What does the tasting note descriptor “dry extract” mean to you?
What does it taste or feel like?
Is it a sign of natural concentration (low yields) or winemaking, or both?
Is it a positive descriptor in general?
Is it a negative for those members of the AFWE?
(yes, I started the large “high-toned” thread a few months ago, so sue me. 
)
Thanks.
Nothing. Silly, useless descriptor for me, so the rest of the questions are unanswerable for me. It feels like one of those things that’s useful as a technical term and that a semi-knowledgable person tries to make into an adjective for how a wine tastes so that they can write more impressive sounding TNs.
It is very similar to concentration and refers specifically to the fruit intensity in a wine. If you can imagine subtracting other elements (like oak, alcohol, acid etc), it is the core fruit in a wine.
Could be either but if it is not natural (ie it is overly forced by winemaking) it will have more bitter elements. Natural dry extract is more positive.
Yes, especially for wines that will be aged.
Not to this one especially if the fruit is fresh and “high toned”!
Is this a Parker term, or a generally accepted wine term? I’ve wondered if there is some technical measure of material in a wine other than water and alcohol that this is supposed to describe? If not, I’ve always felt it to be kind of a nonsensical term which really just means “concentration” (as Kevin points out).
Yes, you see that on spec sheets. It means non liquid components in the wine.
I admit to learning this term from Allen Meadows and using it in a similar fashion as Kevin. I think Meadows actually went into some detail explaining what he meant by this in a recent Burghound issue.
IMO, it seems to be an apt descriptor of the intensity, but not the density, of the fruit in the mid-palate. An analogy for me is if the wine were painted on to a surface and evaporated, the dessicated, or lyophilized, powder that remains on the surface would be the dry extract. Some of the best examples are '07 and particularly '08 Chablis. There is an intensity of fruit independent of the weight.
I find it to be a positive, and think this is a major, perhaps required, element of “power without weight” that many of us, including the AFWE, seek in a white or red Burg.
And NO ONE drinks wine like that. I think we all get what the literal meaning would be, but since that has zero relation to how people interact with actual wine… what does it communicate about the wine being written about? If a critic, writing for a crowd that by definition is into wine more than the average wine person, has to explain the term in some detail so that it’s understood clearly then I think that’s an indication that the terms is confusing and not coming across clearly.
There is an intensity of fruit independent of the weight.
Then say ‘the wine has intense fruit that’s independent of weight’. Dry Extract is just a pretentious way of saying it that obscures the meaning for anyone who’s not a wine geek. Notes are about communication.
Rick,
I guess you don’t like the term?? ![[tease.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/c/c5b32b76bebaa359b0452ae247b61189ffe5fa7e.gif "tease"){kind=small}
I think the explanation Meadows offered, IIRC, is how dry extract differs from concentration. Besides, “a lot of dry extract” is shorter to write/type than “intense fruit that’s independent of weight”. Of course, if it is confusing to the majority of readers then perhaps it is not a great term. Personally, I find it quite valuable in BH reviews.
Cheers,
Steve
No, I don’t. Shorter to type means someone should find a new line of work, IMO. Saving a few characters vs clearly communicating? Not even a contest to me.
I just think there’s too much of this kind of thing in professional TNs… I remember the first time I read Tanzer saying a wine had high “sucrosity”. I mean… just say it’s sweet. If you mean fruit sweetness, say that. It has a sugary sweetness? Say that. Making up terms or taking terms that make sense in one context and forcing them into another context rather than using plain language is just annoying.
I think I understand and see the value in the concept since it puts a few elements into one descriptor.
The dry part just seems like a misnomer. There has to be a better way to phrase it.
This reminds me of music discussions where some of the participants are literate musically (understand the concepts and notation of harmony, rhythm and melody) and others, while big fans, just aren’t. I can tell one group “after the bridge they hang on an unresolved dominant minor 9th chord with a modal drone while the drummer goes polyrhythmic” and they will get it. Trying to explain that to the other group is MUCH harder.
“The dry part just seems like a misnomer. There has to be a better way to phrase it.”
“Disolved solids” like on mineral water bottles?
