Quest to describe wine better

My wife Lynn and I carted a very inexpensive bottle of Bordeaux ($13 2001 Bel Air) to a country restaurant last week because they do not have any claret on their list. I protested when I got hit with a $25 corkage fee (I had telephoned the restaurant a couple of years ago to confirm that they had a corkage fee and thus permitted BYOB, but had forgotten the cost) that other restaurants in the area charge no more than $15. The backbone of my protest is we would buy their wine if they had any Bordeaux at all. The waitress argued that they had a Bordeaux blend from South Africa and that it was the same thing. I mentioned without energy that Bordeaux is a region not a blend and added that it was unfortunate if they wouldn’t bend on the policy since we wouldn’t be able to frequent the place, which we otherwise liked, if we had to chalk up an extra $25 every time we stopped in. The waitress said she didn’t make the rules. (By the way, I attempted to phone the owner, but haven’t as yet hooked up. Quite coincidentally I met his son in New Jersey on business last year. The man said to tell his dad that his son said to take good care of us – so I have a great precedent to request a break.)

I couldn’t believe it when Lynn suggested we go back to the very same restaurant last night, less than a week later. She is the tightwad in my family and normally would shun such a situation forever. Part one of this post is thus to suggest that giving up on anything is not recommended because wonders never cease.

Part two of this post is to mention that we brought a 2001 Bahans Haut Brion this time to be more in proportion to the corkage charge. I posted a note on this wine a few months ago on this forum. It is so good I would call it great. I thought about posting another note when it struck me that nothing I could say about it could convey what I actually liked about it. Descriptors like tobacco or particular berries, or body, or concentration, or whatnot, could exist in a range of wines from those I didn’t like to others that I would sell my soul for if I had one. This wine blew our socks off, but I can’t really tell you why in any way that would translate into what happened in our psyches.

It occurred to me that if I understood music, I might be able to relate aspects to fugues or other musical compositions that moved a theme in an artful way and seemed to say something in so doing to the inner being. But then other folks would have to understand musical composition.

I remembered that Otto had raved about 2003 Cantemerle in such descriptors that I ran out and bought a case. I telephoned my lawyer to see if I could sue Otto for misinformation, but decided instead to let the remaining eleven bottles rest for ten years before undertaking this action. Now I realize it wasn’t misinformation, just information that did not transfer Otto’s experience of the wine to me. And likewise, I can’t transfer to any of you why I found this most wonderful Bahans Haut Brion so great. Dale Williams and Jenise will believe me, and they wouldn’t be screwed if they bought a bottle to drink, because Dale already knows that he would like it and Jenise has to a degree calibrated her palate to mine. For all others, any information from me would be a waste of time. This gives me a project: to see if there is any way to do a better job of communicating wine experience than I am capable of at this moment.

I like Florida Jim's TNs. I always read them, even if I know I'll probably never drink the wines he's reporting on.

I like Florida Jim's TNs, too ... and if I may quote from his recent post that could get one's imagination going in a pleasant manner:

"The floral elements of this wine are captivating; an entire garden of wild flowers growing beside a white-water stream ...".

Ramon

You are much more eloquent that I am. I have realized that I cannot really do WTN's. I am not a super taster. I do not have refined taste buds or olefactory resources. All I can really say about a wine is its physical characteristics (red-white, sweet- acidic etc. ) and how much I liked or disliked it. And please, I understand and appreciate the sincere efforts that many here expend selflessly to try to tell me about wines that they have tried... honestly, it really doesn't translate all that well to me. I truely cannot distinguish between red and black berries. I haven't a clue about tobacco tastes in wine. What I do... crude as it is... is if several here seem to really like a wine and it sounds like a style I might like... and if it is fairly readily available at a price I'm willing to pay....I'll give it a try, and see what I think. I do understand that others have far better palates and verbal skills than I... and more power to them. But trying to describe the floral characteristics and pencil lead notes of a wine to me is wasted effort. Tell me that you thought it was really great, that it really sang to you... that I can understand.

Glenn

My descriptive powers and my nose are both pretty dreadful. Even my notes to myself range from "GACK!" to "ok" to "good" and a few "Wonderfuls", usually with a mention about whether I thought it fit the price range I paid.
I still break down and post a few notes about wines that are out of the ordinary to me.
I've rarely found many of the descriptors used by those whom I consider the "pro describers" in my own mouth, and when someone says "cassis" I just have to pass - I've never tasted the fruit itself, so I have no idea. I did have a gooseberry pie in England, once, in '73, but my memory of that taste has faded.

But I like wine and I really do enjoy reading the paeans here.

John

wtf? Sue for misinformation? A sick joke?

