Smoothness in wine. Warning: Another meandering, long, possibly pointless, post

[DougS]

I think the term is so common with spirits because it’s about how well integrated the alcohol is, which is worth talking about as it’s a key quality indicator, IMO. I never use the term, but I will think/talk about how well integrated the alcohol is. This seems to be something that whiskey nerds shy away from because it’s sort of a badge of honor that they can handle any level of booziness, to an extent that it doesn’t matter to them. One of my whiskey-loving friends described in a very honest way how fiery Pappy 15 is, which I agree with and really respected since it seems much of that community wouldn’t say such a thing.

I also think “smooth” is only common as a wine descriptor because it’s so common with spirits, and that most people who use it have no idea what they’re trying to describe, so it has no usefulness whatsoever with wine. I don’t doubt that some people here are talking about a specific trait, but I do doubt that the vast majority of novices who use it have anything close to a consensus for what meaning they are employing, other than to say “I like this”.

[Mike_Grammer]

In addition to the technical suggestions above, I often wonder if this is different than describing the texture in a note as “silky.” Or even maybe saying it’s “seamless.” Different, maybe more specific words. But ultimately describing the same sensations in the palate. Integrated, no rough edges, etc.

Ultimately a vocabulary is learned and so we may all be talking about the same things but articulating it differently.

yes, that’s a good point—I probably have a difficult time parsing “silky” and “smooth”.

An interesting discussion for sure, Noah, so well done in raising it. I almost think of smooth as what it’s not–no hard or rough edges or spikes as it travels down your tongue and throat. I also think I unconsciously add a level of harmonious length when I summon up that descriptor.

I should stop now–I think I’m doing more harm than good!

[Jim_F]

Hopefully my final comment here, but maybe not, I really see nothing wrong with the term, even though some may see it as amateurish or otherwise in a pejorative sense. So what. Are those of us, like me, that cannot pick up and express endless flavor nuances that we have never heard of lesser winos than those that can? We all express what we can taste, smell and appreciate.

[Ian_Sutton]

Hopefully my final comment here, but maybe not, I really see nothing wrong with the term, even though some may see it as amateurish or otherwise in a pejorative sense. So what. Are those of us, like me, that cannot pick up and express endless flavor nuances that we have never heard of lesser winos than those that can? We all express what we can taste, smell and appreciate.

I’m a huge believer in the primary audience for a TN being that of the person who wrote it. A memory jogger of the experience we had. On that basis, write what works for you. If others get additional benefit, then great, but they are the secondary beneficiaries.

[M_Porter]

Not a complete answer by any means, but I would suggest these as influences on texture that could bring about a “smooth” wine.

1. lower dissolved CO2
   
   \

2. extended lees contact, as the yeast breakdown the components help bring about a textural silkiness.

3. a gram or so of RS. Not enough to be perceived but enough to round the sharper edges in acidity. I would view this as more likely in Riesling than in Chardonnay. But 1-2 grams would not be perceptible to the vast majority of consumers in Chardonnay either.

Dissolved CO2 is a fascinating component in still wine. Some research suggest that it actually does not affect smoothness https://www.wineaustralia.com/news/articles/dissolved-carbon-dioxide-beliefs-questioned#:~:text=Dissolved%20CO2%20is%20a,can%20have%20significant%20quality%20implications.

[David_K2]

It’s a useful term insofar as it’s an immediate tell the person using it has no idea what they’re talking about. Kind of like “legs.”

[Phil_T_r_o_t_t_e_r]

It’s a useful term insofar as it’s an immediate tell the person using it has no idea what they’re talking about. Kind of like “legs.”

Legs or tears was used for a long time in French to describe viscosity of the wine on the side of the glass. It just fell out of fashion. But for a long time it was used by people who knew what they were talking about. Is it different in English?

[Otto_Forsberg]

Legs or tears was used for a long time in French to describe viscosity of the wine on the side of the glass. It just fell out of fashion. But for a long time it was used by people who knew what they were talking about. Is it different in English?

