Grosses Gewachs designation?

[Peter Creasey]

So what is the feeling among Riesling cognoscenti with respect to the Grosses Gewachs designation?

Worthy?

Hype?

Justification for high(er) prices?

Other?

. . . . . . . Pete

 

[David M. Bueker]

Some of all three.

 

[Morgan Harris]

A useful designation, all things considered.

I always like specificity - I don't think GG necessarily equals much higher prices. Not like Grand Cru Burgundy, anyway.

 

[David M. Bueker]

GG does not provide any more specificity than previously existed in German wine law. In fact, the designation is less specific, at least in what it outwardly tells a consumer. Buyers are now expected to "know" what GG means. Typically wrongheaded German marketing.

 

[kirk wallace]

originally posted by David M. Bueker:
GG does not provide any more specificity than previously existed in German wine law. In fact, the designation is less specific, at least in what it outwardly tells a consumer. Buyers are now expected to "know" what GG means. Typically wrongheaded German marketing.

Pete, you know that the GG's are dry, yes?

 

[David M. Bueker]

originally posted by kirk wallace:

originally posted by David M. Bueker:
GG does not provide any more specificity than previously existed in German wine law. In fact, the designation is less specific, at least in what it outwardly tells a consumer. Buyers are now expected to "know" what GG means. Typically wrongheaded German marketing.

Pete, you know that the GG's are dry, yes?

That really depends on what one thinks is "dry." Given that they can now go up to 10 g/l of RS, there are more than a few that have notable sweetness.

 

[kirk wallace]

originally posted by David M. Bueker:

originally posted by kirk wallace:

originally posted by David M. Bueker:
GG does not provide any more specificity than previously existed in German wine law. In fact, the designation is less specific, at least in what it outwardly tells a consumer. Buyers are now expected to "know" what GG means. Typically wrongheaded German marketing.

Pete, you know that the GG's are dry, yes?

That really depends on what one thinks is "dry." Given that they can now go up to 10 g/l of RS, there are more than a few that have notable sweetness.

that is good news, David. i was not aware. i recall being surprised and really liking Donnhoff's HH '09 GG when it was released. i wonder what its RS is.

 

[SFJoe]

Same as Smaragd, in that respect.

 

[Morgan Harris]

It's always interesting to me to calculate loose RSes based on alcohol %. Given that Spatelase is harvested at more-or-less 13-14% potential, and it's 15-17g of sugar per % of alcohol, depending on how vigorous or lazy the yeast are, you can get a pretty good idea of what an RS is in a wine.

That being said, I always heard that the threshold for perceptible sugar for most people is around 4 or 5g/l, so yes, while technically, they're not dry-dry, with the TAs most GGs post, effectively speaking, they're dry even at 10g/l.

I've always been a believer in describing wines as perceptibly dry (which I think all GGs are) versus technical dryness. Sure, you and me, as members of an expert community, can taste the sugar if we really go looking for it, but the wines are effectively dry from a casual threshold of perception.

 

[kirk wallace]

originally posted by SFJoe:
Same as Smaragd, in that respect.

'01 Jamek Achleiten GV yesterday seemed perhaps even over that level; or could've just been the very ripe flavor. Finish was dry enough for me, however.

 

[SFJoe]

I think smaragd also has a 10 g/l rs max. Maybe it's 9.

 

[David M. Bueker]

originally posted by Morgan Harris:

That being said, I always heard that the threshold for perceptible sugar for most people is around 4 or 5g/l, so yes, while technically, they're not dry-dry, with the TAs most GGs post, effectively speaking, they're dry even at 10g/l.

I've always been a believer in describing wines are perceptibly dry (which I think all GGs are) versus technical dryness. Sure, you and me, as members of an expert community, can taste the sugar if we really go looking for it, but the wines are effectively dry from a casual threshold of perception.

I've generally found that non-geeks complain more about sweetness in wines that we would call (using your words above) "perceptibly dry" since even minimal rs enhances fruit, and the uninitiated have a hard time with the difference between fruit and overt sweetness.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by David M. Bueker:

I've generally found that non-geeks complain more about sweetness in wines that we would call (using your words above) "perceptibly dry" since even minimal rs enhances fruit, and the uninitiated have a hard time with the difference between fruit and overt sweetness.

your point is well taken.

but with non geeks, it's impossible to separate the complaints from received wisdom (because they are the same thing) . in graduating from lancers to charddonnnnnay (or whatever), the one thing anyone learns is that grown up wine is "dry" (notwithstanding the horrors that lie beneath teh oak and alcohol in the glass in their hand).

once you strip away the oak and alcohol, the rs is easier to detect. n00bs get to call it and feel another step closer to middle age. good for them. let em have their fucking fun, i say.

just don't be playing too fast and loose with the initiating.

fb.