I’ll give you the point, but as Rick stated, critics don’t write to technical winemakers or professionals, they write to enthusiasts on down. Personally, I think many of the descriptors are invented to keep from sounding like a broken record when it comes to describing the essentials of a wine. You probably need less than 50 words/phrases with variances of more or less within each to describe a wine. But, that would become incredibly boring to read and hence the need to invent a lot of high brow sounding terminology.
Ever tried to explain “structure” to a non-wine geek?
I could live with a list of metrics with ratings for each on a wine, then a very short opinion (rather than some technical description) about a wine by a critic. I frequently feel as though I’m interpreting a note rather than clearly understanding it. Their final opinion is worth a lot in my book.
Chris
Which is only an issue if you want to communicate to the second group of course. To the degree that a critic isn’t interested in talking to wine equivalent of that second group, eh. However, if someone says “after the bridge they hang on an unresolved dominant minor 9th chord with a modal drone while the drummer goes polyrhythmic” not because they want to clearly communicate but because it’s a pretentious way of saying something that could just as easily be said in plainer language, it’s annoying. Use specialist language when you’re a) talking only to a specialist audience and/or 2) when you can’t communicate the point using non-specialist language.
Where your analogy breaks down is that the musical language you cite has defined meanings. Using ‘dry extract’ and the like as TN adjectives doesn’t. It’s a pretentious attempt to extend a laboratory term to be a tasting term
Great example Roberto. I am a musical illiterate, but one who apparently manages to perceive the big picture, nonetheless.
I’m in the camp that sees this as faux-precision – the co-opting of a technical term. As I read Kevin’s comment and the paraphrasing of Meadow’s definition, what does it mean beyond “fruit concentration” or “depth of flavor”? Nothing so far as I can see.
I can see why in many cases it may correlate with depth of flavor, but I don’t know if the technical metric necessarily implies “power without weight” or “fruit intensity” (Kevin’s gloss). After all, that extract also includes all the harsher tannic stuff. Whether it equates to positive sensory qualities or not I think is probably a function of what that mix of solids consists of.
FYI, there’s a succinct definition and comment on the term’s use in tasting notes in this Wine Spectator Q&A.
Of course, some folks will complain about any term written to describe a wine, or anything else.
Well said, Steven. I crave wines that are light in weight and yet full in intensity and palate presence. If it is acidity that gives full intensity to the wine, then the term “dry extract” would not come to mind. If it is concentration and depth of fruit giving the intensity, then I believe “dry Extract” can be a useful term. Just my $0.02.
Thanks all for your responses. I guess I was thinking someone would you say, “You can practically taste the lees, it’s so concentrated.”
Given what folks are saying, why not call it “great fruit intensity?” A couple more syllables, but so much more clear. I agree with Kenny that the “dry” portion is misleading and would add that “extract” is often used pejoratively now. If you tell me that Mugnier has great fruit intensity, I can grasp it easily. With this definition of dry extract, I can now understand it, but only by translating it first.
As an aside, is there a consensus term to separate natural concentration or intensity from low yields from that resulting from “overly forced winemaking” as Kevin put it? Or am I in fantasyland for believing the two can be differentiated?
Thanks again!
I don’t know about consensus but I use concentrated when I feel it’s natural, i.e. a product of the vineyard and extracted when it feels like it’s a product of the winemaking process and I judge those on how they taste. So if a wine feels manipulated with that slight bitterness Kevin notes, I’m more likely to consider it extracted vs concentrated.
So, I just searched the latest Burghound, and Meadows’ description is laid out in Issue 42 in the paragraph near the bottom of page 4. Not sure about copyright rules, so I’ll just paraphrase: the term is used to describe inner concentration derived from natural sap, rather than extraction, and is an indicator of high quality. He reports this is one of the features that makes 2009 a very good vintage for red Burgs. If you look at several notes where “dry extract” is used, it seems to be in the context that a wine has a lot of it, and that is a good thing. Maybe I’m over-interpreting, but I see this not so much as co-opting a technical term, but rather that the wine exhibits traits that are consistent with high degrees of dry extract, if they were to be measured.