Dry Riesling?

Dry to me means less than 1% RS. When entering my homemade wines in competitions I always make sure they are less than 1% RS if I say they are dry. So I was surprised the other day to find a bottle of Weimer's '06 Dry Riesling tasting a little sweet. A Clinitest showed the sugar to be between 1% and 2%.

Is this unusual? Are Dry Rieslings sometimes more than 1% RS?

You know, Dan, they could just be doing the ol' marketing thing and calling their wine dry, when in fact it may only be qualitatively, not quantitatively, dry.

Personally, I still cling to the same expectation - namely, that if a Riesling says "dry" on the label, it's <1% r.s. My preference is for '0', but those are hard to find.

Finger Lakes dry Rieslings can run up to about 2% RS (e.g. Glenora) to practically bone dry (e.g. Ravines). I don't think there is a law covering this. Because of their high acidity, I think these wines often benefit from a touch of RS but still give quite a dry impression.

Hi Dan,
I usually bottle my home made Riesling between 1-1.5%, depending on the acidity. I consider this dry, but don't label it as such. When I give a bottle to friends I simply tell them it's off-dry. However, when I've entered Riesling into contests, following their guidelines for sugar levels, I never win awards and the feedback from the judges is "Too dry - not sweet enough - too acidic", so I don't enter Riesling any more, because the wine is the way I like it and I'm not changing to satisfy some judges.

Hi Dan,
According to their website their 2006 Dry Riesling has a .9% RS content (9 g/L) and even in the EU this wine could be labeled Dry provided that the TA expressed as tartaric acid / L is no more than 2 g below the RS content.

Salute

In Germany, Trocken means up to 9 grams per litre, Halbtrocken is 18g/l (less than 15 is common) In Austria it is the same for trocken, but 12g/l for Halbtrocken. Alsace, well I love Alsace...

[David M. Bueker]

Alsace, well I love Alsace...

Because in Alsace you have no idea what you're getting (unless it has a Trimbach label)!

And to follow up on the original issue, there is indeed no law in the USA about residual sugar and the use of the word 'dry.' I've had dry riesling from the USA with 20 grams of sugar per liter, and with 2 grams. Perhaps we've been taken over by crazy Alsatian winemakers.

[David M. Bueker]

Alsace, well I love Alsace...

Because in Alsace you have no idea what you're getting (unless it has a Trimbach label)!

And to follow up on the original issue, there is indeed no law in the USA about residual sugar and the use of the word 'dry.' I've had dry riesling from the USA with 20 grams of sugar per liter, and with 2 grams. Perhaps we've been taken over by crazy Alsatian winemakers.

Alsace, well I love Alsace...

Because in Alsace you have no idea what you're getting (unless it has a Trimbach label)!

And to follow up on the original issue, there is indeed no law in the USA about residual sugar and the use of the word 'dry.' I've had dry riesling from the USA with 20 grams of sugar per liter, and with 2 grams. Perhaps we've been taken over by crazy Alsatian winemakers.

If we are being taken over by crazy Alsatians, at least we should be able to get some decent Gewurztraminer out of the west.

dan - times have sure changed. in the (good old) days it was said that a wine was technically dry if under 2 gr/l. - that fermentation below that was unreliable. it was said that a wine was organileptically dry if it was under 5gr/l on the grounds that tests showed that noone could reliably distinguish sugar at that level or lower. then KJ won best Chard at a major CA competition with 7 gr/l and many people were VERY upset. NOW dry is under 10gr/l. for you. i too object to calling those NY rieslings with obvious RS dry - and i've tasted more than a few. but, if .99% can count; why not 1.2% or 1.5%??

the new riesling group that has been formed has decided to try to tackle this issue; but i understand that NY is objecting and wants to do laissez faire. oh well. anyway, it sure isn't a problem just with riesling. i've tasted my share of CA cabs and merlots with at least 1% as well.

so, while i would prefer under 5gr/l for dry, i've decided not to get my shorts bunched up over it.

the new riesling group that has been formed has decided to try to tackle this issue; but i understand that NY is objecting and wants to do laissez faire.

Interesting. Did they want to tackle it by more strictly defining what can be called dry, as opposed to subjective nomenclature? I think that would have been a good thing personally.

I suspect there's more than a bit of "people talk dry but drink sweet" phenomenon at work - and it's probably more safe in a marketing context to let wineries call their 5 g/l Rieslings "dry" because they'll sell ... even if they're not technically dry.

[David M. Bueker]

Let's not fall into the trap of letting numbers dictate style. The Germans have done that & for years it got them a whole bunch of unattractive, tart Rieslings that were virtually undrinkable except for masochists & number drinkers.

I have absolutely no issue with putting the numbers of the back label (or even the front label), but legislating what is or isn't a dry tasting wine, unless you say only 0% is dry, everything else is semi-dry (in which case you've actually done nothing except outlaw 'dry') is an exercise is making wines by ideaology instead of taste.

Let's not fall into the trap of letting numbers dictate style. The Germans have done that & for years it got them a whole bunch of unattractive, tart Rieslings that were virtually undrinkable except for masochists & number drinkers.

I have absolutely no issue with putting the numbers of the back label (or even the front label), but legislating what is or isn't a dry tasting wine, unless you say only 0% is dry, everything else is semi-dry (in which case you've actually done nothing except outlaw 'dry') is an exercise is making wines by ideaology instead of taste.

Agreed! Some of the German Trokens were very harsh - to me the halbtrokens were often dry enough to serve as table/food wines. Just recently I had a glass of the '05 Markus Fries Bernkastler Schlossberg Kab. Feinherb (at Gotham Bar & Grill in NYC) and it was a fantastic food wine (12.5 % abv!). Feinherb is a designation that I don't have much experience with, but will now be on the lookout. I was happy to discover that Astor wines carries this for a very reasonable $15.

