Let's talk about "dry extract"

[chaad_thomas]

@Berry Crawford

@chaad thomas

Well, I can be daft at times, but by my reckoning, no one has yet bothered to make a comprehensible explanation of how and what they are using it to describe, so if you can I’d be much obliged.

I mean, how many ways can you run this?

“This wine has dry extract.” – Duh, they all do. Kinda…but the problem is that when it’s in the wine, it ain’t dry.

“This wine is loaded with dry extract.” – I’m fine with this if you have the analysis (e.g. 20g/L, but if you don’t, how do you know?

“This wine seems to have a lot of dry extract” – Kinda ok, but again, if it’s in the wine, it ain’t dry extract, is it? So what are you saying? Something else, no?

“You can really taste the dry extract in this wine.” – No. That’s just wrong.

“You can feel the dry extract in this wine.” – Kinda, but you’re beatin around the bush, because the dry extract is neither dry nor extracted (discuss amongst yourselves).

“This wine yielded 15g/L of dry extract.” – I really think that’s the only appropriate use of the terms–relating to a measurement.

I’m happy to concede daftness if I’ve missed something, and if you did earlier post a comprehensible explanation, sorry, I can be daft.

To me “dry extract” is alot like tannins or acid or any other structural component. I will often say something like “quite tannic” or “lots of acid” or “locked down under tannins”. In each case I certainly have no data support my sensory perceptions, I am simply stating my sensory perceptions. I think people writing and reading such descriptions understand the implication that the taster is describing their experience and not nessisarily stating a scientific fact. I see dry extract in the same manner. People are comfortable with tasting note writters saying “lots of tannins” when they should be saying “tastes as if it had lots of tannins”. People understand the unstated implication in the shorthand version that it is simple a subjective taste experience being described. “Dry extract” being a structural descriptor has the same dynamic in my mind.

Okay, I dig where you’re coming from, and that’s a fair point, but for the fact that there is no dry extract in the wine. Tannins are in the wine; dry extract FROM the wine. You can try to dismiss it as semantics, but doesn’t Roberto’s proposed “dissolved solids” make more sense? Brandy, like dry extract, comes from processing wine, but we don’t say a wine has brandy in it.

[Rick_Gregory]

But, berry, what does saying ‘dry extract’ describe about the wine? Saying a wine has pronounced, rough tannins tells me something about themouthfeel of the wine. So does “bright acid, barely balanced by the fruit.” Dry extract tells me nothing. IN fact, it’s confusing because if you removed the water the tannins would be part of the ‘dry extract.’

I simply don’t understand the resistance to describing the wine directly. Why use a level of indirection here?

[Charlie_Carnes]

In a technical sense, I see what you mean that dry extract cannot be used as a flavor descriptor. But here I use the term to describe perception. When used to describe how I perceive a wine, sometimes, extraction or dry extraction, could be likened to fond in a culinary sense.[/quote]
Huh? “Dry extraction”?? That’s a new one that you’re gonna have to elaborate on. Is that the process you apply to the dry extract, like mining or something? [/quote]

In the sense that there is extract, perceived or otherwise, didn’t extraction, take place? At any rate I would rather have diarrhea(action) for four days than get into a semantic argument about wether I should have used a noun, verb; adjective: or Adverb". For the record I don’t think I have used the term too many times, but again FOR ME, I understand the term and like it when it is used in a way I understand it. And I certainly haven’t told anyone here, thank you John, wether or not to use a specific term.[/quote]
Wait a minute, aren’t you the dude who, back in post #31 couldn’t get his mind around the phrase, “faux precision”?

Oh, I think you know full well what it means…[/quote]

I know exactly what it means. I admitted that every term I have ever used is probably some sort of faux precision. What I did not get is saying dry extract, the way I and some others use is faux precision, but for example extract- not in the sense of what the winemaker does- maybe natural extract(ion) is not faux precision. I said I understand why some can think this way, but again, FOR ME, dry extract, airy, billowy, red fruited, sous bois, are all faux precision in the way the term was used, but I love the terms and use them. If you perceived me getting sideways with you in post 31 it was not my intention. Quite honestly, before I was told what term to use I thought it was a pretty interesting discussion, Diarrhea aside.

[Charlie_Carnes]

Damn, maybe Berry said it better than I did.

[John_Morris]

@Charlie Carnes

In the sense that there is extract, perceived or otherwise, didn’t extraction, take place? At any rate I would rather have diarrhea(action) for four days than get into a semantic argument about wether I should have used a noun, verb; adjective: or Adverb". For the record I don’t think I have used the term too many times, but again FOR ME, I understand the term and like it when it is used in a way I understand it. And I certainly haven’t told anyone here, thank you John, wether or not to use a specific term.

