That should be interesting, Bob. thanks.Bob Ross wrote:Isaac, Jancis is working on page proofs of the third edition. I'll drop her a line and see what she is planning for the definition there. Regards, Bob
Yes, that seems to be the case. There is no accepted definition, agreed upon by all, and so the wordcan be misleading. If I say a wine is dry, I mean one thing. If Thomas says it, he means something completely different. Someone who doesn't know our definitions would have no idea what either of us meant.Rahsaan wrote:What makes strong brewed black tea seem dry?
Um, the fact that it is dry?
You wouldn't put sugar in your tea would you?
Then there's the astringency thing mentioned by Joe..
Anyway, it seems like you guys understand each other, but are just using different definitions..
Ed Draves wrote:in my personal opinion, the perception on dryness is what I concern myself with. In the glass does it really matter what the % of RS is? Or does what you taste matter above all?
Rahsaan wrote:Anyway, it seems like you guys understand each other, but are just using different definitions..
Robin Garr wrote:Rahsaan wrote:Anyway, it seems like you guys understand each other, but are just using different definitions..
I think it goes beyond mere "different definitions," Rahsaan, and this may be why a seemingly technical issue is raising an unusual level of, er, enthusiasm on both sides. I think it goes to a more philosophical difference in approaches to wine tasting, and to differing approaches that many of us hold deeply.
It strikes me as an issue of whether wine analysis can (or should) be quantified, and if so to what extent. Some of us want a rigorous, scientific definition of "dry." Others of us (and, frankly, I join Thomas and Jancis on this side) feel that it's the taste in the mouth that counts, and RS is only one among several inter-related variables. Can a wine with above-threshold RS be defined as "dry" if its overall flavor impression is not one of sweetness? That's the litmus test, and for me, the answer is yes.
Dale Williams wrote:Put me in the camp of using dryness to mean an absence of residual sugar. I certainly recognize that acidity can mask sugar. For instance, while there are exact figures under EU wine law for degrees of dryness, acidity can "stretch" the definition. "Trocken" is 0 to 4 grams per litre (= 0.4%) of residual sugar, "halbtrocken" is 4 to 12 (0.4 to 1.2% RS). But there are exceptions that apply: Trocken" can stretch up to 9 g/l, provided the acidity is not more than 0.2 g/l lower than RS - which is generally not a problem with German or Austrian Riesling
But I strongly disagree with using "dry" as substitute for "tannic" or "astringent".
And more to the initial point, I also strongly disagree with the sommeliers who smirked because a customer said he wanted dry and then mentioned a "butterball" as a wine he liked. Sure, if it was the KJ Vintners Reserve it probably has measurable sugar. But there ARE plenty of buttery Chardonnays that I bet come in at negligable sugar levels- bone dry. And even if they have low acids that means they are dry by my definition.
I also might use "sweet" if reference to a fruit profile in a red Bordeaux -that wine is still dry.
And lastly, I am a male wine drinker and probably AM a jerk.
philosophical difference in approaches to wine tasting, and to differing approaches that many of us hold deeply...Can a wine with above-threshold RS be defined as "dry" if its overall flavor impression is not one of sweetness? That's the litmus test, and for me, the answer is yes.
Rahsaan wrote:Same way I might describe the taste of some of these wacky tofu seitan products by saying "they taste like chicken/beef/etc" but I would never say they are chicken/beef/etc.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Roberto Vigna and 5 guests