I've had that rare experience, for me anyway, of having my mind changed, a genuine aha!, thanks to the discussion here. Since Dry, by convention, means less than 1% RS it seemed obvious to me that a wine with more sugar simply shouldn't be labeled Dry. It games the system. I still believe that to some extent, but what I've come to see as more important is that linking terms such as Dry, Semi-Dry, or whatever to particular levels of RS causes more trouble than it's worth. The reason is that it perpetuates confusion between physical properties and psychological experience, two separate things. As others have noted here, any seasoned wine taster knows that the perception of sweetness is influenced by a whole range of factors other than the amount of sugar. Why then imply that a simple physical property (less than 1% RS) and a perceptual experience (dry taste) are one and the same? Second, it adds to the intimidation factor keeping people away from wine to suggest in this way what one should experience. If "dry" is just a surrogate for amount of sugar it might make wine more approachable to simply state the latter on the label rather than convey the message that here is what you should taste (and you're a dummy if you don't!). So yes, I'm still slightly peeved that Weimer's Dry Riesling actually has something on the order of 1.5% RS. It shouldn't. But I'm thankful too because it led to the discussion here that helped me understand something more important.

[David M. Bueker]

...but what I've come to see as more important is that linking terms such as Dry, Semi-Dry, or whatever to particular levels of RS causes more trouble than it's worth. The reason is that it perpetuates confusion between physical properties and psychological experience, two separate things.

And all the angels of heaven rejoice as another wine lover places sanity before ideaology. Welcome!

Nicely said Dan!

Salute

As a fellow home wine-maker, I guess it’s fairly safe to say at one time or another you played around with various degrees of sugar-water; conditioner-wine; acid-water; or acid-wine solutions. No Dan?
Since 1 L = .264 gals = 33.792 ozs
(amt of solute measured in grams X 33.792) / vol of solvent measured in ozs = concentration of solute expressed as g/L
If you are doing acid or sugar adjustments on test samples of wine you have to determine (or know) the initial TA and RS (expressed as g/L) and add this to the result given by the formula above. After finding out which sample you like the “best” never immediately shoot for the “desired number” Take a small sample and shoot for 1/4 of the increase desired, let it stand, then test. Work your way to “desired number” slowly. Let the sample stand for a couple of weeks or months recheck and evaluate. If the outcome meets your approval, then do the bulk of the wine (in the same way you did your sample). Whenever making TA adjustments don’t forget to follow or monitor change in pH.

For the fun of it. (I'm pretty sure most of us have done this already).
Boil some water in a tea kettle, take 4 coffee cups (hopefully the same size, shape and color) and place tape on the bottom and number them 1-4.
Cup (1) add 1 gram of sugar for those without scale ¼ tsp (leveled) would about do it.
Cup (2) add 2 grams of sugar (½ tsp)
Cup (3) add 3 grams of sugar (3/4 tsp)
Cup (4) add 4 grams of sugar (1 tsp)
Place 8 oz of hot water into each cup and stir to completely dissolve the sugar.
1 gram of sugar dissolved in 8 ozs of water is equivalent to a sugar-water solution with a RS content of 4.2 g/L or .42%
(1 X 33.792) / 8 = 4.2 g/L or .42%
(2 X 33.792) / 8 = 8.4 g/L or .84%
(3 X 33.792) / 8 = 12.7 g/L or 1.27%
(4 X 33.792) / 8 = 16.9 g/L or 1.69%
If none of these seem “sweet” enough for you add sugar in one gram increments (or ¼ tsp increments).

Let the cups and its content cool to room temperature, shuffle them up and then line them up from “driest to sweetest” This might seem easy to some, but the mid range cups are going to take some thinking. To stir things up using a dropper or a small straw as a pipette add a little lemon juice, Eventually by adding just a little bit more lemon juice to cup 3 than cup 2 you can get them tasting almost “identical”. For that matter sooner or later you will not be able to detect any sweetness in cup 4.

Salute

Victorwine wrote:

As a fellow home wine-maker, I guess it’s fairly safe to say at one time or another you played around with various degrees of sugar-water; conditioner-wine; acid-water; or acid-wine solutions. No Dan?

Yes

The fun of posting on Wine Lovers is waiting for that totally unexpected, yet creative and interesting, reply that often follows. Victorwine seems to contribute more than his fair share of them. Many thanks.

Howie wrote:
I usually bottle my home made Riesling between 1-1.5%, depending on the acidity. I consider this dry, but don't label it as such. When I give a bottle to friends I simply tell them it's off-dry. However, when I've entered Riesling into contests, following their guidelines for sugar levels, I never win awards and the feedback from the judges is "Too dry - not sweet enough - too acidic", so I don't enter Riesling any more, because the wine is the way I like it and I'm not changing to satisfy some judges.

Quick question Howie- What is the alcohol content of your home-made Rieslings with 1-1.5% RS content which the “judges” think is too dry, not sweet enough, and too acidic?

Salute

Usually 11-12% ABV - 19-21 Brix fermented dry, sweetened with cane sugar before bottling, but the '05 was less than 10% when I sweetened using sussreserve.

Because the German wine producers basically have the same dilemma that you have (forced to categorize your wine as semi-dry but yet it is clearly a “dry-style”) they created two terms “Classic” and “Selection”. Basically to educate consumers that semi-dry wines (because of ABV and TA) could actually be wines created in a “dry-style”.

Very surprised how those “trained and knowledgeable” wine judges evaluated your wine.
Maybe you should just enter it as “Dry style”.

Salute