JonBonne: Texture in Wine

As linked in WineTerroirist, in Punch, JonBonne crawls way out on a limb:
WineTexture
and tries to make some sense of texture in wine. It’s a very complicated subject and Jon makes a valiant effort to bring some rigor to the subject. And not altogether successfully. Much like minerality and phenolic, it’s difficult to wrap ones arms around the subject and talk about the subject with terms we can all grasp.
In my (short/boring) TN’s, when I’m talking about the tannins in a wine (red or white), I try to describe not only the intensity of the tannins, but also the texture as well. Although a Nebbiolo and a Montepulciano may have roughly the same level of tannins, their texture is often vastly different. That’s something I try to convey a sense of…not altogether successfully.
Although many folks tend to dismiss Jon’s writings, I think he’s made a good/thoughtful effort in this article to make sense of the subject of texture.
Tom

Interesting, thanks Tom for posting.

Some of these descriptors elude me, I have to say. I’m always seeing “fine-grained tannins”, for instance, but I’m not sure quite what that means. I’ve never seen anybody mention “coarse-grained tannins” (or maybe “crap-grained tannins”?).

I like to think of fine grained vs coarse tannins as the difference in size and roughness on your palate just like you would get in different sandpapers (which I don’t recommend putting anywhere near your mouth, but, hey, it’s a free country…)

That’s precisely how I’ve viewed it as well.

I don’t believe I’ve seen Robert Parker say a wine has “crap-grained tannins”, although I would applaud him if he did! [tease.gif] [rofl.gif]

Sandpaper is a good analogy. If you want to know what hard-grained tannins are, think Dunn Howell Mountain cab at less than 20+ years, Barolo in an underripe year or old Gouges Nuits St. Georges.

Pretty good article. I’m really obsessed with texture and mouthfeel of wine more than the overt flavors. But it’s so hard to put words to it.

I’m with Charlie. Texture is huge for me. Cannot say it is more important than flavor, but the mouthfeel is a big issue for me. And my mouthfeel may be the opposite of what some of you may like. I like some coarseness to many of the wines that I love. I like some rusticity. I like graininess. Not saying that silky, smooth or voluptuous and creamy is something I dislike, i’m just saying that for the wines squarely in my wheelhouse, I like the rusticity. Think Levet, Juge, Raffault, Dunn, Barral, Sociando, Lanessan, et al. I call it “elegant rusticity”.

In general it was an interesting article, but it petered out at the end. It lacked a conclusion.

Rough finish. :wink:

Right, but to me I just consider those wines more tannic. How do you distinguish a wine with lots of finer grained tannin from a less tannic wine with coarser grain tannins?

What are we measuring here? It seems to me there’s only one variable- the amount of roughness.

Sandpaper is a good analogy. Fine-grained tannins are 1200 grit, the opposite is 80 grit. I describe tannins that are coarse as gritty. Many '03 red Burgs had gritty tannins on release. They have move more towards finer-grained but probably sit at 400 grit for the moment.

This is an absolutely fundamental subject, and Dan Keeling and I wrote a piece about it in Noble Rot last year for folks who have that magazine. Our vocabulary for texture is indeed very limited, and to describe the textural profile of an old-style DRC Montrachet and a Rombauer Chardonnay in a way that differentiates the one from the other is surprisingly difficult, even though they are obviously in many respects very different wines.

For tannins, however, we do have a pretty wide range of adjectives which are more or less commonly used, or at least that make sufficient immediate sense that no one could call them obtuse. I find myself reaching for melting < satiny < velvety < powdery < fine-grained < fine-grained but firm < firm < chewy < rustic < coarse < hard / green / dry (which are different) < astringent. Then it’s possible to quantify their abundance: e.g. ‘rich but melting tannins’, ‘a light framing of coarse tannin’.

For acids, green < tart < racy < tangy < juicy / succulent / crisp / bright (for me, more or less interchangeable) < low acid < cloying (this vocabulary is weighted towards positives).

For texture in white wine, unctuous > thick > textural / satiny / glossy (more or less interchangeable for me) > crisp / crunchy > lean / meager - or, in a different direction, diffuse.

