You can find plenty of references to great dry Mosel wine in auction and wine lists, among other sources, from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Even the “sweet wines,” such as an Auslese, had relatively low amounts of residual sugar and cannot be likened to today’s Auslesen, much less Spätlesen or Kabinette. In addition, the wines often aged for many years in cask.
Yes. Sweet wines made in a certain way can, and initially were, about masking botrytis and high-acid grape material. I also said:
“If the demand remains, there will be more than enough not-dry Riesling produced to go around (mostly from the Mosel.) If you like it, buy it –sometimes there is absolutely no substitute for brilliant off-dry, steep-slope Mosel or Mittelrhein Riesling and I love it too.”
And about dry wines:
“I have found that a few chaptalized wines (adding sugar to the must before fermentation to raise alcohol, not sweetness) can come across a little hot as there is more alcohol, but not more fruit or mineral flavor to counteract it”
I posted that Germany initially gained its reputation for Riesling in the 19th century:
“We can with some measure of certainty conclude that the best German Rieslings of the past, those from which Germany initially gained its high reputation were dry with a few bottles of BA and TBA thrown in for good measure, but these were great rarities. Analysis of the sugar content of surviving bottles from centuries past has also confirmed this.”
Elite producers in the late 60s, 70s and 80s produced sweet Riesling to answer the demand of the consumer taste of the time. The new technology that I have already outlined made it possible for sweet wines (that were once only produced under rare circumstances) to be commonplace. If you doubt my post, I suggest that you too pick up some of the books from the list I gave above and read it or better yet, come to Germany and speak with some of the cellar masters over here.
My opinion is that there is room for all styles of Riesling and I only wanted to offer some insight about how Riesling was produced in the past in a predominantly dry style and why there is a resurgence of that style today. It seems to me that you have more a problem with what you perceive to be my bashing of conventional vineyard practices or tech-heavy cellar measures in favor of organic or ‘natural’ winemaking. Where did I ever state that dry Riesling was better than off-dry? I have merely been exposed to a lot of incredible dry Riesling that I am excited about drinking that isn’t readily available in the US.
If you don’t like dry Riesling, don’t drink it.
I think the problem here is an article that begins with this paragraph:
But has also makes this claim in the final paragraph:
So sweet Riesling is dead but not extinct? What does that mean? It seems a lot like a case of trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
Sounds like Syrah…dead but not extinct!
It’s interesting to see those denying Bill’s position that historically most German Riesling was essentially dry do not cite any sources. Yet the information is out there for anyone willing to look – most German wines were dry or had relatively little residual sugar. For example, in Wines: Their Selection Care and Service, published in 1933, Julian Street wrote that “Rhinegau wines are dryer than other wines of the Rhine. To one familiar with French wines, but not with German wines, the nobles of the Rhinegau may best be explained by saying that they fit into a menu where a great Montrachet would fit.”
One of Street’s reasons for rating Rheinhessen wines lower than Rheingau wines is that the former were sweeter (we’re talking here about Roter Hang and Worms; the Wonnegau which today produces so many spectacular wines was essentially unknown at that time).
Basically, it was Beerenauslese and Trockenbeerenauslese (those terms did not have the technical definitions that they do today, an indeed labels such as Trockenbeerenauslese Auslese were not uncommon) that were regarded as dessert wines.
All this does not mean that the wines back then were always completely dry. Those who have discussed the matter with Roman Niewodniscanski of van Volxem in the Saar know that he believes that there was a little residual sugar in most of the Saar wines at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, and so that is the way he makes his wines today. Support for his position is found, for example, in André Simon’s Vintagewise: A Postscript to Saintsbury’s Notes on a Cellar Book (1945) which talks about a 1937 Trittenheimer Porriger Krupp Natur being “a really dry wine, dry without any acidity and with the distinction of pre-'14 types of fine Moselles”; in other words, most wines were not as dry as that one labelled “Natur.” I also came across a reference yesterday to a distinction between Auslese and Auslese trocken (i.e., between wines with some residual sugar and totally dry wines) in an old book, but I have lost the reference for the moment.
