BS In Wine Reviewing

There are a finite number of smells and tastes one can sense and identify in any given wine and the number at any one time is quite limited. Much of the overly graphic descriptors spouted by tasters is therefore either duplicate words for sensing the same compound, or total fabrication in aid of attempting to establish status as a taster.

I was reminded of this recently when reading notes on the 2014 Bordeaux release. A few examples. I omit the normal lexicon of wood, fruit, minerals, vegetables and berries etc.

Not being satisfied with the usual berry descriptors, one review said a wine tasted of acai berries. Possible, I suppose if the taster was intimately acquainted with those berries but not terribly meaningful for most readers.

One wine was described as having a ‘soupcon of opulence’. Isn’t that like being a ‘little bit pregnant’ or having a perfumed aroma of merde?

“Singed sandalwood”? Is the reviewer recalling 1960s incense, or does he run around with a blow torch aimed at anything in his path?

A nose “with a beam of violet and plum sauce carried by a chiseled graphite spine” Was the winemaker a sculptor or could it have been merely plain graphite….?

One wine had a “lightly firm singed alder frame” Is he describing a tennis racquet or a wine? And is ‘lightly firm’ akin to parsimoniously generous, or cravenly brave? And who goes around sniffing burning alder so they can differentiate it from burning anything else, and do they really expect people to be able to take meaning from the difference? One has mental pictures of wine acolytes frequenting lumber yards armed with propane torches, sorting out which wood they should use as a descriptor.

‘Warm stone notes..” I get wet stone – often apt with some white wines, but afraid I can’t conjure up a particular smell when a stone gets warm. Maybe he expects us to take him for granite..?

I didn’t mention any terms that were reasonably apt or even just explicable, just the ones that look made up for effect. I may have to retaliate. Didn’t you detect a certain soupcon of smoked ‘Shishigatani’ pumpkin in the nose of that Chardonnay…..

[Robin Garr]

Parker, the Speck, or some entity less famous?

The reviews were various sources (it is a catalogue of wines available from the new vintage from our provincial monopoly) but mostly Speculator and WA.

Gasp....Bill....BS??? Say it isn't so!!!
You're right...there are a lot of TN descriptors that leave me scratching my head....as if the writer is tossing them out to impress.
OTOH... when I use "burning steel wool" as a descriptor, it's a vivid recall from my youth when I used to play around with fire. OTOH... when I use "Moore's 000 burning steel wool"..you're welcome to call BS on me!!
Tom

We all have a personal sensory armamentarium and obviously they will differ considerably.

For me, I understand burning steel wool (and a lot of other chemical examples due to a misspent youth collecting degrees in, among other disciplines, chemistry) as well as other burning, wet, and just sitting chemical smells (and tastes). I sometimes use terms from my personal experience that probably have little widespread recognition, but I do so only if I find them particularly apt (to me) and I almost always try and elaborate on the terms to explain them to others not as familiar with them.

I can sympathize with the wine critic looking for some new way to describe the (to him) same old thing over and over again, yet I have little sympathy with the introduction of spurious comparison/descriptors for the sake of novelty.

While I could conceivably describe something as being akin to a wood pitch smell, I wouldn't say that it was like the resin from a Metasequoia glyptostroboides (there happens to be one next door, but if I did that you are free to call BS on me!).

[Jenise]

You made me laugh. There are indeed a lot of groaners out there--reviews that sound less like a real review than an amateurish attempt at sounding like a real reviewer.

Someone was talking the other day--wish I could remember who/what context--about an article that covered a plethora of pinot noirs (I had the impression that a dozen or so were involved) in which the reviewer managed to never use the same descriptor twice. Now, come ON. Plum, raspberry, cherry--these words were only used once each? That the reviewer painstakingly avoided repetition was apparent to whoever reported this to me, but it's as ludicrous as your singed sandalwood. How can you write about multiple pinot noirs and not note similarities by re-using some of the same descriptors? That's not only valid, it would be the most accurate reportage.