To go on a tangent, I try to avoid ‘minerality’, which is too abused, in favor of more specific chalky / flinty / saline, typically pertaining to a wine’s finish.

You’ve never read my notes, have you?
I try to mention tannin feel as that is an important descriptor.

+1

Here’s one for you all to parse:

Castello Volpaia Chianti Classico Reserva 2015
96 pts Wine Spectator
Though saturated with black currant and blackberry fruit and > backed by opaque tannins> , this red is pure and balanced. Thyme, iron, leather and tar notes give this complexity, while the finish goes into overtime. Best from 2023 through 2040

Finely or coarsely opaque? And what would transparent or translucent tannins be like?

I think that the subject is trying to be too simplified and it’s actually quite challenging to ‘describe’.

First and foremost, our mouths - and taste buds - are all so darned different. Some of us are very sensitive to bitterness, and therefore tannins are going to come across totally differently compared to others who are not sensitive to bitterness at all. One person’s ‘bold and tannic’ may be another persons’ ‘smooth as silk’ - and you would both be right - for your own palates.

Also note that there is not just one ‘type’ of tannin. Most folks realize that tannins ‘polymerize’ over time - i.e. they elongate by building a longer ‘chain’, so to speak. As this happens, their ‘tannic’ qualities are altered, becoming less bitter and astringent as the chain lengthens . . . until the chain gets so large that it falls out of solution. So if a wine has all short chain tannins, it will be more bitter and astringent than long chain tannins - but this is not something you can ‘see’ or will know for sure.

More importantly, during the aging process, tannins can combine with anthocyanin molecules to create ‘polymeric pigments’. This happens early on in the life of a wine, and it creates ‘color stable’ molecules, helping to lock in the color of a wine. Elevated temperatures after pressing allow more of this to occur - as does micro oxygenation. The affinity for these ‘color stable tannins’ to bind to your salivary proteins and create an ‘astringent’ reaction is diminished. Therefore, you can have the same ‘aggregate’ amount of tannin in a wine, but if one has a higher percentage of polymeric pigments than another, one will seem less ‘astringent’ or tannic than the other. (This is one of the key principles of micro ox and getting a wine to market in a more ‘accessible’ way faster’.

Lots of rabbit holes here - hope this helps add to the conversation . . .

Cheers.

Larry - Thanks for the concise explanations.

In addition to differences in sensitivity to tannins, saliva is a big factor, I would guess. Anyone who has tasted a lot of young red wines in succession knows how your mouth dries out as you run out of saliva to react with the tannins. If you’re eating, that alters the tannins’ reactions with saliva proteins. And I’m sure there are variations in saliva production that must affect how one perceives tannins.

Add it all up and it’s a miracle that any two people even come close to describing a wine in similar ways. [cheers.gif]

I’m enjoying this thread - very thoughtful and helpful material here. I am fascinated by the subjective - absolute spectrum for wine experiences. Clearly there is a wide range of experience across tasters. I’d love to hear more about the chemistry behind different textural elements. How much is terroir/grape, and how much is decided by growers/wine makers?

Where do “ripe, dusty tannins” fall on the fine-grained/coarse spectrum?

2015 Louis Jadot Bourgogne Rouge Chapitre
“Moderately saturated medium red. Red fruit and spice aromas are fresh and inviting if not particularly complex. Supple, fruity and on the soft side but with sufficient mid-palate energy. The > ripe, dusty tannins > do not cut off the wine’s fruit. Not at all rustic owing to the ripeness of the year; in fact, this Bourgogne is an outperformer in 2015.” --Steve Tanzer

Or “ephemeral tannins”? I guess toward the fine-grained side:

2016 Meo Camuzet Bourgogne Rouge
“The 2016 Méo Bourgogne rouge had been racked already and was really showing well at the time of my visit. The bouquet offers up a fine blend of red and black cherries, a touch of chocolate, a good base of soil and a whisper of upper register smokiness. On the palate the wine is medium-full, pure and nicely plump in the mid-palate, with > ephemeral tannins > and lovely focus and grip on the wide open and stylish finish. Good juice.” -John Gilman