I might add that two years ago, tasting in Brauneberg the 2009s of Fritz Haag with Wilhelm Haag, he commented that the feinherb (i.e., barely off-dry) was the way Kabinetts tasted when he began in 1957.
Adam - I think that the first paragraph was understood by most of us to be artful as opposed to 100% factual.
I have always believed that there is for more potential for the sale of dry and off dry riesling that sweet riesling.
The reason is that most normal people (as opposed to the wine obsessed) drink wine with food. Sweet wines are great with certain desserts and cheeses. The residual sugar also seems to help regenerate the palette when drunk with spicy food. I have found that the sweeter wines are very difficult to repeatedly drink with most non-spicy savory foods.
The above comment applies to recent vintage sweet wines. As we all know, when riesling ages, it takes on differing characteristics and the sweetness is not as dominant. Now having said that, older rieslings of a given pradikat have far less sugar than modern ones do. As such, an apples to apples comparison is difficult unless one has measurement instruments and I have not yet passed that level of insanity.
German dry and off dry rieslings can be paired with anything short of a steak. There is a huge range of fruitiness and impact. This is often true even within different vineyards. Look at Keller, for example. Absterde is very nuanced and Hubacker (nicknamed Hugebacker) is a huge spicy, fruity monster. It would stand up to duck or even squab (whether you like it is another matter).
As to where dry German rieslings stand in the spectrum vs Austria, I can say having done some group blind tastings with knowledgeable industry professionals that they stand up very well (for example Keller, Schaefer Frohlich, Kartauserhof, Furst, Rebholz, vs Nikolaihof Steiner Hund and others). If the debate is about how dry German Rieslings available in Southern California fare against Austrian wines, I think that a strong case can be made that Austria is the winner. Of course, this is sort of a silly debate.
Unfortunately, much of the anti-dry German riesling camp has never really tasted a range of the top producers. This is especially true in Southern California where it is very hard to source these wines so one cannot really blame them. Although it is tacky to name names, in a debate like this it is really necessary given the difficulty of sourcing these wines in CA.
Matt – I’ve found that German wines with residual sugar up to Spätlese and even in many cases Auslese can go well with non-Asian cuisines. Indeed, Manfred Prüm of Joh.-Jos. Prüm likes to serve an Auslese with wild boar, and I recall a lunch some years ago at Per Se with Robert Weil Kiedrich Gräfenberg Spätlese paired perfectly with a beef dish.
I understand that you’ll be over in Germany later this summer with our mutual friend. Maybe we’ll manage to meet up, as we did a couple of years ago.
Claude - let us hope we can meet again this summer.
And I agree which is why I said most. The most obvious would be fois gras. As you note, pork/boar has inherent sweetness that pairs well. The beef dish would depend on the preparation. I meant more a straight steak au jus.
I love them on occasion with savory foods but for me (and I think most non riesling geeks) , I don’t like to do it that often.
Spatlese is perhaps the best QPR on the planet - utterly profound wines.
there is for more potential for the sale of dry and off dry riesling that sweet riesling.
The reason is that most normal people (as opposed to the wine obsessed) drink wine with food.
No clue what that means. People drink wine with food, they drink it w/out food. They drink Coke and Kool-Aid and tea and they drink those with and without food. This whole notion of “food wine” and whatever it’s opposite is - those are creations of the wine writers who had some axe to grind regarding some wine they didn’t like.
I like salt on my steak. Someone says “ooh, that’s too much salt.” Well screw someone. They don’t need to eat it. Same with wine.
All that said, I don’t think anyone was picking a fight with Bill. He posted a long and overall informative essay, and he had a few opinions thrown in that tried to pass as objective, and some people questioned those but so what? It’s a wine board. I wish I knew more about the history of Riesling and now I have to find out, but I’m skeptical that most of it was really dry in the sense that we think of dry today.