The problem with legs (or tears) is that the viscosity of the wine can be the result of many different things, so the legs/tears don’t really tell you anything that you couldn’t tell by just taking a small sip and tasting for yourself.

For example slow legs can result from high alcohol, high residual sugar, high glycerol content, etc. and without tasting the wine, you really can’t tell which is it. Furthermore, mouth tends to be a much more accurate assessor of alcohol content than legs; the difference between how legs form tends to be minuscule in two wines that are, say, 13,5% and 15% ABV, yet the alcohol difference in these wines can be quite easily assessed just by taking small sips of each.

[Phil_T_r_o_t_t_e_r]

Legs or tears was used for a long time in French to describe viscosity of the wine on the side of the glass. It just fell out of fashion. But for a long time it was used by people who knew what they were talking about. Is it different in English?

The problem with legs (or tears) is that the viscosity of the wine can be the result of many different things, so the legs/tears don’t really tell you anything that you couldn’t tell by just taking a small sip and tasting for yourself.

For example slow legs can result from high alcohol, high residual sugar, high glycerol content, etc. and without tasting the wine, you really can’t tell which is it. Furthermore, mouth tends to be a much more accurate assessor of alcohol content than legs; the difference between how legs form tends to be minuscule in two wines that are, say, 13,5% and 15% ABV, yet the alcohol difference in these wines can be quite easily assessed just by taking small sips of each.

Of course, it is not a sufficient descriptor used on its own but rather an observation that can convey some information. The same is true for the wine’s color for example. But I don’t mind people who use legs or tears.

[Michael_Martin]

I like smooth legs.

Carry on.

[Arv_R]

It’s time to add more rigor to the dimensionality of smoothness. I propose a bW scale, which is sort like pH in that it too goes from 0-14, but is developed from gradations of Barry White’s work.

You See The Trouble With Me - Barry White (Don't Forget Your Toothbrush 1994)

The 1990 La Conseillante gets the full 14, and is analogous to “You See the Trouble with Me”

[Mike_Grammer]

Very nice. Well played!

[ChrisJames]

At the same time, there is an experience I’ve had only a few times with high end aged Pinot Noir (both Old and New World), in which the wine is so irresistibly silky and sexy in the mouth that the wine’s smoothness becomes one of its main defining characteristics. And it’s one of the chief reasons those wines are so appealing to me. I’m not sure whether the smoothness in these two very different examples are the same, but I think they’re at least related.

Now you’ve done it! What the hell is sexy wine or a wine that feels sexy in the mouth? I guess I can try to imagine a sexy whine (but can’t) or whiny sexy (I imagine this with Margo Chester in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation), but I have never, ever been able to equate a wine’s sensory profile with sex.

[Yao_C]

Furthermore, mouth tends to be a much more accurate assessor of alcohol content than legs; the difference between how legs form tends to be minuscule in two wines that are, say, 13,5% and 15% ABV, yet the alcohol difference in these wines can be quite easily assessed just by taking small sips of each.

You’re actually right in this specific example, just not in quite the way you’re expecting, because the propensity of a wine to form legs peaks at about 14-14.5% and falls off above that. But it should work below that breakpoint, though I agree that tasting it is in general the superior approach. Sorry I can’t remember the exact paper I got that from

[Otto_Forsberg]

You’re actually right in this specific example, just not in quite the way you’re expecting, because the propensity of a wine to form legs peaks at about 14-14.5% and falls off above that. But it should work below that breakpoint, though I agree that tasting it is in general the superior approach. Sorry I can’t remember the exact paper I got that from

That’s cool to hear, didn’t know that. However, do you know if the difference is remarkable enough so that one could say from the legs that this wine is actually 14%, not 13,5%? Because that is such a difference in ABV that I might actually notice in a wine like Beaujolais, where IMO the sweet spot is around 12,5-13% - thus a wine at 13,5% might feel a bit too high for my preference and 14% is just way too high. I have a hunch such a difference wouldn’t be discernible enough to be immediately visible in wine’s legs.