a Jew.

M.

Hey boys it seems as if the atmosphere is getting too hot. Oak doesn’t deserves so much attention;)))

As I’ve said “in the other side” I cannot imagine what is behind the obsession of Manuel against new oak, however I must accept a generalised use of too much new oak in Parker-like wines. I’m not that sure about the use of old barrels and its positive effect in wines but I must accept that experiences with wines such as Tondonia are changing my mind a little bit.

So, please…. peace …. and cheese and why not? A good Chablis. (Erm sorry for this indecent poem ;))) )

";Sorry about this flip little postm but in case you didn’t notice, your ’Gestapo’ quip can be very offensive to a Jew. ";

Manuel, as you were offended by the quip ";our one-man anti-oak gestapo,"; I of course apologize. While provoking you on wine-related matters often pays valuable dividends, offense on any grounds was not my intent.

For better or worse -- no don’t worse in your view and, on reflection I can’t say I disagree -- words like this have crept into common parlance. I’m reading Bob Woodward’s brand new book on the Bush administration (you’ve probably at least seen excerpts everywhere) wherein our Secretary of State casually refers to other high level policy makers of our government as the ";Gestapo"; in unmodified terms -- remarks that have been moderately controversial, I suppose, but not to my knowledge due to matters of diction. To venture to the ridiculous, there is no reasonable amount of explanation that would convey to our colleagues in Spain how a term like ";soup Nazi,"; for example, has entered popular American culture (inescapable even to me, though I do not have a television). When I read your objection, I immediately kicked myself for not selecting ";anti-oak crusader"; in my message, but here is another example: ";crusade"; is now a word that has very recently been recognized as off-limits at least in matters of current international politics, and for good reason.

In any event, no excuses. My message was directed to you and yours is the reaction that matters.

I hope we can put this behind us. (Knock wood.)

P.S. Yes indeed ";sexy"; oak -- in my definitionary the polar opposite of ";raspy"; oak (as opposed to the likely antonym in your book: ";no"; oak.)

Believe it or not, the generalized use of terms from Nazi Germany in our everyday American lives is something I’ve been fighting for years. Not that I have a real objection to a usage that acknowledges all the nasty implications of the term, but when it’s thrown around too loosely and without any sense of the history behind it, I start to snarl.

I bought the Woodward book on its release on Monday. Unfortunately, the pile of stuff I have next to my bed is huge. I’m tackling Richard Clarke’s ";Against All Enemies"; at the same time as I plow through something called ";Our Fathers"; (about the scandalous conduct of the Catholic Church in the 20th century) by David Franck and Eduardo Mendoza’s ";Barcelona Modernista"; (a treatise on the art and architecture of the turn of the 20th century that Mendoza wrote with, I think, the collaboration of his sister).

Busy guy.

Don’t you ever wonder why Americans are so quick to drop Nazi-related terms, whereas other things that would perhaps ring more closely in terms of comparative history aren’t used at all? Apart from Mel Broooks going ";You can’t Torquemada anything!"; in The History of the World, Pt. 1, references to the Inquisition happen very seldom. And hey, the KGB doesn’t get any time in the spotlight...

Sexy oak. Too much for me, Walt. Licked plenty of flesh, whereas a plank of wood has never quite moved me.

M.

Eduardo Mendoza’s ";Barcelona Modernista"; ...

Given your reverence for large, paunchy, pompous, overly-influential critics who try to appeal to the masses, you might also want to try ";Barcelona"; by Robert Hughes. The chapters near the end of the book on the life, times, and works of Barcelona’s ";big three"; architects, Domenech i Muntaner, Puig i Cadafalch, and Gaudi, are the best parts.

(In truth, I’m not sure Hughes was terribly influential, or even as influential as he should have been. His latest, ";Goya,"; is on my stack now.)

Another great coincidence... I can see three books about Goya on my secondary stack (the study stuff, as opposed to the stuff I read for fun). I’m supposed to present a longish article on the influence of Goya on certain woth-Century British painters later this year. A hoot and a half, my comparatistic endeavours. At the Penn Comp Lit Pit I was known as the guy who could do the ";Six-Degrees"; thing better than the Judeochristian deity itself.

Of course, every once in a while, I’ll take these mock-academic assignments just to see if I’ve lost the touch... Juan Such now wants me to come up with an actualized version of my 2002 ";Malleus Maleficarum: The Swill-Basher’s Manifesto"; to spice up Verema’s love life. I’m considering titling the new delivery: ";Götterdammerung: What I Shall Do with the Head of Your Wine Gurus..."; You like?

M.