Why? Well, for the most part, people who were able to produce sweeter wines jealously guarded their secrets. I’m slightly more familiar with Tokaj, and dry wine over there is a very recent development. Nobody wanted to “waste” good grapes on that when they could make sweet wine. Barolo? Wasn’t that sweet until recently? Sauternes? How long have they been doing dry wines?
Unfortunately, we don’t have chemical analysis to tell us. Claude cites some sources to argue that the wines were dry, but those quotes don’t really make the case, do they? Pointing out that Rheingau wines were drier than those from elsewhere suggests that perhaps most weren’t dry? And what level of “dryness” are we talking about anyway? As far as fitting where a Montrachet would fit, that doesn’t necessarily imply that the wine is similar, just that it’s of equivalent quality.
But in any event, I don’t think the Germans need to produce a dry wine to be taken seriously. The GGs are OK but all the world produces dry white wines. Who cares about another? As a wine buyer, I have no interest whatsoever. As a wine student, I agree with David that whether the wine is dry or not has nothing to do with terroir. And as a wine drinker, I agree with Chris and the rest that the range of German wines that you can produce from one single grape is something to celebrate.
Thanks for the post, I will indulge myself to open more Riesling (from all places) in the near future. However, from the title I couldn’t help but think of Reginald Perrin…
“here is for more potential for the sale of dry and off dry riesling that sweet riesling. The reason is that most normal people (as opposed to the wine obsessed) drink wine with food.”
No clue what that means. People drink wine with food, they drink it w/out food. They drink Coke and Kool-Aid and tea and they drink those with and without food. This whole notion of “food wine” and whatever it’s opposite is - those are creations of the wine writers who had some axe to grind regarding some wine they didn’t like. "
What this means is that wine drinkers can appreciate a wine in the abstract. Most people drink wine with food. Of course people drink food with coke and iced tea. Who cares? People eat at McDonalds. That is not relevant to a discussion of fine dining.
There is no such thing as food wine or not food wine. But certain wines go with a narrower range of foods (like sweet riesling) and certain wines can be drunk with a broader range of foods. That is the point.
You’ve decided that sweet Riesling goes with a narrower range of foods. How versatile is that oaky Chardonnay for ya? I suppose Pinot Grigio goes with everything since all too often it tastes like nothing. If we’re to judge the usefulness of a wine by the average consumer’s tastes then oce again Santa Margerhita (or however it’s spelled) Pinot Grigio and 2 Buck Chuck are the most useful food wines of all! Let’s rip out all of those useless Riesling vines!
Huh, I would never consider pairing a Spatlese with a dessert, but IMO they can be one of the most food friendly wines out there and generally one of the first things I’d reach for when it comes to a pork dish. Now if you’re referring to those Spatleses which are really Ausleses or even BAs then I can probably agree but that’s not an argument that bone dry riesling is the better food match, just an argument against oechsle-creep.
Bravo for adding that to our vocabulary!
Well, as the best GG´s are among the worlds absolute best white wines, the world needs them. Did you ever read some of the fantastic GG notes from Gilman, Jancis, Fass?
Chears, Claus
I agree completely. I’m not saying there should be any move away from the sweeter styles (in my ideal world), since they can be fabulous as well, but I absolutely think there is a great reason to be producing top tier GG’s. That reason is that they are among the best dry white wines of the entire world.
“You’ve decided that sweet Riesling goes with a narrower range of foods. How versatile is that oaky Chardonnay for ya? I suppose Pinot Grigio goes with everything since all too often it tastes like nothing. If we’re to judge the usefulness of a wine by the average consumer’s tastes then oce again Santa Margerhita (or however it’s spelled) Pinot Grigio and 2 Buck Chuck are the most useful food wines of all! Let’s rip out all of those useless Riesling vines!”
- I don’t drink oaky chardonnay. Chablis works quite well with a range of foods as does blanc de blancs.
- I’m not sure how else one would judge the utility of a product other than how useful the average person in the target audience finds it. Obviously the target audience for 2 Buck Chick is different than that for $70 GG.
- I’m not voting for tasteless wines. Clearly GGs have a huge flavor profile and I noted that they go with a wide range of foods.