There is certainly a subset of winegeeks that dismisses not only the scoring of wine, but also the use of the traditional tasting note, for just the reasons that you describe, Covert. Human sensory experience is inevitably rooted in the senses, not in the intellect. Those notes that most captivate my attention are those that convey some sense of excitement as well as some attempt to describe what's in the glass. When I hear someone whose tastes I know and respect say "wow!" about a wine, that means more to me than all the cassis, saddle leather, acacia blossoms and gooseberry leaves put together. Beyond that, I look for the "structural" descriptors of the wine (body, acidity, tannins, apparent sweetness), signs of development (secondary and tertiary notes), flaws and comparisons to other wines I know, including earlier or later vintages of the same wine. Apart from that, I only look for the incongruous in a description: a Pinot Noir that smells of blackberries, tropical fruit notes in a Pinot Gris, etc.

Mark Lipton

While I find structural descriptors the most useful (in that one doesn't have to "filter" as much), I have quite enjoyed a lot of tasting notes from all over the spectrum (from "cassis/blackberry/Asian5spice/mint" to "Eastern warbler greeting the morning" ). I just wish more people did notes, in whatever form that works for them.

Specific flavor/aroma descriptors are probably the most inexact, but the easiest for many of us. If you run across something often that you're not familiar with, you can try to experience it. Or a variation ( cassis is to blackcurrant as kirsch is to cherry).

I have generally really liked Bahans HB, but price has gotten stupid in 2005 - $60+

[Jenise]

wtf? Sue for misinformation? A sick joke?

Of course it's a joke, Otto. Covert's very understated. Except when he's being over the top.

Covert, there are descriptors and then there are descriptors. They come easily for wines that one can react to clinically. It's usually harder to convey that extra bit of joy for the wines that satisfy on a deeper level. For you, as it is for me, that satisfaction typically comes not from the taste of the wine so much as the aroma into which there are likely a variety of categories one could sort most or all Bordeaux into: like rustic, funky, pretty, sexy, racy and noble. Or on the not-so-complimentary side: clunky, dull, grapey, etc. These are words that capture the personality of the wine, which is what I think you're striving to do vs. just describing the individual components. Or to put it on the level of another topic you love, to merely describe a wine as tasting of berries and chocolate would be like describing a girl as just tall and brunette. For you, that's not nearly enough information.

Sometimes, I use the descriptors of others as a warning. For instance, in his blog--http://biggerthanyourhead.net/--Fredric Koeppel posted an entry of Wine Spectator notes/ratings and asked that we try to figure out which wine the Spec was talking about.

The descriptors were all about tropical fruits--especially mangoes--and density. Naturally, most people thought of overblown Chardonnays, but the Spec was talking about a new crop of Austrian Gruner Veltliners.

From the descriptions, I'd probably pass on those wines. I don't want Gruner to taste like California Chardonnay for two reasons: I like Gruner as it is; I don't like big, tropical California Chardonnay!

In this sense, the tasting descriptors truly helped me out.

[Robin Garr]

In this sense, the tasting descriptors truly helped me out.

Bear in mind, though, that we're talking about The Speck here. Do you think the wacky descriptiors accurately defined the wine?

In this sense, the tasting descriptors truly helped me out.

Bear in mind, though, that we're talking about The Speck here. Do you think the wacky descriptiors accurately defined the wine?

Probably not, but there was an overwhelming volume of mangoes in the descriptions, and that's enough to scare me away...

[David M. Bueker]

Find your grail.

Taste is subjective. Each of us develops a unique palate, even if we have very similar sensory nerves, olfactory receptors and taste buds. Sensitivity to specific factors is predicated on prior experience, psychiological state and influences, analytic/cognitive ability, and environmental context under which a wine is tasted.

There are 2 (at least) approaches to overcoming these limitations.

1. Develop the science of taste/aroma sensation to the point that wines can be chemically characterized against how a wide class of people respond to those factors as they combine in a wine. This is bound to be imprecise at best, but would systematize the factors using universal jargon.

2. Train ourselves to better filter our language for terms that have universal versus particular meaning. Since we cannot control how individuals taste or translate their experience into a hypothetical universal language, we are still left with the problem that we have now - namely, how do we know whose opinion to trust? We could have palate training/testing classes that would allow people to certify their ability to convey useful and accurate information. Or we can continue to haphazardly winnow through multitudes of TN writers to find those with similar palates on a trial and error basis.

1. We could have palate training/testing classes that would allow people to certify their ability to convey useful and accurate information.

2. Or we can continue to haphazardly winnow through multitudes of TN writers to find those with similar palates on a trial and error basis.

