Let's talk about "dry extract"

WINE TALK
81

Hats off! Your ethereal vocabulary lifted me, extracted me from the doldrums, and was only occasionally unctuous.

82

If you REALLY want to get fancy, you can use these terms too (I had to look ou the ones other than dry extract, since many wineries in the US even check them):

Dry extract (as we have been discussing)- all matter that is non-volatile under specified conditions

Sugar free extract- the difference between the total dry extract and the total sugars

Reduced extract- the difference between the total dry extract and total sugars in excess of 1g/L, potassium sulfate in excess of 1g/L, any mannitol present, and other chemical substances which have been added to the wine

Wow. [wow.gif]

And as for “dissolved solids”, we usually term these as soluble solids. [basic-smile.gif]

83

Loving the geekiness here! Perhaps now is the time to begin talking about SPPs and LPPs (Short Polymeric Pigments and Long Polymeric Pigments) and how they affect what you taste - and perhaps THEIR use in tasting notes, such as:

Notes of currant, spice, and dude - did you catch the abundance of LPP’s?!?!?!? It was awesome!

Carry on . . .

84

Of all the terms to go round and round on, this has to be the most unlikely candidate. There are so many wine tasting terms with no technical referent that I can’t believe that there is this sort of controversy over one that is actually measurable. Hand wringing over “minerality” I can understand, but “dry extract” is potentially as cut and dried a term as alcohol, TA, VA, etc. – if we actually did the assays for it. In the midst of all the unavoidable ambiguity in most tasting terminology, I think a defineable and testable one ought to be welcomed.

85

[thankyou.gif]

86

While I agree with what you say in fact and principle, I do not agree that we should welcome this term in tasting notes describing a wine. It clearly seems to be a term of a technical variety that is used by the people in a more lab rat sense. I had not a clue what it meant until this thread and it means something other than the words ‘dry’ and ‘extract’ used in conjunction would imply.

But hey, people to take a number like ABV and use it in as if it had meaning so I suppose we have to accept this one also?

I did enjoy the references to concentration. I’ve used that around AFWE types only to have them give me freaked out looks and ask me if I was talking about Parkerized wines. If it doesn’t have fruit concentration your wine probably ain’t so good. And it certainly won’t age very well.

87

If one should not say a wine has a lot of dry extract without measuring the dry extract in a lab, why is it OK to say a wine has a lot of tannin without measuring the tannin? Color saturation can be measured, right? So why would any tasting note describe the color, unless lab analysis has been done to quantify the color. Or imagine the folly of saying a wine tastes or smells alcoholic, if the alcohol has not been analyzed by ETS…

The fact is, some tasting note writers seem to have success in making me understand what a wine will be like when I have a chance to drink it, and other TN writers don’t, so i select who I pay attention to. I think each person needs to do this, and each person may select different TN writers for their own purposes. It is a very subjective thing.

I admit that I really don’t feel like posting a TN after reading this thread, as it brings to mind the many recent threads where people have major problems with many other common terms and descriptors… balance, concentration, over-ripe or under-ripe, hot or alcoholic, complexity, elegance, scores/ratings, etc, etc.

And I’m not alone in feeling that way. I notice that many (perhaps most) of the folks strongly against this term also don’t post very many tasting notes. either.

88

Key concept: There is no dry extract in wine.
Key concept #2: There is tannin in wine.

I do agree with you that there is often too much fuss made about tasting note terminology, and I believe it may be discouraging some from posting. At the same time, however, folks do use terms they don’t understand and simply write poorly worded TNs.

What makes a forum interesting and great, IMO, is when those instances of a misunderstood posts turn into learning opportunities rather than juvenile pig-piles. It is tricky, though, as some of us make critiques that are too sharp and off-putting, and some of us are very defensive, and unwilling to accept when we are wrong.

89

Because we directly perceive tannins, color and alcohol. Come on Lewis, we’ve covered this. No one is saying people shouldn’t use language that describes the experience of the wine but some of us don’t understand why anyone would use a phrase like dry extract that doesn’t describe the sensations you actually perceive rather than words that describe the wine directly. I’d give examples, but I’ve already DONE that above.

I admit that I really don’t feel like posting a TN after reading this thread, as it brings to mind the many recent threads where people have major problems with many other common terms and descriptors… balance, concentration, over-ripe or under-ripe, hot or alcoholic, complexity, elegance, scores/ratings, etc, etc.

And I’m not alone in feeling that way. I notice that many (perhaps most) of the folks strongly against this term also don’t post very many tasting notes. either.

rolleyes Then don’t post. I’ve zero sympathy for the "oh no, people might disagree with me on a discussion board so I won’t participate’ outlook. It’s a discussion board. People will have different opinions. That’s a good thing and the passive aggressive “well, if people won’t all agree with me I won’t play” stance seems counter to community and, frankly, pretty selfish. And, please note that no one is posting this as an attack on a TN - Brady started the thread asking for opinions. Aren’t we allowed to have differing opinions? Wouldn’t it be boring if we all agreed on everything?

As for why I rarely post notes, see Ray’s thread.

90

Because we directly perceive tannins, color and alcohol. Come on Lewis, we’ve covered this. No one is saying people shouldn’t use language that describes the experience of the wine but some of us don’t understand why anyone would use a phrase like dry extract that doesn’t describe the sensations you actually perceive rather than words that describe the wine directly. I’d give examples, but I’ve already DONE that above.

I think other folks have posted that dry extract is perceived and experienced as “intensity” of fruit. And Tanzer’s glossary states: “Extract: Essentially, the minerals and other trace elements in a wine. Sugar-free dry extract is everything in a wine except water, sugar, acids and alcohol. High extract often gives wine a dusty, tactile impression in the mouth, frequently serving to buffer, or mitigate, high alcohol or strong acidity.”