Some wine terms are at the subjective end of the scale – “balanced,” “overly extracted,” and so on. But for some there are objective standards: If you say the wine is bretty and a lab analysis says it doesn’t contain brettanomycis, or you say it’s high in alcohol and it checks in at 11.5%, then you’re just wrong.

Some terms are tied to objectively testable qualities – terms like tannic, acidic or extracted – but can also be perceived even if we recognize that different people will apply them somewhat differently, and their perception is a function of other qualities of the wine.

In this case, the term has a clearly defined laboratory meaning, so if you say “Well, I use it to mean…” then I think you really are playing with the term.

[John_Morris]

@Charlie Carnes

I said I understand why some can think this way, but again, FOR ME, dry extract, airy, billowy, red fruited, sous bois, are all faux precision in the way the term was used, but I love the terms and use them.

Airy, billowy, red fruited, sous bois all seem like evocative descriptors and I would never begrudge anyone those, but they certainly don’t involve any fake precision!

I can’t say I’ve ever heard “billowy” but I think I’ll make a point of using that now. I can think of some Arneis that brings that term to mind.

[Roberto_Rogness]

A lot of the use of French words comes not from Americans reading wine reviews in French but from reading Brits who are much more likely to be multi-lingual and taste and associate with French vignerons and courtiers (more French words!). No one bats an eye at disgorment, battonage, vendage tardive or Véraison, so why get upset over sous bois?

[Charlie_Carnes]

@John Morris

@Charlie Carnes

In the sense that there is extract, perceived or otherwise, didn’t extraction, take place? At any rate I would rather have diarrhea(action) for four days than get into a semantic argument about wether I should have used a noun, verb; adjective: or Adverb". For the record I don’t think I have used the term too many times, but again FOR ME, I understand the term and like it when it is used in a way I understand it. And I certainly haven’t told anyone here, thank you John, wether or not to use a specific term.

Some wine terms are at the subjective end of the scale – “balanced,” “overly extracted,” and so on. But for some there are objective standards: If you say the wine is bretty and a lab analysis says it doesn’t contain brettanomycis, or you say it’s high in alcohol and it checks in at 11.5%, then you’re just wrong.

Some terms are tied to objectively testable qualities – terms like tannic, acidic or extracted – but can also be perceived even if we recognize that different people will apply them somewhat differently, and their perception is a function of other qualities of the wine.

In this case, the term has a clearly defined laboratory meaning, so if you say “Well, I use it to mean…” then I think you really are playing with the term.

John, again we are talking perception, even for measurable brett, some people cannot even perceive it. In the end this is just no fun. You are right for you. We are just on different pages. I can see the term being used both ways, I don’t think you like the term dry extract to be used, for lack of a better term, in a romantic way. Remember that every aspect or perception a wine gives has some sort of elements, compounds, molecules, even airy or billowy. I don’t even know if all of these are measurable, but there is some technical element to all of these perceptions. I am simply using or espousing the use an apt term in a non-technical way to describe a perception a few wines give me.

[johngonzales]

@John Morris

@johngonzales

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 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.

My chemistry was eons ago, in a galaxy far far away. So I am not positive. I still say the reason “dissolved solids” isn’t used is that it just is not accurate for wine as it is for something like water. In addition to the fact that even a geek probably doesn’t care about a measurement of dry extract OR dissolved solids
There is at times sediment in young reds and they can have a slight cloudiness so I’d say there are some undissolved solids and obviously producers decide whether to filter or fine wines both of which would remove solids. But beyond these settleable undissolved particles, there are others. IIRC there are colloidals in wine, including some tannins. These will typically not physically settle. Thermal properties are enough to keep them in the liquid even though they are not actually dissolved into a solution.
Anyhow they are in a minority as compared to dissolved solids, but in a technical sense all of the extracted compounds are not dissolved. So removing all of the solution and measuring “dry” catches a more complete picture of all the solids.

[Berry_Crawford]

@chaad thomas

for the fact that there is no dry extract in the wine. Tannins are in the wine; dry extract FROM the wine. You can try to dismiss it as semantics, but doesn’t Roberto’s proposed “dissolved solids” make more sense? Brandy, like dry extract, comes from processing wine, but we don’t say a wine has brandy in it.

