Context - expansion vessels context
Vessels used in winemaking are often seen as defining elements of style. Amphorae, concrete, or wood seem to be directly linked to specific aroma profiles. In reality, vessels have a different effect. They don't change the style, but rather the conditions under which a wine develops.
Oxygen ingress, thermal stability, and surface effect are crucial. These factors influence texture, ripening process, and integration.
Oxygen as a key factor
Different materials allow for different oxygen exchange. Wood is more permeable than concrete, and concrete is more permeable than glass or stainless steel. These differences affect structure and maturation dynamics.
Texture instead of aroma
Vessels primarily define the texture. Wood can soften structure, concrete can maintain tension, and amphorae can promote a calm, even development. Aromatic effects are secondary.
Vessels as tools
The choice of vessel is a decision about maturation. It determines how a wine develops, not what it should express.
Conclusion
Renovation vessels are tools of the craft. They change conditions, not origin or style.
Vessels such as amphorae, clay, concrete, or stone are often interpreted as a stylistic promise. They represent originality, craftsmanship, or a connection to history. In perception, the material takes center stage, while the process behind it remains unclear.
The vessel itself doesn't describe a taste, but rather a framework. It influences exchange, temperature inertia, and movement, but not the aromatic core of the wine. The material's effect is indirect, mediated by conditions, not by aromas.
A key misconception is to view amphorae as the antithesis of technology. They, too, are tools with distinct properties. Porosity, wall thickness, and shape control micro-oxidation and convection. The result is not nature, but a different technological setting.
Choosing a vessel doesn't replace decisions; it shifts them. Where wood contributes to structure and aroma, neutral vessels keep the focus on texture and tension. Where stainless steel offers precision and control, alternative materials allow for greater movement and variation.
Amphorae are often associated with reduction or austerity. This perception arises less from the material itself than from the winemaking process. Long lees aging, minimal intervention, or restrained sulfiting shape the expression more than the vessel itself.
The concept of neutrality is also a simplification. Every vessel sets a framework for development. Concrete stores heat differently than clay, stone reacts more slowly than steel. These differences are subtle, yet significant. Neutrality is not a state, but a relationship.
The use of alternative vessels becomes problematic when they are misunderstood as defining characteristics. The wine is described through the container, not its condition. The amphora becomes a label, not a tool.
Perception then creates expectations that the wine is supposed to fulfill: more tension, more originality, more character. If the effect remains subtle, the effort is considered wasted. This logic overlooks the fact that vessels accompany processes, they don't guarantee effects.
The comparison between amphora, concrete, wood, or steel is therefore not a ranking. It's a question of fit. What movement should be allowed? How much exchange is sensible? What timescale does the structure support?
Amphorae and similar vessels are not a shortcut to depth or authenticity. They provide a framework for development. The crucial question remains whether the wine can accommodate the openness of the vessel.
When properly understood, alternative vessels are not a matter of style, but a process decision. They do not change the character of a wine, but rather the conditions under which it develops.