So Tanzer (and Meadows, as noted and defined above) also uses the term, apparently because a high level of dry extract leaves him with a particular tactile impression on the palate. Why is it that you keep insisting that varying levels of dry extract are not a sensation which can actually be perceived? I don’t get it. Some people say the term means something to them in terms of the impression of the wine, its intensity. Why can’t you just accept that instead of insisting that it is, as a factual matter, completely meaningless as a tasting term?

Again, it’s not a term I use, but when I see it used it’s giving me a picture of the palate presence of the wine and its intensity, and describes the “experience” of the wine as you call it.

91

Why not say ‘intense fruit’ then? This gets to my point about indirection above - why not directly talk about the sensations one perceives vs the thing that causes those sensations?

And Tanzer’s glossary states: “Extract: Essentially, the minerals and other trace elements in a wine. Sugar-free dry extract is everything in a wine except water, sugar, acids and alcohol. High extract often gives wine a dusty, tactile impression in the mouth, frequently serving to buffer, or mitigate, high alcohol or strong acidity.”

And this belies the ‘it’s the intensity of fruit’ argument since it includes tannins and doesn’t include sugars which give the fruit sweetness. That dusty, tactile sensation? Those are tannins. Why not just say that vs use an indirect term??

So Tanzer (and Meadows, as noted > and defined > above) also uses the term, apparently because a high level of dry extract leaves him with a particular tactile impression on the palate. Why is it that you keep insisting that varying levels of dry extract are not a sensation which can actually be perceived?

Because it’s not - one does NOT PERCEIVE dry extract directly as a thing. It’s a term that includes, apparently, several different things (and note that Tanzer further clouds the issue by referring to it as “sugar free dry extract”). When you taste a wine and taste fruit and tannins, the dusty tannins are… well… tannins. The fruit taste is from the fruit components plus the sugar (which, again, is excluded in the Tanzer definition). There’s no single thing that is dry extract. It would be like talking about the ‘wet extract’ to mean the acid, alcohol and water.

I don’t get it. Some people say the term means something to them in terms of the impression of the wine, its intensity. Why can’t you just accept that instead of insisting that it is, as a factual matter, completely meaningless as a tasting term?

Oh I can… but I’m trying to understand why people resist using the direct terms like “concentrated red fruit” or 'fine, dusty tannins" and want to use a term that has to be defined and that, if we use varying definitions, clouds the meaning of the note. In my example above, if I say “concentrated red fruit” you probably have a good idea what I mean. If the note defines the fruit (cherry, berry, whatever), you have an even better idea. Unless you and I share some fairly precise definitions of what dry extract means, though, the note isn’t clear. To me, it might imply concentration of fruit. To you it might imply tannic structure.

I mostly object to its use in professional TNs and when its context implies that the person using it is trying to sound important (rather like the use of pain grille just because it’s French). But mostly, I’m trying to understand why people use a less precise term when the entire reason to share notes is communication.

92

I’ve been puzzling over the amount of discussion on the use of the term. It doesn’t seem like that big a deal.

Anyway, I vote with the ‘it’s useful’ crowd. I vote against the ‘it’s pretentious’ crowd.

93

I vote ‘it’s neither useful nor pretentious’. [wink.gif]

94

I disagree with your assumptions and your characterizations of what people mean by “dry extract.” Bottom line is, why do you care so much if people use a term they find accurately describes their personal impressions or experience of a wine? Who cares if there are other terms they could use instead? By the way, I don’t write tasting notes to communicate, I write them for my own use, and sometimes share them just in case anyone is interested. If they don’t like my descriptors, so be it. I also enjoy reading other people’s tasting notes. Lewis’ notes, for example, work for me – I love them. I’m able to get a pretty good grasp of what he was tasting, and if he uses some terms that I wouldn’t, so what?

But I have neither the time nor the energy to while away my time writing post after post trying to prove a point. Good luck. [truce.gif]

95

Rick,
I get a tactile sensation in many Chablis that I doubt is due to tannins. What the source is I don’t know, but I’ve found that it correlates with wines Meadows describes as having a lot of dry extract. So, even if the term is not technically correct, it is useful to me (and others it seems) as it is consistently used. Granted, if he used the term “alien frogs” to describe the same sensation it would be just as useful if it was consistently used (but would probably make even less sense [snort.gif] ). I’m surprised too that this thread has generated so much interest. The poor horse has had enough! deadhorse

96

Oh well alien frogs. I mean we ALL know what that is. See, i’d have no issue with that… :slight_smile:

And yes, I won’t belabor the point. I was just curious since each time I’ve asked what it means to someone they use a very clear term and I’m puzzled as to why they don’t just use that term to begin with. Secondarily, I think using a term that means different things to different people hinders communication, so it’s a trend that bothers me in that respect.

Oh and Alien Wine Frogs is the name of my next band.

97

Good point - Chablis is also where I would most often claim to detect dry extract; maybe DE is the reason I’m addicted to the stuff.

I’ll give you a good deal on the domain name :slight_smile:.

98

No, that’s dissolved seashells…

[quote=“Rick Gregory”]
Oh and Alien Wine Frogs is the name of my next band.
[/quote]

I’ll give you a good deal on the domain name > :slight_smile:> .

So YOU’RE the one who registered it!!!

99

Chablis - chalky?

100

Speaking of Chablis and alien frogs, I had a bottle of Les Grenouilles that was loaded with that stuff…
[snort.gif]