Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Recommended Posts

Posted

How does the classification of sparkling wines that are listed as dry, extra dry, and so on work? Is it reverse where extra dry means sweet? The Chateau St. Michelle extra dry sparkling wine is somewhat sweet and is described as such...

Does anyboy else have insight on this?

Thanks

Ben

Gimme what cha got for a pork chop!

-Freakmaster

I have two words for America... Meat Crust.

-Mario

Posted

Extra dry usually means moderately dry with a little bit of residual sugar, like 1-2 percent. Extra dry is sweeter than brut, which is probably why it seems a bit confusing, but it's drier than sec or demi-sec (extra dry equals extra sec), or doux.

That is to say, the progression is . . .

Sweetest: doux (sweet)

Pretty sweet: demi-sec (half-dry)

Moderately sweet: sec (dry)

Just a little sweet: extra-sec (extra-dry)

Unsweet: brut (super-duper-dry)

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Posted

When I was in Champagne last year, one of the wineries told me that "Extra-Dry" was a line that they had been developed to specifically target North Americans. It was felt that Americans, in general, don't like Brut as it is too dry, but like the idea of dry wine, as sweet wine is associated with cheapness and lack of class, which isn't what sells champagne.

So Extra-Dry has more residual sugar, as FG said, then brut .

Posted

From what I remember, the confusing nomenclature occurred due to the way champagne evolved during its history. In the beginning, champagne was a rather nasty wine and was artificially sweetened to disguise its tartness. As the producers began to improve their techniques and produce better wines, there was less need for this. So demi-sec appeared and then dry and extra dry and finally brut and even extra brut. So "dry" and "extra dry" get their names because they're drier than the original champagnes, but are still noticeably sweet by modern standards.

Posted

Yep, many of the champagne house are very, very streetwise and make there products very much in mind of what the consummers want. Hence, historially Demi-sec was produced for the Russian market, while Brut was for the English (Pol Roger even made a 500 ml bottling, because Churchhill felt that a half bottle was to little for one person while a full bottle was too much). Extra-dry for Americans would seem to be a logical extentions of this idea.

Posted

Do North Americans really prefer their sparkling wines sweeter than Europeans? One piece of evidence I'd cite in opposition to that hypothesis is the difficulty in finding doux and demi-sec bubbly here, contrasted with their wide availability in Europe.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Posted
Do North Americans really prefer their sparkling wines sweeter than Europeans? One piece of evidence I'd cite in opposition to that hypothesis is the difficulty in finding doux and demi-sec bubbly here, contrasted with their wide availability in Europe.

If, as Adam says, extra-dry was created for Americans, I would assume we like it drier than continentals, but perhaps not as dry as the English for whom brut was created. My personal opinion is that Americans don't actually like dry wines as much as they like to think they like dry wines. Thus wines labeled sec and extra-dry sell well as they offer the assurance one is drinking dry wine.

In spite of the fact that some of the world's greatest wines are sweet, the word "sweet" has the connotation of cheap to many here. I have never seen a doux champagne here in the states and can only recall two brands of demi-sec on the market. I suspect I can do better if I try, but even the demi-secs are hard to find. I've never understood the appeal of a dry champagne with dessert or at the end of the meal and yet I've had restaurants offer me a glass of champagne at the end of the meal. It's ungracious not to accept, but I don't enjoy it. There's nothing better than a good sweet wine with dessert or in lieu of dessert. I've had guests bring brut champagne to a New Year’s Eve dinner with the "instructions" that it's for the stroke of midnight which is likely to be when we're having a nice dessert. I've learned to have a bottle of demi-sec around at such times. It will support a fruit dessert, so I don't have to use a thirty dollar bottle of wine to abuse taste buds.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Posted

I actually prefer extra-dry over brut - mostly because I'm usually using the champagne in mixed cocktails and the extra-dry has more flavor that can better stand up to the other ingredients. And I agree that champagne works better as an apperitif with savory snacks/appetizers than with dessert, though I do love a lightly sparkling dessert wine like moscato d'asti.

Posted

It's also vintage sensitive and varies from vintage to vintage. It's hard to find a bone-dry wine in a vintage like 1990 when the wines are so ripe. Easier to do in a year like 1988 when the vintage is classic.

×
×
  • Create New...