Bernard,

Each is being done. The problem is, many in the latter don't take advantage of the former before they spout off

Interesting thread and topic, Covert. My winegeek life began to make more sense when I stopped focusing on descriptors that others used and focused more on paying attention while savoring wine and coming up with my very own, being brutally honest about what I experienced. I read and listen to others describe wine, but then I process it for myself. I will never forget when I got "oregano" from a cabernet sauvignon - it jumped out at me very clearly. I began to build my very own vocabulary, matching words with honest experiences. I did, too, begin to pay more attention to fruits, herbs, etc., which has helped me to enhance my vocabulary. A while back I ran into dried gooseberries at Whole Foods; after my first bite I said "Sauvignon Blanc!!!" It was a very clear and honest experience and taste and truly made sense to me. I also promised myself I would not use a descriptor unless I truly sensed it.

In my experience I think some people get a little too carried away with how they describe a wine; but ultimately it is their way of describing their experience, which is quite personal. I used to think that I sucked at describing wine, but then realized that I just describe things differently than some. I learned from some people, and others I disagreed with. No description is carved in stone, really. I teach my voice students to describe their sensations in singing, so that they can remember what they thought, what they did, and how it felt, which is the result of the process of singing. Every student describes the sensations of sound differently, but, once they articulate their experience, in their own way and with their own words, they remember the sensations and are able to be more consistent vocally - they become more aware. One of the exciting things about wine for me is the experience it provides, how it changes throughout an evening, from day to day, and depending on what foods you are having it with. I just try to focus on the beautiful and wide range of experiences it provides and take note of every step, and try to put into a few words these amazing experiences.

Interesting thread and topic, Covert. My winegeek life began to make more sense when I stopped focusing on descriptors that others used and focused more on paying attention while savoring wine and coming up with my very own, being brutally honest about what I experienced. I read and listen to others describe wine, but then I process it for myself. I will never forget when I got "oregano" from a cabernet sauvignon - it jumped out at me very clearly. I began to build my very own vocabulary, matching words with honest experiences. I did, too, begin to pay more attention to fruits, herbs, etc., which has helped me to enhance my vocabulary. A while back I ran into dried gooseberries at Whole Foods; after my first bite I said "Sauvignon Blanc!!!" It was a very clear and honest experience and taste and truly made sense to me. I also promised myself I would not use a descriptor unless I truly sensed it.

In my experience I think some people get a little too carried away with how they describe a wine; but ultimately it is their way of describing their experience, which is quite personal. I used to think that I sucked at describing wine, but then realized that I just describe things differently than some. I learned from some people, and others I disagreed with. No description is carved in stone, really. I teach my voice students to describe their sensations in singing, so that they can remember what they thought, what they did, and how it felt, which is the result of the process of singing. Every student describes the sensations of sound differently, but, once they articulate their experience, in their own way and with their own words, they remember the sensations and are able to be more consistent vocally - they become more aware. One of the exciting things about wine for me is the experience it provides, how it changes throughout an evening, from day to day, and depending on what foods you are having it with. I just try to focus on the beautiful and wide range of experiences it provides and take note of every step, and try to put into a few words these amazing experiences.

Paulo's post brings something to mind.

It's generally true that wine consumers may have or see the need to communicate through wine descriptors and those descriptors may very well be personal, as they ought to be, because wine consumers are not trained to identify descriptors. But wine professionals are trained, or should be.

Wine is a technical product--it has technical parameters; it takes as much or more study as any profession to understand and to communicate those technical parameters, and that includes sensory descriptors; it requires as much professional training to do that as it would to understand, say, music, whether voice or instrumental.

To extend the music/wine analogy: listening and appreciating music is personal; describing what one hears may also be personal; but how voice and instruments function is technical, and so it is with wine.

Wine consumers often forget that the people behind wine are trained--or at least we should be! We do not make things up to bedazzle consumers, or at least we shouldn't.

Covert, there are descriptors and then there are descriptors. They come easily for wines that one can react to clinically. It's usually harder to convey that extra bit of joy for the wines that satisfy on a deeper level. For you, as it is for me, that satisfaction typically comes not from the taste of the wine so much as the aroma into which there are likely a variety of categories one could sort most or all Bordeaux into: like rustic, funky, pretty, sexy, racy and noble. Or on the not-so-complimentary side: clunky, dull, grapey, etc. These are words that capture the personality of the wine, which is what I think you're striving to do vs. just describing the individual components.

Well said, and thanks.