In a perfect world there is likely much better terms for this, but I think its probablly too late to change at this point. I think the term “dry extract” is likely here to stay. It is what it is.

[chaad_thomas]

@Berry Crawford

@chaad thomas

for the fact that there is no dry extract in the wine. Tannins are in the wine; dry extract FROM the wine. You can try to dismiss it as semantics, but doesn’t Roberto’s proposed “dissolved solids” make more sense? Brandy, like dry extract, comes from processing wine, but we don’t say a wine has brandy in it.

In a perfect world there is likely much better terms for this, but I think its probablly too late to change at this point. I think the term “dry extract” is likely here to stay. It is what it is.

I’m going with “dessicated precipitates” to refer to the sensation I get after rinsing vomit out of my mouth with brandy. Yeah, I know it doesn’t have anything to with dessication or precipitation, but hey, it works for me, and it’s late. Have a funny sunrise!

[Berry_Crawford]

@Rick Gregory

But, berry, what does saying ‘dry extract’ describe about the wine? Saying a wine has pronounced, rough tannins tells me something about themouthfeel of the wine. So does “bright acid, barely balanced by the fruit.” Dry extract tells me nothing. IN fact, it’s confusing because if you removed the water the tannins would be part of the ‘dry extract.’

More dry extract = more density of flavor. Not to be confused with ripeness or even loudness of flavor. Really, it is synomynous with concentration in a way, but concentration from artificial extraction is a different experience than natural concentration so I can understand the need for a seperate term that is a bit more specific. So in that context ‘dry extract’ is communicates something to me worthwhile.

@Rick Gregory

I simply don’t understand the resistance to describing the wine directly. Why use a level of indirection here?

Well if this was a comitee to come up with a term in a “green field” situation, I probablly wouldn’t vote for dry extract, but influential people have popularized it, so its likely here to stay for better or worse.

[Wes_Barton]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t “dissolved solids” be incorrect, anyway? Wouldn’t “suspended solids” be what this is trying to describe?

[Brady_Daniels]

Thanks all for your responses. I doubt I’ll use “dry extract” in TN’s myself, preferring “fruit intensity” but I’m glad to understand what people mean when they do use it. Interestingly, I would have thought it more of a mouthfeel term (describing a concentrated wine akin to those that stain the tongue purple) versus its seeming actual use.

This was fun, I’ll try to start another similar thread in a few months.

[TomHill]

@Linda Baehr

@Eric Ifune

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 has it right. I guess it could be used in place of a term describing mouthfeel or “weight” of a wine on the palate, but certainly not as a flavor descriptor.
Frankly, a descriptive term is only useful if people understand the meaning of the term. If people do not, and obviously some people will not understand this term, it is useless.
And once again, you guys go round and round.

And, once again, Leenda hits the nail right on the head.

The term “dry extract” refers to a technical measurement that you get back from ETS or whereever. Its use as a tasting note term seems pretentious and pedantic.
There is no indication whatsoever that the technically measured “dry extract” that comes out of the lab correlates at all w/ what the human palate senses in a wine.
The use of “dry extract”, rather than just merely “extracted” would only be used by pompous twits I’d say.
Tom

[Xavier_Lavoipierre]

@TomHill

@Linda Baehr

@Eric Ifune

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 has it right. I guess it could be used in place of a term describing mouthfeel or “weight” of a wine on the palate, but certainly not as a flavor descriptor.
Frankly, a descriptive term is only useful if people understand the meaning of the term. If people do not, and obviously some people will not understand this term, it is useless.
And once again, you guys go round and round.

And, once again, Leenda hits the nail right on the head.

The term “dry extract” refers to a technical measurement that you get back from ETS or whereever. Its use as a tasting note term seems pretentious and pedantic.
There is no indication whatsoever that the technically measured “dry extract” that comes out of the lab correlates at all w/ what the human palate senses in a wine.
The use of “dry extract”, rather than just merely “extracted” would only be used by pompous twits I’d say.
Tom

Quick, send an email to Tanzer and Meadows notifying them that they have now officially been declared pompous twits!

This has been a fun thread, but we’d better abandon ship before we give out too many black eyes! Time to

[Rick_Gregory]

@Berry Crawford

@Rick Gregory

But, berry, what does saying ‘dry extract’ describe about the wine? Saying a wine has pronounced, rough tannins tells me something about themouthfeel of the wine. So does “bright acid, barely balanced by the fruit.” Dry extract tells me nothing. IN fact, it’s confusing because if you removed the water the tannins would be part of the ‘dry extract.’

