So we’re discussing components of wine at the small wine and gourmet foods shop I’ve been helping out in and the owner and I are trying to explain the term ‘structure’ to a couple of wine novices. After a while it became apparent this is one wine term that is not that easy to explain. Googling around found this:
"A very structured wine is one in which one or more components of the structure are quite predominant. "
“STRUCTURE: The interaction of elements such as acid, tannin, glycerin, alcohol and body as it relates to a wine’s texture and mouthfeel.”
“Structure describes the feel of a wine; whether it’s strong or weak, light or heavy, simple or complex.”
But none of those really (at least for me) convey what structure is unless you already know what the components of a wine are, what they bring to a wine, and what they SHOULD contribute to the tasting experience.
Help me out here. How would you explain ‘structure’ to someone, in simple terms, if they’re really not familiar with the basic elements of wine? Can it be done without tasting?
I’m not sure I’ll be able to do any better, but I’m willing to try.
Structure (as I use the term) describes the components of the wine that alter the taste perception of the wine without changing the underlying flavors of the wine. So, structure changes how a wine tastes not by changing the flavors, but by changing how they get to your taste buds.
Some examples to make the point:
Tannin can make your teeth feel fuzzy or provide a bitter aftertaste to a wine. Some tannins leave you feeling of chalkiness in the mouth (hence the term “chalky tannins”). They can be fine (“smooth” sometimes goes with fine tannins) or coarse (“gritty, harsh, biting”).
Acid can make fruit flavors seem more tart or sour (cherry to tart cherry, etc.). Acid can also make a wine seem more crisp or refreshing (“clean”).
Sugar, alcohol, and glycerol all have analogous effects on how the tongue perceives the flavors.
For me, a wine I call well-structured will have components that effectively spread the flavors on the palate without seeming out of balance. Poorly-structured wines tend to have one or more components out of balance in such a way that it appears irreconcilable. That is, a well-structured wine can be immature and out of balance because of it, but if the components eventually resolve into a harmonious whole, the wine will still be considered well-structured in my book.
This seems like a pretty good condensation of the idea, although you would probably then have to come up with a way to define “flabby” for said layman without referring back to “structure.”
Glad to help out, Peter.
“Structure” is JuliaRoberts. “Lack of structure” is OprahWinfrey (in her current guise). “Over-structured” would be PamelaAnderson.
“Structure” is KobeBryant. “Lack of structure” is JohnBelushi. “Over-structured” would be ShaqO’Niel.
Hope that helps!!!
“Structure” in wine, like “natural”, or “minerality”, or “complexity”, or “balance”; is damnably difficult to define precisely. It’s just something you just recognize in a wine.
I don’t think any of your three examples above fits what I would define as structure.
To me, it’s about the interplay of acids/tannins/alcohol/flavors in a wine and what it implies about ageibility. A wine needs structure to be ageable. A wine
lacking in structure is generally not ageable. You can obviously have whites w/ negligible tannins, yet still have structure. You can have wines where the
acidity sticks out like a sore thumb (like Chablis or German Kabinett Riesling or AltoAdige GWT or HunterVlly Semillon), but I would say they have “structure”
because they’re ageable. The EdStJohn or Qupe have modest tannins and oak, but I would save they have “structure” because their balance give them
an amazing ability to age; they’re just assembled very well.
But I think “structure” is like “pornography”; you learn to recognize it, but a precise definition is supremely elusive. But the ageibility of the wine is, to me,
an important componennt.
Hope that helps…but…duhhhh…don’t think it really does.
Tom
I thought of that too and almost said the same thing you did. But then I decided to be like the supreme court and only answer the question that was asked without worrying about the implications of the narrow answer.
Wow, that is a tough question when you stop to think about it. At the risk of defining it with a bunch of other terms that would then require definition, I think of it as several aspects coming together. Specifically (but not exclusively) balance and body plus a subjective feeling of the wine being well-made. Sort of like a table, it must have all the legs the same length (balance), all the screws tightened so it doesn’t flex (body), and then there’s still the discretionary judgement about whether it’s the right wood, durable, etc (well-made).