On the way to camp this weekend, I stopped in the local wine store and bought still another bottle of 1997 Grand Puy Lacoste. I have bought up almost every bottle that the owner acquired upon my suggestion in 2000. I don't think anybody else ever bought a bottle. I figured I would eventually make the owner whole. Parker guessed 2008 to be the end of the maturity plateau, but I know he would have loved it. Jenise, it was the best one ever, even having been kept at 70 degrees for eight years and receiving an hour drive up north. It was as though it had passed into another life of perfect beauty. The fruit was not tired at all and its bouquet beyond description. Great length, too. I think you are out of them.

Unlikely as it seems, I have actually been thinking about this topic. I may be unique in this but I think it would help me if wine was described more in terms of other wine. I am somewhat generally familiar with what a bourdeux, cabernet, savignon blanc, chardonnay, champagne, etc. usually tastes like... at least in the ballpark. When I am tasting a wine I am often going back mentally over my impressions of other wines of the same type and thinking about how the current wine differs or relates to other similar wines in my memory bank. For example if I read that a particular pinot was thinner and more austere than most similar pinots that would mean quite a bit more to me than all the berries and tobacco in the world. Similarly, telling me a sav blanc was more citrus fruity and alive with a sharp edge of acid then most you remember, that would beat all the gooseberries you can name.

I know this is all very personal. But I find myself repeatedly comparing wines to other similar wines and rarely to various other foodstuffs or aromatics.

Glenn

[Jenise]

Unlikely as it seems, I have actually been thinking about this topic. I may be unique in this but I think it would help me if wine was described more in terms of other wine. I am somewhat generally familiar with what a bourdeux, cabernet, savignon blanc, chardonnay, champagne, etc. usually tastes like... at least in the ballpark. When I am tasting a wine I am often going back mentally over my impressions of other wines of the same type and thinking about how the current wine differs or relates to other similar wines in my memory bank. For example if I read that a particular pinot was thinner and more austere than most similar pinots that would mean quite a bit more to me than all the berries and tobacco in the world. Similarly, telling me a sav blanc was more citrus fruity and alive with a sharp edge of acid then most you remember, that would beat all the gooseberries you can name.

I know this is all very personal. But I find myself repeatedly comparing wines to other similar wines and rarely to various other foodstuffs or aromatics.

Glenn

Glenn, I think most of us would agree with you. And I think that's what most of us strive for in the tasting notes we post here and that's why the notes our friends write are so useful. I for one take great pride in attempting no objectivity whatsoever--rather, I try to give a feel of the wine's personality at this point in time (since I'm often writing about aged wines) and some impression of how much I enjoyed it, especially if it's a well-known wine. I would be more comprehensive about a wine I expect few to run into, however, in particular if it was quite good. And by the same token, iIf a wine's a thin, hollow disappointment, not much point in going into a lot of detail, is there.

Unlikely as it seems, I have actually been thinking about this topic. I may be unique in this but I think it would help me if wine was described more in terms of other wine. I am somewhat generally familiar with what a bourdeux, cabernet, savignon blanc, chardonnay, champagne, etc. usually tastes like... at least in the ballpark. When I am tasting a wine I am often going back mentally over my impressions of other wines of the same type and thinking about how the current wine differs or relates to other similar wines in my memory bank. For example if I read that a particular pinot was thinner and more austere than most similar pinots that would mean quite a bit more to me than all the berries and tobacco in the world. Similarly, telling me a sav blanc was more citrus fruity and alive with a sharp edge of acid then most you remember, that would beat all the gooseberries you can name.

I know this is all very personal. But I find myself repeatedly comparing wines to other similar wines and rarely to various other foodstuffs or aromatics.

Glenn

I agree with you Glenn, comparisons are important, but consider this: wine includes a multitude of components that exist in other foods, which is why its aromas and tastes can be compared with other foods. And many varieties come with baseline sensory aromas and tastes that are consistently like specific foods.

When wine reminds you of other substances, like varnish, nail polish, or wet cardboard, then you've got a problem

Covert,

Great topic. I would like to echo the comments of some of the other people who really like Florida Jim's notes. I always read them when I get a chance.

I feel inadequate when I describe wines because I think my descriptions list the parts but not the whole of the experience. The overall sensation the wine gives me is the most difficult to describe and I think that this is one of the points that you are trying to describe better but are struggling with. I know that I do. Even with wines I do not particularly like, I feel I do not do them justice in my descriptions. How well the wine integrates with the food is also a difficult to describe sensory reaction. Sometimes it is easier than others, but never really adequate. This is one of the most important, if not the most important, qualities of the wine to me. I think that this is one of the areas where Florida Jim shines. I will keep on struggling to describe wines better, despite the seeming futility of it, because if you don't at least try, you will never get anywhere.