…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> .
Um…
Again, he’s just trying to differentiate concentration from extraction along the lines I noted above (what happens due to the vineyard and vintage vs in the cellar). But it means nothing outside of the technical term to most wine people. I like Allen and I can see why he wants another term, but it just rubs me the wrong way. Consider this… you’re reading a note with that term but missed or don’t remember the definition he’s given. Does it communicate well? IMO, no. Say ‘natural concentration’ or ‘inner concentration derived from natural sap’ (whatever natural sap means…). I think most people who stumble across the term will figure out what it roughly means - if you could remove the water, the material left. But that intuition doesn’t say anything about the quality of the material.
Chris,
I think some critics do tend to use a large vocabulary of descriptors (some seemingly invented), perhaps to differentiate their writing from others’, or perhaps they get bored themselves of writing the same ones all the time. While some of those tasting notes provide interesting reading, I don’t always find them very useful. This is actually why I like Allen Meadows’ rather minimalist style. He tends to focus on structure and not a lot of flowery prose, with rather succinct assessments, and often a final comment on whether he thought it was really good or not. I can see why the “dry extract” term could be annoying/imprecise/high brow to some readers, but for me, once I understood what he meant by it, I have found it to be very useful.
Agreeing with comments above, to me “dry extract” refers to natural concentration (more is generally better), while “extraction/extracted” refers to process in the cellar (lighter extraction generally better).
BTW, if you want to think of a word that is so often mis-used and/or mis-understood… how about “concentration”? To many BB members, and many professional writers too, a concentrated wine means a wine that is darkly colored, rich, and thick. Or how about “elegant”? Typical translation of elegant: a wine that has OK aromas and flavors but is dilute, needs more “concentration”… drives me batty sometimes.
Dry extract is not a tasting term. It is a technical one. Once the water and alcohol of a wine is evaporated, the residual is “dry extract.” Theoretically, the higher the dry extract, the higher the concentration of flavors. It doesn’t differentiate between “good” flavors and “bad.” If cooped as a tasting term it seems to me to be an imprecise one.
Eric, I see how it can be a technical term, but the term to me is generally used more in terms of perception. The term is generally not used buy itself or in a technical manner like the wine has TSS or a dry extract factor of x/ppb or whatever. Like with all terms or descriptors, they are relative, and only as good as the guy (or gal) drinking the wine and writing the note. When used properly and by trusted tasters, dry extract, sap, extraction, etc., can be very helpful and meaningful.
You’re exactly right, John, and this should be the base-line understanding. It is a technical term coming from lab analysis, and does not relate to the nature of flavors in a wine. Using it to convey a meaning like that is off-base, to me, too.
Yes, dry extract (as determined by lab analysis) relates to the qualities of the wine, but those are the things like texture, weight, concentration, and density that we recognize already. I do not see how deploying “dry extract” as a descriptor can be more precise; it’s quite the opposite. I agree with you it is “faux-precise.”
Also, I like Roberto’s suggestion that “dissolved solids” may be a better way to phrase the concept as it relates to tasting.
Well, now that we all know what is meant in tasting terms by “dry extract,” doesn’t that make it useful? Regardless of whether you like the term, at least now it’s understood.
While we’re at it, however, I’m much more offended by “pain grillé,” “sous bois” and “soaring” than anything else. Now those seem to me to be tasting terms which, in the first two instances, are pretentious and, in the last instance, meaningless. There are plenty more of those terms which Parker started using, and which loads of people have jumped on board with. I’m sure we can all pull out many more, but I suppose they mean something to the folks using them.
Why are they pretentious, Xavier? Or meaningless? Sometimes the aromas are mute, shy, or reticent; and sometimes they soar. Sous bois has been a generally accepted descriptor for Burgs and many other wines since before Robert Parker was born.
I don’t understand the pretentious remarks either. Can we be a little romantic when we describe wines? I will be at least. I love airy and soaring, what about petrichor or forest floor. I certainly don’t want or need to see a tasting note with brix hydrometer, spectrometer, fluorometer, specific gravity readings. Or the relationship between quarks and gluons and how they affect the wine’s flavor profile. What does faux-precision mean anyway? Isn’t every description we all use some sort of faux precision. I don’t have a lab, nor have I ever tested any wine for any technical data, what so ever, so I guess you could say that every note and descriptor I have ever used is faux precision.
Use language that communicates the experience of tasting the wine. “Dry Extract” doesn’t do that. To the degree one uses language that doesn’t communicate and is just there to sound impressive then yes, it’s pretention. Is there anything wrong with terms like airy or forest floor? Eh… not if they communicate something about the wine.
‘Pain grille’ is pretentious when used in a US publication. It’s a common tactic in some 20th century critical circles to use the French term to make oneself sound sophisticated. Same for ‘sous bois’ and both have English equivalents - the French term doesn’t add meaning or precision, hence pretention.
There’s not a hard bright line either… What might seem pretentious to me isn’t to others. I’m OK with that… others can be wrong.
Drinking wine in the first place is a bit pretentious; trying to describe its flavors and textures is notoriously so. Combined with other descriptors, ‘dry extract’ can help get a sense of what a wine will be like when you drink it yourself. Bearing in mind the technical meaning, to me, it conveys ideas (as others have written) of likely weight/body and texture. I also often associate it with minerality in flavor, and a kind of buffering effect on acids that may bear on a wines aging qualities. I think it’s a useful descriptive vocabulary item.
Someone in the chemistry or winemaking field would know better, as I only studied enough chemistry to be dangerous. However, i think on a purely chemical level all of the things in a wine that compose “dry extract” are NOT “dissolved solids”. There is a difference between components that are dissolved in a solution rather than suspended. Some of the solid flavor components in a wine are probably suspended (or even settleable), hence their tendency to settle out or be affected by larger gauge filters and fining.
I’m quite possibly wrong but, like Rick, I tend to think of “concentration” as an effect of what occurs in the vineyard, and “extraction” as correlated to concentration, but really the the total result of how concentrated the grapes are AND processing techniques (press, punch-down etc).
I also think that using “concentration” would also refer to acidity and sugar content, which are large factors in flavor, but not the dry extract in finished wine.
Sorry, not being clear. I don’t really care what people use since tasting terms are, I think, usually meant for the writer’s use (unless written by a professional).
I guess my point was that none of these terms are any more or less useful than “dry extract.” While I may find some terms useless and pretentious (I personally don’t understand why someone can’t simply say toast instead of “pain grillé” – but I understand that’s just my opinion). Others feel that the use of “dry extract” is pretentious and/or useless. To me it has some meaning (although I don’t use the term). On the other hand I use the term “airy,” along with a whole host of other terms which other folks may find totally useless. But so what? My notes are for my use, and if others find something useful in them then so much the better. In short, use whatever works for you, and hopefully other folks will find the notes/terms helpful. What matters most, of course, is that we all enjoy our passion – wine!
Wel don’t go into so much detail…
See above for my reasons. If you disagree, great. If you actually want to participate here, try doing that though. Sorry, but pithy comments like that just take up space and don’t add anything.
I’m no chemist, but I don’t believe that suspended things are that common. Otherwise we’d find sediment in a lot of young wine, and in fact it’s quite rare. I believe most sediment is the by-products of slow reactions over time, which produce insoluble compounds. I assume that tartaric acid is also soluble, though it can precipitate in the form of wine stones with time or cold temperatures. I believe, also, that one thing fining does is actually binds proteins and prompts them to settle out, so it isn’t just a substitute for filtering.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}