More dry extract = more density of flavor. Not to be confused with ripeness or even loudness of flavor. Really, it is synomynous with concentration in a way, but concentration from artificial extraction is a different experience than natural concentration so I can understand the need for a seperate term that is a bit more specific. So in that context ‘dry extract’ is communicates something to me worthwhile.

But again… the tannins are part of the dry extract. And it says nothing about the quality of style of flavor. It’s like describing wine as wet…

That’s what I don’t understand - it doesn’t actually communicate (without a lot of further sidebar definition, etc) what the wine is like. Want to say that the flavors are dense? Say that. The issue for me here is that if I describe a wine has having ‘a lot of dry extract’ you interpret that according to what you think the term means. I’ve used it, though, with MY definition in mind. If those definitions don’t match up we’re not actually communicating, whereas if I use a few more words to actually describe the sensations there’s much less opportunity for confusion. To wit… “Deep red-purple fruit, lifted by smooth acids but for all of the density of the fruit, the wine maintains a remarkable transparency”.

At the end, TNs are an attempt to communicate the experience of tasting a wine. They’ll always be imperfect, but using simpler terms that don’t need extra discussion seems preferable to me.

[quote=“Rick Gregory”]
I simply don’t understand the resistance to describing the wine directly. Why use a level of indirection here?
[/quote]

Well if this was a comitee to come up with a term in a “green field” situation, I probablly wouldn’t vote for dry extract, but influential people have popularized it, so its likely here to stay for better or worse.

Simply because some people use it doesn’t make it a useful or even correct term. But then I’ve never been a 'received wisdom" kind of guy. Just because Tanzer uses the silly term ‘sucrosity’ or Meadows uses ‘dry extract’ doesn’t mean they’re good or useful terms.

[Charlie_Carnes]

And now for something completely different…

Gosh I love Cellar Tracker. I just did a search for how many times I have used certain words. Turns out I have never used dry extract in any of my last 800 or so notes. So I guess I am an espouser only in this matter. Still don’t have a problem with the term though. Other words that were talked about on this thread:

Sous bois I have used once, and only to say that a wine did not have this character
Airy 9 times all positive uses
Ethereal 3 times all positive ( I spelled it wrong once)
Lofty 6 times all positive
Heavens 2 times all positive
Extract 8 times some positive some negative
Billowy 2 times positive
Lifted 4 times all positive
Unctuous 9 times some positive and some negative (these notes were almost always for white wines)

[Roberto_Rogness]

Any geezers here remember the great Leigh Knowles of Beaulieu Vineyards? He used to say a wine had great “prismatic luminescence” and, when asked what it meant, would say “I have no idea but it makes me sound smart and refined…”!

[John_Morris]

@Rick Gregory

@Berry Crawford

@Rick Gregory

But, berry, what does saying ‘dry extract’ describe about the wine? Saying a wine has pronounced, rough tannins tells me something about themouthfeel of the wine. So does “bright acid, barely balanced by the fruit.” Dry extract tells me nothing. IN fact, it’s confusing because if you removed the water the tannins would be part of the ‘dry extract.’

More dry extract = more density of flavor. Not to be confused with ripeness or even loudness of flavor. Really, it is synomynous with concentration in a way, but concentration from artificial extraction is a different experience than natural concentration so I can understand the need for a seperate term that is a bit more specific. So in that context ‘dry extract’ is communicates something to me worthwhile.

But again… the tannins are part of the dry extract. And it says nothing about the quality of style of flavor. It’s like describing wine as wet…

That’s what I don’t understand - it doesn’t actually communicate (without a lot of further sidebar definition, etc) what the wine is like. Want to say that the flavors are dense? Say that. The issue for me here is that if I describe a wine has having ‘a lot of dry extract’ you interpret that according to what you think the term means. I’ve used it, though, with MY definition in mind. If those definitions don’t match up we’re not actually communicating, whereas if I use a few more words to actually describe the sensations there’s much less opportunity for confusion. To wit… “Deep red-purple fruit, lifted by smooth acids but for all of the density of the fruit, the wine maintains a remarkable transparency”.

At the end, TNs are an attempt to communicate the experience of tasting a wine. They’ll always be imperfect, but using simpler terms that don’t need extra discussion seems preferable to me.

. . . .

Simply because some people use it doesn’t make it a useful or even correct term. But then I’ve never been a 'received wisdom" kind of guy. Just because Tanzer uses the silly term ‘sucrosity’ or Meadows uses ‘dry extract’ doesn’t mean they’re good or useful terms.

+1