Re-reading this, I’m not sure I added much value, but there you go.
I’d say the second quote in the original post gets closest to the meaning of structure in my opinion:
“STRUCTURE: The interaction of elements such as acid, tannin, glycerin, alcohol and body as it relates to a wine’s texture and mouthfeel.”
I think of structure as the components that make wine different from water or fruit juice (or Kool-Aid, for that matter). So that definitely encompasses acidity (often mouth-watering) and tannins (often somewhat drying). I think dry extract is important as well as this adds texture, though this a really phenolic material from grapes and maybe falls in with tannins. Alcohol is less dense than water, but more viscous IIRC, so this is another mouth-feel related component. Glycerol is a rather small contributor in most wines, I believe, though it adds viscosity and even some sweetness.
Structure seems to be the big thing that regular wine drinkers seek out as opposed to casual or non-wine drinkers. Usually non-wine drinking friends and family are turned off by tannins and noticeable acidity, though I like those sensations. It seems I’ve learned to like certain bitter and sour sensations in this context.
Glad to help out, Peter.
“Structure” is JuliaRoberts. “Lack of structure” is OprahWinfrey (in her current guise). “Over-structured” would be PamelaAnderson.
“Structure” is KobeBryant. “Lack of structure” is JohnBelushi. “Over-structured” would be ShaqO’Niel.
Hope that helps!!!
I sure hope Shaq doesn’t read this blog or you have some splainin to do!!!
If structure is in the basic ‘sensation’ elements of the wine, as in: “STRUCTURE: The interaction of elements such as acid, tannin, glycerin, alcohol and body as it relates to a wine’s texture and mouthfeel.”…
… does a wine have structure regardless of whether or not those elements are balanced properly? In other words is ‘structure’ a term that is totally objective (elements are present or not, and to what degree), where ‘balance’ (how those elements effect how the wine tastes) is more subjective?
Or is that too academic a way to look at it? [BTW - This came from a Snooth analysis questionnaire the owner was using. It asked if the wine was ‘structured’ or ‘soft’.]
Absolutely. There are plenty of bad wines where there is plenty of structure and not nearly enough fruit. Or where any of the the various elements of the structure stand out too much. Balance and structure are very different things.
In other words is ‘structure’ a term that is totally objective (elements are present or not, and to what degree), where ‘balance’ (how those elements effect how the wine tastes) is more subjective.
I think both are subjective in that people determine whether or not there is good structure based on taste. The elements of structure are basically objective, but the issue of whether they are sufficient in a wine is subjective.
If grapes are allowed to become too ripe, the resulting wine will likely be very “soft” and “unfocused”. Since wines typically get softer as they age, this would not be a good starting point for wines intended for aging! But it may be perfectly acceptable, even preferable for many people, for wines that are going to be consumed soon.
Wines from warmer grape growing regions are usually softer and “less structured” (i.e. meaning less firm, less tannic, less “focused”) than wines from cooler areas. Likewise wines made in vintages that are hotter than usual. So, for instance, wines like Cal Cabs are usually softer than Bordeaux, and similarly Pinot Noirs are usually softer that Burgundies. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not as good, just that their structures are different.
Some young wines are typically very tannic, like young Bordeaux, so their “structure” is dominated by tannin and is very obvious! But even quite old wines must retain some “structure” to be pleasurable, and as the wine ages its structure depends more on the style and quality of its fruit. And then, some growing sites, some “terroirs”, always seem to endow their wines with a sort of minerality and focus that remains even as the wine softens with age, and after they no longer show tannins or noticeable acidity. So “structure”, to my mind, is not something that only young tannic wines possess (though these are the most obvious cases), but it can also be something much more subtle and gentle. A cool serving temperature, and a suitably long aeration, will help focus and deepen the fruit of an older wines, for instance, thus helping it retain a healthy and attractive “structure”, or “balance”. Here it is related to the perceived “vitality” of the old wine…
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[tease.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/c/c5b32b76bebaa359b0452ae247b61189ffe5fa7e.gif "tease"){kind=small}