Are body, texture, and mouth-feel all the same thing?

FWIW, I think of them as one, in the same. There might be some semantic elements that would differentiate one from the other, but I try and incorporate these elements into "mouth feel." Maybe I am the only one, who does so.

Hunt

Depends on what you mean.....

Tasting terms will vary somewhat between different countries and writers. Body seems to be one of the major terms used by most. Here is how Michael Broadbent MW defined body in his pocket guide to Wine Tasting.

"BODY the weight of wine in the mouth due to its alcoholic content, extract and to its other physical components. These factors stem from the quality of the vintage and geographical origin, and in turn affect the style and quality of the wine. Wines from hotter climates tend to have more body than those from the north (compare the Rhone with the Mosel, for example)."

Broadbent does not define texture in his glossary of technical terms, but rather introduces it in descriptions of other terms, such as below.

" SILKY a firm yet distinctly soft texture on the palate. A characteristic of most really fine dessert wines, also of good quality Pomerols."

"VELVETY another textural connotation, related to silky and smooth, but implying more opulence."

" SMOOTH soft, easy texture. No rough edges."

I would guess that some may use mouth-feel instead of texture, but I do not have an example of such usage at hand.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net from my email address. Then add snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com . I do not check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

This is all a question of language I think Howard. All wine can be described as nice, ok or yuk, however tasting notes based on these three descriptors don't help people who haven't tasted it. So an entire dialect of descriptive, adjective laden language has developed to describe the nuances we find in wine. Whilst these descriptors all essentially describe the way we perceive the physical propertys of the wine interacting with our mouth, as seperate to the actual taste, there are tiny differences of meaning between them. Body as a descriptor tends to relate more to the structure of the wine whilst texture can relate to the alcohol content and relative viscosity. Mouthfeel often relates to trapped gases in the wine (sparkling or lightly spritzed in my notes) So it would be possible to end up with a TN something like _ Richly textured with a soft creamy mouthfeel and terrific body_ Whilst that is a bit flowery for me it is a note that builds layers of information, in comparison to a note that says _Whilst this wine is richly textured with a soft creamy mouthfeel it lacks body_ I would assume that it lacks some complexity or length, finishing short in the mouth perhaps or having a very loose structure that won't take age well. Depending on whether or not you know & trust a particular writers hyperbole can help as well. :) Cheers Andrew

Well, just thinking about my personal usage, they're related but body is slightly different from mouthfeel/texture. Body is about weight, with alcohol, glycerin, sugar, etc all playing a role (I don't think of tannins as directly related to body). Texture/mouthfeel are exactly what the terms imply. Best example to me might be a Pomerol, where the body might be medium or full, but in its texture the classic examples all have a velvety smoothness. YMMV. In a formal sense, a MW or other professional might have different definitions.

"Cwdjrx _" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net...

I'd say mouth-fill for body, mouth-feel for texture..

Anders